Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 83

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

Shrine of Our Lady of Madhu (in Wikipedia)

Request unclear: Jezhotwells (talk) 02:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Shrine of Our Lady of Madhu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Madhu Church (Wikipedia Text) "Traditionally Madu has been the site of a Pattini Devale sacred to Buddhists and Hindus, from the time of King Gaja Bahu I (114-136 CE) who introduced the Pattini cult to ancient Lanka at a prudent distance from the capital Anuradhapura, which was the center of orthodox Theravada Buddhism. So, the Pattini Devale has been there for 1,850 years, at least.

Later on, the Hindus called it the Amman Kovil. The nearby tank is still called Kovil Kulam (tank of the devale) after the Tamil name of the site. It is still sacred to Buddhists and Hindus even though the Catholics have usurped the site.

According to the "Manual of the North Central Province", by R. W. Levers, 1889, establishes that [8].,present Madhu Church site had a "Pattini temple"[9] till the 19th century. The Catholic shrine to St. Mary was established in 1876. A short History of the Madhu Church, written by the Bishop of Jaffna and given to E. B. Denham (author of the 1911 Census report) establishes that the church was founded in 1876 (p. 77), but not completely built even in 1891 (J. P. Lewis, A Manual of the Vanni Districts p.51)" _____________________________________________________________________ 1. Praying to Our Lady of Madhu, at Marutha-Madhu has a history since 1670. There is no evidence in history that this site was neither the site of the temple of Pattini nor a Pattini temple (Devale) was there for 1850. It is very unlikely that Catholics fleeing the Dutch persecution in 1670 would have destroyed a Hindu temple to build a church. The conjecture would have some credibility, if this was done by Portugues soldiers. But by then Dutch have defeted them. The fleeing Catholics carried the statue of our Lady from their church in Mantai, near Mannar. Who expects a Hindu temple to be there in the thick of the jungle.

2. R.W. Levers statement has not been critically analysed by the Wikipedia. It is a custom in Sri Lanka even today for Buddhists and Hindus to visit Catholic shrines where 'miracles' occur. Hindus deify Christian saints as they pray to St Anthony at Kochchikade(Colombo), Our Lady of Madu, St.Anne Thalavilla, St Sebastian (numerous)etc.as much as Buddhists deify Hindu deities of Pattini, Siva,Kali etc. and believe that the body of St Francis Xavier is that of the Buddhist monk Rahula. Our Lady is called Pattini by some Hindus in Sri Lanka and South India. Some Buddhists and Hindus call St Sebastian the son of goddess Kali.That does not mean that all these shrines are Hindu/Buddhist shrines usurped by Catholics. It was a usage that Levers misinterpreted, and the current articld used.

3. The reference to Kovil Kulam as evidence for a Hindu temple is not valid as Kovil in Tamil also means a church.

4. The Reference base "Madhu Church history" is a bias article, from which the uncertain/false section of the Wikipedia text was formed.

5.The article also accuses the Bishop of Jaffna for concealing the history of the Pattini temple, with no evidence. This is unfair by him.

6.The style of the supporting reference is not academic and not objective.It attempts to join disjointed facts to make a case, which is political.

7.The Reference article is a response to a false statement made by a Buddhist cabinet Minister that the church has a history of 600 years (which is false), but has certainly gone overboard. Therefore I suggest that the reference to Pattini Kovil at Madhu church be removed from the text,till some solid evidence can be found and cross examined. Placing conjectures as facts on religious/ethnic issues in Wikipedia has dangerous consequences, as the last 30 years ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka that developed like this claimed more than 100,000 lives.

Dr Leonard Pinto —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.108.104.11 (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have concerns about an article please post on that article's talk (discussion) page. If you need help with editing, please read the notice at the top of this page and post a cle

Issue over election Infobox

Resolved: by consensus – ukexpat (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

In a several elections in the state of Georgia there is a Libertarian candidate running. I have attempted to add them to the respected pages infobox. Another editor is undoing my edits and claims that the candidates need 5% in pre-election polls. The problem is the current poll doesn't include the candidate, but does offer two other options "Other" and "Undecided", both are over 5%. I can understand if this race had more than 6 candidates running, but there are only 3 running.

When I say running, I mean that they will be on the ballot in November. In some cases other candidates were running, but lost in the primaries or didn't qualify with the SOS. I think it is fair in this case when only 3 candidates are running and will be on the ballot to include them in the infobox. I think excluding them is a means of discouraging votes for this candidate.

United States Senate election in Georgia, 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dustin Townsend (talk) 02:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I have left a third opinion at the talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
We have compromised. So this discussion is over.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)ar and concise request here. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

Forum shopping - dealt with at the Help Desk – ukexpat (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Several times I've come across articles where the neutrality was in question, only to have my edits questioned and removed for neutrality issues. In some cases the story about why the reversion occurred changed, and a lack of sufficient references was cited instead. I don't know how Wikipedia works, but a college English teacher told me it was great because you can edit mistakes yourself and that quality was valued. I have had trouble finding proper instruction beyond that on how to use it, but my desire to make sure people have the correct information about moral issues concerning "Down's Syndrome" was called an "anti-Abortion agenda" Something similar happened with the movie "Silent scream" and the ones on Galileo or a reference made to Giodano Bruno, if I remember correctly. In that case I cited a source- the book "How the Catholic Church built Western society." The neutrality of the article was called into question. Clearly the attitude of the person calling my additions on downs syndrome "anti... Agenda" is not being neutral themselves. Had I really been so one sided as they were implying, I would have erased the liberal moral opinions, and the incorrect ones on the Church and not bothered to cite references, and left only my own modifications in without rebuttal, but I didn't do that. I left them intact in spite of my disagreement with them... I simply added facts they omitted. The "Agenda" is a commitment to the truth, and making sure the truth is not slanted. Several of your articles are slanted and the editors accuse me of not being neutral simply because I cite a source they don't like, or I don't cite something I think is common knowledge. Further, the first time I made a change to the Downs article, the excuse used was there were insufficient references. I don't know how to do footnotes in Wikipedia so I put in Parenthesis (See Wikipedia articles on Embryology). This first time the editor cited lack of references, not lack of neutrality as their objection. Every English teacher I've ever had has said you do not cite common knowledge, and it is common, scientifically verifiable knowledge, that life begins at conception whether you are talking about humans or chimpanzees, but I will find a source if you insist on it. I fear, however, that someone who is not as neutral as he claims to be will just find some other excuse to remove it because they don't agree with the citation. Your dedication to neutrality is in question, because of this, and I've told my English teacher about it for further advice on the situation.

