Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 84

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

melvin Smith, June 7, 1966 Brooklyn New york

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Mel Smith is one of the most respected professionals in the music business, with over two decades of promotion experience. He has emerged as a key player in the highly competitive radio world through his leadership in both promoting new artists and furthering the careers of veteran musical acts. Mr. Smith has loved music since he was 8, as he carried a record player under his arm offering to play records for anyone who would listen. He then became a popular DJ at his high school playing for all the local parties in and around the Bushwick section of Brooklyn. As a young adult, he acquired a job in the stock room at Sam Goody's. No stranger to hard work, Mel evolved from the stock room, to Cashier, to Assistant Manager. His hard work and dedication attributed to the store being rated the "#2" store in America in a very short time.

In the Late 80’s at an astonishing young age, Mr. Smith became the National Director of Promotion for Jive Records. He is responsible for breaking artists such as DJ Jazzy Jeff and The Fresh Prince (Will Smith)--- (promoted "Parents Just Don't Understand", the first rap album to sell over 4 million copies), A Tribe Called Quest, Too Short, D-Nice, Kool Moe Dee, Boogie Down Productions, Rick Astley (brought radio exposure to an international act & sold over 2 million records in the US), Marcus Roberts (promoted his debut album which rose to #1 on the Billboard Jazz charts) and Jonathan Butler (promoted his groundbreaking album, "Introducing Jonathan Butler" to Double-Platinum status), and Billy Ocean to name a few.

He, against the wishes of many, left a very comfortable position at Jive to head south and become the Senior Director of Promotions for Indie Rap label Rap-A-lot Records. There Mel would acquaint the world with real southern rap by introducing the Geto Boys (broke barriers by promoting the first Southern act to Double-Platinum status) and the legendary Scarface.

After 2 years at Rap-A-Lot and while back home in NY on vacation during a visit to a friend's office, he heard a voice that he fell in love with and wanted to announce it to the world. That voice was Ms. Mary J Blige (promoted her groundbreaking debut album, "What's the 411", which had four #1 singles and sold 5 million copies, establishing her as the Queen of Hip Hop Soul). He left Rap-A-Lot to join Uptown Records as the National Director of Promotion. There Mel helped break and develop up and coming stars such as Jodeci (promoted debut album, "Forever My Lady", which had four #1 singles and sold 4 million copies), Christopher Williams, and Heavy D.

While working at Uptown, he met another young man who had an ear and love for music as well. This young man, named Sean Puffy Combs, would shape the 90's and build the music powerhouse BadBoy Entertainment. When Puff left Uptown to start BadBoy, he asked Mel to come along and help start a dynasty. All ready with a steady and well accomplished career path at such an young age, Mel would then go on to break Notorious BIG (promoted debut album, "Ready To Die", which sold 5.1 million copies; album was ranked in Greatest 500 albums of all time by the Rolling Stone Magazine; 2nd album "Life After Death" sold 10.7 million copies), Craig Mack, 112 (promoted debut album "112" to Triple-Platinum status), Puff Daddy (promoted debut album "No Way Out" which sold 8 million copies), Mase, Faith Evans, Total, Boyz in Da Hood, Dream (promoted debut album "It Was All A Dream", which sold 3 million copies), B5 and others.

After almost 11 years at BadBoy as the Sr VP of Promotions, Mel would then receive a call from Cash Money Records CEO, Ronald " Slim" Williams. During their initial meeting, Slim played quite a bit of new music for Mel. However, there was a particular record that caught Mel's attention-- Lil Wayne's "Hustler Musik". Upon hearing this record, Mel wanted to break this record and would leave his home at BadBoy Records. In 2005, he would re-introduce the world to Lil Wayne (promoted "The Carter 2" which sold 1 million copies and "The Carter 3", which yielded record breaking sales of 1 million in one week). He has also had a major role in breaking raps newest sensations both Drake and Nicki Minaj. He has also worked closely with Jay Sean and Kevin Rudolf. It's safe to say Mr Smith has a hand in breaking and selling over 100 Million records worldwide.

His verve for music and his vision fuels all of his efforts, including his present position of Senior VP of Promotions. Mel is often sought after for his advice and career guidance. He has nurtured and helped develop some of the music industry's most respected executives and management talents. Mel's success has helped him follow through on his vow to give back to the community that supported him in his youth and career. He was the key-note speaker for "Career Day" at his high school, speaks on panels throughout the country, and also mentors to underprivileged youth through the public school system and church.

He continues to add to his growing list of accomplishments. Mel humbly professes that he could not have acquired the success that he has without God, for he has truly been blessed to be able to do what he loves. Mel Smith has a gift. He has a knack and intrinsic ability to hear music and break records. He has the ingenuity to determine the appropriate promotion and marketing strategies necessary to stimulate success. Mel’s innate talent will continue to impress upon the music industry and others alike.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgguevara10 (talkcontribs) 18:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I added a welcome message to your user page which contains a link to How to write a great article which will provide many answers for you. But for one thing, you will need to have reliable sources that verify claims, and the content will need to be presented in a neutral point of viewActive Banana ( bananaphone 18:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hi, there is no point in posting draft articles here, if you wish to create an article, then you could create a draft in your user space or you could post a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Judging by what you have posted here you need to read and understand our notability, neutral point of view and reliable sourcing policies. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Tunnels (novel) - article hijacked

Resolved: normal editing has resumed. --Diannaa (Talk) 04:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I authored the Tunnels_(novel) page - version as at dated 24 june 2010. Painstakingly verfiying the accuracy of the article and providing relevant source reference. This was the current version for sometime. This page was rated Low in both Importance and Quality and after I asked for a re-assessment this was approriately rated Mid and B. It seems that the assessors felt the page could be brought up GA status, and they re-wrote this page with a GA recommendation in mind. However, they have introduced significant factual errors in the plot, publishing history etc. This also lacks the informative detail of the original version and is now badly written in comparison. The assessor went ahead and removed my article without discussion and we now have an inferior content article which they feel is warranted just because it meets the Wikipedia Style guide for GA. Can I reinstate or revert to the original version of 24 June 2010? I have agreed that the Plot section in the original article needed condensing and that perhaps more sources are needed than the 12 I included. Surely they should have highlighted any areas that didn't meet wikipedia style guidelines and I would willingly have worked on these, hopefully with their co-operation and guidance. I feel bullied into accepting that I have no recourse over the restoration of the article I created, latest version 24 June article. Your assistance would be much appreciated (Lifesawhirl (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC))

You might want to read WP:OWN and WP:CONSENSUS. Content that you contribute to Wikipedia WILL be edited by others. Attempt to use the articles talk page to gain a consensus for how to move forward to improve the article. Active Banana ( bananaphone 15:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the Talk page? No consensus is being reached other than me feeling pressured into accepting an inferior article over the older version, which was active for sometime. I couldn't care less who wrote the older version, I would still be attempting to have this restored. Surely if a article is re-written it should be to add to or improve upon the existing one - this doesn't! Thanks (Lifesawhirl (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC))

