Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 68

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


"Preston Wamsley" page vandalism

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I am requesting semi protection for my page for the following reasons: My name is Preston Wamsley and I am an ex- television actor, however I am still in Screen Actors Guild, and still getting paid residuals time to time. I am seeking more work as an actor and need my wikipedia page semi protected as soon as possible because old agencies or casting directors who type my name on which would affect their opinion of me.. This page (That has been vandalized by the public) is at the very top of the google search list for me. Please help me, or I will have to seek a lawyer. I was involved in some online games and somebody decided to look my name up and try to make some sort of joke, I realize I can edit the page, but this will happen again and again and has already happened in the past. I need semi protection under my username "pmakiw" just so other users or the random public, cannot edit my information on the page. thank you very much "Wikipedia:UN" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmakiw (talkcontribs) 08:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article (which means only established editors can edit it) and restored it to a version with no vandalism. However, you should generally not edit your own article. Brandon (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you did not read the information below the edit box: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you submit it." If you wish casting directors to see your CV then send it to them. Wikipedia is not a resume service, it is an encyclopaedia. If you have issues regarding negative statements about yourself then report them at WP:Biographies of living persons/Help. And please don't make legal threats as that will just result in your losing your account. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
The article was not created by this user nor is there any evidence they ever consented to an article on them. Try to remember we are dealing with real people before hiding behind disclaimers, policy and more layers of bureaucracy instead of helping people. Brandon (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Two reverts in one night on Samuel Eliot Morison

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Significant tracts of material pertinent to the biography of Samuel Eliot Morison were reverted twice tonight. Morison had many admirable qualities, but also a significant blind spot when it came to African Americans. The reverting editor does not allow that Morison had critics, including Benjamin Davis at the NAACP who had quite a bit to say about Morison's textbooks over 18 years. The issue is whether what a historian writes about race is important and should criticisms be included in a biography.

The material that was reverted twice tonight on grounds that it offers "too much detail" is on the talk page. (These paragraphs have similarly and repeatedly been deleted in the past.) The question is two-fold-- Does the justification of "too much detail" meet WP guidelines for NPOV? Should the material be reinstated? Thanks for taking a look and shedding light. Skywriter (talk) 08:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC) :WP:BLPN would be a better venue for this. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Doh! just realised that subject is dead. If you want a 3rd opinion, then try WP:Third opinion or perhaps a WP:RfC will attract some opinions. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. Skywriter (talk) 09:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The over-long material was reduced to a summary after a discussion in 2006 and/or 2007 (this summary contains all the criticisms of Morison, but not some large quotes which it seems is what Skywriter wants to add), but Skywriter appears to have decided to reactivate this long-dead dispute and reinsert it. Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Nick-D misrepresents my position as well as his own. For example, he has removed archival material sourced to Benjamin Davis and the NAACP; as a result of Nick's two reverts tonight, this information now appears nowhere in this biographical article. A history of censoring viewpoints does not make a dispute "long-dead."Skywriter (talk) 10:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, keep the disputes out of here, we are not here to decide which of you is right. Take it back to the talk page. You are both going to have to assume good faith and work with each other to achieve consensus. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Michael Scofield

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Michael Scofield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Looking for some advice with the above article as I have an editing conflict with another editor specifically the section "Death" I originally made changes to the article back in May last year, specifically addressing ambiguities left in the series "Prison Break" by the creators. Initially this showed some resistance from a couple of Editors, but I cited a reference to an interview with the show creator which clarified the edit and it was accepted by all but one editor. Since then I've made compromises with a number of other editors on a number of other points but this one editor (Who has been temp-banned for his behaviour before) continues to make these edits.

Specifically the edits refer to a Memorial to Michael shown at the end of the series I use the term memorial as it is Neutral the other editor continues to revert this to Grave and Tombstone both of which are specific types Memorials, yet he refuses to cite or provide evidence to back the edit up (he has use vague inference, but nothing solid). Specifically the series ends with all the protagonists fleeing the country wanted by the authorities and unable to return to retrieve Michaels body in order to bury it, also the memorial is on a public beach not in a graveyard (private or otherwise.)

I've tried having rational discussion, he continues to insult me and/or make reference to my geographical location (as if that's important or perhaps he's trying to threaten me?)

He's now taking to editing the Talk Pages of my previous IP addresses with Vandalism templates, which isn't helpful either. But I would prefer the support of an experienced editor to confirm if I'm taking the right line here and stop this descending into the edit war he wants. (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm just joking around. I NEVER said I was going to hurt you. All I said is how's London and that I want to see Big Ben. You live in another country for Christ's sake. How the hell could I hurt you? I don't even know your address. Please calm down. As for my edits, the show's producer made it clear that Michael died. There's no ambiguity when it comes to that. -- (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And I never said you would hurt me, but this isn't the place for that discussion. Your recent edits have nothing to do with michael being dead or not although your early edits did. That matter was resolved when I found and cited the interview with Matt Olmstead that confirmed despite his death only being implied on screen, it could be confirmed. I maintained the same neutral stance about that until I found a reference to prove it one way or another. I maintain the same neutral stance about the Tombstone question. (talk) 07:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
At the risk of repeating myself, keep the disputes out of here, we are not here to decide which of you is right. Take it back to the talk page. You are both going to have to assume good faith and work with each other to achieve consensus. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Destructive Editing

Resolved: User:John E. Rhea blocked Jezhotwells (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The Morehouse College , List of Morehouse College Alumni and the Black Ivy League page(s)/Article(s) have recently been edited by Racepacket in a manner which might be generated by personal views, personal/opinions or agendas than actually stating facts which are relevant to the purpose of these articles.

The editor deleted a large percentage of the articles' text (in some cases w/o justification or comment).

The editor deleted names from the Notable Alumni list which if compared to similar lists would otherwise be included.

Given that similar deletions/edits have not been made to similar articles, one must explain the motivation behind the edits and state one's credentials and/or authority to so dictate the text, content and tone of these article.

This situation needs to be resolved.MuJami (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)MuJami MuJami (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please discuss this first at the article's talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have filed a SPI in response to the sudden appearance of Mujami today vis a vis User:John E. Rhea who earlier today voice the same concerns at ANI Racepacket (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Posting a new article from a user space

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello I have just posted my first article from a user space and I am looking for clarification.

I created the article in my user space. I wanted to post it on Wikipedia and tried pressing the move button and taking the user space prefix off. But that did not seem to publish it. So I opened the article wizard and followed the prompts and copied and pasted the article in. That seemed to have worked. The article appeared in a short while with a URL.

My question is did I need to move the article or is there a way to post an article to Wikipedia from the user space?

Also, how long does it take before my article shows up in a Wikipedia search? What can I do to have the Wikipedia article come up in Google? I am adding more Categories to my Categories list. When you list a category do you also need to list the appropriate subcategories or are they automatically listed?

Any advice is appreciated,

J.A. MacPhee (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You can move articles from user space, Help:Moving a page tells you how. Anyway you have got it into mainspace which is the important thing. You should have a lead section and an infobox, Template:Infobox engineer would appear to be appropriate. Take a look at other articles on engineers or academics to get ideas for improvement. I see that the image that you are using appears on her website, where it is marked Copyright © 2009 Veena Rawat. This may well cause the image to be deleted asd it appears not to be freely licensed. With regards to Categories, those you have added appear OK, beware of over categorising. I have added project banners on the talk page. You can always ask questions on project talk pages. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for assistance at WP:FEED

If any of the regulars here are looking for a temporary change of Wikipedia scenery, we would be grateful for some help at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback. There is a considerable backlog that needs work. Thanks in advance. – ukexpat (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

writing bio using subject's direct communication

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Without naming names, I need to write a bio that will depend heavily on the subject's direct communication to me. I see no guidelines for this in terms of documentation. Can you direct me? Thanks. Ahalani (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

See WP:RS - personal communications are not reliable sources as they cannot be verified. – ukexpat (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Also please bear in mind WP:BLP, articles about living people are held to a higher standard than other articles when it comes to sourcing and references. – ukexpat (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Additionally, keep in mind that if an article about a party cannot be written without garnering information directly from the subject, then they may not in fact meet our standards of notability (since apparently not much has been published about them in reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 10:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

censorship and threatening letters received from editors

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

My edits and external links for the pages Inflation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Consumer Price Index (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) have been removed due to what appears to be censorship. Something that wikipedia I'm sure prides itself against. My last edit for inflation has been removed which stated: "The Consumer Price Index assumes each individual purchasing habits are the same. A personal inflation rate may be more meaningful to each individual. By calculating an inflation rate that is based on the spending data of one individual and comparing the change in the price index for each item or category within that profile, a more accurate picture of inflation emerges for the individual." I also added an external link to a non-biased, fact based and well cited source, If the editors choose to allow some links to external web sites and not others then I'm not sure there is much value at all in Wikipedia as it will be driven by the censorship of its "editors" who have the power to threaten to expel participants who happen to disagree with their assessments.