elrondaragorn (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)elrondaragorn

P.S. (the four tildes don't seem to be registering as tildes, and I'm not sure what the symbol you're using is that you are telling me to click on as an alternative))

Yup, there are many POV of editors out there. Then best way of dealing with this is discussing on the artcile talk page and if imapsse is reached, inviting further comment here or at WP:3RD or WP:RFC. The Button sig.png is located in the middle of the row of editing shortcuts above the edit windoe, created when you click on an edit link. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
The idea that human life begins at conception, is an opinion (or dogma), one you keep trying to shove into various articles with your edits. Just because one or more religious sects defines things that way, does not make it "common knowledge", far less "scientifically verifiable". I realize that this is important to you, but you can't pretend that an insertion of your opinion or beliefs constitutes neutral point of view. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
You raised this earlier here: [1], then at our Help desk, and now you are back here again. You were answered here. This is called WP:FORUMSHOPPING. At the Help desk I said you added what looks like your personal opinion to a two paragraph section that has 11 references. Your addition had none. Instead of going to the talk page of the article to discuss it you want to EAR where as I said you were answered. I see no evidence of a double standard, some articles receive less attention than others however from those most interested in our policies and guidelines and need a lot of work. Some articles are full of copyright violations, I've spent time today removing some. That others remain doesn't mean there is a double standard however. I suggest you either find a way to edit the section in question so that it follows our guidelines and policies on citation and reads as though it is part of the same section, or discuss it on the talk page. I can't find any edits by you on Embryology to see what you have referenced before. Ah, I've missed the point that it isn't necessarily the human life bit that needed referencing (although the way it was put was clearly argumentative, ie pov pushing), but the rest. I note that the section does mention conservative opinion -with a reference, so it is clearly possible to add something on conservative opinion without being reverted. And your threat is, I'm afraid, a common one and isn't going to impress anyone. Wikipedia articles can't be used as references, by the way. Dougweller (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Dispute regarding federal reserve introduction

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Federal Reserve System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are a couple editors here who have a dispute which I have tried to resolve amicably.

The copy:

It was conceived by several of the world's leading bankers in 1910[1][2][3][4] an enacted in 1913 with the passing of the Federal Reserve Act. The passing was largely response to a series of financial panics, particularly a severe panic in 1907.[5][6][7] Over time, the roles and responsibilities of the Federal Reserve System have expanded and its structure has evolved.[6][8]

was live from feb - june without complaint until it was removed in a complex/deceptive edit and missed. another editor is now reverting my edits and the article now stands as so:

It was created in 1913 with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, and was largely a response to a series of financial panics, particularly a severe panic in 1907.[5][6][9] Over time, the roles and responsibilities of the Federal Reserve System have expanded and its structure has evolved.[6][10]

The claim by a couple other editors is not to include the information regarding the conception. I am confident that this is important,relevant,verified information regarding the origination of the federal reserve... and it is (as far as i can tell) undisputed historical fact. of course much of history does have some gray, however it seems to me that removing this information would be similar to removing references to slavery as the origins for the american civil war.

I have made quite an effort to bring the other editor to provide any source of any kind that disputes the four published works and a reference from the federal reserve itself... however they have provided none. i don't know any other way to find a resolution —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourmanstan (talkcontribs) 05:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Please remember to sign your posts using 4 tildes (~). You could consider opening a request for comment. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I've replied to the talk page after glancing at the dispute, giving kind of a 3rd opinion, hopefully to take the discussion in another direction. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 07:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
After discussing with the other editors at that article, I agree with them somewhat. It looks like the content Yourmanstan introduced to the lead section has been incorporated elsewhere in the article, suggesting a compromise has been achieved. There may be a problem of WP:WEIGHT in keeping it in the lead as phrased. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 17:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for looking further, i haven't had time to check recently and really wasn't part of the discussion. i have responded on the talk if you would please review. Yourmanstan (talk) 20:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Israeli soldiers kill in video game style

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Israel Defense Forces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi. It's not like a serious issue, but there's a complication on where to add it in the article. As for validity, see section in the talkpage. Userpd (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it seems the problem has to do with whether the statement is appropriate. Discussion is ongoing at the IDF talk page. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
There's a need for another wikipedian who's not related to Israeli army, so he could resolve this dispute as these who I currently confront with are heavily biased as they're all somehow related to Israel / Israeli army. Userpd (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not connected to Israel or the IDF, and I agree with the other editors there. I want to assume good faith on your part, but I see the language you're trying to add as biased. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I am also in no way connected to the IDF, Israel, Zionism or Judaism, and feel that your edits and your pushing of this trivial and biased language makes it very difficult to assume good faith in your intentions. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Neither of you have reverted this exact information. So, according to your words, people who added controversial pictures of Muhammad here weren't assuming a good faith? Or what? Now you will say it's different and isn't related to what you just said, right? Userpd (talk) 03:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I haven't (I can't speak for Orangemike) reviewed that particular situation, and cannot cogently compare or contrast the two. Userpd, I am concerned that you may have the wrong idea about what's going on here. Perhaps you're misunderstanding what I said above. Good faith refers to good intentions, and I am trying to assume you are acting with good intentions and towards the collective goal of Wikipedia. Please try to look at my comments through the lens of a similar assumption, and you may find this situation makes a lot more sense. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm a human, you think adding a stuff where israeli young women kill palestinians in a game-style, like palestianins are just dots on the screen who you can shoot at, indulges myself? I really hope there would never been a war and two people co-existed in peace. Userpd (talk) 06:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I have reviewed your proposed edit and chalk me up as another voice supporting what you've already been told—that the proposed edit smacks of bias, and your reasons for wishing to add it appear to be based on a political agenda. As far as I can tell, you keep returning to the idea that if the device exists and can be sourced, it belongs in the article. You have not addressed the issue that it is not neutral, nor that it is apparent undue weight. We exercise judgment in what belongs in an article and what does not for many reasons other than existance and ability to be sourced.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
What is non-neutral? It's written in the most neutral way as possible. With the same success let's delete all controversial content on wikipedia, beginning with this. Userpd (talk) 09:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


Clarification request for definition of countries

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

List of European countries and territories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello Wikipedia Editors,

I was hoping to get your views to end a dispute regarding the article listing European countries and territories. It was my opinion that the article would be improved if we listed somewhere the constituent countries whose union together form the united kingdom (namely England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland).