Articles should always be approaching the goals of being verifiable and presented in a neutral point of view and free from trivial fancruft. That sometimes means shorter not longer. I have not seen you outline here or on the talk page what content you think should be re-added and what sources support that content. Start from there. Active Banana ( bananaphone 15:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply to bananaphone (and thank you for your message!): there is no issue here about welcoming and wholeheartedly embracing the input of Wikipedia users - the old Tunnels page needed attention to bring it up to the GA standard (and it was certainly missing some verifiable sources). But rather than seeking to cooperate on improving the page, a user has removed content that has evolved over two or three years and completely replaced it with his/her version, which is not well written and full of inacuracies. Is this a consensus approach, in the spirit of Wikipedia? I think not - it's proprietorial behaviour at its worst. And I would say that there is far more trivial information on the page now than before. I warmly invite you to view the new and old pages.Tantrumi (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Just because content has been in an article, doesnt mean that it meets the policies and should stay there. I have (quickly) reviewed "both" versions of the article and think the one moved from the user's sandbox is superior in encyclopedic quality to the previous version and should be the foundation from which further improvements are made. Active Banana ( bananaphone 15:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Need help with an article that, I believe, has a NPOV issue

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

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

I believe that the article about Bruce Harris has a Neutral Point of View issue. Each section starts with a negative, and each section is negative. I have been putting a NPOV tag on this article, but feel that I should not do the editing, since I knew Bruce personally. Another user, in my opinion, has a problem with Bruce and is insistent in his opinion that there is nothing positive to be said about the man. There have been others who have weighed in on this issue, agreeing that the article is not balanced, but the NPOV tag continues to be removed. I am not a frequent user, so I'm not sure this is the best avenue to pursue looking for some help. Any efforts to point me in the right direction would be most appreciated. I feel this article does a disservice to the intent of an encyclopedia, and a disservice to my friend who was a more complicated man than is painted by the above article. Nightngle (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It does seem to have a negative slant. I would suggest that you find some reliable sources with information you'd like to add to the article and add it, in small pieces, and ask on the talk page for feedback on your addition. If you remain neutral in your additions, there shouldn't be an issue. I'll add it to my watch list and do some poking around for some source material to add myself. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I think that edits made between User:AliveFreeHappy and myself have addressed many of the NPOV issues that were a part of that article. I appreciate that as someone with a potential conflict of interest that you sought outside help in dealing with the article. Active Banana ( bananaphone 22:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Idol addition

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to add a post to the page, "idol series" and it keeps getting deleted. Here is the post that I have placed at the beginning of the page

(The first original "Idol" style show was broadcast by Chiba TV in Tokyo, Japan around before 1990. The show was called Karaoke Trial (カラオケトライアル). Since then there have been many other spin-offs of the original version. One can view a sample on You Tube by typing, The First idol style show in the world.)

Is it because I'm forgetting to do something? Please let me know?

My email is <redacted>

Thanks, so much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5012jrsis (talkcontribs) 01:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that you can cite for that? Contributions need to be verifiable. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
YouTube is not a reliable source within the meaning of Wikipedia criteria.--Kudpung (talk) 01
33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, the assertion that this is the origin of all other such shows is dubious at best. There have been similar shows since back in the days of radio networks. In the United States, the first one that comes to mind is the Major Bowes Amateur Hour, which started back in 1934. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hanadama Pearls

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps someone fancies unpicking this poorly raised AFD? I do not believe it has been correctly listed but do not want to monkey around with it after contributing myself. (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the nomination's formatting and signed for the nominator. I assume this is what you are here about though I must confess I have no idea what the word unpick means.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, obviously you sliced the Gordian Knot rather than unpicking it. (talk) 23:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
The spam links have been removed from the article. Editors of the article may be in breach of the WP:3rr rule for repeatedly reverting each other's edits. This usually results in blocking of all parties concerned. If it continues, the article may be semi protected. --Kudpung (talk) 02:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Dispute over Provenge entry

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

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

I have several friends with prostate cancer. The FDA has just approved the first cancer immunotherapy vaccine and it happens to be for prostate cancer. The treatment approval was heralded by the medical community as a significant breakthrough in cancer treatment, since researchers have been trying for decades to succeed in training the patient's immune system to attack cancerous cells--and Provenge is the first treatment to succeed and gain regulatory approval. Provenge was almost immediately accepted by the NCCN as first line treatment for advanced PC, and ASCO has strongly supported Medicare coverage for Provenge treatment to the CMS. The study which resulted in FDA approval was just published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Provenge significantly extended the lives of treated patients. The median extension of life was 4.1 months. At three years the Provenge group had 32% still alive and the "placebo" group 23%. This latter figure may understate the treatment effect, since patients were allowed to cross over to Provenge after their disease progressed--and 67.3% of placebo patients elected to do so. While the placebo cross overs vs. those who did not cross over was not randomized and thus was stated to require further study, the NEJM article did report that the "pure placebo" patients, who did not ever receive Provenge, only lived a median of 11.6 months vs. 25.8 months at median for the treatment group. The simple math says the treatment group advantage over "pure placebo" was 14.2 months.

I have tried several times to post an accurate "Provenge" entry setting out these facts, which are all verifiable from authoritative sources. I have also tried to explain in the entry the significance of the distinction between "median" and "mean", since the 4.1 month median life extension by Provenge is the halfway point in a series of numbers and not, as has been repeatedly inaccurately reported, the "average life extension". In fact, examining the graphs in the NEJM article clearly shows many men lived years longer than their life expectancies by Halabi nomogram. I have further tried to include the advantage over "pure placebo" data that is plainly set out in the NEJM article.

Nbauman in each instance has reverted my edits back to a version he wrote which is slanted and inaccurate. His version originally referred to "average life extension", removed all references to the distinction between "median" and "mean" (which he does not seem to understand), removed any reference to the treatment being a breakthrough--in spite of multiple sources characterizing it that way--and similarly removed all references to "significant" life extension, apparently substituting his inexpert judgment that "just" 4.1 months is not "significant", for that of again multiple authoritative medical sources pointing to the life extension achieved as the largest EVER in this patient population. He has also objected to the inclusion of the 14.2 month figure above ostensibly because my doing the math that 25.8 minus 11.6=14.2 is an unallowable "interpretation" of data, rather than a neutral statement of the same. I don't exactly understand what source I am supposed to cite for the proposition that 25.8-11.6=14.2.