Under Wikipedia's own guidelines, it suggests that acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic. It also suggests sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. There is no charge to use the external website listed, it is a free public service site for users to better understand inflation and how it affects them personally.

The best resolution I can see to this is to remove the link for now (until or unless someone else wants to add it back), but leave the article comments in place unless they can be proven to be untrue.

Inflationhawk (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that you haven't attempted to to discuss this on the article talk page(s), which is the place to start. Please assume good faith and attempt to work with the other editors to build consensus. The articles are about economic concepts, not places to place links to consumer tools. The external link that you added doesn't appear to provide further information about the concepts of inflation or consumer price indices. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, are you the webmaster for -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Self-Expression Values help needed

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 03:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I am trying to improve this article on Self-expression Values. Feedback and edits more than welcome. In particular, I'm interested in making it clearer that the article does not contain the contributer's own conclusions, but the academic consensus on the issue.

Serban Tanasa (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI for commenters, I have previously provided feedback at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Archive22#Self Expression Values. – ukexpat (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I wish you the best of luck in your expansion and improvement of Self-expression Values. South Bay (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Requesting a sanity check - are our links to the US State Department broken?

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 03:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

In the course of replacing a dead link, diff here, it appears that has at some point become and at least some of our links no longer work. One place this shows up is in History of the United States, where several citation links to now result in a "can't find the server" error (examples: footnotes 8, 10, 22). Wikipedia has 600+ links to - can someone look into this, or refer it to the proper place? Thanks, CliffC (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see what you mean. It does seem that the US State Department has not been very clever about putting redirects in place. Google brings up {} when is entered as a search term. I am not really sure where to report this. Perhaps another assistant here can help. A Wikipedia search [1] brings up less than 500 instances where is used. I have left a note at WT:WikiProject United_ States Government#State Department web sites. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

William Stachowski marriage equality vote

Resolved:  – ukexpat (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Hello - I added this line: On December 2, 2009, Stachowski voted against marriage equality legislation, which failed to pass the Senate.[1] (The citation links to:

to this article about New York state senator William Stachowski:

but it has been removed twice by, an IP address registered to the New York State Senate, which may be used by multiple users (including the senator himself?). I know that community standards discourage cycles of reposting and unposting, but I'm not sure what to do next - write in a discussion page for the article, send a message to that IP address, or repost. Part of the problem is that I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and don't understand all the coding language that goes into discussion/talk posts. Any advice would be appreciated. Many thanks.

Hourhand (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Hourhand

I suggest starting a discussion at the article talk page, that is what it is there for, and inviting the reverting editor to join in via their talk page. If that does not work after a week or so then I suggest reverting the deletion and warning the IP about vandalism. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the article again, I have re-instated your addition and placed a warning on the IP talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Great! Many thanks. Hourhand (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I received a warning regarding links from the Beatles entry and the Split Enz entry to my site which I took on board even though my brother Nigel Griggs is a member of Split Enz.

I now find that links from Guys n' Dolls (the group pages) and Lonnie Donegan have also been taken off. As both these links had been on for some time I wonder if I am being penalised rather harshly seeing as I was' and still am, a founder member of Guys n' Dolls and was with them the whole eleven years of their exsistance.We still get together for reunions. The official site, the link of which is still there, was sanctioned by me and the rest of the group and a lot of the information on the wikipedia page came from my own site. My story of Guys n' Dolls is totally accurate warts and all. I also noticed that a link to my Guys n' Dolls colleague's entry, David van Day, entry had also been removed.

Regarding Lonnie Donegan the link to my site has been there for sometime the only thing I changed the other day was to make the link direct to the Lonnie Donegan section of my site. I am known for my great knowledge of Lonnie Donegan who was a friend of mine and ended up recording a song a wrote for him. My site contains memorabilia that no one else has and I'm always being contacted for Lonnie Donegan information. If you compare my pages with other links on Lonnie's wikipedia entry I think you will see it's a worthy link.

If you check my site it is like a mini wikipedia on subjects close to my heart, it's a huge site over 200 pages based on diary's I kept for over forty years charting my life as a professional musician and music fan so the accuracy of the information is 100% correct.

I'm a huge fan of Wikipedia, I think it's by far the best site on the internet so I don't like being in dispute;

Paul Griggs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Claudhamilton (talkcontribs) 10:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read our policies and guidelines for reliable sourcing, external links and verifiability. You may be who you say you are, you may not. It doesn't matter. Wikipedia relies on verifiable third party sourcing in order to present information. "Truth is is not the criteria for inclusion of any idea or statement in a Wikipedia article, even if it is on a scientific topic (see Wikipedia:Science). The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. This is important to bear in mind when writing about topics on which you as a contributor have a strong opinion; you might think that it is a great place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs, but that’s not the case. We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can’t ride the crest of the wave. We cannot be the correctors and educators of the world. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. See Wikipedia is not a soapbox." Jezhotwells (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

New Jersey High School Hockey

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

New Jersey High School Hockey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Writer with the IP address of User: is providing fictitious information, basically it looks like a kid putting his friends and his school as champion and award winners. The correct information is available at, which is the cite I used when editing the article. information is obviously false as he lists Livingston and West Essex as recent state champions in the "State Tournamnet" section of the article, when it can be verified at that these schools have not won any champiosnhips in years. Thank you, Joe Coyote —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Coyote (talkcontribs) 14:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I see you have reverted the vandalism, which is good. The usual procedure here is to issue appropriate warnings such as those found at WP:Template_messages/User talk namespace. Further information on fighting vandalism can be found at Wikipedia:Vandalism. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Updating a business description for rebranding

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Next week we want to completely address the page for our business and I would love to speak to someone about the scope of changes that would be required.

--Kareem "Daigoji Gai" Harper (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please leave a note on the article's talk page describing the changes and providing reliable sources therefor. Please do not edit the article yourself as you have a huge conflict of interest. Also, please note our policy about shared user names. – ukexpat (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm User:Tomwsulcer. I'm having a dispute with User:SlimVirgin about Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners with citation templates.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I want this how-to guide to be simple, easy, straightforward, short.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin keeps pasting a complex rule on the top of the guide which (in my view) turns off nooBs.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeking dispute resolution.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please try to resolve the dispute on your talk pages or on the template talk page first. Formal dispute resolution should be a last resort. – ukexpat (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia - Languages

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sirs,

Extensive knowledge that is available in Wikipedia pages is available in many languages of the world. I notice however, it is not available in Hindi. As you would be aware, Hindi is spoken by most of Indians and Pakistanis and is thus a language that nearly a billion people are familiar with. It would be a great service to this large number of people if information under Wikipedia were available in Hindi as well. Do you have nay plans of having Wikipedia information in Hindi language as well? If there is something that needs to be done by the people in this subcontinent, can you please tell us?

Thank you

= K S Hegde —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hows this? [2]--Jac16888Talk 07:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Or to be really nerdy Hindi Wikipedia Main Page. – ukexpat (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

An editor added material copied from a book as well as a web site, to an article. Both the book and the web site have copyright notices. I reverted the addition and posted an appropriate message on his talk page. The editor then emailed me, and castigated me, asking whose copyright did he violate since it was original material that he wrote and that he is the sole copyright owner. How is it best to proceed from here? The simplest approach, it seems to me, is just to rewrite and reinstate his offering. Or should he be put through some process formally releasing the text into public domain. Even if he does this, is it not better to still paraphrase the text? In which case there is not really any point releasing it into public domain. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You should point the other editor to WP:Donating copyrighted materials as they will need to contact for text for an article on the English Wikipedia, or another English Wikimedia site. Then an WP:OTRS ticket number will be granted. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Christina Mendez

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

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

I started the Christina Mendez page and it is frustrating that things keep getting deleted and changed. Someone is adding information that isn't true. Christina Mendez is a Plus Size model in New York, she is a real person. Please tell me what I need to do fix this article and to make it so that random people can't just come in and change the information, delete her picture, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlos5053 (talkcontribs) 20:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I see a 3rd opnion banner has been posted, but you need to start a discussion with the other editor on the article talk page first. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

SIGINT Polaritonics Under See Also

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

SIGINT#See_also (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Before it becomes an issue, just wondering why polaritonics needs exclusion under See Also and whether leaving appropriate reading materials is a wise choice?

Aditya.m4 (talk) 07:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Because that is a misuse of the "See also" category, since neither that nor "millimeter wave" (since removed) is specific to signals intelligence (the actual name of the article being discussed). --Orange Mike | Talk 10:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the relevancy of signalling bandwidths are a great deal of concern to signals processing and intelligence contained therein, without the concept of signalling limitations given EM spectrums you would have nothing to work with. Aditya.m4 (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Russian fortune cookies

A person who only seems to know Russian was deleting bits of Crucifixion in the arts. After some complaints they have come to Talk:Crucifixion in the arts#Manga in graphics novels deletion but are writing Russian. Is there a standard way of dealing with this sort of problem? Dmcq (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I added a standard warning about not using foreign languages to communicate on the editor's talk page. If they carry on deleting without discussion, escalate the warnings and then report at WP:AIV. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much for that. Dmcq (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
There is now a discussion at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing by User:Roscrad. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


Resolved: name fixed by Dmcq Jezhotwells (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)



Can you find a citation confirming that? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Google maps gave two Nando's in Nigeria and Bing gave 4 but no Nnando. So it looks pretty certain they're right. Don't know why they have to stick in all capitals though. It'd be nice if it was the vandals who were afraid to edit pages instead of people with some correct information. Dmcq (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Fixed he entries I found as Nando (Nigeria) so the don't go to the food chain or peri peri or whatrever. Dmcq (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution needed, editor non compromising.

