Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 86

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

Contents

Seeking arbitration for disruptive editing / edit war on article Robbie Mannheim

Resolved: Kudpung (talk) 07:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Users 76.195.86.155 and Vespine and I are working on the article Robbie Mannheim together with Anupam. The situation has unfortunately become disruptive. I am currently very busy with work and am unable to arbitrate at this time. I am kindly requesting help from a user with administrating experience. Vespine and 75.21.106.189 have come to me stating that Anupam is repeatedly making non-neutral edits. This has been a long-standing issue concerning this article and apparently things have stepped up recently. Most discussion is on the article's talk page but some is also on my talk page. Best regards -Craig Pemberton 23:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I have suggested on the article talk page that edit warring should be reported (after due warning) at WP:3RR. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Can I just put on record that I had nothing to do with user 75 coming here and making this request. I think 75 has gone a bit overboard with his accusations. He doesn't seem to be the most stable kind of personality, he has very sporadic posting habits and a very short fuse. I tried to be objective and reasonable but 75 doesn't seem to be interested in listening to reason, for some reason he has it in his head that Anupam is some sort of evil scheming villain and it just seems he can't get along. When I gave him a list of Anupam's edits for the past two weeks and showed him that I disagreed with about half of them, which were all single edits or single reverts (no 3 reverts), 75 flies off the handle, takes offence at something in my post and accuses me of excessively defending anupam, then storms off for the 3rd time. This is a reoccurring theme with 75. I'm happy to change my stance if I see some evidence of Anupam's "transgressions".. Lol, 75's a character, I'll give him that, I like the guy and appreciate his help, but I think it's probably for the best if he takes a bit of a break.

Help with Jan Brewer

Answered: Kudpung (talk) 07:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I have provided links to the Arizona Republic archives on the Discussion page to the 2 articles published May 11 & 12, 2001 regarding her husband being fired as Exec Dir of the Naturopathic Physicians Board of Medical Examiners. I have provided the text of the 2 articles in the discussion page which I purchased because the articles have been archived but the links show the exact headlines and leading sentences etc. I have also suggested how to go about correcting the "Early Life" portion and asked for help from those more knowledgable. I do not know how to put in the changes and link to the archives at Az Rep for the bibliography. But no one has helped! One editor says he hasn't even read the articles from the Az Rep but seems intent to make me look bad by saying I altered the actual page when I did not. Same editor considers the text of the articles to be rants.

I have not "copy and pasted" the text of emails between me and the current Exec Dir of the Naturopathic Board regarding the fact that her husband was a fake ND and was fired etc. I have not linked a current article from the Phoenix New Times newspaper regarding Jan Brewer's kidnapper/rapist son who's criminal record was blocked from public viewing by a judge 39 days after Janet Napolitano was nominated to Homeland Sec making Brewer the next governor. The are several comments on this article about the son which mention Dr. Brewer's problems and refer to the May 11 & 12, 2001 Az Rep articles. I have PDF copies of the minutes of the May 11, 2001 telephonic emergency meeting of the Arizona NPBOMEX where Dr. Brewer was fired which shows JAN BREWER as an interested party on the phone line but I don't know how to get them out of my email and to a place where they can be linked. I would like to purchase the detailed transcripts of that meeting in which Gov Brewer participated in defense of her husband but I might be required to fly to AZ and get the copies in person.

Bottom line: Why isn't (1) the text of the articles, (2) links to the archives showing the summary of the articles and (3) my suggestion for a change to the actual article to correct the information about her husband's career not good enough for some help in getting the encylcopoedic record on who Jan Brewer is correct? If it is going to lie about her husband's career, he should not be mentioned at all. Thank you for your help and patience. I am not a computer expert like the rest of you - just someone trying to set the record straight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RealNaturopath (talkcontribs) 17:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

So you are talking about Jan Brewer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Alveda King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), right? In the case of the first artcile you have ben answered here. In the case of the second, you have been answered here and here. It appeasr that the information you are bringing to the discussion has little to do with the article subjects. Might I suggest that you read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not? Jezhotwells (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


IPs adding unsourced information at Jumping the shark

Resolved: Kudpung (talk) 07:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

A whole series of IPs have been adding unsourced quotes and irrel content to Jumping the shark today and I have probably technically already exceeded my 3RR. Can someone else help keep the article focused on the actual topic and not show quotes? Thanks! Active Banana ( bananaphone 19:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I will watch-list it (again). Regards, --Diannaa (Talk) 03:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

List of free massively multiplayer online games

Answered: Kudpung (talk) 07:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I was checking out the list about half an hour ago, looking for something new to try, when i noticed that the game I've been playing for more than 5 years wasn't on the list. So I decide to create an account on here and edit the list to add this pretty cool game. As I was playing the game, I talked to another player since i was playing the game as I edited your list, I told her, I can't believe this game isn't on their list. She said she tried to add it too, but you guys said it doesn't exist and deleted it. After I added it, you deleted it too, telling me a game I've been playing for 5 years does not exist. So, if someone could please check out this website, you can get an acct. download it, play it for free, and then tell all the ppl there that they still exist, that would be great. http://oz.ongameport.com/