These are numerous sources which specifically list each of these entities as countries (Talk:Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom) including the The UK Government, the Office for National Statistics and the government in Wales - not to mention within the opening paragraph on each countries' own page on Wikipedia and on pages such as List of national anthems and List of national capitals. In an article with the explicit aim to List of European countries, refusing to list all states officially defined as a country which are situated in Europe would mean, in my opinion, the article was incomplete and thus inaccurate. However, other editors felt only ISO 3166-1 sovereign states should be listed.

A number of compromise solutions were offered; including changing the article's title to 'sovereign states' rather than 'countries', including the countries which form the UK as non-sovereign countries (as was done with the Faroe islands, itself a constituent country) or creating a new table specifically for constituent countries (including the 4 which form the UK and the Faroe islands).

However no consensus could be reached thus the reason I'm looking for Editor assistance both help improve the article and bring this debate to an end.

Many thanks.

--Richardeast (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the article is correct as it stands. Within the concept of the EU, The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (to give it its full title) with the Union flag is clearly the sovereign member state of the EU. Although many people are fiercely proud of their countries and cultures (and so they should be), England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are no more eligible to be considered separate entities within the EU as are, for example, the German länder of Bavaria, Lower Saxony, and North Rhine Westphalia, or the French départements of Vaucluse, Gard, and Saône-et-Loire. or the semi-autonomous region of Catalonia in Spain, or those of Sicily and Sardinia of Italy. I am using the EU as an example because the countries you mention are in it, as is most of geographical Europe now. I fully expect other editors to offer their opinion here too, and if there is no consensus, then on a matter as delicate as this the best solution would be perhaps to call an RFC which will attract comments from the wider Wikipedia community. --Kudpung (talk) 04:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I can confidently state that there will never be consensus on teh status of nations (countries/provinces/what-you-will) such as Wales, Catalonia, Brittany, Puerto Rico, Sicily, Abkhazai, Ingushetia, etc. This si slearly shown by the high level of vandalism and disputes on articles about these area. Hence it is generally best to leave such issues alone to local determination, rather than trying to impose one formula across all of Wikipedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello Kudpung. Many thanks for your reply and I appreciate your comment - Although the article's not referring to Europe as the EU, but rather it's a list of countries within with a geographical context of Europe. As I mentioned in my introduction, if the article was titled 'sovereign states' rather than 'countries of Europe' there'd be no debate - but there is undeniable evidence that the countries that form the united kingdom are exactly that, countries.. and so, should they not be included too? As I said in the discussion, if you ask any kid which country won the world cup in 1966, they're unlikly to say "No one - since England's not a country"...
Although there are various regions in other nations they are, to my knowledge, not legally referred to a seperate country anywhere (certainly the departments where I live in France aren't). But, as you say, there's a lot of politics and strong opinions on all sides of this debate, though I was genuinely just looking to improve the article. I think if you and the other editors feel the article is fine as it is I'll let it be, I'll leave trying to define what is and isn't a country to people much wiser than me! --Richardeast (talk) 10:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The obvious solution is to rename it as sovereign states or member states (better) then the ambiguity goes away--Snowded TALK 09:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Help in raising awareness of a users activities.

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

While engaged in dispute with User:Geoff B (see User talk:Geoff B, Talk:Troll Bridge#Assessment and Revision history of Troll Bridge) I came to notice that he has been involved in many similar disputes. The editing style involved is to simply remove large chunks of articles that he doesn't agree with and post as POV, OR, etc. While he has always provided solid sounding information to back these claims up the reasoning never takes in the context of the article. He sticks to his arguments with a tenacity that often makes others just give up and it seems to me that he is attempting to draw people into Edit-Wars and his replies during discussion while valid, often have a slight acerbicness to them as if inciting a less-than-amicable reply. Please help. (this is posted here because I couldn't find anywhere else to post as no actual rules have been broken).Where is WikiResearch? (talk) 06:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

His manner may seem acerbic, but it is by far not the worst I've seen. Beyond that, I see nothing grossly wrong with what Geoff is doing on Troll Bridge. He's trimming out what he sees as fancruft, which is a big hairy problem with many articles on literature. Wikipedia articles should be written for a wide audience. He is raising genuine concerns regarding sourcing as well; lspace appears to be an open Wiki, which are generally not reliable sources. His edits are not vandalism, even if he's wrong; he's trying to improve an article. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Aspartame controversy violates NPOV#Impartial tone

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this page is biased: Aspartame controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and I am not alone. TickleMeister has also contributed quite a lot to the talk page, as have I recently at the bottom in the new section: Talk:Aspartame controversy#Bias

I bring up several points that I think need to be addressed, specifically the use of "conspiracy theory" which I think is being used to discredit legitimate questions about potential health risks associated with aspartame. I think the beginning of the article which claims that "The validity of these claims has been examined and dismissed." should be re-worded to more accurately reflect that research is still being done on the matter (as referenced later in the article), that the use of the term "conspiracy theory" be changed to something less pejorative, and that "Nancy Markle letter" incident be called a controversy or meme, or something more appropriate rather than "An elaborate hoax". Just knowing that several multi-national corporations have banned the use of aspartame, as well as the vast amount of research done on the substance, should indicate that it is more than a "fringe" belief that the potential health risks are not a closed case. I think the citing in the article is satisfactory as well as the points presented, it is only the tone of the article I think needs work. I think an excellent example of an impartial article on a controversial subject is Water fluoridation controversy Stealthcupcake (talk) 08:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

As with any controversy page, there are always going to be POV conflicts affecting the tone. It is the nature of controversy to be viewed from a certain perspective and neutrality is near to impossible to achieve. Best bet, edit and monitor, when, your views are reverted, discuss with the reverter and attempt to come to agreement. Just be careful not to be drawn into edit-wars.Where is WikiResearch? (talk) 08:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I have only been engaging the talk page and the only edit I have made is to add the POV tag (which was already removed overnight without discussion)Stealthcupcake (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Having looked at the talk page, I think that the only way forward would be to phrase a suitable neutral request for comment on this. I have formatted the links above for clarity. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Sister Cities / Twin Towns