In any event, I am only trying to post an accurate entry, and despite repeated exchanges in talk in which I have set out for him where he is wrong, he just goes and restores his earlier inaccurate version. I hope you will help resolve this. SaulK (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)SaulKSaulK (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well it looks like you haven't discussed any of this on the artcile talk page, which is where such discussions belong. You could try enlisting help from WT:WikiProject Pharmacology. It looks like there is a dispute over the naming. I would assume that the generic name should be used rather than a brand name. You should look at the style guide and MoS guidelines on the project page as well. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Removing Article Tags

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I have just written an article that was tagged based on it's neutrality and having unreliable sources. I feel as though I have corrected these problems and made the article more cohesive. When will the tags be removed? Also, I submitted a request for a photo that I would like to add to the piece. Any idea about how long it takes for those requests to be reviewed and hopefully added to the page? The name of the article is "Todd White- artist". Thanks so much!! LindsayCervarich (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I think the tags were a bit overly harsh, and you truly improved the article. I have taken them off. In the future if you are in a similar situation you can post a message on the talk page of the relevant page in which you explain how you have covered the raised concerns. Once you have done that you can take away the tags yourself with an edit summary something like "article improved to overcome problems - see talk". If the original taggers think you have not done enough they should respond on the talk page what the exact problem is, which will help you figure out how to further improve the article. Arnoutf (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The citations are still weak and ill-formatted, often being cited to non-notable publications or with only partial names so that's it's impossible to tell which publication of that name is meant; no authors are credited; and the highly dubious claim that "In early 2009, the Inspirations of Oz Fine Art Collection was selected for distribution as limited edition US postage stamps" is still in the article. I've just removed two "citations" sourced to press releases. In my opinion, the tone is still promotional, like an "about the artist" profile at a gallery or craft show. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
There are issues with the image. Please see the tags on the image info page at File:Todd sketching at a diner.JPG and the message on your talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Disagreement over addition to page on American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

On August 17, 2010, I made an addition to the "controversy" section of the page on American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (,_Family_and_Property). Here is the brief paragraph I added:

On August 16, 2010, the American TFP posted a poll on its Web site asking visitors whether or not it agreed with U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker's overturning of California's Proposition 8, a ballot proposition which sought to ban same-sex marriage. The question the TFP posed was, "What do you think about Judge Walker's decision to overturn Prop. 8 banning same-sex 'marriage' in California?". [29] As of 3 p.m. on August 16, 84.5% of respondents had answered, "I support the decision." However, around 4 p.m. on the same day, the TFP had altered this answer, changing it to, "It is an irrational decision denying the nature and purpose of marriage."[30]

As you can see, I have clearly documented all evidence pointing to this controversy. Since August 18th, two Wikipedia users have deleted this paragraph, claiming either that I fabricated the claims or that they were "childish." As you can see from the post, I included the evidence of this controversy in the footnotes. Would you please weigh in on this disagreement?


Gsschramm (talk) 12:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

First, there's no 'arbitration claim' here, this is just a place where editors can ask for help and other editors respond.
Secondly, I see there are two editors reverting you. This is something that should be discussed on the talk page of the article, and since you seem to be in a minority, I suggest you start a discussion there. Dougweller (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I have looked at it. I am not sure it is a major controversy, so it might be warranted for removal per WP:UNDUE, but that was not the reason given, unless you would count "childish" as such. Another reason could be that the evidence you provided is fabricated, but that would require a discussion about the reliability (or lack thereof) of your sources (mainly Daily KOS) WP:RELIABLE. No discussion about the sources was raised. Your section is sourced (although as stated above it all hinges on daily kos being reliable).
Considering this, I think no valid arguments were given for deletion (although they may exist, but that should be discussed on the article talk). However I do agree with Dougweller that it is probably wise to start a discussion on talk also per WP:BRD.
Notice however two things. First this is not arbitration but a simple question/answer notice board. I think this has not gone far enough for arbitration in any case. Second articles about religion and religious organisation are extremely hard to maintain a neutral point of view, as the vast majority of returning editors are either fanatical supporters, or equally fanatical opponents. Many of the more moderate editors look at the resulting battlefield/viper pit and find a more pleasurable place to edit. I am not sure this is the case here, but just so you know. Arnoutf (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As far as I can see there has been very little movement on the article talk page for several months , and nothing that addresses your request for assistance. Try to engage a discussion on the talk page, and take it from there.--Kudpung (talk) 13:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC) I'll just add also there there has been no attempt whatsoever on any of the editors' talk pages to resolve this issue either. I do think that filing for any form of conflict resolution at this stage is far too early and unnecessarily takes up time of the editors who work voluntarily and in good faith in those departments.--Kudpung (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Indentation edit warring

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Editor User:Xeworlebi continues to strip all spaces from citations in the article The A-Team (film) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views). I have directed him to my comments on Talk:The_A-Team_(film) where I explain that removing all spaces makes editing and error checking more difficult. His edits are particularly disruptive since his preferred indentation does not resemble what is suggested by Template:Infobox film.

His initial stripping of spaces was labelled only as cleanup; fixes; but included several errors. I did not revert his additions of unbulleted lists. When he eventually corrected the errors in some of his attempts to add unbulleted lists. I preserved those too.

This editor seems to be acting in good faith but fails to appreciate why it might be polite to not to radically change the indentation from what has been used in the article for quite a while and to a style not used by Template:Infobox film.

It is my understanding that Talk:Jessica_Biel#Wholesale_revert_to_clean-up_of_page many editors prefer to retain indentation, and have explained I do not mind removing of line breaks from high quality stable articles but removing of all the spaces is just disruptive on what is still an active article.

I would appreciate if other editors could ask User:Xeworlebi too cool it down. I have and will continue to help incorporate his constructive changes to the article and would prefer to avoid a WP:3RR block. -- Horkana (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I have added an informal 3rd opinion at the talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Denise Milani (model)

Discussion moved: to Wikipedia:BLPN#Denise Milani_(model) Jezhotwells (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


The current article Denise Milani (model) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) promotes a fraudulent image. The arguments can be found in the talk page of user Cassandra 73. Please contact me if further information is needed. Donare24 (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure why you were asking User:Cassandra 73 about all that stuff. What has it got to do with File:Denise Milani training ground by megaween.jpg? If you have concerns about the image you should post them on the commons page where the image is hosted. I think User:Cassandra 73 has given good answers. What is this all about, can you make your request clear? Jezhotwells (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
This is about my reversion of these edits [1] [2], I think Donare24 means her public image rather than the picture, which was only added about an hour ago. I have raised this user's edits at WP:BLPN. Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for this clarification - seems that Donare24 doesn't understand usage of primary sources as you have pointed out. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


Resolved: image display problem has been fixed. – ukexpat (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This will not show up as a small or thumbnail image. There may be a software problem and I would like to know where to report it. Xanthoxyl < 06:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Mmmm, strange. Wikipedia:Picture tutorial might be of help. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
It's a known issue and is being worked on, see Wikipedia:Help desk#Uploaded image does not display – ukexpat (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
And now appears to be fixed. – ukexpat (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate Title question

Resolved: New article created, but needs work. – ukexpat (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The question I have concerns this page for Alexandria (software).

a) There is another Alexandria software that is library automation software. I would like to create a page for this other software, but I'm not sure how to name it. b) The Alexandria software I want to create a page on came before the software listed in the above link, and I think there might be copyright issues going on there.

How should I name my new page where it can be easily found and not confused with the listed Alexandria software?