Sorry, not trying to be a Jerk, but it took me forever to find out how to contact you. And probably this will be ignored too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crass33 (talkcontribs) 05:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No, not ignored - we're checking it out now.--Kudpung (talk) 09:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
It does appear to be a game of some kind. However, this is absolutely not clear from the website index page - it does look like an advert for something. I'm waiting for a comment from the editor who deleted it. --Kudpung (talk) 09:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I've had a message on my talk page (check it out to see the explanation) from th editor who rverted your edit to the table. I will restore the table edit edit for you. There is currently no Wikipedia article about the game, so feel free to develop one in your user space before posting it to article space. Be absolutely sure however, that it conforms to our guidelines and policy to avoid it being deleted, and if you need any help, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page.Kudpung (talk) 10:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I've just removed it again. It's been the consensus that only notable games appear in the list, with notability being proven by the game being cited in reliable sources or simply having it's own article (which assumes the article is based on reliable sources). Wyatt Riot (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
In other words, write the article first (and be prepared to prove that the game is in fact notable) before trying to add it to the list. Not every existing game is notable enough to have its own article in the encyclopedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)--Orange Mike | Talk 15:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Notability situation

Resolved: Kudpung (talk) 07:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Margaret Tusz-King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

So, I came across this article when a user linked it to New Brunswick general election, 2010. My instinct was to question the notability of a minor candidate in a provincial election. I put up the notability template, hoping that another editor with sufficient privileges would mark it for speedy deletion, at which point the original editor removed the template and added a "notable event in which she was involved". I'm not sure how to proceed. What is the WP policy on notability for political candidates? Does this article violate that policy?

Thanks in Advance, Bkissin (talk) 09:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If an article asserts notability, meaning implies in any way that the subject is notable, it can't be speedy deleted. If you feel it should be removed due to errors you can tag the article for speedy deletion under BLP concerns. If no concerns like that exist try a procedural deletion "prod" template. If an editor removes this tag you can open an WP:AFD. Every editor has the ability to tag an article for speedy deletion. please read WP:CSD for more.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
To further help, the link to the general notability guidelines is here WP:Notability and here is a link to [1] the specific policy on politicians. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I added back in the template - there is certainly some question as to the subject's notability. JohnInDC (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The article has been nominated for deletion, here. We'll see how it sorts out. Meantime I think this item can be marked as 'resolved'. JohnInDC (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


Help needed to keep the Tablet PC article about all Tablet Personal Computers and not just Microsoft

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

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

I am trying, with limited success, to keep the Tablet PC article in its formally agreed upon state. Last February I participated against a request to rename the article to "Tablet Computer" on the grounds that "Tablet PC" being specific to Microsoft; My reasoning was that PC is not specific to Microsoft and it is an important term as it distinguishes between Tablet Personal Computers and Tablet Computers with controlled software availability; a Personal Computer is meant to work without an intervening software operator while a Tablet Computer such as the iPad works with an intervening operator who may not allow the installation of applications such as Adobe Flash or Java; anyway the request ended with no consensus.

Now, and despite that consensus, another editor (User:Eraserhead1) is relocating large sections from the article on the grounds of his belief that consensus was that the Tablet PC article should be specific to Microsoft. This is utter nonsense and it is easily verified as falsehood by a quick search for Tablet PC Linux in Amazon which turns out many Tablet PCs on Meego or Android which are in fact named and titled as "Tablet PCs".

I requested for a 3rd opinion and User:Snottywong provided an interesting proposal: "rename Tablet Computer to Tablet PC and create a Microsoft Tablet PC article"; Eraserhead1 didn't discuss that: he kept on chopping the article adding bizzarre arguments such as "tablet computer being shorter than tablet personal computer is another reason". I need editor's help here. Vyx (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

How do the reliable sources use the terms? We follow them. Active Banana ( bananaphone 21:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1292428.1292445
-- Refers to tablets running Linux as Tablet PCs
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66K1HD20100721
-- ""We want the tablet PC to be compatible with our LePhone smartphone, which is why we're using Android," Wu said."
http://www.itproportal.com/portal/news/article/2010/8/19/rim-use-qnx-os-blackberry-tablet-pc/
-- Refers to Blackberry running QNX or Blackberry OS as Tablet PC
http://www.littleabout.com/Techno/stamp-android-tablet-pc-india,98266.html
-- "the new Android $ 50 Tablet PC"
-- http://www.amazon.com/Nokia-770-Internet-Tablet-PC/dp/B000CSVZTU/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1284531090&sr=8-12
"Nokia 770 Internet Tablet PC"
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Linux+Tablet+PC&x=0&y=0
-- Amazon search results for Linux Tablet PC. Yields many tablet system entitled as Tablet PCs
Vyx (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Concerns re neutrality, sexism, and lack of citations =

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Prostitution in Sweden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have a problem with a paragraph in the article entitled Prostitution in Sweden. I feel that the paragraph contains sexist generalisations not supported by citations. I removed part of the paragraph, but it was replaced without change.

Reading the article and discussion, I get the feeling that one of the editors is using the article to advance a personal agenda.

I'd like the article to be reviewed by someone with a neutral viewpoint to ensure it complies with Wikipedia standards.

Here's the paragraph in the section entitled Kvinnofrid law:

While there was virtual unanimity on most aspects of the bill, this was not the case for the proposals to criminalise the purchase of sex. The debate on prostitution was heavily gendered. Men argued this was a social not criminal matter and that this intruded on self determination, while women argued that prostitution was incompatible with a social order embracing gender equity. All women saw prostitution as patriarchal oppression, and therefore not a free will choice, although there was less unanimity over what should be done. The uniqueness of the proposal was emphasised, all of which took place at an ideological level with no appeal to empiricism, which was explicitly rejected. Eventually it passed on June 4, 1998 [42] by 181 to 92 in a 349-member chamber, becoming law on January 1, 1999 as section 11 of chapter 6 of the Penal Code.[43]