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Would someone please point me in the direction of the WP:MOS relating to Sister Cities / Twin Towns. Specifically, countries in the UK that would normally be noted as, say: Aberdeen, Scotland; Newport, Wales; or Bristol, England, are often found in the Sister Cities / Twin Towns section as Aberdeen, United Kingdom; Newport, United Kingdom' or Bristol, United Kingdom. Further, their country flags are often not shown, the Union Flag shown instead. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOS#Geographical items suggests that WP:UKPLACE would be the place to look. The preferred form would seem to be the place name without the country. But if you needed to include the country, I think you could make an argument for Scotland/Wales/England vs UK based on what's there. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 17:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Mendaliv. I'll take a look there. Daicaregos (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
According to MOS:FLAG, you would be hard pressed to justify including flags at all. It is precisely because it leads to such nationalistic hurt feelings that unnecessarily using flag icons is discouraged. Flags can be used in tables to save space, but the use in twin city lists as far as I can tell always puts the name after the flag anyway rendering them superfluous. MOS:FLAG also comes out against using sub-national flags where they are not of direct relevance. In the context you raise, this would be if towns in England and Scotland were twinned for instance. I don't believe that this kind of twinning takes place so "United Kingdom" would be correct where it is necessary to disambiguate. SpinningSpark 17:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I would add that WP:FLAG would suggest that the use of flag icons in prose sections should be avoided. This has come up in several GA reviews in which I have been involved. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both. Your advice does not seem to have been heeded on the "Sister Cities" sections on any of the articles I've seen. Perhaps, in the absence of a specific MOS for "Sister Cities", the individual article editors are replicating the cities own signs, where the various countries flags seem to always be shown. Daicaregos (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I think Mendaliv's link to the MOS is the best source of information. Probably the most important aspect to consider is whether disambiguation is necessary or not. If you are mentioning Perth for example, Perth, Scotland would probably be approraite, otherwise it might be best to leave the name of the UK country out. If you are interested in delving deeper, you may wish to read the request at Clarification request for definition of countries and follow its links - be warned however that it is a complex issue, but your input may be appreciated.--Kudpung (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Kudpung. I'll give it a go. Daicaregos (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
BW is correct, an across-the-board agreement on inclusion/exclusion of England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland is required. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Who or what is BW, GoodDay? Please provide a link. Daicaregos (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The editor BritishWatcher, is whom I speak of. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
For those as confused as I am, this evidently has to do with discussions at either Talk:List of national capitals#Notes or Talk:List of European countries and territories#Wales / Scotland / England. Some further background may be in order. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 16:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm struggling to find any link between GoodDays comment and this discussion on Sister Cities and Twin Towns. GoodDay, am I missing something? Jack 1314 (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Cities & towns in the UK. Are ya's gonna use United Kingdom for all related articles, or not. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I still don't understand. Has BW been compiling an MOS for "Sister Cities"? If so please provide the link. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 10:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I thought this all tied in with the E/S/W/NI stuff. It's basically the same - for example: some prefer Edinburgh, Scotland, others prefer Edinburgh, United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Please clarify. Does that mean you are able to point me in the direction of the WP:MOS relating to Sister Cities / Twin Towns? If so, I would be grateful if you would do so. Or are you just offering your opinion on the concept in general? Daicaregos (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Since there's none (MOS), create one. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Sounds as if you think there is no MOS. It would have saved a lot of time if you'd just said so, or not engaged at all. I don't think this is the correct venue to be offering an opinion which has not been sought. Daicaregos (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Perhaps not. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Touché. Nevertheless, please answer a direct question with a direct answer in future. It is not too much to ask, and would save us all a great deal of time (and from not a little irritation). Daicaregos (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll try to remember. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Links

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have come across and editor that is adding www.broadcasting-history.ca links to articles. The reason i am here is that the link causing a error when it is opened for me..was wondering if its just me or is this link to something bad because the link should be fine its from Canadian Communications Foundation.Moxy (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Works fine for me. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The link works fine for me as well, which is a lucky thing as User:Webfan29 has added it to over 1000 articles since July 21. Other persons patrolling this page could you please test the link as well, and confrirm it works OK and is not harmful? --Diannaa (Talk) 20:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Works for me, eh, and doesn't trigger any of the typical filters. --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Link sort of works. The flash that loads after clicking through took a long time for me, and did lag my browser for a moment. Might've been related to my virus scanner checking it, large flash file or something similar. But the content being added looks OK. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 17:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Works thru the network security here. Flash heavy, and with a tendency to spawn windows, but nothing fishy. Should be sound for information (about Canadian Broadcasting) also. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for help in dialogue with a Wikipedia newcomer

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

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

I don’t think Michael Lederer is notable and I’ve nominated the article for deletion, here. While that process could probably use another set of eyes or two (the request hasn’t gained much traction yet), my main purpose here is to ask for the injection of some third-party points of view into the dialogue between me and the article’s author (a newcomer to Wikipedia). The main points of discussion are notabilty and what confers it; verifiability and reliable sourcing; and issues of original research. There are others that may be lurking, like BLP issues or (potential) conflicts of interest but they haven't really been broacheddiscussed in depth. Anyhow we seem to be talking past each other, and frustration is beginning to show.

Forgive me for not summarizing the back-and-forth in more detail but I don't want to risk mischaracterizing things; it all pretty much speaks for itself anyhow. At the end of the day I’m willing to take any lumps I might have coming if it means that things will get sorted in a sensible way. The main threads are at the AFD above and the author’s Talk page. There’s also some early, mutual-introduction dialogue at my own Talk page, here. Thanks in advance. JohnInDC (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, my opinion is that the AfD debate should take place on the AfD page. I imagine that the editor who created the artcile will get some idea of notability from the discussion there. Best not to start threads in several places about this. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
A sound suggestion, thanks. (I was trying to route Wikipedia advice and personal discussion to the user talk page and ongoing edit discussion to the article talk page, with discussions re notability at the AfD page; but things tended to spill over.) JohnInDC (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
This has sorted out, thanks for the help. I've nominated a couple of subordinate articles by the same editor for deletion so it's possible this will bubble up again, but for the time being I think the process can just run its ordinary course. This entry can be marked as 'resolved'. JohnInDC (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Also keep in mind, if this is a new user, think of how frustrating it may feel that every new contribution they try isn't good enough for Wikipedia. Make sure you explain why the article is being deleted and what they can do to avoid getting new articles taken down. -- ℐℴℯℓ ℳ. ℂℌAT ✐ 15:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
That is certainly true, and good advice. I ran into a bit of a brick wall on the last go-round but I'll see about a fresh start on these two items and perhaps the process will go through a bit more smoothly. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Citing sources

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody teach me how to cite a reference from a CD booklet? Thanks. --Sirius 128 (talk) 19:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:Cite album-notes is the one to use. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Seeking respected Wikipedia Editors

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there a way (or place) to solicit a respected editor to write a piece about a specific company or topic? I cannot write about a company I am associated with, and do not wish to violate any of the Wikipedia T&Cs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.211.59 (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:Article request#Topic areas in business and economics is the place. Of course you will need to establish that the company is notable by Wikipedia standards and satisfies the criteria of WP:CORP. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Requesting advice on BLP, CITE and PROMOTION problems on article

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I am requesting advice about how to handle a problem I am running into on Resignation_of_Shirley_Sherrod. I asked an editor to provide a reliable source for a controversial BLP edit he made (discussion is here). The editor opened discussions on the BLP noticeboard, the OR noticeboard, the RS noticeboard, and the Village Pump. After a long argument, I was finally able to persuade him to fix the edit, and now it is back almost to what it was before, but poorly written (before [2] and after [3]).