(I am relatively new to editing on Wikipedia, I apologize in advance!) Thanks, Snow leopard grace (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

How about Alexandria (library software)? Any confusion between articles can be dealt with by hatnotes. – ukexpat (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, thank you for your suggestion, that will make it much clearer. I will work on that.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snow leopard grace (talkcontribs) 20:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think I actually have enough to make the page its own. (I've copied what I had so far to my own profile page so should I delete it?) Is there still something I can mention on the Alexandria (software) page to avoid confusion for anyone looking up Alexandria software? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snow leopard grace (talkcontribs) 18:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Alexandria (library software) isn't tagged for deletion, so there is no harm in leaving it with the maintenance tags. To have your subpage version deleted, just add the following at the top of the page: {{Db-author}}. – ukexpat (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
All right, thanks for your help! Snow leopard grace (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Han Chinese and a separate evolutionary ancestry

Resolved: sock puppet blocked. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

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

An anonymous IP has been introducing new information stating that the Han Chinese evolved separately from other humans (compared to a recent African origin of modern humans). There has been some edit warring, and the page is currently protected. My concerns are that the sources the user has inserted (scientific journals, YouTube, random articles that don't appear to be relevant, etc.) do not support the overall claim. Many of the conclusions drawn clearly fall under original research, but the user vehemently disagrees (calling it "censorship"). I have even gone through and individually analyzed his sources, but I can't seem to generate a civil discussion. Would it be possible to receive some input on this disagreement?

Thanks for your time! -Multivariable (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like a fresh manifestation of User:, who has been blocked for a year for edit warring at Talk:Human evolution and several other pages including editor talk pages. --CliffC (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I have submitted a sockpuppet investigation request (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/, and it seems that the IP user is now temporarily blocked as well. Thank you for your help! -Multivariable (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ray "Kemo" Head

Answered: IP user welcomed, given basic advice on how to create an article. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to submit a photo and brief biogrophy about Ray "Kemo" Head, who played steel guitar for Ernest Tubb in the band The Texas Troubadours in 1943. He was the first man to play the steel guitar on the Grand Ole Opry. I am new to this site and would like some advice as to how best go about it. Any help would greatly be appreciated. I would like to do have this added for my daughter, to preserve her grandfather's posterity. Thank you.

Sincerely, Indi Akers —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

A Wizard is available to walk you through these steps. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.
You will need to first register an account, which has many benefits, including the ability to create articles. Once you have registered, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.
Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.
If you still think an article is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. An Article Wizard is available to walk you through creating an article, but you will need to create an account to use it. if you don't wish to do so, you can submit a proposal for an article at Articles for Creation. – ukexpat (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I have added some useful links to your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

moving a page to mainspace

Resolved: Draft article now in mainspace at Wanda Garner Cash. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

How do I move my article to main space? I don't see the "Move" icon. Thanks, Sunhistory —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunhistory (talkcontribs) 17:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

At the top of the article you want to move on the right side you should see a star. Just to the right of the star in a dropdown {triangle}. In that dropdown is the move button. ~~ GB fan ~~ 18:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Or try Special:MovePage/Nameofarticle. -- Lavallen (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


Resolved: Vandalism reverted, vandal indef blocked. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

Article regarding NDTV is written by motivated and vested parties. Many claims made the author has no references.When I edited with reliable sources and references I got warned and threatened by Editor Named Ironhold who has deleted all the edit with references but left the major claims which got no credible links. This warning is clearly symbol of arrogance and protecting vested interest. I

I am again at loss to know the method by which Wikipedia grants such rights to motivated with vested interest, arrogant and ignorant editors (like Ironhold and Donald Duck) to warn innocent editors. I also request you to grant me the such rights. I also believe Wiki to remove all rights given to this Ironholds and block him completely as his warning to me clear indication of his motivation.

Hope you understand and take immediate action.Kaifazam (talk) 07:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Regards, Kaifazam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaifazam (talkcontribs) 04:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just removed a large amount of unsourced, disparaging content from the article which made claims about racism and government conspiracies directed at the subject of the article. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh in fact, I see you are the main culprit there. I suggest you look at WP:RS and WP:NPA. This sort of content is considered vandalism, and if you continue to add it, you will most likely end up blocked. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that Kaifazam introduced much of that disparaging content which has now been removed. Please don't come here whining about other editor's bias when in fact you are clearly pushing your own point of view. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

need help to keep my article in wikipedia

Resolved: page deleted. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

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


actually i wrote a article named "byg music" i got message of "speedy delete of the article".

please help me how can i save my article.

we made this group to help the new singers and people who doesnt have money but want to sing and make there album.

i is a kind of free help. so please help me

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Royaljatt (talkcontribs) 13:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes that looks like a good candidate for speedy deletion. The group completely fails the criteria of notability for a band on Wikipedia, is unreferenced and makes no credible assertions of notability. If you can find something notable to write about try creating a draft article in your user spacve and then asking someone to look over it. I have put some useful links on your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
REquestor has now blanked the page which ahs been deleted, also tried to delete this thread but was reverted. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 10:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Hello, I noticed that Sarah Palin's page is unchangeable by viewers. Much of the information provided is one-sided and does not give an accurate description of how she is viewed in the media. Currently there are over 1000 YouTube Video's with clips of a less then intelligent comment or interview staring Sarah Palin. Though her teenage daughter keeps getting pregnant she refuses to go home and instead prances around the country causing disputes where ever she goes. Our most respected journalists have spoken out against her on public air ways. Why is it that her page does not reflect these truthes? Adn why are the people not allowed to speak up? Is Wikipedia trying to re-write history? Your site has lost crediblity with me today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, the page is semi-protected due to large amounts of vandalism. A lot of articles about high profile persons are protected in this way from vandalism. YouTube is generally not a good source for Wikipedia articles. This is not a blog or forum or a place for people to post comments about media personalities, it is an encyclopaedia and information on living people needs to be backed up by by verifiable and reliable sources. If you can source information about critical commentary on her that is backed up by reliable and verifiable sources, you can post it on the talk page, with suitable citations, for editors to consider. If you create an account, and perform some useful edits you will be able to contribute to protected pages. You already have pointers to our welcome pages on your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Public image of Sarah Palin is an article which details the coverage of Palin by journalists. It is also available for all users to address.--EchetusXe 15:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Like EchetusXe said, the page Sarah Palin is semi-protected, which means "editing by unregistered contributors and contributors with accounts which are not autoconfirmed" are not allowed. This makes it easier to prevent people from vandalizing the page. If you see a piece of false information on the page, however, there is a way to have it checked over and possibly removed. Place the template {{editsemiprotected}} on the article's talkpage, followed by a description of the edit you are requesting. It helps to provide reliable sources if you want to add new information or take out already sourced information. Hope that helped! --- cymru lass (hit me up)(background check) 20:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Homeopathy (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) The subsection is [[Talk:Homeopathy&action=edit&section=6

How do you do,

As a new contributor to WP, this is really to ask for clarification, advice & guidance.

I recently started a talk topic requesting even-handedness in a contentious domain: Talk:Homeopathy#Should_anecdotes_counter_to_homeopathy_be_included?

I have been accused of poor behaviour by user:Verbal, but am at a loss to understand his intervention. Perhaps you might clarify.

Please excuse me for not following the standard complaint procedure, until my blindness is enlightened. I would not wish needlessly to be lured into dispute.

I hope I have been civil, and made clear points, though it may well be that I hold views at variance to the consensus on that page.