SelectSplat (talk) 01:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I would perhaps change the assumption that "All women saw prostitution as patriarchal oppression" to something like "it was argued by (some?) women..." and possibly insert some in front of "men" and "women" or rewrite the section to clearly distinguish between those in favour and opponents whilst making clear those in favour were generally women and likewise opponents were generally men. Though I expect someone clever than me will be along with a better idea. --Wintonian (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest that we follow the sources. What reliable source supports the claims made? If there are no sources, we should remain silent--to do otherwise violates WP:OR. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
The citation [2] appears to be to the Legislative government site which I imagine would have the text of the laws passed, but I highly doubt it has any sort of commentary and analysis about who supported the bill and why. This appears to be clearly WP:OR and in need of proper sourcing or removal. Active Banana ( bananaphone 02:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Good point on WP:OR I'ts rather late where I am, I was assuming that sources could be found, but wouldn't know where to look myself. --Wintonian (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Put "Kvinnofrid law" into yahoo and a few academic works appear, I have only scanned a couple and so far I haven’t found anything to back up the stance that men and women were on different sides of the debate although the debate is naturally going to be gendered. --Wintonian (talk) 02:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


question about interpretations made by sources

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

there are two cases i'm dealing with that are quite similar & interesting. the first one is concerning the Arab Peace Process. israel has never "officially" responded to it (official, written response), however - the prime minister has made few comments about it during a speech. the vast majority of sources do not title it as an "official response", however, one source does. so according to wikipedia laws - it should be written that israel HAS officially responded to it, even though some sources would say that israel has never responded. israel's official response or lack thereof is an important fact, and i think it might be represented in wikipedia the wrong way.

the same goes for Mahmud Ahmadenijad calling the holocaust a "myth". the dictionary definition of myth is

a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event,
 with or without a determinable basis of fact.

so calling the holocaust a myth should not be considered as holocaust denial. myth is not fiction - and most sources do not draw that conclusion - but some do! and in accordance with wikipedia policies, that is what should end up in the article - that it IS a denial. here again - it just feels wrong. there is nothing to reflect that most sources do NOT title that statement as holocaust denial. Is that really the meaning of wikipedia policies? or maybe there is a policy which addresses this absurd situation. Eyalmc (talk) 05:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

In the first case we would need to see if the sources meet WP:RS. If the source claiming Israel did respond doesn't meet the criteria it can't be included as accurate unless quoted to the source and placed in context with the opposing viewpoint. On the second question, "myth" is also defined in the merriam-webster dictionary as "an unfounded or false notion" [3]. My assumption is the quote is a translation, which brings it's own complications, but for accuracy you need to examine context. If consensus is that Mahmud Ahmadenijad meant the definition of myth I quoted based on context and sources you can't apply the alternate definition without skewing the WP:POV, which would be against standards.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Why is that? in the single time that Ahmadenijad was explicit about this issue (in Culombia) he specifically said that he did not deny the holocaust. still, we allow ourselves, based on very few sources that titled it this way, to call it a holocaust denial (which is an actual crime in some countries).. remember that this is a BLP - does that seem reasonable to you? additionally - there is a difference between "questioning" the holocaust and denying it. there is a difference between saying that it is "unfounded" to saying that it never happened (as holocaust denial is defined) - do you find it fair to title it as clear denial in a BLP? Eyalmc (talk) 09:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry Eyalmc but you seem to be coming at this from a much more informed place than I am. I can only address the specific questions you asked in your post, I can't keep on track with you when you leap around from issue to issue. Your question was about the word "myth" and I expressed my concern over its use and stated why. As to your new question about holocaust denial and BLP that's a completely separate content issue that is probably better served on either the article's talk page or the content noticeboard WP:CNB. I can try to look into it further but I'll need to see where you're editing and what arguments others have already made. Please provide more information with links to applicable wiki pages. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Request assistance

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I am seeking assistance in resolving a dispute with User:Spike Wilbury, an administrator. I was blocked by this user for "violating 3RR" at the article Dana Perino. I did not, in fact, violate this policy. I must admit that in my anger following this block, I took steps that were, at best, ill-considered. I have acknoweledged this at the user's talk page. However, any inappropriate actions I may or may not have taken in the time since, are not revelant to the original block. Per WP:ADMINABUSE, I posted a respectful message on the user's talk page, acknoweledging both my mistakes, as well as the likelihood that he acted in good faith in blocking me. I stated clearly, that despite these facts, it remains my position that I did not violate WP:3RR. I cited the policy itself, as well as WP:BLP, as reasons that my excession of 3 reverts in 24 hours was, nonetheless, not a violation. At Talk:Dana Perino, I have posted extensive, concise information (prior to being blocked) explaining in detail, why the edits I removed are violations of WP:BLP. The administrator's response was cordial, yet unacceptable, as far as I am concerned. I realize that mistakes happen. I am simply seeking an annotation in my block log, explaining that I did not violate the policy in question, and therefore should not have been blocked. I am posting this here, as I don't have much of an idea of what my next step should be. Respectfully, 2tuntony (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Best to post this at the Administrators' noticeboard. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I hesitated to do that, because based on the administrator's response to me on his talk page, I no longer feel that this is a case of "abuse of admin tools". I believe his actions against me were done in good faith. While I'm troubled by the fact that he is sticking to his position that I violated 3RR, I have stated that I am not seeking any punative action against this user. I am simply requesting that, as I feel I can easily prove that I didn't violate this, or any other rule, my block log be annotated to reflect the fact that I was not in violation of the infraction that was claimed. As I understand it, the Administrator's noticeboard is only for incidents that require immediate intervention. I don't want to be further penalized for "yelling fire in a crowded theater". Is there some other way to go about this, or is ANI still the way to go? Thank you for your time. 2tuntony (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I can't help as I am not a sysop. You got a 24 hr block which has been lifted, I would suggest that you just leave it at that. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Your block history will only matter if you get into lots of other trouble editing. Keep your nose clean from now on and its not an issue. Active Banana ( bananaphone 23:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm honestly sorry if I'm being a pain in the balls here, but it is an issue for me, as I was blocked for something that I did not do. I understand that it won't be an issue, but the fact is that it will always be there. If I edit for another 20 years here, and have no further incidents, that block will still be in my history. Furthermore, I may, for whatever reason, at some point find myself in a situation here where I'm asked to answer for that block. The fact of the matter is, even if it is disregarded by every other editor and sysop here, I will always know that I was blocked where no rule violation took place. So while I understand completely what you have said, I still wish for this incident to be reviewed by those who have the power to acknoweledge that I did not violate the rule for which I was blocked. I appreciate greatly the time you have taken to answer me. 2tuntony (talk) 23:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
The block happened. Several admins reviewed your the situation and felt that keeping the block was appropriate. You can keep saying, "But I didn't do it. But I didn't do it. Or you can chalk it up as a learning experience and edit so that it doesnt happen again. Active Banana ( bananaphone 00:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I sincerely appreciate your response. As nothing is going to be accomplished by my continuing to post here, in hopes of persuading you to agree with me, I will take this matter elsewhere. While I remain unwilling to drop this matter, please don't think that your advice has fallen on deaf ears. I have no plans to beat a dead horse. I will take some time to consider the best course of action. Again, thank you. 2tuntony (talk) 07:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject conflict