Over the course of this dispute, the editor has revealed that he is new to WP reliable sources, BLP, and other policies and guidelines. Getting this one sentence fixed has taken over two days. In the meantime, he has made numerous edits to the bio section of the article that have introduced numerous red links and cite errors, and many of his edits look to me like WP:PROMOTION.

This is an Obama project article, and it is on probation. If I have to argue with this editor for two days over fixing every single promotion and BLP error he makes, I give up.

Thanks for your time.Jarhed (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I requested discussion on these edits, and the reply seems somewhat hostile: Talk:Resignation_of_Shirley_Sherrod#Edits_to_Sherrod_bio.Jarhed (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, now this editor is reverting me on the article talk page. I'm outta here, have a great day!Jarhed (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reverts of your edits, but there is a re-arrangement of comments. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Brigham Young University

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Brigham Young University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The editor "Wrad" has wrongly alleged that my minor modifications of the BYU article represent blatant points of view when in fact every claim made in my modification was verified by references to widely-read, credible and authoritative sources. As a BYU alumnus myself, I feel duty-bound to relay this information to prospective students. Granted, the information was less flattering to BYU than Wrad would like, but it is nonetheless true and something that anyone seeking information about this university ought to be familiar. I challenge Wrad to factually dispute any of my claims.

05:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)Eckeman

Have you attempted to discuss on the article's talk page? – ukexpat (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks like the editor making the revert made some notes at the talk page; Talk:Brigham Young University#Recent edits on academic freedom, culture, etc. It looks like discussion should go on there, and it looks like the editors there are reasonable and level-headed. I'd recommend giving talking a shot. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 13:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

How to know my article is reviewed

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have created an article named SBS Global Services. But I am not able to know whether it is being reviewed or not. Kindly help me know how i can submit my article for review.

Haritha wiki (talk) 11:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Your article SBS Global Services has been reviewed; see the messages on your talk page for more information. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Readability / visibility concerns for some graphics

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I currently have a small concern with the readability and/or visibility of some items when using the following file Green_Arrow_Up.svg within some articles, for example the S.M.A.R.T article. The article itself is fine, but for my own usage I sometime print out some articles to carry with me and I use the Download as PDF feature to print it out. When printed, the arrow is not visible on a black and white page (see example here).

I am wondering if one of the two solutions below would fix the problem

  • Modify the SVG file and add a black outline, which would affect all the pages using it, or
  • Modify the print/PDF template to use another file with a black outline for visibility purpose

I'm sure it's not the only file or page that might be affected by this problem, and I also think it might help in other cases, for example colorblind users.

Any feedback would be appreciated!

--m-p{3} (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Having experimented with this, I think it is function of the colour options chosen when you print and dependent on the printer. If you select high quality greyscale it should print out OK. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The printer (an HP LaserJet 9040 MFP) was defined with the "Best" quality setting at 1200 dpi, and I still don't see the arrow on the colored background. --m-p{3} (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, I can see the grey arrows in [the file you supplied. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
If you take a look at the original article, the line 5 (Reallocated sector count) is supposed to have an arrow, but it doesn't show up on a grayscale printout. --m-p{3} (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. I would wager that this sort of issue would be widespread due to the frequent coloring/shading used in tables and infoboxes. This might fall under general WP:ACCESS concerns, and the people at WikiProject Accessibility might actually be the folks to consult over this. While this isn't a traditional accessibility concern, the folks there would have more experience with, for instance, issues affecting colorblind readers and editors. I just left a message at that WikiProject's talk page (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility#Problem with grayscale printout of articles?). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 13:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
It's quite simple actually. The contrast between the icon and the white background is too low. The contrast between the icon and the red background is not accessible as well. And when some colors are changed (like for printing in shades of grey), the contrast is even more inaccessible to the point you simply can't see it.
Check Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(accessibility)#Color for more informations. You can test contrast and accessibility with the Colour Contrast Analyser.
One of the consequences of an accessible color contrast is that it will print nicely.
The icon is not accessible, and needs alt text ("|alt=higher" and "|alt=lower"). In short, that's it (I don't have much time right now). If you need more detailed explanations please ask and I'll provide it this week-end. Dodoïste (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Very interesting! Thank you for your input, Dodoïste. So if I understand this correctly, the red background actually does not sufficiently contrast to the green arrow to be accessible, and a consequence of this is that greyscale conversion makes the arrow (at least to me) invisible? I'm going to be reading more into this for sure. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
That's it. For example, you don't need to have the arrow icons in a light green color. A dark green arrow (like      "#004F00") would look better on the orange (     "#FFA07A"). It will also be accessible and print nicely. You can test and check the result on the online Colour Contrast Check.
So you can either change the color of File:Green Arrow Up.svg to a darker grey (but be cautious, as everyone might not like it, and you might be reverted) or either make new files of similar arrows with dark green. And recommend to use these dark icons in similar cases. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Try this: File:Dark Green Arrow Up.png Jezhotwells (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
That dark green arrow has the thumbs-up from this colour-blind editor. I just tried it out in the pink table cells, and it's wonderful. Looks much better against the white than the other one too. Katherine (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
This File:Dark Green Arrow Up.png is an improvement already and I support it's use. It is accessible against the white background. However, if we want it to be accessible against the red, we need a darker green like File:Dark Green Arrow Up.svg. It doesn't look nearly as good though. It's up to you folks to decide. Dodoïste (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

XML Database

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


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

Hi,

I am experiencing a problem with page XML database : some contents added by me and another user has been deleted by two unidentified users, without valid reason IMO. I think this is not acceptable behavior, but I am not willing to engage in an edit war. Therefore I am seeking assistance from WP admins or experienced users.