(It may not be directly relevant, but I note that one Dana Ullman was previously banned, in what looked to me like an example of shameless bullying, for persisting in his point of view against this same apparent consensus. It is difficult to know if I am right there, or who might have been involved, because the hearings & history seem to be unavailable. I really would rather not attract a ban.)

My objection was to the use of a press story, quoted in-line in support of a contentious view. It seemed to me to be very much the use of 'anecdote', in an invitation to false generalisation, a rhetorical device.

I had already conceded in my initial contribution, that the truth of the quote is not in question, which IMHO does not stop it being anecdote. Am I wrong there?

I have, however questioned the conclusions drawn thereby.

I was then met with a response which further quoted the same press story, and simply reinforced the offending passage in a somewhat partisan way without, to my mind, addressing my observations. I think I can claim 'good faith', I do not gain the impression I have been accepted in this.

After due consideration (hoping another might join in), I responded - again, I hope politely - by reciprocally asserting my own view, which seemed to have been misunderstood.

Then came the comment from user:Verbal, which I find rather strange and am having difficulty comprehending. A touch passive-aggressive, I felt.

I also feel that my wider points have not been addressed, but there has been an attempt to dismiss me. Is that normal for this arena?

Perhaps you could advise? Where am I at fault? (Apart from expressing a different view)

Can I find advice on how better to deal with the strong views of an established group?

BLaChenal (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking into this, the statement you query is adequately supported by the Daily Telegraph and the General Medical Council. You seem to suggest that the latter was in error. If you can find reliable sources to support that then that would change matters. But as it stands, this is not anecdotal and your suggestion that the GMC were in error is not supported. This is an encyclopaedia, not a place for surmise. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Help with Bumblebee (other incarnations)

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Today someone decided to move the page from Bumblebee (other incarnations) to Alternate versions of Bumblebee without proposing the move first. I tried to move it back, but I only got the text, not the history, talk page, etc. Can someone fix this back to it's original form before the movie, then let this guy propose the move normally? Thanks Mathewignash (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think that this is done. Suggest you communicate with the other editor to avoid edit warring. Jezhotwells (talk)
I see the page moves have continued. This could develop into an edit war. I have asked the editors involved to discuss at the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
No, I history merged the pages (resulting in it being moved back again), and then the above editor re-moved it; effectively the article's only been moved once (and then moved back). Hardly a move war yet. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
My mistake, thanks for the clarification. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Dabbing According to Wikipedia:DAB#Naming_the_specific_topic_articles, it's better to not use parenthesis if they can reasonably be avoided. They can in this case, and I think the name that I chose is more intelligible. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 21:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
In that case, you might want to start a page move discussion via WP:RM. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 23:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

My edit keeps getting deleted

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


I edited the article George II of Greece (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) and my edit keeps getting deleted. I provide a verifiable source that has been accepted by Wikipedia in other articles. The information I am posting in the article is beyond dispute, as is my source, but it keeps getting deleted I suspect by someone with a political ax to grind. What can I do? Venera 7 (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The best thing you can do at this point is take note of the concerns expressed in the edit summaries of the users which have reverted your edits, and discuss whatever concerns you may have with them and other users on the article's talk page. I haven't looked in any great detail at the debate that's gone on, but the users reverting your edits appear to have indicated that the edits you are introducing have already been subject to intensive debate. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
It's definitely time to discuss the edit in question on the talk page, and perhaps the users that are reverting you will clarify their argument. Otherwise you are in danger of edit-warring, which will end badly, no doubt. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks like is a discussion spread between User talk:Venera 7 and User talk:Cplakidas#Byzantine Descent. Not sure what's going to come of it. Talk:George II of Greece may get better interest than specific user talk pages. I've got to say though, the discussion between these two users is rather long and I just haven't had time to read everything. Wikipedia talk:Greek Wikipedians' notice board and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greece may also be good places to look for more informed outside opinions. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 23:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Content page for Logos

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

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

I am currently having difficulty in my effort to insert a balanced perspective into the logos page and I would like to request editor assistance.

The basis of my argument is described at the bottom of the discussion page for the topic where I have recently proposed that the page be re-written on the grounds that a disambiguated page for Logos (Christianity) also exists. My primary concern is that user:Radagast3 continues to undo my contributions on the basis of what he sees as "fair" but I see it as far from reasonable. It seems that this user has a clear sense of how things should be and he appears to be unwilling to acknowledge or allow an argument on both sides to exist within the entry.

My suggestion is to allow Logos (Christianity) to fully articulate the Christian-centered perspective of the term Logos, while using the logos page to articulate all sides of the perspective that can be taken for this term. As it stands right now, in my view, user:Radagast is attempting to control all definitions of the term and in this sense, I find the actions of this user unacceptable. The entry needs balance and I have not been successful in my efforts to insert my perspective.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Edunoramus (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well if you can't achieve consensus on the talk page you could consider a request for comment. However the discussion has only just started, it can take some time for consensus to emerge. It might be a good idea to request input from the projects which are associated with the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

help on edit war

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Ghazal 1 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) Help! I have gotten into an editing war with (a) user(s), who keeps changing my edit of the "Ghazal 1" page ... they keep changing "Persian Gulf" to Arabian Gulf. I have tried changing it to "Arab countries of the Persian Gulf" to no avail ... they keep changing it back to Arabian Gulf which, as some might know is not a correct term. The Wikipedia article "Persian Gulf naming dispute" clearly clarifies the correctness of my edit. The other eidtor is not a registered user so i do not have (or do i?) any means of contacting them for "talk". Please help. Regards, Kamran the Great (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The best thing to do first in any content dispute, is to discuss the problem on the article's talk page and seek to reach consensus on the dispute. You should leave the article as it is until this is resolved, according to WP:STATUSQUO. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
So it looks like Kamran removed the textual reference to the Gulf, as it doesn't appear necessary, so the issue may be resolved. Regardless, it looks like there's a consensus to use PG rather than AG, and I think something in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) can be used to justify this. Please be careful about edit warring in the future, Kamran; it's not the solution. You may be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Arab world. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Physio-kundalini syndrome

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


There is an article called "Kundalini syndrome". It is an article I have been trying to improve for a couple of months. The more I research the subject and read the sources that are cited, the more I find that: a) kundalini is not a recognized syndrome; and b) not a single writer on the subject (Ok, perhaps one minor one. I forget.) of kundalini experiences uses that term. The closest term that exists is "physio-kundalini syndrome." A few writers - Itzhak Bentov, Lee Sannella, Bruce Greyson - use that term. All these writers and others object strongly to the unnecessary psychiatrization of kundalini experiences.

A few weeks ago, to try and make some sense of this, I started a wiki article entitled "Physio-kundalini syndrome" and transferred some info from "kundalini syndrome" there while I continued to work on it and to further my research on the subject.

A discussion came up and it was decided the physio-kundalini article be deleted and its contents merged with the kundalini syndrome article. The main reason cited was that kundalini syndrome receives "far more hits" than physio-kundalini syndrome.

Are the number of hits really a valid measure of an article's merit? If there were a so-called "hatha syndrome" or a "subaru syndrome" or "chicago syndrome" surely it would also get a lot of hits. Would you kindly have a look at this?