Template:WikiProject Unmanned spaceflight (edit | [[Talk:Template:WikiProject Unmanned spaceflight|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am trying to get help from other editors in improving Space-related articles though the problem is that most of the wikiprojects in this group are not well supported with most of their few members being inactive anyway. I believe a part of this is because of the state and structure of most of the wikiprojects for example making daughter projects redundant. I've stated these concerns at WikiProject Space, the coordinating wikiproject.

I sought to seek consensus by asking for comments on this on the talk page of a rare active member, but it received no response despite replies to later messages. Fine, they don't have to comment. But as there was no reply to the questions I went ahead and began to improve one of the least active wikiprojects (Unmanned Spaceflight) as a demonstration. At the same time I wrote a message on that projects parent project of my concerns over conflicts in scope, including the fact that it makes banner tagging of daughter projects redundant. However when I created a stand-alone banner template for the project (top) this elicited a swift response from the editor in question deleting it saying it was redundant because of the main "Space" banner, despite my stated concerns that this has a negative influence on some wikiprojects and similar banners exist for other related projects anyway. Am I right in thinking this is entirely unreasonable when I've done all I can to try and build consensus over what to do about the situation, especially given the lack of active members, but no reply to any of it? I'm not concerned about the banner specifically, just that we find a way to make these projects work. What do I do? ChiZeroOne (talk) 03:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