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Dear Fellow Editor,

Thanks for your attention to this issue.

I have an issue with an editor who is non compromising on an issue.

I have posted up numerous referenced observations around this topic (Kundalini yoga) and more than a dozen different written changes, each time adding more references and citations. I have updated language numerous time. I have tried to remain neutral and non-negative. However, this person has an issue. They revert every time to repeating the exact same item without compromise citing only one source, which is actually not a strong source (1st source) based upon your guidelines.

Specifically and additionally, they insist on negating any mention to the Sikh-based practice of yoga in the opening paragraphs (specifically P:II), with a continual preference for Hindu-based posting and of something called "Kundalini Syndrome" and negative mention of "mental damage" to be posted right up front of a page - while actually this is citing from a 1st source book where these words was simply mentioned as an opinion/warning, and not at all the premise of the book itself. In fact, the book they reference is actually pro-Kundalini (of course because written by a Kundalini teacher) - as if one needed to be "pro-yoga" at all, like it was a bad thing.

Hard to understand his/her motivations, however, they are suspect, and this person never writes anything new. In my opinion, this is not a good editor - rather, someone with an agenda.

Please see the history on this... I have worked hard to make my point understood and legitimately referenced & cited, but this person is obsessed with their singular and mistaken viewpoint and weak source references.

I would also suggest his conduct of continual reversions to a single point without changes or compromise has already violated the WikiPedia Three-revert rule.

Thanks for your attention. Fateh Singh Ji Fatehji (talk) 07:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have just looked over Atmapuri recent edits and your are correct..Hes behavior it not what i like to see here...Even when hes is asked to changes his behavior he does not-- not that you can see as he deletes the comments made to him on his user page example..thinking you might want to take this up here --> Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents as i dont see that a third party talking to him would help you!..This is not an endorsement of your or his point of view/edits on the article ..but simply recognizing hes behavior is wrong !!... Good Luck!!!...Buzzzsherman (talk) 06:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Why cant wikipedia articles be used as a reference.

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I recently used a wikipedia article as a reference to proove that a certain person had gone to Assumption College Kilmore. But it was removed. Any logical explanation to why or is it that its not trustworthy enough source?Pattav2 (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a tertiary source and so should not be used according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Please also see Primary, secondary and tertiary sources for more on the topic. Also, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time and so is unreliable. The article that you use for a reference could have been vandalised or could have been written by someone who made a mistake.--BelovedFreak 11:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Trey Grayson

Resolved: page protected Jezhotwells (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

SineDie519 continues to vandalize Trey Grayson's wikipedia page. He is putting irrelvant pictures up, which aren't properly uploaded or aren't relevant to the post. Also, in the past he has put a fake attack website in as Mr. Grayson's official campaign website. His intent is obvious, based on his previous actions. Please take the appropriate action to resolve this problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MJ787123 (talkcontribs) 19:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

external links getting kicked off....


Dear Wikipedia,

I've been trying to add important, unique, credible, and relevant links to various articles but all are getting kicked off. Could you please tell me why and how I can avoid this in the future?

Thank you, Tusha —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tushayakovleva (talkcontribs) 22:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Multiple editors have been trying to discuss this with you on your talk page. You're still allowed to edit your talk page. I hope you'll read the messages there and respond to the concerns. --Ronz (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

looking for a citation


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

I would like to know the citation for this statement in the above mentioned wikipedia article on trichloroethylene: "The U.S. military has virtually eliminated its use of the chemical, purchasing only 11 gallons in 2005. About 100 tons of it is used annually in the U.S. as of 2006."

I have been looking on the internet for this information but cannot find it anywhere.

Thank you, Patricia (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The page history shows it was added in [3] with a source in the following edit [4]. Page 4 [5] of the 2006 source from Los Angeles Times says: "The military has virtually eliminated its use of TCE, purchasing only 11 gallons last year, said Beehler, an attorney who used to head environmental affairs for Koch Industries Inc., a large industrial conglomerate in Wichita, Kan." Unfortunately the editor added the source in the external links section where somebody later removed it, probably without knowing it had been used as source. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

New article guidance please User talk:NickDent/Helen Flynn

Resolved: page moved to mainspace – ukexpat (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, It goes without saying, but I'm new to this. I created this article User talk:NickDent/Helen Flynn in my userspace and tried to move it to the live space. Nothing seems to have happened, perhaps it has been deleted. I was wondering if someone may be able to provide me with some help on getting this article online (and perhaps explain where I went wrong as well). Thank you in advance for your help.NickDent (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)NickDent

You may have notability issues here. Generally speaking, per WP:POLITICIAN candidates for office, unless they are notable for other reasons, are not notable per WP:BIO just because they are a candidate. It is possible that her other activities make her notable so the best thing to do would be to move it to Helen Flynn (politician) (there is already an article at Helen Flynn, the actress TV character) and see what happens. Do you need help moving the article? – ukexpat (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Concern about recent major edits to the article, "Afghanistan"

Resolved:  – ukexpat (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Good afternoon!

Yesterday (Jan. 29th) and today (Jan. 30th), an editor made major| changes to the article "Afghanistan."

These edits include deletion of paragraphs of text, significant re-organizations, and inclusion of new material.

This editor offers no clear explanations for the edits.

As far as I know, the extensive deleted material was all properly sourced.

Much of the new material is not.

I have attempted to raise these issues with the editor on the article's Talk page, but I don't seem to be getting anywhere.

I have attempted to revert the edits, but the editor has made them again.

Could you please provide some direction?


Danieldis47 (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If you cannot achieve WP:consensus with the other editor(s) then you could ask for a WP:Third opinion or raise a WP:RfC. But you should work to establish consensus on the article talk page first. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Understood. Thank you -- Danieldis47 (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Restore page history to Amanda Dobbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Answered: user referred to The administrator's noticeboard. – ukexpat (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Can an admin restore the page history of Amanda Dobbs from before the article was deleted? She is now inarguably notable, so I think it makes sense to have the full page history available. (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The administrator's noticeboard is probably the best place to request this. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Self Promotion on for Kick-Ass comic book and film

Could an admin please look into the pages for Kick-Ass and Kick-Ass (film)? There in an individual who keeps on using the pages for self promotion with information with unreliable and unverifiable sources. He has reverted corrections a number of times and has been using discriminatory language in his edits. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The way to deal with this is outlined at WP:VANDALISM, basically revert and warn. I have revertred the recent vandalismJezhotwells (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I have reported this at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User: reported by User:Jezhotwells (Result: ) Jezhotwells (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
User: blocked (24 hr) and likely sock User:Rightous blocked (indefinitely). Jezhotwells (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Messing with episode lists


List of Bleach episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The Bleach episode list has been tampered with and now just says "another dumb filler". Could you please fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for help on COI edit

Resolved:  – ukexpat (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Two days ago, I posted a Request Edit template to the talk page for a product line of the company I work for. I have not been able to find a guideline about how long to wait for someone else to make the edit or for feedback re: consensus/dissent before going ahead with the edit myself (working toward consensus before editing if there is dissent). Would it be possible for someone here to look at the request? My requested edit is verifiable, and I believe it is neutral and well cited. Any help you can provide is greatly appreciated. Nwiesen (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok i would say BE bold you seem to have a good reference. At Wikipidia we like to see articles update expanded upon etc... Is the problem that you dont know how the cite the references ?? ..As for not being sure.. most changes to articles are not discussed before hand..most discussions happen after the fact is others have a problem with the new additions....Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Buzzzsherman. Thanks for your response. My understanding is that I should not make the edit myself due to conflict of interest. This edit is to a section of the article that some consider to be controversial--therefore, it's my preference to follow the letter of the law re: COI. However, if another editor will not make the edits, I will ultimately do it myself in the absence of dissent. Nwiesen (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes it is ..but this is not your happen to work there and your not bashing the comapy right!! . Your trying to help the article with your knowledge. As long as its fare and neutral and referenced i see no real problem.. See here for what i think you mean by the rules -->Wikipedia:Autobiography#If Wikipedia already has an article about you ...Buzzzsherman (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, I think, per WP:COI, that it would be for you to make the correction. You have declared your COI, proposed a change and no one has objected. – ukexpat (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Buzzzsherman: I am referring specifically to this instruction on the COI page:
"Wikipedia is 'the encyclopedia that anyone can edit,' but if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution, when: Editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;"..."Those who feel the need to make controversial edits, in spite of a real or perceived conflict of interest, are strongly encouraged to submit proposed edits for review on the article's talk page along with a Request edit tag to attract users to review the edit, or to file a request for comment."
Ukexpat: It sounds like you think 2 days is a reasonable amount of time to wait.
Thanks to both of you for your input. I will go ahead and make the edit. Nwiesen (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Nwiesen (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

User:David886/Joseph Sewall

Resolved:  – ukexpat (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit | [[Talk:Category:Maine politician stubs|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

the entry: "User:David886/Joseph Sewall" should be edited to remove "David886/" and the remaining "Joseph Sewall" moved to the "S" category.