I strongly feel that: a) the main article on this subject should be called "Physio-kundalini syndrome"; b) the article on "Kundalini" should be linked to it; and c) the "Kundalini syndrome" article should be deleted/merged with "Physio-kundalini syndrome". Thank you.Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 02:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Article talk pages are the plcae to discuss this and achieve consensus with other editors. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
The relevant AfD was here. It's not really about Google hits, but about creating forked articles and due weight, and that's really why the AfD closed as merge. If we can address Physio-kundalini within the Kundalini article, then we should do so. A subsection called Physio-kundalini might be appropriate, addressing the views of Bentov, Sannella, Greyson and others as published in reliable sources. Just keep WP:DUE in mind; it's a very important subsection of the Wikipedia policy on maintaining a neutral point of view. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

New article InfoSpace_(Dot_Com_crash)

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 10:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikians.

I created a new article describing the events surrounding InfoSpace during the Dot-Com crash here, and would appreciate any help on making it better

Thanks. --Nightseeder(Chat). 20:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, you have listed it for peer review so any discussion should take place there. I note that the neutrality of the artcile is disputed. Please don't start threads at more than one forum at the same time, it is counter-productive. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Article has been speedily deleted per criterion G10. – ukexpat (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Several editors have offered help at User:Nightseeder's talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Naming/forking conflict

Resolved: page has been merged, discussion continues on talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm having a dispute with User:Ieuan Sant over the article Guido de Bray he is writing. Ieuan Sant contacted me because he wanted to know whether Valenciennes was part of Hainaut. I discovered that there was already an article about the same person at Guido de Bres, and let him know last week [3]. I told him that he shouldn't create a duplicate article and that he should add his text to the existing article. He refuses to do that, claiming that the name of the existing article is wrong, quoting one 19th century Dutch source (which may be reliable, it's a Ph.D. thesis). The trouble is that he is known under both names, orthography wasn't very stable in the 16th century Low Countries. I explained that we have the WP:RM procedure for picking the right article title [4] and that there really shouldn't be two articles about the same subject [5], quoting Wikipedia policy. But he just continues working on his own article, and apparently doesn't want to accept my advice because I'm not an official [6]. I'm an experienced editor, and I don't feel personally offended by this, but I feel I'm wasting my time on his stubbornness. Could an experienced admin jump in and explain him again that he shouldn't create forks just because he doesn't like the title? Markussep Talk 07:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin but have added my comments on the talk page. I will merge the contents in seven days if that has not already occurred. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I have merged the content of the fork into Guido de Bres, adding details about alternate names. The editor seems almost deliberately obtuse about content forking and oblivious to problems that this causes. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
That was fast! I will ask Ieuan Sant whether he is still interested in a discussion about the article title, and check the merged article for errors and duplications. Markussep Talk 11:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I note that the majority of the "what links here" links are to Guido de Bres, there are redirects from Guido de Brés, Guy de Brés, Guy de Bres and Guy de Bray. If it is eventually decided to move to Guido de Bray an admin can fix that. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"Third party" election information

Discussion moved: RfC opened at Talk:Michigan gubernatorial election, 2010#Request for Comment. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 19:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Michigan gubernatorial election, 2010 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) Two users persist in removing sourced information pertaining to "third parties", including basic infobox information and polling results. This slow-moving edit war has been crawling along for more than 2 months. This has been done on the assertion of various criteria, such as "The rule for every single election article is that a candidate needs to poll at least 5% in order to get into the infobox. Period. End of discussion." (I have repeatedly asked for the source of this criteria, and keep getting pointed back to previous discussions in which the same two users made the same assertion.) Another asserted criterion is "For a minor party candidate to have a major impact, the candidate must prove that they can affect the outcome of an election, if not by winning then by playing spoiler by allowing a candidate, who would not otherwise win an election, to win." Again, there has never been a consensus for this criterion, just an assertion by two users that it is (and "always" has been) the requirement. cmadler (talk) 12:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that minor party candidates for both 2006 and 2010 are too insignificant for inclusion in the infobox as the 2006 election results clearly prove and no minor party candidate meets the threshold of support for inclusion in the infobox for both election articles. That is the standard for gubernatorial election candidates in other states. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
And here is the crux of our problem: the "threshold of support for inclusion". First you defined this as inclusion in debates, ignoring the facts that 1. all candidates in 2006 participated in at least one debate, and 2. debates are privately conducted, and each host is free to set their own criteria, or even to arbitrarily invite some candidates and ignore others. When I pointed that out, you shifted to "impact on the election results" which you defined as "For a minor party candidate to have a major impact, the candidate must prove that they can affect the outcome of an election, if not by winning then by playing spoiler by allowing a candidate, who would not otherwise win an election, to win." Setting your own criterion this way is clearly WP:OR, not to mention that no one knows what the election outcome will be. Or are you suggesting that you not only know what candidate will win, but what the margin of victory will be, as well as the votes for third-party candidates? Because that seems to be what you're suggesting by this. cmadler (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
From looking at the editing history, you are the only one pointing this out. Others have reverted your edits besides myself. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Others have restored the information besides me, and others have commented on the talk page in support of inclusion. cmadler (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Right so why are you posting here? Beacuse you are in a content dispute. If you can't achieve consensus on the article talk page, you could request a third opinion or raise a request for comment. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought this was the place for that; this page was linked as the first step in dispute resolutions. cmadler (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
A third opinion seems inappropriate because there are multiple editors on each side of the content dispute, so I have posted a RfC. cmadler (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
The way it is in every single election article is that a candidate must have at least 5% or more in one pre-election poll. After the election, a candidate needs to have obtained at least 5% of the electorate. The reason why this rule is in place is because if we didn't, the infobox could include more than 10 candidates and would look horrible. Not to mention the infobox can only allow up to 6 candidates. The point of the infobox is summerize the results of the article. We have come to this consensus in numerous elections over the years. Again, this is due process and the way it always has been. I have edited hundreds of election articles (presidential, senate, gubernatorial, etc.).

As far as where this rule has been discussed. Refer to:

These are only a few examples. Just think about it, and it will be hard not to see what I'm saying.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutral review of Gwen Gale