A great many Wikipedia projects are largely inactive - don't I know it! There is one on whichI work that in spite of having around 320 registered participants, currently only two or three are active! It's true that someone has to take the initiative to put a project template on the talk pages of all new articles, but at the end of the day, the effort at drumming up active support for projects could better be spent, IMHO, on just getting on with doing things one's self.--Kudpung (talk) 04:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh I appreciate that and I work on that front too but really it helps to have the resources to keep things in order. And to be honest, why should I (or anyone) accept wikiprojects that don't "work" in improving Wikipedia, that don't allow me to collaborate effectively with other users because they are poorly thought-out or run? Clearly they can as some of the more active projects show. The problem in this specific case is that what appears to me to be disruptive editing (deleting work while ignoring attempts to build consensus) is being used to keep things as they are, which creates a vicious cycle.
I assume I wouldn't be allowed to create my own rival WikiProjects, which I'd be happy to do, so how am I meant to be able to move this forward as I wish to? This situation is surely against the grain of what Wikipedia is trying to do? ChiZeroOne (talk) 06:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
It would be most unwise to attempt to create a rival project. project creation must go through a pre-creation process that requires the support of a certain number of editors before the project can be opened. Rivality would engender conflict, and is certainly not the best way to create a collaborative environment. In any case, if you are already concerned about the lack of interest in existing projects of the same nature, you have your answer. As I suggested before, if there is little interest in project work for your subject or topic, the best solution is to channel your subject knowledge and your knowledge of Wikipedia software into improving articles yourself, and creating new ones. You'll always find someone ready to jump in with some help, even without the umbrella of a project. There are loads of ways and places here where your enthusiasm will be most welcome.--Kudpung (talk) 07:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not trying to be hard work but I don't think the issue is resolved. Yeah I know a rival project wouldn't be a good idea, I was just using it as an example to explain that the wikiproject that currently exists is supposed to be for all to collaborate on. I am not concerned about the lack of interest in the subject, because I don't believe there is, I'm concerned that a resource that is supposed to be for all isn't working like that and that is why it is currently a poor one with little interest. There are plenty of fringe projects that do a roaring trade. Telling me just to go somewhere else, instead of actually resolving the conflict, I don't think is helpful and in fact contradicts "trying to create a collaborative environment". Why must I accept someone, effectively, "owning" a WikiProject? ChiZeroOne (talk) 07:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
And in addition to this, given that project criteria are often used to create "consensus" about how articles on their subject are written, If I'm not allowed to have any input on the project why on earth should I follow any of their policy while editing articles? ChiZeroOne (talk) 07:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I've done some more checking, but with twelve daughter projects involved, it's difficult to see the wood for the trees, plus the fact that I have no access to any previous talk page message you might have received under your old user name that have been telling you to go elsewhere. You've only written one message ons the major project talk page and none on Unmanned spaceflight. I can't see where there has been any discussion on your problem, and I can't see any, even vague, claims to ownership of the projects; you'd need to provide us with some diffs of messages and consensus discussion, and article edits, that make you feel your suggestions are not welcome. I agree that the current template is unwieldly and takes up half a talk page, and separate templates per sub project may be the answer. but if after having made all your suggestions in the right places, i.e. Project talk pages, you cannot get that consensus, it's maybe time to do what I suggested before, at least for a while.--Kudpung (talk) 08:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I said you were saying it would be best if I go elsewhere and not bother with the project, not anyone else saying that, as I said I don't think I should have to. And I didn't say anyone did claim ownership, just that ignoring my attempts to contact them while rigorously imposing "consensus" that they made up (look at the talk pages, the same editor responding to their own propositions) is effectively the same thing.
But anyway, I can see we're not going to see eye to eye. Just for clarification then i'm perfectly within my rights to revert the changes they made to my work since I believe the current situation is damaging and there was no discussion on this? ChiZeroOne (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not a question of not seeing eye-to-eye, but the project is so broad and convoluted that I asked if you could provide some diffs (links to the things you contend), and you didn't respond to that. I strongly advise against entering into an edit war - try suggesting on the article or project talk page what you intend to change beforehand. There are many reasons why people might not be available for comment, so If you get no answer at all you can go ahead and revert (See WP:BOLD), but it would be better if that revert were to include new, improved material, rather than a straight cancelling out of another editor's contribution. Kudpung (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
It is about seeing eye-to-eye because I've asked for advice on how to proceed with trying to sort out these projects. I appreciate you think that may be a waste of time for whatever reason but I don't, which is why I came here. Anyway I didn't respond because I'm not sure what diffs you want me to link to, the main problem is a lack of communication or edits apart from very swift reverts regarding the template. It just IMO is a bit unreasonable and I just don't know what else to do to get a discussion going on the problems I have. I did already link to pages above, here are the main revert diffs,
Template:WikiProject_Unmanned_spaceflight
WikiProject_Unmanned_spaceflight
There were a couple of other edits, but they were just cosmetic adaptations which I have no problem with. But again, the problem is I have put messages on both the project talks and the editor's talk page (as I said, they replied to a another message) before and after. I wouldn't mind if it was just a "you're wrong because of *this* and *this*". So how do I proceed other than just boldly edit-warring to tease out a discussion, which I don't want to do? ChiZeroOne (talk) 03:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for providing at least some diffs. You linked to the page, yes, but there is too much reading to be done without knowing the specifics. I've already suggested that you can do a WP:BOLD: (bold-revert-discuss), without risk of being accused of starting an edit war. Otherwise, on the article talk page you can signal your attention to make certain changes, and wait for a discussion to begin out of which a consensus will emerge. However, it would probably be best to try to engage User:GW Simulations in a dialog in the correct places (article and/or template talk pages), and none of this appears to have been done yet.--Kudpung (talk) 01:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No direct contact with named sources/entities by your "editors"

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This totally legitimate transgender artist cited elsewhere in Wikipedia by BACK UP BANDMEMBERS as being in this person's band, was harassed and insulted by wikipedia "editors." I was also banned from chat and for login for merely trying to make this article. This response was obscene outside the realm of fact and bigoted.

(A copy of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bralalalala was pasted here and has been removed for clarity) -- John of Reading (talk) 06:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting Editor Assistance Requests. A further search has failed to reveal sources that establish notability of the article's subject. In order to accept new pages for inclusion in the Wikipedia, articles must assert notability (importance of the subject), and the claims to notability must be supported by verifiable, third party sources. A band's or a person's own web site, or that of their agent or tour manage, or an events calendar of a concert venue, are not considered as reliable sources. Citations from notable newspapers and magasines must be supported by publication dates, page numbers, publishing house, and author. Our reviewer's comments are generally final. I hope this helps. Kudpung (talk) 06:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
To be fair, the description of required reliable sources is not entirely accurate, e.g. programmes in the broadcast media may also contribute to notability. Details can be found in WP:N and various subpages of that page. However, it seems to me that the main problem with that article isn't so much the lack of sources as the content, which is written like an advertisement for the person and gives practically no actual information. We could write such articles about practically every notable artist, and they would be totally useless. E.g.:

William Shakespeare was a play writer who has been called "no doubt the greatest writer in English language" in the Korea Times. Shakespeare was also termed in one of Europe's largest theatre magazines, as "The one writer that nobody on the planet can ignore". Shakespeare received the 1998 Academy Award for Best Film for a film about his life. Shakespeare was acknowledged as a "star author" yet his real identity enquired into at a 1967 conference at Harvard. A programme about Shakespeare has appeared in BBC West Yorkshire, one of England's leading local radio chains. Plays by Shakespeare were shown briefly in the People's Republic of China, although he was controversial, and functionaries commented that many of his lines were not in accordance with the party line. Shakespeare has been written about in hundreds of major literary magazines and broadcast programmes over the centuries, as well as hundreds of theatre enthusiasts' sites on the web. The earliest play written by Shakespeare was entitled "Henry VI". His latest was "The Two Noble Kinsmen". The disputes about Shakespeare's real identity continue in academic circles and the popular media.