Thanks Xafran (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The first place to try to resolve this is the article's talk page. Please post there asking the other editors to discuss. – ukexpat (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Where did Office Tiger's Wiki page go?

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I am reporting on the Congressional race in New York's First Congressional District. One candidate in the race was the former CEO of Office Tiger, a company that outsourced thousands of (potential) American jobs overseas.

I recently wrote an article about him and Office Tiger, including a link to Office Tiger's Wikipedia page. Now, a few weeks later, the page has been "deleted" and I cannot figure out how or by whom or why.

Any/all suggestions/comments would be appreciated.

Thank you.

AAH

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OfficeTiger —Preceding unsigned comment added by InDpendentThnkR (talkcontribs) 18:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

1)Using Wikipedia as a basis for reporting is a bad idea.
2) It is likely that the article failed to meet the requirements for a Wikipedia article, that it have significant coverage by reliable third party sources. (See WP:N) Active Banana (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
And per the notes, the content was deemed purely promotional. Active Banana (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Well looking at the link you have provided above I see:
This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.
  • 19:10, 12 February 2007 Kimchi.sg (talk | contribs)| deleted "OfficeTiger" ‎ (Speedy deleted per (CSD g11), page existed only to promote.)
  • 06:55, 7 January 2006 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted "OfficeTiger" ‎ (content was: '{{db-bio}}OfficeTiger was founded in late 1999 with an innovative approach to global outsourcing.The company's employees, located primarily in India,...')
So the page was last deleted over three years ago! It looks as if the article was promotional, it likely failed the WP:CORP guideline. Oh, and please remember to sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes{~}s. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
THere have been two differnt versions of the page OfficeTiger, which you linked to and Office Tiger, which you were told about at the Village Pump. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Translation in to Tamil (Oldest Indian Language)

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

I am a frequent reader / visitor of Wikipedia. First of all I convey my thanks for maintaining such a mammoth data base of details about almost everything. I have got many informations reading articles in your website.

Recently I read about Confucius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confusious). I looked for its Tamil version and found only the introduction part and rest are missing. Since I am also interested in service to Tamil language, I would like to translate some of your articles. Please do let me know the procedure to translate an article into Tamil and post it into your esteemed website. Please mail me to <email addresses removed>

I myself a poet and having good links in Tamil Literary Circle. If I am permitted to do this it will be a great help for me.

Thank you very much!

With Warm Regards, Capt Ganesh (Venshagan)

Since you intend to update the Tamil Wikipedia, I suggest you find the Tamil equivalent of this page and repeat your offer there. They will be glad to hear from you. (I have removed your email addresses to protect your privacy) -- John of Reading (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Is link spamming in the sandbox tolerated?

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Starting at 12:48, August 9, 2010 user 75.139.111.29 begins to post a long string of youtube videos, all in which consist of the same video but slightly different URL [4] into the sandbox. The user does this 12 times. Here's an example of the video [5].

The user continued to do this for almost an hour despite my warnings that even though it's a sandbox, it still should not be a place for link spamming. I also conversed with the user as to why this should not be done and alternative methods the user can take to avoid spamming the sandbox.

Another editor felt that warning someone for spamming the sandbox is counter productive.

My question:

  1. Is link spamming in the sandbox generally allowed? (turning one's blind eye)
  2. Warning a user who, for most part of a hour, is engaged in spamming that looks similar to that of testing a spam bot counterproductive or harsh?

Before you provide an answer, please read the user's talk page. Most of the conversation is obscured by user 75.139.111.29 who insisted in replying to me by adding their comments inline with mine. You will have to use the history to read those sections.

Thank you in advance. -- ℐℴℯℓ ℳ. ℂℌAT ✐ 20:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The sandbox is exactly that, and as such, has one basic rule: play nice. If one user is "hogging" by spamming, warning is correct, though, as noted, it may simply be wasted effort. IP users should be encouraged to create an account, and create their own sandbox to experiment in where they will be unlikely to be disturbed. If they engage in continuous or extreme WP:UNCIVIL behavior, requesting blocking is correct. The sandbox isn't, IMHO, intended to serve as a bombing range, a multiuser combat game, or a SEO tool testbed, so some level of WP:5PILLARS civility should be suggested, insisted upon, and finally, enforced. But, in the final analysis, a) it's a sandbox so some roughhousing aka boldness is to be expected, b) you have a dispute with a new user and we like not to bite them WP:DONTBITE and c) you have a dispute which has become a little heated, so my suggestion is WP:DISENGAGE for a day or two, and observe if the behavior just stops by itself. If the user interferes with other users experimenting, then escalate. IMHO. --Lexein (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Excellent advice, with which I fully concur. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Remove flag

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Philip Hyde (photographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I just edited the wiki for Philip Hyde (photographer). I did not sign in but I added inline references as the FLAG asks for. How do I get the flag removed and how do I find out who put it there in the first place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magician1111 (talkcontribs) 02:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You have improved the article, but the inline references are not yet in the standard Wikipedia format. See Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, and, perhaps, look at David Gower as an example of an article that is full of standard Wikipedia inline references. See all those footnote markers? Once that's done you can remove the flag yourself - it's the {{nofootnotes}} line at the very top of the article. And to find out who added it, look at the Page history. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Disputes for "2008 military conflict with Russia"

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

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

2008 South Ossetia War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2008–2010 Georgia–Russia crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some of edits given fro the abstract/subarticle "2008 military conflict with Russia" first were deleted (without explanation), but my next edits, which I couldn't continue the same hour/day, were left unchanged but with the following warning message: "Edit warring at Georgia (country) Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Georgia (country). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)".