Answered: original poster's comments have been removed. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
So please state what the problem is. Your post above is as clear as mud to me! There is a notice at the top of this page which reads: "The description of the issue with which you need help should be concise and neutral." Perhaps you missed that. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I've read through your talk page but don't see anything that looks amiss in how Gwen Gale has addressed you. At first I thought perhaps you were engaged in a content dispute over Death of Adolf Hitler, but you appear to have exclusively edited talk pages, rather than article content. I'm at a loss as to what you're wanting to achieve. — e. ripley\talk 15:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
There are lots of books about Hitler. Is the information in this something that is generally widespead accepted by scholars or is it a a loony fringe theory (that only appears in this book and perhaps one other)? Active Banana ( bananaphone 16:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I am still completely unclear as to what you are requesting. Sorry. Active Banana ( bananaphone 16:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Anyone can edit Wikipedia's articles. Nobody is keeping you from adding information to the article, as long as it complies with Wikipedia's rules. If you want to add information from one of these books, you're free to do so, as long as it comports with Wikipedia's policies. If what you want is for people to read some specific books and engage with you in debate about the information there, you're probably not going to get much satisfaction. I recommend you focus your efforts on editing the encyclopedia; that's what we're here for. If you don't want to edit the Hitler article yourself, then may I suggest you find something else that interests you to edit? — e. ripley\talk 18:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
And if you havent been able to get anyone to read the books, you can also be more specific: I would like to add "Hitler ate a brownie three days before his death." to the article in the "Last meal" section based on this citation in XXX by YYY page Z Active Banana ( bananaphone 20:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Did you propose actual language to add to the article? — e. ripley\talk 20:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Look, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a discussion forum. If you want to discuss the books, I'm sure I can find you a forum or two that have lively discussions on this period in history. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I am having a hard time having any sympathy for your position, which is coming across as "The article sucks so bad and I am not willing to try to fix it myself. YOU fix it by reading THIS book." If that is not your intention, you may wish to consider a different approach. Active Banana ( bananaphone 22:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Hilarious, this board it like troll heaven. Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I thank you for understanding your limits and staying in the discussion page.Active Banana ( bananaphone 22:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────let me just make this quite clear: We're not having any edit warring on this page - it's not a place for yu to continue your disputes. Only registered helpers and other experienced editors decide what gets kept here and what gets deleted. if you continue, you'll both risk being blocked for vandalism. Now please take your argument either to the article talk page or to your own talk pages, or if that doesn't clear the air, go to one of the dispute resolution departments. Thank you.--Kudpung (talk) 07:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Help on wiki deletions

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 10:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

i initially posted this page and wish to delete it completely from the web...Pliz help as it now appears to be spam" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sekgopi2 (talkcontribs) 13:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understand what you want. Do you mean your User page? There's nothing much wrong with it as far as I can see, even I have a short autobiography on my user page. However, if you don't want it, just use your editing tools to blank the page. If that's what you want and you don't know how to do it, I'll do it for you. --Kudpung (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I've marked the page for speedy deletion for you, and provided the diff of your request here as evidence that you requested the deletion. If you change your mind, feel free to undo my addition of the deletion template (or ask the deleting admin to restore it if it is already deleted by that point). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done deleted per WP:CSD#U1. I will certainly restore if user changes his mind and requests it. JohnCD (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

James Traub article

Resolved: Dialogue is commencing Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

My edits to James Traub and Foreign Policy were reverted Weaponbb7, who has presumed that I am attempting to vandalize these articles. I respect Weaponbb7's concerns, and I attempted to make my edits less POV before restoring them. However, Weaponbb7 has reverted them again, and has not responded to my posts on his/her talk page seeking to work through the dispute on our own. I wish to stress that I very much respect Weaponbb7's zeal for wikipedia. However, I think that the quoted material I have attempted to add is noteworthy, and I have sought a way to add it in good faith. Since I do not wish to become involved in an edit war, I would appreciate assistance. Thanks very much for your time. Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Weaponbb7 has responded. I will attempt to work with him/her directly. Feel free to delete these posts. Sorry to waste space on the page. Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC false issue description

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Gender (edit|article|history|links|watch|logs)

I don't write very often here, so I'm not so up to date and I never been confronted with such an issue in Wiki before. On this page there has been a discussion about if it was acceptable to write "female and male" or if should be always used the opposite. The user Flyer22 posted a RfC. The thing that shocked me is that he/she wrote that user Tyranny Sue wanted to put always "female/woman" first when actually the mentioned used wrote clearly that she/he took care to balance the "woman" first with the "man" first. I find this under all standards. I've already posted in the Talkpage, but I feel that the text of the RfC should be amended since not everyone would read the all section in the talk page before posting his/her comment but writing under the RfC is not possible. I would like to know what are the policies in such cases. Thanks. --Dia^ (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Blimey, talk about a lame edit war. – ukexpat (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Heh heh. Thanks for the link to WP:LAME. Definitely a candidate. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I do agree with you. In fact I didn't do any edit at all on the article and merely offer a compromise solution on the talkpage. Still IMHO posting a RfC with a false description should not be accepted jest because the matter of the disagreement is surely not a matter of life and death. --Dia^ (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
If you're going to report me, get it right. As I stated in the RFC: All I did was report what Tyranny Sue feels. Tyranny Sue feels that constantly putting "male" before "female," "man" before "woman," etc. creates systemic bias within the article. Tyranny Sue also said he or she would prefer parts of the article be worded with the feminine aspect first, to balance out the article, such as female/male. Therefore, my report is not wrong in any way. If it were, Tyranny Sue would have "corrected" me. Flyer22 (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, Flyer's RfC could have been more neutrally phrased, but she didn't actually say that. What she did was write something that could have been interpreted either as Tyranny wanting to put F before M in all cases or as her wanting to do it sometimes. Before you draw any conclusions, look at what Flyer—and Tyranny—both actually wrote. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining, Darkfrog, although I do feel that I was as neutral as possible. For anyone who cares, what I stated is in the RFC report...with more explanation of what I was trying to get across. Flyer22 (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Name

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Vai.Gopalasamy Naidu (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

Respected Sir/Madam, Vaiko's official name as per the government gazzette is Vaiko and not Vai.Gopalsamy Naidu as given here. In fact the name Naidu' (which is the name of his caste) was never used with his name in all the 65 years of his life till now.

Somebody is doing this on purpose.Please do the needful.

You can even see that the most prominent Indian News papers call him only as Vaiko.

Today's article in The Hindu. ref. —Preceding unsigned comment added by G.Kaarthikeyan (talkcontribs) 03:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the article in question please? I somehow missed the la template at the top, never mind. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Heh heh, I added that after your first response, checked out user contributions. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
It looks like G.Kaarthikeyan has vandalised this page several times and been reverted by Clubot and others. Please, G.Kaarthikeyan, try and learn a little bit about the concpts of neutrality, verifiability and reliable sources before you come hre and complain abot the actions of others. I posted some useful links to Wikipedia policies on your talk page five days ago. If you have legitimate concerns about the naming of the article please raise them on the article talk page and work WITH other editors to achieve consensus. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

External links

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Hello and thank you in advance. I hope that I'm in the right place for this issue.

About a year ago we placed an external link to our non-profit,, on the scoial entrepreneurship page. It was the second link to be placed on the page and appeared below the first link, Tom's Shoes. In succeeding months, other external links were added, but our link remained in second position.

During this time, Wiki had provided many visits to our site. Recently I visited the Social Entrepreneurship page and found our link listed sixth or so. I don't know why that would be.

I moved our link back to second position. It was removed. I put it back again. It was removed. I am not very experienced at all this. I would simply like to have our link put back to the p;lace it occupied for a long time, and without someone removing it or changing its position.