David886 (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)David886

Yes check.svg Done. – ukexpat (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for help on COI edit

Resolved:  – ukexpat (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I am asking for help removing two unsourced sentences from an article where I work for the company and therefore have a conflict of interest. Please see the Fast ForWord Talk page for requested edits. Thank you Nwiesen (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done they were not cited anywas..i see np removing them..if anyone has a problem they can bring it up on the talk page...We really appreciate your reading the policies ..Your the type of editor we love to see around here !!... Buzzzsherman (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I have a conflict with an administrator

Answered:  – ukexpat (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain me what should I do in the case of the conflict with an administrator who threatens to use his administrator rights in a content dispute?--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Please report this at WP:ANI. -ukexpat (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This is spurious. I'm an uninvolved admin, and I've given this user a final warning for tendentious edit-waring over NFCC issues, and directed him to dispute resolution--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You were not an administrator I meant. The administrator I have a conflict with seems to reject a proposal to follow a dispute resolution procedure (as proposed by me and other users)--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Referencing the The Real Global Warming Disaster


Hi there,

I've done quite a bit of work on the above article, but am using only ibid references as I don't know how to use the Wikipedia system for this (I make several references from one book). Or should I put a

banner up?Can you help? Thank you, Jprw (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

My preference is to use Template:Harvard citation no brackets, inserting <ref>{{Harvnb|Last name of author|Year|p=Page number}}</ref> as an inline citation, with pp if it's pages, and adding |next author if there's more than one. Format the book reference using one of the Wikipedia:Citation templates or getting a template with this tool. Hope that helps, dave souza, talk 18:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
My thanks to Dave souzaJprw (talk) 06:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)



I found this listing on my credit card. I have not used this company and I do not know what this $49.95 charge is for. I tried to phone the number given on statement, which Is:1714-557 -5386--and was told this number has been diconnected. I know that when you apply for a grant if it is a true governement program there is not charge. And I have not appplied for any grant. And second, my computer has been not working properly for over a month, and finally got a tech to take a look at it. Just got it back this afternoon. (My former tech. Mike Duncan of Xtreme machine had a heart attack and died at the age of 38) I have been looking for some one as good as he was. And as reasonable...hard to find this combination. Thank you for listening. I am getting so tired of finding charges they say I made, and I did not.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfranbrown (talkcontribs) 20:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC) 
removed private info..I would call your credit card company now!!!!..we cant help! but you can see this-->Credit card fraud...Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Innaccurate name spelling


the wiki entry for "Damien Steele" should be changed to (as spelled in the statistics for said wrestler) to "damian steele"... "an"... as opposed to "en",, which is a different person completely... listed as "tim fischer" I AM Tim Fisher... and trying to rectify the misinformation on wiki... including the spelling of my name.. and the fact thatI AM "damien steele"... and Damien Gothard IS damiAn steele... PLEASE HELP

Yes check.svg Done Moved / links and redirects cleared. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Request Remove "new unreviewed article" Banner


The article FT-990 is a few months old and still has a "new unreviewed article" banner on it. Could it be removed please? Thanks! jvarn359 06:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvarn359 (talkcontribs) Yes check.svg Done as per your request..layout is fine ..Buzzzsherman (talk) 07:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

WDRL-TV ---PLEASE CORRECT Your Wikipedia Listing (Second Request)

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 03:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please Correct Your Web Site for WDRL-TV

Pending sale of WDRL-TV to Living Faith TV expired of August 7, 2009.

All FCC records have been reflected by this expiration date.

There are NO PLANS by either party MNE Broadcasting, LLC or Living Faith TV to renegotiate this sale or go forward.

On September 9, 2009 WDRL-TV changed hands from MNE Broadcasting, LLC of Virgina to MNE Broadcasting, LLC of Florida with new stockholders. MNE Broadcasting, LLC of Florida is based in Sarasota, FL.

Since the new ownership of MNE Broadcasting, LLC of Florida the station has gone in a different direction in its programming to more syndicated and local.

Mel Eleazer - Senior Management Member MNE Broadcasting, LLC WDRL-TV (941) 961-0165 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meleazer (talkcontribs) 05:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I see you have edited that page (WDRL-TV), but your edits have been reverted as vandalism. You removed information along with the references that back up that information, so I can see why someone thought it was vandalism. If you have better, or updated, references to reliable sources to back up the changes you want to make, then please add them. Also, it helps to use edit summaries to explain the changes you make so that people don't think you are just vandalising. --BelovedFreak 11:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
In cases of direct conflict of interest it can help to describe any desired changes on the talk page first and mention your conflict of interest, and then only do the absolute minimum necessary on the article page for factual accuracy. Deleting things and tidying things up only leads to problems in such cases. Dmcq (talk) 11:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Correcting a heading

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

[[6]] (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've just created a new article. Unfortunately when copying the text from Word I left an intrusive apostrophe at the end of the heading -- Lentin' when it should be Lentin. How do I get rid of it?

Paul Reynolds 87 gabalfa 87gabalfa (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like someone has moved the page for you. By the way, when you want to link to an article, you can simply put double sqaure brackets around the title, eg. [[Augustin Gottfried Ludwig Lentin]]. That links directly to the article. --BelovedFreak 11:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I cleaned up the article a little, in particular I converted the links to other Wikimedia projects (De Wikisource and De Wikipedia) into the proper transwiki links. Other wikimedia projects cannot be used as references. – ukexpat (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Dispute with Editor over Fringe theory article

Stuck: Jezhotwells (talk) 03:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Fringe theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I am having a dispute with user:verbal over a series of edits concerning the Shakespeare Authorship Question, which I made to the Fringe theory article. I made this entry [[7]], which was deleted by Verbal. After discussion with a regular editor on the talk page [[8]] I made a compromise edit [[9]], which I then tweaked [[10]] based on another comment at talk. All was then deleted again by Verbal. I asked for an explanation and he refused, taking the matter to the Fringe theory Noticeboard. After much discussion, the regular editors agreed that the article should cite the Authorship question as an example: [[11]]. I made the edit according to this discussion [[12]], and was immediately reverted by Verbal again, who then posted a 3R template on my talk page, even while fully aware that I had made one edit in 24 hours based on the consensus on the noticeboard [[13]]. I consider this harassment. Verbal has now been requesting additional sources which I have provided, but still refuses to reinstate the edit. I would appreciate any assistance that can be given to resolve this. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This is already active at the article talk page and WP:FTN. Please don't forum shop or spread the discussion further. Interested parties should comment at the article talk page, thanks. Needless to say the above description is disputed, and please note this page has long been on my watchlist. Best, Verbal chat
Of course it is being discussed on the talk pages - that is where disputes like this are supposed to start and where they often flounder for various reasons. Please don't accuse me of Forum Shopping. That is not the case at all. The reason I brought this here is because the talk pages don't seem to be working and Verbal is only putting up roadblocks. The editors on those talk pages have provided input which is being ignored. Outside assistance/advice is obviously needed. Smatprt (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Abusive posting

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 03:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Justin Kuntz has put the following on Talk: East Falkland under the following heading.

yeah I'm an evil scotsman and I'll shag with my 10" cock


As you can see from the context, this is a dispute over the order of units and whether Imperial or metric units should come first in an article. What can be done about his combative and abusive conduct? Can you assist me? Michael Glass (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I left a "you should know better" message on the user's talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

the name of a panda cub Chiang Mai Zoo Thailand that was posted at Wikipedia was wrong.

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 03:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

the official name of this cub is Lin Ping not Lin Bing. The river Ping is the river that past though Northern Chiang Mai, they never have a river Bing. Part of her name is the name of a that river which is Ping

Please correct this name from Lin Bing to Lin Ping.

thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

China Daily reports the name as Lin Bing with an explanation. – ukexpat (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Contact question

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW TO CONTACT A SINGER SONG/WRITER LISTED ON THIS WEBSITE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

First, please don't SHOUT! Second, have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what the Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Title IX article

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit function does not reflect garbage on page! Can some wikiexpert check it out, I'm old and don't have a second lifetime to wade through walls of legalease. Thanx. Is there anything userfriendly here, like a post button? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 6&fudup (talkcontribs) 05:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are referring to the recent vandalism, it has been reverted. – ukexpat (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Wallis Duchess of Windsor

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Having a problem getting updated facts into an article. Current follower of the article is looking to contemporaneous hearsay and weighting that over contemporaneous police reports accepted by such sources as the BBC and Timesonline.