The only way such an "article" has a chance to survive is when someone who can actually write happens to know that the artist in question is notable in spite of the appearance to the contrary and decides to rescue it. Hans Adler 08:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Note that Bralalalalagotcensored (talk · contribs) has since added more sources to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bralalalala - diff. Do these help? -- John of Reading (talk) 10:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
And has been blocked indefinitely as a sock of [[user|Foulball}} who has a one week block. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Christian Scott article help

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I've done some editing for the article on Jazz musician Christian Scott. There are two flags on his article that I would like to have removed but don't know how to edit to have them removed. One of the flags says "This biographical article needs additional citations for verification." I've added all the citations and am confused as to what else needs to be done. Please advise me.

The other flag says "This article or section reads like a news release, or is otherwise written in an overly promotional tone." I used the tone that I found on the page of another Jazz musician, Esperanza Spalding, as my guide for the Scott edits. Esperanza Spalding's article is almost the same in tone and content but does not have the flags that Christian Scott's article does. Please advise me in how or what needs to change to have the flags removed.

Thank you, in advance, for any assistance you can provide. --Caraharrison01 (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the work you're doing on the Christian Scott article.
You would remove the tags by editing the article text in the usual way - they are the {{BLP sources}} and {{News release}} lines at the very top. But I've had a quick look, and I think the tags should stay for now.
Here's one example where the referencing falls short: the "Early life" section starts with a paragraph about his date of birth and the name of his brother. The only footnote in that entire section is at the end; it tells me to follow a link to the official website. Does the official website give these details? Where? They aren't on the home page mentioned by the reference. Have a look at David Gower for an example of a well-referenced article - or, now that I come to look at it, Esperanza Spalding.
And for the tone: "Christian exhibited a variety of talents and an exceptional intellect at a very early age", "Although Christian's skills were increasing at a lightning fast pace", "...was no surprise to those who recognized his trailblazing work". These quotes seem promotional to me. If these opinions of this musician's talents were published in reliable, independent sources then you should add references to the sources; otherwise they don't belong in an encyclopedia article.
All this makes me sound like an expert biographer; I am not. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, so very much. I'll get to work on this. I appreciate your insight and assistance, John of Reading. Caraharrison01 (talk) 14:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

overriding Commons images

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It takes forever to get anything done at Commons, and meanwhile there are erroneous or simply unencyclpedic images which are not appropriate here. I have been locally uploading an img stating "this image is not yet available" at the file name, which overrides the Commons transclusion.

For example, the montage File:Moons of Saturn 2007.jpg (Commons:File:Moons of Saturn 2007.jpg) is factually incorrect, as it illustrates Dione with an image of Enceladus. Although a beautiful image, it doesn't seem likely to be fixed any time soon.

Also, we have consensus that File:WeywotComSimul.jpg (Commons:File:WeywotComSimul.jpg) and File:Celestia Weywot.jpg (Commons:File:Celestia Weywot.jpg) are unencyclopedic and should not be used, yet anon. IPs kept restoring them to Weywot (moon), evidently under the impression that something, even if wrong, is better than nothing.

Is there an agreed way of handling situations like these? — kwami (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have it under control at the moment. The Commons description of the Weywot image says that the shape and surface texture are fictional. That begs the question what about that image is not fictional? SpinningSpark 17:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I have just seen your post to Drtony999. You could be a little more explanatory rather than accusatory. The editor may well be acting entirely in good faith. SpinningSpark 18:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Why not post at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop to ask for Commons:File:Moons of Saturn 2007.jpg to be fixed? If you make it 100% clear which part of the image is incorrect, and give the URL of a free-use image that should be used instead, a Photoshop/GIMP expert should be able to upload a new version. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Good suggestion. Thanks. — kwami (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Question about views/popularity of an article and it's "notability"

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

An article I worked on was recently deleted for lack of notability (Grindor). It had some references, but I guess it wasn't good enough for the editors who voted. I was just looking, and the article seemd to have lots of views according to a view tracking site - as many as 150,000 views in one month. Are number of views any indicator of notability of an article or is that irrelivant to deletion nominations? I didn't want to bring it up in trying to get the page back if it's not relivant. Mathewignash (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The page views for that page are less than 10,000 per month, but in any case it has no bearing at all on notability. Popularity does not equal notability on Wikipedia. To justify this as an article you need to find reliable sources that are independant of the subject which show that the character has made an impact in some way on the real world. Newspaper articles with a discussion more than a trivial mention in passing are good for this. In-universe guides to the film/toys etc are not good. Take another look at the comments made at the deletion debate. You need to find better sourcing before you could recreate the article succesfully. SpinningSpark 22:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
If you go back to last year however, the views were greater than 150,000 when the movie the character in was in theatres. However, thanks for the advice! Mathewignash (talk) 00:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalizing of Howard King wiki

Resolved: answered and talk page and warned about edit warring, outing and Wikipedia policies. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Howard King (referee) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Red Avenged (talk) 00:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Red AvengedRed Avenged (talk) 00:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I am having a certain problem with someone who is always changing the edits I make to the wiki of former referee Howard King. I think I know who the person is, and is doing so due to mere childness and stubbornness. The IP of the vandalizer is from Braga, Portugal, same residence of the person I have in mind.

This person can not bear me having reason over the edits that I have made on the wiki, despite me having shown him evidence of such, hanging for his life, on the words of a welsh online newspaper who says that Howard King was banned from any activity envolving football (despite there not being any information on who banned him!) due to him admitting receiving vice girls on the eve of European matches (and not Europeuan as the user always writes :s), despite there not being any clubs banned from European competitions, when Dinamo Kiev for example was banned due to a episode with referee Lopez Nieto.