Any help would be appreciated. Many thanks Ccchrisccc (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you seem to have Wikipedia confused with some sort of free advert web site. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. We do not need or want spam links. Thanks for alerting us to them. Most of those links were contrary to our external link policy and have been removed. I shall post some useful links to yoyur talk page and I hope that you read them and learn how Wikipedia works. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Wow, talk about Unintended consequences!-- (talk) 05:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

editor Materialscientist promoting his friends

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Mohs scale of mineral hardness (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

I have encountered that in a large number of articles editor Materialscientist promotes N. Dubrovinskaia. I saw on WP discussions that this editor has in the past coauthored an article with Dubrovinskaia. I suggest that Materialscientist be warned not to do this again and possibly forbidden from any editing related to Dubrovinskaia or his other friends. This behavior damages integrity of WP and correctness of its contents. One of recent examples is here: Instead of citing the original data of Weintraub (1911), Materialscientist cites data of Zarechnaya and Dubrovinskaia (2009) who arrived at the same result (without citing Weintraub who first established that boron is the second hardest element after diamond). Materialscientist calls Weintraub data "outdated". Furthermore, there is a good reason not to mention on WP the data of Zarechnaya and Dubrovinskaia (2009), because of earlier work by Solozhenko (2008). WP should mention only original works, rather than 3rd, 4th, 5th works on the topic. I suggest that Materialscientist be warned not to refrain from editing information related to his collaborators or friends and possibly forbidden from any editing related to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the behavior of another editor, the first thing to do is to calmly discuss it with them either on their talk page or on the article's talk page. I would also suggest reading our guide to dispute resolution and our policies on conflicts of interest since you seem to be making a conflict of interest claim regarding Materialscientist. --Danger (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
May be related to this. I've notified Materialscientist of this thread. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 17:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I encourage the IP editor to post at Talk:Mohs scale of mineral hardness, where you has never left a comment, to open a discussion on this. If you think that User:Materialscientist is violating policy, it would be good to leave a note on this talk page, which you have not done either. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
.. it does sound like user:Aoganov unhappy about being reverted here (and further), so let me expand my edit summary. There is no experimental evidence that lonsdaleite is harder than diamond, only one theoretical prediction. Weintraub (1911) could not know gamma-boron (which is the hard form of boron) and other superhard materials simply because the high-pressure high-temperature synthesis was not yet developed. Solozhenko et al. was already cited. Their work was published in a (paywalled) journal which is not accessible even to most scientists (including myself, though I've got a copy), and thus citing a complementary work in Phys. Rev. Lett. (top journal available to nearly every university) by Zarechnaya et al. only helps the reader. Materialscientist (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I hope this complaint was not opened by User:Aoganov using an IP, because any sockpuppetry regarding boron would be a violation of his topic ban. If so it could lead to a reinstatement of the indefinite block on his account that was lifted in June, 2009. EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at all of's edits, and all of Materialscientist's edits that seem relevant to this discussion. There is a disagreement between Materialscientist and about what references to cite, but no evidence at all that "friends" of Materialscientist are involved. Materialscientist gives perfectly cogent reasons for their edits, whether one disagrees with them or not, and there is no need to hypothesise some ulterior motive. Whether is also Aoganov, however, I cannot say. Finally, this is the wrong place for this report, as it is a request for action against an editor, not a request for editing assistance. WP:ANI would have been better, if there had been any merit in the report. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Frustrating conflict over Than

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

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

I have been a contributor -- slow and steady -- to WP over several years; I have over 2,000 edits and have generally tried to work in careful small increments, or cooperating with other interested users. But the conflict I have gotten into with an anonymous IP user over Than has made me want to quit the project completely. I have tried to be reasonable with this user but his replies on the Talk page have been combative; he demands that I reference and document issues for which I have already provided multiple references. I would be grateful if an experienced moderator or admin would look into this entry, and provide some guidance! Thanks in advance, Clevelander96 (talk) 04:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, let me first ask you to take it easy; don't retire over this problem. Call it a night/day/what-have-you and try to unwind. I'm of the opinion that editing while frustrated is mostly pointless, just unpleasant. As to the dispute, I have experience in linguistics and upon a cursory reading I'm at least intrigued. I'll be glad to look into this a little more. However, it's late right now so I'm not going to put up a response (I want to digest the talk comments a bit more as well). I'll try to post something tomorrow or the day after. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 06:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I've responded over there. I've got the article watchlisted and will try to participate more. The next step would be asking for help from WikiProject Linguistics. They might be better able to dig out sources to help clear this up, which I think is the root of the problem. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 19:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Help with links

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

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

On the Damovo page I have attempted to add two links to external sites. I have tried multiple ways of doing this and read all the instructions for adding in the links and references but it still doesn't appear to be working so will need your help please.

If you look at the Damovo page it is link 1 and link 5 which are the problem links. These are the links below:

Rocked the World 1 needs to go to this

Refinancing 5 needs to go to this

Thank you

Ruth Marcoms (talk) 09:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The first reference seemed fine, though I added an accessdate to it; I've fixed the fifth reference. You should be careful about using references which are press releases from the company in question, though they can be useful for factual information (it seems to establish the cited statement fairly well, so the usage should be fine in this case). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding note to infobox

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Florida gubernatorial election, 2010 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

I'm having trouble adding a note (in <ref> style or similar) to Florida gubernatorial election, 2010. It just doesn't seem to be formatting correctly... help much appreciated! (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a problem with how the template itself works; you can't have a footnote in the before_party field of {{Infobox election}} because the template does some automatic linking and logic. In this case, it turns "Independent (politician)" into [[Independent (politician)|Independent]]. I put the footnote with before_election. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 19:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

page/topic deleted

I'm wanting to know what happened to the page for the band "Tera Melos". the pages for their albums are still there.




-- (talk) 08:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes it has been deleted (four times):
  • 04:56, 27 August 2010 SchuminWeb (talk | contribs) deleted "Tera Melos" ‎ (Speedy deleted per CSD A7, was an article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that didn't assert the importance or significance of the subject. using TW)
  • 17:11, 8 December 2006 (aeropagitica) (talk | contribs) deleted "Tera Melos" ‎ ( Non-notable band.)
  • 03:42, 17 November 2006 Husond (talk | contribs) deleted "Tera Melos" ‎ (A7, but copyvio mainly)
  • 09:57, 2 November 2006 Longhair (talk | contribs) deleted "Tera Melos" ‎ (article or other page provides no meaningful content or history, and/or the text is unsalvageably incoherent. It is patent nonsense (CSD G1)., content was: ' Everything music expresses.')
Jezhotwells (talk) 10:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
It's okay, the album articles have been deleted as well, under our category for albums by redlinked performers that contain no credible assertion of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
so, because you haven't heard of them they aren't notable?—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2010
No, they were deleted because they failed to meet the notability criteria for bands or groups. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
And per WP:NALBUMS. – ukexpat (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
they meet the criteria stated in number 5. they have 4 releases on which is a well known independent label. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
One of the key words in that guideline is may. Meeting one of those criteria does not guarantee that a band is notable. You still need to find independent sources with significant coverage of the band. Reviews of shows or albums are good sources for newer bands. --Danger (talk) 08:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The article cited above, Sargent House, doesn't have any reliable sources, so it is hard to tell if it is a notable label. Suggest you create the article in your WP:user space, find some sources that establish notability and come back here and ask for it to be looked over. Of course to do this you will need to create an account. Lots of help on all of this at Wikipedia:Your first article. Jezhotwells (talk)