Two years ago it was released that the authorities knew Wallis Simpson was having an affair, cheating on Edward VIII, but kept the information from him and let him abdicate to marry her any ways.

It is a public record. Why should Wikipedia stick with old information?

Is it true that you don't regard official reports as authoritative over hearsay?

I am not the first person to try to get this update in. But as with the other person, I'm just an ordinary person who noticed an out of date fact. I am not going to devote my life to correcting your problem -- but I will devote a few hours to it.,_Duchess_of_Windsor —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The article already mentions both the official reports and the alleged affair. You are trying to remove cited information that denies the affair and contradicts the report. Per WP:NPOV all relevant points of view should be represented in the article. DrKiernan (talk) 08:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Bill "Peg Pants" Beach

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 03:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Bill "Peg Pants" Beach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello to all of you experienced Wikipedians! I think I have cited my article appropriately and that the article has been "wikified". Please review and let me know if there are other suggestions. Thank you so much for your helpBonniejanern (talk) 12:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Bonniejanern

What article is that? Can you provide a link? Jezhotwells (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Right on further investigation I see that you have created an autobiography. If you follow the link to our guidelines on this you will see that this is strongly discouraged as you clearly have a conflict of interest. The article is hardly written in a neutral point of view and contains many peacock terms. You have certainly provided wiki-links and some references, but I am not sure that these do enough to establish notability. I notice that you have tagged the photographs as being authored by yourself, which doesn't seem possible as you are the subject. The copyright almost certainly belongs to the photographer. WP:WikiProject Country Music seems to be inactive, but you could perhaps ask for an editor to help you at the the talk page there. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I see that in fact on the talk page you state that you are not the subject of the article. I am sorry I read your statement above about "my article" wrongly. No-one owns articles on Wikipedia, anyone can edit. I have left further comments at the talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The article: State of Palestine

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia currently has an article suggesting that there is a state called the State of Palestine. This issue is highly controversial, and unfortunately the article represent it in a misleading way, mostly due to giving undue weight to sideline opinions and misinterpretation of sources. For the record, it should be noted that the existence of a state called Palestine is doubted both by supporters and opponents of the idea to establish such a state, so this is not a pro- vs. anti-Palestinian controversy.

In fact, after a request to delete this article, an agreement was reached to merge it with Proposals for a Palestinian state (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State of Palestine, in November 2007). User:Harlan wilkerson violated this decision by trying to redirect "State of Palestine" to Palestine (rather than to "Proposals", in June 2009). When reverted, he entered into edit war ([15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. In July 2009 the article "State of Palestine" was reintroduced ([20]) in what seems to be a fair description of the actual situation. A day after the reintroduction of the article Harlan Wilkerson changed it in a way that suggest an actual existence of a Palestinian state. Wilkerson is the main contributor for this article since then, and he does his best to prevent any edit that is not in line with his ideas. While he sources his claims, I strongly believe that he uses non-mainstream sources, and even when he uses mainstream sources he interprets them in the article very liberally in order to make them supportive of his own views.

In fact the English Wikipedia already has many articles about the Palestinian issue, including Palestinian Territories, Palestinian Authority, Proposals for a Palestinian state and others. The whole set of this articles gives a confusing and unreliable picture. The actual situation is indeed confusing, and yet it can be described in a much better way for the benefit of Wikipedia's users, if editors will adhere to the principle of collaborative work, and refrain from gaming with the verifiability principle. Verifiability does not mean that one can present a distorted picture based on collection of controversial sources. DrorK (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed this subject is the source of continual edit warring. I am not sure what you would like the assistants here to do. If discussion at the article talk page is stuck then perhaps seeking to open a discussion at WT:WikiProject_Palestine might be an option? Jezhotwells (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The article cites a number of published legal, historical, and political sources from both sides of the Israeli-Arab conflict which say that recognition of statehood is a political act with legal consequences. They say that every state has the prerogative to decide for itself whether to recognize another state. The PLO declared a state in 1988, and the Palestinian Authority claimed it was a legal state that could accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court in 2009. It provided 67 bilateral treaty agreements with other states that had formally recognized the State of Palestine. There are published reports which say that as many as 114-135 countries have extended recognition to the State of Palestine in one way or another. A number of Wikipedia editors have set-up an ad hoc court on the talk page and are attempting to prove that those facts aren't notable, or to overturn the decisions of the States that have decided to recognize the State of Palestine on WP:OR technical grounds. They are being opposed by editors who simply want to report what verifiable published sources have said on the subject. User Drork repeatedly added unsourced editorials that were reverted. He was asked to provide citations to published sources for those viewpoints and to feel free to add them. He subsequently admitted that he doesn't want to add material to the article, but would like to remove the sourced content that he finds objectionable. harlan (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
First of all, Harlan Wilkerson published a comment on my talk page, which is bureaucratic in nature, but seems like trying to prevent me from discussing this issue. Now, my problem is a user who treats an article like his own territory. Igoring previous discussions and decisions about the matter, he rewrote a WP article as a kind of Academic thesis. Sure it is sources, but so is any academic research. The problem is the interpretation given to the sources, and the way the allegedly sourced statements are collected to make an original account, on which there is no consensus. I could gather many sources that claim Astrology is science, and I'm sure many people recognize it as such, and yet the article about Astrology cannot leave the reader with the impression that Astrology is science. Any attempt to edit the article was reverted, and considering past edit wars, this article is practically uneditable by people who do not conform to the basic idea of certain editors. I don't know who should treat this problem. I was hoping this page would be the right place to start handling the issue. It is not my own problem. It is a problem that touches the very reliability of WP. DrorK (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
No-one is sitting in judgement here - this is WP:Editor assistance/Requests. Clearly there is a dispute, verging on edit-warring. If you wish to proceed from here, please assumegood faith and endeavour to work together to build consensus. I you can't do that then you could ask for assistance at the Palestine project as mentioned above or you could open a request for comment. Moving your dispute from the article talk page to here won't do any good. The subject of Palestine is sadly open to many disputes and an argument here isn't going to help. If you have a strong point of view about the subject then consider whether you should be editing articles on the subject. This is an encyclopaedia, not a place for pushing points of view. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, an assistance is also directing the issue presented to the right channel. In fact, I don't know what the right channel is, since there are several issues here, regarding the article's content on the one hand, and the behavior of a certain editor on the other. Posting the issue in several pages is explicitly discouraged and said to be disruptive. In oder to avoid disruption, please direct this issue to the channel you deem most appropriate. DrorK (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Indians in South Africa

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 03:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm writing this because I feel the contribution by Wikipedia regarding the Indian demographics in their "South Africa" article does not do justice to the contribution and influence that Indians have in South Africa. Indians are an important part of the society, albeit a smaller minority population;

Indians in South Africa made a siginificant contribution to the apartheid struggle. In 1893 Mahatma Gandhi came to South Africa and experienced the injustice of the Inidan people. In 1894, Gandhi founded the Natal Indian Congress to fight for Indian rights. They worked together with the ANC organisation to abolish aprtheid, and many Indians were imprisoned on Robbin Island. Inidans and Blacks used to live side by side until the Apartheid government separted them. Most Indians settled in the Durban area of KwaZulu-Natal, where their culture and cuisine are very popular. Local Zulu children are even learning the ancient Indian dance of Bharatanatyam.

It would be appreciated if you could include this in your "South Africa" article.Melan325 (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Does Asian South African deal with this? – ukexpat (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Richard Paul Lohse and Paul Lohse

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

There are 2 articles about the same person. Pls delete one. --Ozolina (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

One should probably be a redirect to the other, but before we do that, do we know by which name he was commonly known? The De Wikipedia article is Paul Lohse without the "Richard". – ukexpat (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Fandom versus objectivity in sports pages - Vince Carter

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi all,

I wouldn't call it an edit war, but I'm locked in a very frustrating back-and-forth with another contributor on the Vince Carter page. Carter is widely reviled in Toronto for the perception that he quit on the team just before he was traded, but when I read the Carter article, there was no reference to that idea. I wrote one up and included several credible sources (ESPN, The Toronto Star).

However, another editor has continually deleted those sources to to either distort or completely erase any information that reflects negatively on Carter. I believe this is a case of a fan who isn't willing to accept objective information because it's negative.

How should I deal with this? Any advice?