The links I have referenced on the wiki show the contrary, the link in flemish says in a excerpt from http://users.skynet.be/Crystal/specials/SP4.htm :

"De sportieve groei van de ploeg werd naar de achtergrond verdrongen. Plannen om met RSC Anderlecht naar de beurs te gaan werden uitgesteld. De hoofdsponsor, de Generale Bank, dreigde af te haken maar zette de samenwerking uiteindelijk toch verder op voorwaarde dat er naast Anderlecht-Nottingham geen dergelijke affaires zouden opduiken. Elst stelde ook nog een deel andere wedstrijden in een kwaad daglicht. Elst zou ook de scheidsrechter Keith Hackett benaderd hebben voor de wedstrijd tegen Banik Ostrava, in oktober 1983. Ook de wedstrijd RSC Anderlecht-Malmö van september 1987 kwam in negatieve zin ter sprake nadat de Welshe scheidsrechter Howard King eind 1995 voor 400.000 frank het verhaal van carrière uit de doeken deed aan het Boulevardblad News of the World. Daarin vermelde King allerlei geknoei rond Europese wedstrijden, waaronder ook RSC Anderlecht-Malmö.De UEFA onderzocht de zaak, maar beschouwde ze op 20 maart 1997 als afgedaan, er vanuitgaande dat Howard King zijn fantasie de vrije loop had laten gaan in ruil voor een pak geld."

Which translates roughly to English in:

"The sportive growth of the team was pushed to the background. Plans to go to the stock exchange with RSCA Anderlecht were postponed. The main sponsor, the "Generale Bank", threatened to discontinue their cooperation, but in the end they continued on condition that no more affairs other than Anderlecht- Nottingham would surface. Elst also talked about other soccer games. He was supposed to have talked to referee Keith Hackett before the match against Branik Ostrawa in october 1983. Also the game between Anderlecht and malmo was talked about in a negative way after the Welsh referee Howard King told the story of his career for 400 000 franks to the tabloid News of the World at the end of 1995. He told about messing with European games, including Anderlecht-Malmo. UEFA investigated the case, but at 20 march 1997 closed it, because there was nothing that supported his claims, supposing Howard King used his fantasy for a lot of money"

I hope you have in consideration this information.

If you need more information on Howard King, I would be glad to help.

Best Regards and sorry for the inconvenience.

Red Avenged (talk) 00:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Red AvengedRed Avenged (talk) 00:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


Help with Dhimmi article

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

Discussion moved: To Talk:Dhimmi#Moved from WP:EAR, as per my suggestions to continue the discussion there. Kudpung (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I am new and apologize if this is the incorrect forum. I have tried to round out the introduction to the Dhimmi article by including references to the role of invasion, persecution (physical torture, verbal abuse, etc.), and murder in the initial Islamic conquests. In order to do so, I have cited two books, each of which is broad in scope. One book, "Contemporary Zoroastrians", actually includes detailed information on 2000+ years of Zoroastrian experience, but it focuses heavily on the periods of Islamic oppression (when the Zoroastrians were made Dhimmis) in Iran and India. The other book, "The Mandaeans: Ancient Texts Modern People", also touches on almost 2000 years of history, but includes a chapter the narrates the persecutions of the Mandaeans, who had obtained Dhimmi status. I chose these two faiths because they are so small (all practitioners of both faiths put together number fewer than 300,000), they are ancient -- they predate Christianity -- and they were severely affected by the Islamic conquest. I also thought that referencing faiths of which I am not a believer (and few on here are likely to be) would help avoid heavily POV Christian vs. Muslim backlash. Another user continues to delete my referenced additions and, to be honest, most of his contributions to the article seem heavily POV to me. I just don't have time to check them all. I hope this wasn't too long. Deseretian (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well you have engaged in discussion on the talk page, which is good. But I don't see any signs that you are taking on board some of the points made by Aquib american muslim. You have a difference of opinion, nothing wrong with that. But you should not go in and change referenced statements in the way that you have been doing. As suggested to you, try adding your suggested material in separate sentences or paragraphs. Where there is a clear conflict of sources, then you can say something like X suggests that such and such is the case, whilst Y disagrees, pointing out whatever. Lastly you say that you don't have time to check out the other editor's sources. If you are really interested in the subject you should be checking out all sources. Attempt to work with the other editor to reach consensus. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Will try to find a better compromise. I'd left in all of his references, and I thought I had reworded the paragraph to accommodate both viewpoints. I don't doubt his reference is real; rather, I feel it is extremely biased. Though he has deleted my references because he doesn't feel they are 'broad' enough, I don't feel comfortable deleting his -- I do believe in fairness to all sides. I'll rework the article according to your suggestions. If, however, my contributions continue to be deleted, what do I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deseretian (talkcontribs) 20:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

As Jez suggested, continue the dialogue on the talk page and attempt to achieve a consensus. If that fails, one of you could consider simply conceding the issue, or if the editing really becomes disruptive within the definition of our policies (see: WP:DIS), then you can consider raising the matter at WP:ANI - but do try to resolve the matter amicably among yourselves first.--Kudpung (talk) 07:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(Continues at Talk:Dhimmi#Moved from WP:EAR)


Great Pyramid of Giza

Unresolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

People keep putting false information about the dimensions of the Great Pyramid of Giza on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza#Materials in this section;