So, my question is: As I cite respected sources such as Guardian, EU Council etc. WHY DOES SOMEONE BRING THE OBSOLETE AND UNPROVED EDITS BACK? This problem is how to call the acts during that war: "agression of Russia to Georgia" or "agression of Georgia to South Ossetia". The most recent sources prove (international commission under EU Council) prove that it was aggression of Georgia to South Ossetia. AFTER THIS WHO CAN SAY THAT I ABUSE INFORMATION OR THAT I SHOW ONLY ONE SIDE’S POSITION/INFORMATION? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dip20special (talkcontribs) 03:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I note that you added material that did not adhere to the neutral point of view twice in the article Georgia (country) and were rightly warned for being oin the verge of edit-warring. PLaese discuss potential edits on the releavnt artcile talk pages. that is what they are there for. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Potential user page issues

Resolved: advert content deleted. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Can someone take a look and see if there is an issue with the userpage User:Comicarmageddon. It is an "article" for a company with the same name as the user. What are the processes when a userpage is being used as an advert? ~ Active Banana ( bananaphone 21:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The userpage doesn't appear to be an outright advertisement, so I think it's an acceptable userspace draft of an article. You're quite right to warn the user about potential username issues and conflict of interest however, and I've reported the user to UAA as the user's name represents a company rather than an individual. There shouldn't be a problem if the user changes their username to something more appropriate however, though given the conflict of interest, the article they are working on may need to be checked for neutrality before entering mainspace, if the topic is appropriate for inclusion at all. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated the page for deletion at WP:Miscellany for deletion/User:Comicarmageddon, also warned the user about the user name. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
It has been deleted by User:Beeblebrox and has been replaced by innocuous text. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

accussations of using illegal weapons in the israeli army

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Military equipment of Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hello, need an assistance. this and this, they don't provide any valid argument, the information is written from a neutral point of view, and the information is pretty relevant, it's accusations of using illegal weapons, and a lot of sources mention it, including the BBC, as white phosphorus rounds were used in military way, it can be considered as a weapon too. With the same success a nail used in a military way (to kill a person) would be considered as a weapon too. I can't undo all the time edits of biased users (both of them are related to Israel / Israeli army). Userpd (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well the first thing to do is to start a thread on the article talk page, that is why it is provided. Then contact the editors who are removing validly sourced material and invite them to discuss. This is the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. If they refuse to participate in discussion to reach consensus then come back here. Communicating via edit summaries tends to degenerate into confrontation. I have started a thread at Talk:Military equipment of Israel#Recent reversions of apparently validly sourced material and invited the editors to discuss. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I've added it in this section of the article, which is an offshoot of this article. Userpd (talk) 03:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, since it's a list, it'd be put here as a mention along with other weapons, since it seems that some guys won't let to describe it fully, so only a mention. Thanks for trying to resolve this issue, though. Userpd (talk) 10:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


Why is not my article published or visible online

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It is said that my article 'SBS Global Services' has been reviewed but it is not published or not visible online. Kindly can I know the reasons so that I can go further and submit the article once again.

Haritha wiki (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The article was deleted because the article was about an organization or company, but did not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Before submitting the article again, you need to come up with significant press coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the company to demonstrate that the company is notable. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Editors repeatedly removing article tags

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Any suggestions on how to get editors to stop removing the tags from EMDR that identify problems that are being worked on? I've left Sschubert (talk · contribs) and Geraldzeng (talk · contribs) multiple warnings. There are COI, MEATPUPPET, and OWN problems here as well, but I'd really like to just get them to stop removing the tags as we work on fixing the problems. --Ronz (talk) 03:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well you have highly experienced editor SandyGeorgia on the case and sock-puppet investigations underway. Both have edit warring notices on their talk pages so further incidents can be reported at WP:3RR. I don't think taht there is need for further intervention here. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. I'll wait for the SPI outcome. --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


Categories and Tony Goldwyn

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

One anonymous editor in particular keeps adding the following categories to the Tony Goldwyn article: American Actors of Russian Descent, American Jews, Polish American Jews, and Russian American Jews. I've reverted the edits (someone else did as well) a number of times (with explanations), but the editor keeps reinserting the categories. Unfortunately, unlike other assertions, categories aren't "sourced". However, as far as I can tell, Goldwyn's father, Samuel Goldwyn, Jr., was Jewish, and his mother was not, or at least there's no evidence she was. Therefore, he doesn't belong in any of the Jewish categories unless there's some evidence that he identifies as being Jewish. Goldwyn's paternal grandfather, Samuel Goldwyn, was born in Poland, but there's no evidence of Russian ancestry (except that Poland was part of the USSR). Therefore, unless there's some evidence to the contrary, he doesn't belong in the Russian categories.

I've posted a message similar to this one on the Goldwyn Talk page, but no one has responded. How should this be resolved? My feeling is unless a category is apparent from the article, it shouldn't be used, but I haven't been able to find any clear policy ono the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The guideline is at Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing pages. "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Use the {{Category unsourced}} template if you find an article in a category that is not shown by sources to be appropriate, or the {{Category relevant?}} template if the article gives no clear indication for inclusion in a category." And there's a user warning template to back it up, {{uw-badcat}}. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, the guideline helps. However, I need some help with the mechanics, please. Do I put in four category unsourced templates in the Goldwyn article for each of the four categories I listed above? Where does the warning go? What happens after I put in all these templates?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The template documentation suggests you'll need one {{Category unsourced}} or {{Category relevant?}} for each category you want to draw attention to. I suggest they should go at the top of the article so that they will be seen by any readers of the article.
As to what happens next, I suspect the IP(s) will remove them! If you can't get them to engage in your discussion on the talk page, perhaps the next step might be to ask the page to be semi-protected? I'm no expert on content disputes. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I've put in the four category unsourced templates on the Goldwyn page. What about the badcat warning templates? Do they go on the IP's Talk page? What if the Talk page doesn't exist?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, {{subst:uw-badcat|Tony Goldwyn}} ~~~~ goes on the IP's talk page, and, yes, you'll have to create the page if that's the first warning the IP has ever received. Just click on the "talk" redlink. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Great, I've put the warning on two IP Talk pages. I'll wait a bit to see if the either of the IPs remove the bad categories, but I suspect they won't. If they don't, I'm not sure if I should try again to remove them, or if I should seek protection for the article. If anyone reading this has advice on that issue, I'd appreciate it. In the meantime, John, thanks for all your help.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
And it's good night from me -- John of Reading (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────As a biography of a living person, you are in the right to pull the categories. But to be courteous, you should also leave a concise explanation on the article's talk page. You may also want to make a note at WP:BLPN, the BLP noticeboard. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 21:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

And, in fact, I've removed the categories (and the contested category templates) because of BLP concerns. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 23:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


Is a sports team singular or plural?

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies if this is the wrong forum, and I do suspect this issue has been raised before, so please redirect me if you feel it's appropriate.

As an Australian football follower, I'm currently seeing this problem most often in 2010 AFL season, but it occurs in the descriptions of many sporting codes in many countries. My concern is with sentences like "Adelaide lost its first six matches of the year" and "Collingwood had their second biggest win against Essendon ever." The use of its in the first example says that the team is a singular entity. The use of their in the second says it is plural.

My old English teachers would have failed me for using the second form. I know language evolves. But I am very uncomfortable with seeing both forms in the one article.