Dantès (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If someone is deleting material which is reliably sourced then it would be proper to revert such deltions and warn them. If they persist then consider reporting them at WP:3RR. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Slovak-Hungarian Relations

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 03:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

On the page Hungary–Slovakia relations I am trying to neutralise a bit on the quotes of a radical politician. I removed the quotes to the talk page and only kept the basic information with references. These quotes should in my opinion not be on the page (too polarising and biased), and if mentioned, on the page of the politician, not the Hungary-Slovak Relations. His statements play a role, and should be mentioned, but not as nearly 30% of the article... My edits are continuously reversed by Hungarians who are obviously biased. Maybe some administrator can have a look and maybe lock the topic if they agree that 'my' edits are more encyclopedic ? I first added a POV, which was immediately removed by an Hungarian, without proper discussion.(Fyi, I am Dutch and just happened to come across this and found it not fitting. I have no relation to either country).Knorrepoes (talk) 07:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Again it has been reverted, this time by a Hungarian editor, blaming vandalism. When removing things to the talk page with explanation, this is not vandalism. Obviously this editor Hobartimus, see his talk page, already in September 2009 removed the POV tag and added the quotes again. If you look at his talk page he is clearly biased towards everything Hungarian (logically, being Hungarian in this case), so a non-biased editor should have a look here.Knorrepoes (talk) 08:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, WP:Requests for page protection is the appropriate venue to ask for this. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
OK I'll copy it there.Knorrepoes (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
It isn't really. Use the talk page first, and raise your concerns with other editors. There may be history that you're not aware of. GedUK  13:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
that is why I put it first on the other page. There is quite a history on the discussion page of Hungary–Slovakia relations with a lot of similar issues as I describe here; already in September a POV tag was added and immediately removed by pro-Hungarian members. This happened again. The issue is a large number of verbatim quotes of a radical Slovak politician. These quotes should not be on this page, but on a page about him (they are also there). So I removed them to the talk page and left just the references. After that I am accused of vandalism by blanking the page; which is not true, I just moved and mentioned the move. This accusation was from a (Hungarian) editor... hence my request to either lock it or have a non biased editor (i.e. not Slovak not Hungarian) look at it.Knorrepoes (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Continuous deletions of the NPOV and referenced sections of the article Gupta Empire

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

A number of sections of the article, Gupta Empire with citations from reliable sources was deleted by User:Hunter2hunter from 13 January, 2010 to 23 January, 2010 without any reference or reason except that he thinks these are "unauthenticated" (!). From 25 January, 2010 to 28 January, 2010 almost the same sections were deleted by User:King Avinash Gupta, which I suspect a sockpuppet of User:Hunter2hunter, which is indicated by use of the word "unauthenticated" by both. How this article can be protected from the continuous deletions of the referenced sections?Joy1963 (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The usual procedure is to revert and warn. If you have to use level 4 warning templates, report at WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism. If you have evidence of sockpuppetry then report at WP:Sockpuppet investigations. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Racist Posting

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note YellowMonkey is making Racists posts to "Javed Burki" please kindly ban him from making defamatory posts against a living sports ledgend thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2khan (talkcontribs) 15:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The Revision History for Javed Burki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) doesn't show this. It does show User:YellowMonkey reverting some unsourced POV phrasing added by User: and User:2khan. There is nothing racist in the edits. If you consider the material that you added to be important, then please discuss on the article talk page - that is what it is there for. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Tomas Milian Wiki Bio

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Hello, I am Tomaso Milian and I am writing in reference to the biography of my father, Tomas Milian. I would be very grateful if you could correct 3 statements that are inaccurate.

Wiki writes: “After an unsuccessful start in the United States, he relocated to pursued acting jobs in Italy.” That’s not accurate. My dad had just started his career in NY when Giancarlo Menotti, founder of the Spoleto Festival in Italy, saw my dad and invited him to appear at the Festival in Jean Cocteau's pantomime The Poet and the Muse. My dad arrived in Italy thinking that he would stay just a few weeks but, after being offered long term movie contracts, ended up staying 30 years.

Wiki writes: “His estranged son, Tomaso Milian, is the creative director for the History Book Club, based in Garden City” That’s not accurate. That describes just a very small assignment in a career that spans 20 years. It would be more accurate to say that, since 1991 I have been a Creative Director and Graphic Designer in New York, in the field of publishing (I was in Garden City for a very brief period. I have been working in Manhattan for basically all my professional life).

Most important, I don’t know why Wiki writes that we are “estranged”. We happen to live far apart but we are a very close knit family. I speak to my parents every day from my office, we visit each other every year, and my mom and dad are the very proud grandparents of our 2 children.

Thank you for your help. Tomaso Milian (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I removed the information about Tomaso completely as it is unsourced, in fact there are no reliable sources at all. I also altered the phrasing of the "unsuccesful start" as that is point of view. I also placed an unreferenced tag on the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Malicious editing

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Wey Valley School and Sports College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

How do we prevent a user (staying anonymous) from posting inaccurate, misleading and damaging information regarding our organisation? I have edited the page back to a fact based set of information centred around new citations as well as existing ones. They keep changing it back. We suspect it is an ex-employee. A lot of their strategy is to state data with incorrect interpretation or different data sets compared to give the impression of negative outcomes. I have tried to maintain a factual approach, but not try to hide uncomfortable facts.

One example - they state that the school has been in steady decline since 2003 when the results stood at 40%. The figure of 40 % is accurate but since 2003 has moved to 45% then 47% then 49% (stayed in this area for a couple of years) and then 62% this year. How can this be described as decline? They also state that the school is on a government list of failing schools. I don't deny this is how it was portrayed by the media, but there is no list of 'failing' schools - they never used that term and that is well documented. There is a National Challenge list of schools that were below 30% 5A*-C including english and maths qualifications (a different measure to the one mentioned above). The school came straight back above that in teh first year and in this year reached 45% - yet they state that it has failed to improve - factually untrue.

I am very happy for contributors to add information, but adding deliberately misleading information and negative 'opinion' is not what I thought wikipedia was about?

I would welcome any advice.

Paulsnorman (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I don't see any anonymous edits from IP addresses, but I have posted a note at the page of an editor who has removed material including citations. If you wish to know more about warning editors who have removed materila from a page then WP:WARN will give you some pointers. The best thing to do is start a discussion on the article talk page. The page could do with formatting in a more encyclopaedic manner and rewriting in a more encyclopaedic style. You may get some more ideas about this at WP:EDUCATION. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that this editor is apparently the Deputy Headteacher at this school. I have warned him about conflict of interest editing. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

WNYZ-LP time brokerage agreement

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


WNYZ-LP, a low power radio station broadcasting to New York City, went silent on January 21, 2010. An editor named Snow8x8 added unsourced information to the WNYZ-LP page around a week ago stating that Island Broadcasting had entered into a Time Brokerage Agreement with CSN effective February 1st. A quick Google search will turn up nothing reliable on this topic, and the editor in question has not produced any reliable, published source for this assertion beyond the fact that the "information is available by inquiry" and that he has an "inside contact" at CSN. Since there is no published and reliable information about this alleged Time Brokerage Agreement, it does not satisfy Wikipedia's verifiability standards and should not remain on the page. The editor in question, if I may presume, is unaware of or is unwilling to comply with these standards, as my efforts to show WP:NOR and the Verifiability guidelines to said editor have been in vain. Dylan Hsu (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that you have warned and reverted the other editor. That is thh best practice. Eventually they might cotton on. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Caspian_blue and An Jung-geun.

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Elmor rus - socking and disruptive campaign over multiple Wikipedias

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 03:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The above, Russian WP:SOCK IPs have been disrupting not only English Wikipedia but also multiple Wiki projects for his single-minded POV agenda to Korean independence activist as well as Korea under Japanese rule for over one and half years. The socks' edits are reverted by "two editors" at An Jung-geun, but he is revenging now because I filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Elmor rus yesterday. The sock IPs are suspected as Elmor (talk · contribs) (SUL account)/Elmor rus (talk · contribs) (at En.Wiki and Ko.Wiki). The user's multiple socks and IPs have been indefinite blocked for his socking and disrupting the same topics at Korean Wiki for the same period.

User:Elmor rus has acknowledges that his past discussion over his POV pushing to An Jung-geun failed to gain a consensus over labeling the figure as "terrorist", or "killer" or "murders". The user has appeared as sock IPs to avoid the scrutiny except moving articles or miner edits. This kind of WP:GAMEing should not be allowed to Wikipedia. He can't dare to insert "criminal infobox" to Che Guevara because that kind of edits is highly likely to be regarded as "vandalism" by many editors. The user's main account ru:Elmor made some edits to the same article at Russian Wikipedia,[21] (English translation) but well, I don't see any edit to label Che as a convicted criminal. The article of An Jung-geun has only attracted editors working on Korean or Japanese topics, so he clearly knows he could get away his agenda without attention. What would be needed for the report? This user should be reminded of what is WP:BOLD, WP:DISRUPT, and WP:CONSENSUS and many other content policies.-Caspian blue 19:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI is the place for reporting this. This needs administrator attention. This page is mainly for answering queries and pointing people in the right direction. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the guide. I'm visiting the place for the first time after the sock Ips are falsely accusing me here.--Caspian blue 23:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Dissipative Particle Dynamics page has a link to an inaccessible academic paper

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 03:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

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

A link has been added to the DPD page that leads to an abstract of a paper in the International Journal of Applied mechanics, but the paper itself is password protected, and cannot be accessed. The link text is:

The full trace of the developments of various important aspects of the DPD methodology since it was first proposed in the early 1990's can be found in: DISSIPATIVE PARTICLE DYNAMICS: INTRODUCTION, METHODOLOGY AND COMPLEX FLUID APPLICATIONS — A REVIEW .

I removed the link and added a reference to a highly-cited paper by two pioneers in the DPD field (Groot and Warren, J Chem Phys. 107: 4423 (1997). But the old link has been replaced and the Groot and Warren paper removed.

I can, of course, change it again, but I suspect the other person will just undo my change. I see no point in having a link to an inaccessible article, that is why I added the other reference.

Can something be done to prevent the inaccessible link being added back? The History page shows that the person who added the link was not logged in.


Jsftnano (talk) 13:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't be removing references, they don't have to be freely accessible online. Your edit summary: The specified link was to an article that cannot be accessed without an account to World Scientific Press. It is therefore not generally useful., is mistaken. Please read WP:Citing sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced sources

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 03:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have had a message telling me that an entry I created (,_Baron_Lea_of_Crondall )needed sources, but, as an infrequent editor, I am not sure what I need to do to reference/source it, prove that this person exists. I have added some external website links, but am not sure if this is enough, so I haven't yet removed the tag which shows that it needs updating. Can anyone advise? Guineveretoo (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not his existence that needs sourcing but sources are required to support notability (even though members of the House or Lords are considered de facto notable). I would suggest converting the external links into references (see WP:CITE) and adding a References section containing the {{Reflist}} template, that should be sufficient. – ukexpat (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to help, but I am afraid that I simply don't understand what needs to be done. I am not really an editor on this site at all, so it is all new to me. I guess I need to read the two pages you are referencing here and see if I can make sense of it all, but I am not sure it is worth it for the rare use I will make of it. Guineveretoo (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that there is a list of the external links that presumably you used as references, but at the moment there is no link between what is in the article and those sources, hence the need to use citations to tie them together. Unreferenced BLPs are the subject of much discussion on Wikipedia at the moment, hence the drive to get them properly sourced. – ukexpat (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfair treatment

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 03:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I feel like I have been unfairly treated during the period I was temporarily blocked. I am unhappy with the way some administrators handled the situation, and I believed they ignored the edit-warring behavior of another user. Where can I raise this issue? --Shamir1 (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably at the the administrator's noticeboard, but other assistants may suggest other venues. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't categorise the notes on your talk page [22] as attacks, rather they are notes querying your nomination of a portal for deletion. Please assume good faith and learn to work with other editors. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Human Frontier Science Program : Unreviewed page

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


I created a new page Human Frontier Science Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on the 14 January 2010. This page has a 'new unreviewed article' banner.

How long will it be before the article is reviewed and this box disappears ? Also why can't I find my wikipedia article with Google ?

Thank you for your answers,

--Rosalynhuie (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)RMH

I have had a look and pointed out some things that need addressing. I have placed some useful links on your talk page which will give you information on verifiability, citing sources and reliable sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Susan Sarandon

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you could possible have found a less flattering picture of this actress (Susan Sarandon) than you have put at the beginning of your informational article about her. I know she's 63 yrs old now, but really...have a heart. Somebody there must not like her, or, more likely, her politics, in order to have done this. Please rectify this. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You sould post this on the article talk page. Don't forget that that it can be very difficult to source GFDL or Creative Commons licensed photographs of living people. Most photoghraphs of stars are commercially licensed and not available for use on Wikipedia. BTW they are ususally heavily airbrushed. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear unsigned, that is what 63 years old looks like, unless you go for plastic surgery, speaking as someone who will never see 63 again. I think she looks pretty darn good in that photo. Trudyjh (talk) 10:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Louise Robey page update deletion

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I recently corrected the information on the Louise Robey Wiki page using excerpts from an interview and the official bio on her website, All of the information from her Robey's website came from the publisher of AND from Ms. RObey herself (as well as her management). The cited audio interview came from my own website. Unfortunately, it was deleted and reverted to the old site, where someone claims that the citations were inaccurate (a listen to the interview would immediately correct that assumption) and that I had no permission to use the info from How can the page be changed back to the more accurate version (approved by Robey herself)? Is there a protocol I might have missed? I would assume Wiki would rather have an accurate and information bio up... (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)S. Baldrick 1/31/10

It appears that your additions were (borderline) copyright-violations. Moreover, a website written by or behalf of the subject herself cannot be considered a reliable source. See WP:RS. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a way we can work this out to post the accurate info and stay within your guidelines? I would like to add material that I learn through my radio interviews with people -- mainly to aid those who want to know the information about said personality. Also, When I said I got permission to use the material from, it was something I sought out form her (while I was looking to add info) rather than her asking me to do that after an interview. Is there any way I can make this happen? I have a good amount of "straight-from-the-source" information to share and I would like to use it to help. S. Baldrick 04:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)S. Baldrick 1/31/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by S. Baldrick (talkcontribs)

Please read our reliable sources policy and also verifiability. This is an encyclopaedia and information must be sourced to reliable third party sources such as newspapers or published books. Personal websites are not RS. If your radio interviews can be verified, ie. exact time and date of broadcast, station, etc., they may be usuable, but it should be someone else who adds them. It would be best to say what material you have on the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Roosevelt Skerrit

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

An anonymous person is posting a highly defamatory and totally unsourced article about the Prime Minister of Dominica. I am not going to get into a revert war with this person, so someone needs to intervene. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 11:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Reverted back further to a clean version, and will monitor. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Cheyne Capital


please block this page because a user is constantly changing the text as advertising and not listening to the comments and not looking at the very good references provided. this is the good articles and is constantly vandalised, needs to be blocked and editing available to neutral admin only.

thank you

-- (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that version of the page is blatantly negative, which fails the neutral point of view guidelines for articles. It's also got some potential BLP violations, unnecessary tags, and various other problems. I have reverted it to a clean version from January, and will encourage editors to discuss changes on the talk page rather than edit-war. I *do* have a magic protection button and will protect the page if edit-warring continues. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure but you can not ignore the 6 references,, you can remove the nationality thought one can see this all over wikipedia, example Sol Kerzner page or Einstein page, etc....

as it is now the article is blatant advertising and misleading as this firm seems to be at the centre of the SUB Prime crisis.

-- (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

-- (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


I added Vincent Colletta's name as the inker for the cover shown. I changed Jack Kirby from artist to penciler.

These changes are accurate but I see they were not accepted.

Please contact me regarding the proper way to add such a credit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin222 (talkcontribs) 16:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what the situation is there; you may wish to ask User:Asgardian why the change was reverted, as it was their reversion. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC Use of the Adam Gay Video Directory as a reliable source

Resolved: RFC closed Jezhotwells (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films#RfC Use of the Adam Gay Video Directory as a reliable source was a somewhat heated discussion and (unfortunately) there have been only a few contributors. However a number of excellent example sources have been added which help illustrate potential use. The RfC has run twice and is about to come to the end of it's normal 30 days automatic posting. I think it is closable but a completely independent editor is needed to help summarize. The main article is List of male performers in gay porn films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ash (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

HTML Layout Problems

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please find a couple screenshots attached that show problems in the site layout. The major issues seem to be that various page parts are not maintaining their placement as they should.

These were as displayed on ArchLinux with Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100105 Shiretoko/3.5.7 (Firefox). —Preceding unsigned comment added by KitchM (talkcontribs) 18:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The technical section of the Village Pump may be the best place to ask about this. Note that I have thumbnailed your images above, much less obtrusive but still easy to see the full image. – ukexpat (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln Hall

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a concert venue in Lincoln Park, Chicago called Lincoln Hall that opened October 16, 2009. It is located in the old 3 Penny Cinema building and holds 506 people. It has a balcony, floor, 3 bars and a small restaurant. It is a new mid-sized venue and should be added to Wikipedia as I see even smaller venues on Wikipedia. The website is —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If it's new, it is unlikely to have received the required significant coverage in reliable sources for it to be notable, and therefore would not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, at least not yet. – ukexpat (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Tim Tebow bio

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Several contributors are trying to place facts , not opinion , on Tim Tebow page where a current social and poltical topic is being promulgated. Other editors are removing those posts.

njw 00:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwerle (talkcontribs)

It would help if you could indicate exactly which edits you are referring to. There has been edit warring about several things, and it is not clear which part you mean. Some of the disagreement is merely about where in the article a particular paragraph should go, but this can scarcely be what you mean, since it does not involve removing information. Then we have a dispute about the use of such description as "all around dismal performance", which is clearly an opinion, and so does not seem, on the face of it, to be what you mean. Then there is disagreement about whether one should say "she claims that doctors recommended" or simply "doctors recommended" (or words to that effect). Here we have a disagreement about how to present the information, but not about whether it should be included. Is there another dispute which I have missed? Or have I misunderstood you, and you are referring to one of those three disputes? Clarification would help. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

definition for Michelle Obama in the Urban dictionary

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how 2 report this and have been trying 4 about 30 min now. Please look at the definitions 4 Michelle Obama in the Urban Dictionary. They are Extremely offensive! Doesn't any1 edit or approve these posts?