To show the spread of the disease, the English Association football article 2009–10 Premier League has "The victorious Chelsea side was noted for its attacking style ..." and "Wigan Athletic were the first team to lose two matches..."

I find it all very distressing. HiLo48 (talk) 03:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Both are acceptable; its refers to the team as a singular entity, and their refers to the members of the team as a group of individuals (therefore plural). If the two sentences are distinct then I don't really see a need to change either sentence, though if a team was used with both "its" and "their" in one sentence that might be a stylistic concern. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Both forms should not be in the same article, the Manual of Style calls for consistency within articles. I believe the singular usage is common in the USA, I know that the plural is common in the UK. Where that leaves Australia is unclear (to me!) :-). Jezhotwells (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Jezhotwells hit it on the head; it's a matter of British vs. American English, and the concepts of metonymy and synecdoche. For instance, we sometimes hear "The White House said..."; except, how could an inanimate object like a building say anything? In this case, the President or someone working in or representing the people who work in the White House said something.
A problem arises when the singular and plural forms of verbs differ. English syntax calls for the morphology of the verb and subject to agree in number, but semantically we know that the subject is a group of people all doing something. This happens a lot with bands; "Slayer is going to perform on Saturday" vs. "Slayer are going to perform on Saturday". Clever editing rewording can get around this problem ("Slayer will perform this Saturday").
So, in the case of 2009–10 Premier League you could say "The attacking style of the victorious Chelsea side was noted..." and "Following this, Wigan Athletic became the first team to lose two matches..." I hope that helps some! —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Personally I'm English and have used both, but I'll bow to your apparently superior grasp of complicated linguistic phenomena. In any case, it's not going to harm the article to ensure consistency in referring to teams in singular or plural throughout the article, so just be bold and do it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I'm probably wrong with respect to British English then; one of the first things you learn in linguistics is that if it's used, it's right (in that context). But I can say pretty confidently that the use of plural verbs to refer to singular subjects ("Slayer are performing in an hour") sounds unusual in American English, and in an American school I'm certain that usage would get marked wrong. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
In any case, by all means make the article consistent and use one form or another; I think you're partly right in that when thinking of for example a band, my immediate thought is usually "Slayer are playing tonight", but I wouldn't think twice about "Slayer is playing tonight" either (and I'm usually the first one to shoot down "Americanisms" off-wiki). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

permission to upload photos to peoples profiles which currently have no photo

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried to upload my own photo of Mike Thackwell to his wikipedia page but was advised by alert that I don't have the necessary user permissions. Ditto for the page for another racing driver, David Kennedy. How do I obtain the necessary permissions? My username is Colmswiki

Thanks, Colm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colmswiki (talkcontribs) 13:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You will be given this permission automatically once you have made ten edits; so far you have made six. To make some worthwhile edits, you could try the Lists of common misspellings. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

haShem YAHUAH

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

HaShem YAHUAH (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)}

I received a message that said my recent edit entitled haShem YAHUAH, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageable incoherent.

I strongly disagree! I have given enough evidence and a much better and more accurate TRANSLITERATION to the Name using the Hebrew letters and examples of pronunciation, that can and should be corresponded with articles such as "Yahweh" or "Jehovah". And yet I recieved this warning: "Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /afs/acm.uiuc.edu/user/carter11/public_html/wikibot.classes.php on line 364"

Maybe someone that understands Wiki better could help me with the article and make some suggestions?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Charl Hattingh (talkcontribs) 19:16, 16 August 2010

Well, if this is the same as User:Charl Hattingh/Hashem yahuah, I agree that this article is incoherent gibberish. I suggest that you read and understand the welcome message on your talk page before attempting to move into mainspace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jezhotwells (talkcontribs) 18:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):You seem to have created a new article and moved your talk page to the talk page of the new article (why?). Your move of your talk page is what was reverted, user talk pages should not be moved like that, they are there so other users can communicate with you. The invalid argument 'warning' doesn't seem to have been on your talk page and I'm wondering if it was actually generated by the web site. It's a software warning saying that there has been a software error, not a warning about your arguments. As for your article, please read WP:VERIFY, WP:RS, WP:OR which all basically say that Wikipedia articles should not represent any editor's own views or personal research, but should be based on what reliable sources (as we define that phrase) have to say about a subject. We also expect subjects to be 'notable', and we have our own meaning for that word, start at WP:NOTE. There's quite a learning curve at times here, isn't there? And please remember to sign your edits with 4 tildes, ie ~~~~ which produce your username and timestamp when you save. Dougweller (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't see it as incoherent gibberish per se, but definitely an essay or personal reflection. With respect, Charl Hattingh, this isn't the place to publish your work. I'm not sure what this "wikibot" thing is or why you got an error unless you're trying to use some kind of automated editing tool. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 21:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


International Wikilink

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure if the title is correct, anyway, I came across this page Toile and I thought strange there was not a corresponding French article. So I copied the given French name, went to the French Wiki and searched there and I found this FR Wiki Toile_de_Jouy and through this a German article as well. Now I thought could be interesting having the two groups connected. I was tempted just to add the missing languages in the two articles (FR and EN), but the problem is that the English article is not just about Toile de Jouy. Is there any way to link the two or is better not? Is there any wiki policies? I searched for infos but I wasn't able to find any. Thanks in advance! --Dia^ (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like the topics are pretty similar. The actual connection is done with interwiki links; the page on this (English) wikipedia already has links to the Russian and Swedish wikipedias. In the code they'll be at the bottom of the page, of the form [[ru:target]] and [[sv:target]]. They appear to the left of the article when it's viewed. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Andrew. My doubt is that in English "Toile" has apparently two different meanings. I've seen the Russian ans Swedish articles but I was not able to understand if in Russian and Swedish the word has two meanings as well or not. In the French and the German is just one meaning mentioned. Hence my doubts. And If I split the English article in two, I guess will deleted as "dictionary entry". Is it possible to link just a section/paragraph of the article? --Dia^ (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Well the meanings are linked so I went ahead and added the wikilinks. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Update on "The Order" member Bruce Pierce

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where or how to put this information, I was looking at some articles on the Order and came across yours. Bruce Pierce died yesterday at USP Allenwood due to kidney failure. Thanks, Sugar2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugar2010 (talkcontribs) 17:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is no article on Bruce Pierce and he is mentioned only peripherally in a few articles so three is no need to add any details anywhere. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

how to add to wikipidia

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Born Melvin Smith, June 7, 1966 Brooklyn New york