Thank you, Bonnie Bransford —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The Urban Dictionary is not associated with Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Right. You can consider instead. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Acoustics monograph

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not have a web site but wish to permit persons to receive, without charge, a monograph on acoustics by sending me an email. To let potential users know it exists, I wish to insert notes in Wickipedia in the appropriate subject areas. Since this can be interpreted as commercial use, it will be necessary to get the conditions under which this would be permitted. Robert Chanaud —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What you are describing is a "solicitation for a business or service". I'm sorry but solicitation for a business or service is not permitted in any form. Specifically, it is a type of spam and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for spam. I can answer any further questions you have. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 17:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


I am protesting the continued posting and re-posting of a version of the biography of Adam Clayton Powell, IV by agents of Nelson Antonio Denis and Mr. Denis himself. The contents are salacious, malicious and untruthful. Mr. Denis was, is, a political rival of Powell's, whom he defeated for election in 2000, and is seeking to harm Mr. Powell's reputation. Our attempts to correct the page with his official New York state Assembly biography is continually deleted and replaced with the assistance of your volunteer editors.

We request that Mr. Powell's official biography be the lead information on this page and that Mr. Denis and his agents be disallowed from editing the page.

As for the blanking of the section, that was executed by me with Mr. Powell's permission in preparation for the insertion of his official biography.

As Mr. Denis is also known to me I am very aware of his deep seeded animosity for Mr. Powell and I urge Wikipedia to adhere to its policies against allowing personal vendettas to invade the sanctity of this project.


GEOFFREY L. GARFIELD <email redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

  • The editor (Geoffrey Garfield) continues to blank all or portions of the Powell article rather than provide clear, line-by-line, sourced editing. This Page Blanking, and ad hominem attack, is not a constructive way to edit.
  • The effort to simply publish a politician's own biography, and eliminate an article with 74 in-line references from the New York Times, the New York Daily News, Time Magazine, the Village Voice, the New York Post, etc., is far from NPV.

MBernal615 (talk) 07:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the issue is about verification in reliable sources and generally an effort to use an "official" bio would be highly suspect as it would presumably be largely pushed a by COI party and indeed, taking these above arguments as true, that appears to be the case here. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Human height

Resolved: vandalism reverted Jezhotwells (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that in the chart where it lists height averages for different countries, under China it says urban men are 4'7 and women are 3'12. This has to be a mistake, since it says rural men are 5'5 and a half and women are 5'2.

I believe data from countries/territories that were once on the chart and are now omitted be added again. For instance, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and North and South Korea instead of just " Korea".

Tw22786 (talk)Teresa —Preceding undated comment added 08:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

The entry for China at Human height#Average height around the world was vandalized when you posted. It has been corrected. You can post suggestions at Talk:Human height. Note that a reliable source is needed for Wikipedia content. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

PLC Party, UK Registered political party of British at home and abroad

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

One of your "editors" [Dank] [Could be a "Jimmy Wells] blocked the PLC Party indefinitely. This kind of conduct is unbecoming of a Foundation such as yours. Wikipedia is NOT user friendly and we have been going round in a circle for 4 hours trying to "unblock" the block, all to no avail. Consequently, we have had to protest, using Twitter at

If you have any doubt, why don't you visit the PLC Party website, at ?

Remove the block without delay. If you do not wish to unblock then, close the account. We do not need vindictive, revengeful people to interfere with our freedoms of expression and or choice of association.

Andre John-Salakov Leader PLC Party Sites - / —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Although your message is not very clear I must presume that the user name that you were using does not meet our guidelines on user names (please read WP:USERNAMES but as you dont say what name you have used it is difficult to know or give advice. I have informed User:Dank about this discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I guess this refers to the block at User talk:PLC Party. As the message there says, we have a policy against usernames that give the impression that the account represents an organization. Individual members of your party can create their own accounts without a username which indicates they represent the party, and without two or more people sharing the same account. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest applies in either case. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sumedh Singh Saini article needs semi-edit protection and monitoring for WP:BLP violations

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Could the article Sumedh Singh Saini be edit protected so that only established editors edit it?

This article needs same treatment as KPS Gill article which is also edit-protected partially. Both the articles are being abused for political propaganda by special interest groups in violation of many wiki guidelines such as NPOV, BLP, Undue Weight, etc.


--History Sleuth (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with the respected editor because every single sentence of this article is duly referenced. All the references are duly reliable and even this respected editor has never challenged the reliability of the provided references. Hence, there is no violation of any wikipedia policies. Anyways! I respect contributions of this editor and his other opposing editors and I will look forward to discuss any wp:consensus issues in the talk page of this article. Thanks and Kind Regards. -- (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Articles will only be protected if they are being currently vandalised. Please make protection requests at WP:RFPP. – ukexpat (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

download wiki software - is ther ea version for structured "articles?"

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought I saw somewhere you could download wiki software and setup your own wikipedia on your own website. I wanted to do something like this but with the "artciels" being structured entries about amino acid or DNA/RNA sequencces and have tne article database be easily extractble to flat or XML text files. I was envisioning something more active than current talk pags, almost like a forum on the main article page and right now, I'm looking at using something like PHPBB modified to display tha main article on the top of forum but I'm not sure how to handle article edits. I could modify the php to extract edits from posts ( I think there is something like a patch file syntax for this ) but that may be difficult for users to understand. What is available from wikipedia that may be close? Thanks.Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

mw:Download and WP:DOWNLOAD are probably the places to start, probably with mw:Extension:LiquidThreads. – ukexpat (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

request for assistance at article Dacia (Roman province)

hello, i ask for assistance in reaching a consensus for the article about Dacia (Roman province).

I consider the current version of the article is promoting the following POV : "No dacians remained in the area of Dacia after the Roman conquest. No Eastern Romance population remained in Dacia after the roman withdrawal."

I have edited the article in what i consider a NPOV way, added info on different events that I think show that the Dacians were present inside and outside the Roman Empire and Dacia province over the history of the empire in the region.

My edits are simply reverted by 2 hungarian editors, one of them is the editor behind the version that i consider POV, while the other simply reverts in his support.

Since there are no other editors involved in the writing of this article, i ask assistance here. Criztu (talk) 08:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Criztu, when asking for assistance please take also into account the following facts:

  • The edits you made seems to have no connection with the parts of the article which describes either the fate of the Dacians after the Roman conquest or the history of the province after the Roman withdrawal.
  • For the time being, the article presents strong arguments in favour the survival of the Dacian population after the Roman conquest (actually, the archaeological evidence is presented in the relevant part of the article). It is true that adverse opinion is also presented in the article, but it is required under WP's policies that a full picture is to be added.
  • For the time being, the article (neutrally) refers to the fact that the survival of the Romanized population after the Roman withdrawal is subject to debate among scholars. Why do you think that this contradicts to WP's guidlines?
  • Some of the edits you actually made were accepted (e.g., Trajan's Column, the fate of Burebista).
  • Most of the edits you actually made were not based on reliable sources or had no connection to the subject of the article (e.g., the description of the Roman Empire during the Marcomannica Wars based on a fragment of a book written about 150 years ago which does not even refer to Dacia).
  • Some of the edits you made resulted in the significant modification of sentences based on reliable sources, and therefore the modified sentence had no connection to the source cited.

I think any article can be modified (new sentences can be added based on reliable sources and even well sourced sentences can be deleted if a proper argumentation is provided), but none of us is entitled either to present original thoughts under the name of well known historians or to destroy an article. Borsoka (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Inappropiate Citation

Discussion moved: to WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Captain_Beany Jezhotwells (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


Unknown to myself, someone has set up a Wikipedia under the name of 'CAPTAIN BEANY'. As much as I am most flattered to have my deed poll name set up by 'a fan' as such, I have found that someone has posted a citation regarding a past criminal action that took place in 2005. I have trie to explain to the user name that this is much very inappropiate as this is not in the public domain to see this citation. Captain Beany is an alter ego of my real name as Barry Kirk, and I have found out that because of this citation, people have raised this past issue againt my credibility as a well known charity fundraiser. Can you advise me and make suggestions as how you could resolve this matter. I have tried to edit the page but the user 'CANOL' tries putting it back on! see below


"He was charged and convicted of benefit fraud for wrongly claiming £2,700 in income support. Captain Beany duly admitted that his share savings interest exceeded his personal allowance threshold of £8,000. He paid the excess of his savings account towards the fine. [4] See discussion page." —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainBeany (talkcontribs) 11:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, Mr. Beany, but the BBC story used to cite the information is indeed publicly accessible. I have cleaned up the article and added additional material, but one fact may not be removed simply because you do not wish it to be there. Regards, GlassCobra 16:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hold on a sec. I think there is a reasonable case to say that this is inappropriate for this biography considering that he is not known for this issue but rather his charity work. My reading of the blp guidelines is that we should be careful about this sort of info even if reliably sourced. It may be appropriate to take this to the blp noticeboard. Quantpole (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I've started a discussion over here regarding this. Quantpole (talk) 10:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This reeks of a NPOV-breaching WP:NOT#CENSORED violation, to save him from the consequences of his own crime. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)