"History and description

It is believed the pyramid was built as a tomb for fourth dynasty Egyptian pharaoh Khufu[1] and constructed over a 14-[3] to 20-year period. Khufu's vizier, Hemon, or Hemiunu, is believed by some to be the architect of the Great Pyramid.[4] It is thought that, at construction, the Great Pyramid was originally 280 Egyptian cubits tall, 146.5 metres (480.6 ft) but with erosion and absence of its pyramidion, its present height is 138.8 metres (455.4 ft). Each base side was 440 royal cubits, 230.4 metres (755.9 ft) long. A royal cubit measures 0.524 metres.[5] The mass of the pyramid is estimated at 5.9 million tonnes. The volume, including an internal hillock, is roughly 2,500,000 cubic metres.[6] Based on these estimates, building this in 20 years would involve installing approximately 800 tonnes of stone every day. Similarly, since it consists of an estimated 2.3 million blocks, completing the building in 20 years would involve moving an average of more than 12 of the blocks into place each hour, day and night. The first precision measurements of the pyramid were done by Egyptologist Sir Flinders Petrie in 1880–82 and published as The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh.[7] Almost all reports are based on his measurements. Many of the casing stones and inner chamber blocks of the Great Pyramid were fit together with extremely high precision. Based on measurements taken on the north eastern casing stones, the mean opening of the joints is only 0.5 millimetres wide (1/50th of an inch).[8]"

This statement is completely false;

"Each base side was 440 royal cubits, 230.4 metres (755.9 ft) long. A royal cubit measures 0.524 metres.[5]"

Firstly, there is no reference given for the 440 cubit figure, only for the length of the royal cubit, which also happens to be erroneous. The world's foremost authority on the subject of Giza pyramid dimesnions if Flinders Petrie, the very person I cited as my reference for the Great Pyramid sides being 439.8 royal cubits and for the royal cubit being 523.748 mm. Please stop the people who persist in undoing my fully referenced corrections with their unsatisfactorily referenced disinformation, such as Ian Thomson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Northstar2595 (talkcontribs) 13:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Editor has been replacing a more current source with an outdated one ([4], basically all his edits to the Great Pyramid of Giza article), accusing other editors of vandalism for reinserting the more up-to-date reference ([5], [6]), failing to assume good faith as well as making attacks through an IP sockpuppet ([7]). Ian.thomson (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hipster

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hipster (contemporary subculture) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been accused of lack of neutrality. Specifically, inappropriate tone in the latter sections of the article. Discerning editors might like to have a look. --Whoosit (stalk) 16:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard is dedicated to neutrality concerns. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Independent comments on way forward for an article

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Colworth House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I am concerned about the quality of this article, specifically that it contains inappropriate, non-encyclopaedic material. I cannot edit the article again myself as I have a personal interest as an ex employee. There's more detail on the article's talk page.

I hope one or more independent editors will edit the talk page giving opinions on the best way forward for this article. Any input or advice will be appreciated.

Thanks --Chris Jefferies (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal interest is not the same thing as conflict of interest. There is no prima facie reason why an ex-employee should have a COI, unless of course, you are a disgruntled ex-employee or are still connected with the organisation in some way. SpinningSpark 00:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
It's scary to remove such a large block of text. I have gone ahead and trimmed the article as there are no active editors on the page to discuss it. --Diannaa (Talk) 03:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both. I was probably too cautious and will read conflict of interest again. But I think if I'd removed that stuff it might have simply been reinstated (could still happen). At least the page looks like an encyclopaedia article again! --Chris Jefferies (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I will watch-list the article for a while to see what happens. If you have access to any local newspaper reports or any new (properly sourced) info and want to add it that would be great. --Diannaa (Talk) 06:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit war on Compagnies Républicaines de Sécurité

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Compagnies Républicaines de Sécurité (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I seem to have got myself in an edit war with an unregistered user on this article about a French police force. My view is that they are pushing their point of view and using unreliable sources such as video links, forum discussions and blogs, as well as making unsubstantiated allegations of media cover-up. The user thinks I just want to suppress information. I tried to incorporate their reliable sources into a more acceptable version but they won't budge and keep reverting to their original version. The discussion on this took place on my own talk page rather than the article's, though they wrote something there as well. I have now run out of patience and am not sure how to deal with an unregistered user who started off by threatening me with a ban. Some assistance or arbitration or advice would be appreciated. Mezigue (talk) 12:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoever wrote it, the entire lead section resembles a string of complaints about the CRS. Whether they are backed up or not by verifiable sources, the article does not present an encyclopedic neutral description of what the CRS is (or are), and needs rewriting. From his/her comments on your user page, User 85.99.132.176 appears to be clearly in breach of Wikipedia for using it as a platform for his grievances against the CRS. Probably the only solution will be to bring this issue to WP:ANI for resolution, if he persists on maintaining the non neutral tone of the article. --Kudpung (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
In the meantime, I have reverted the article to the last known neutral version.--Kudpung (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Britain (Film)

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I posted the comments at the bottom on Wikipedia the Battle of Britain (film) in the section Historical accuracy. It was twice removed by EnigmaMcmxc & MilborneOne the gounds were 1/ it was opinion 2/ the film was entertainment,not a documentary.

Disagree , first the film is a semi documentary, it is based on and follows fairly accurately a historical event. Second it is not an opinion that the hairstyles and some of the dress are from the 1960's ,you only have to use your eyes, it is a valid observation. Second it is a fact that plastic aircraft models for children of the type in the film were not available until 1954.Likewise plastic doorbells of the type seen in the film were not available until the 1950's any electric doorbell prior would be either Bakelite or metal covered with rubber. Garage up & over doors were invented in 1921 by C.G. Johnson in America but were not made out of metal until the late 1960's.Glass front doors would be highly unlikely in 1940 particularly on an old cottage. Glass doors in the thirties & forties were largely confined to French windows at the rear of middle class houses built in the Edwardian period or as front doors on art deco houses when a metal and not a wooded frame would be used. I think my addition is valid for those who like a high degree of authentic detail in period films.


The film is spoilt somewhat by poor attention to period detail ,the use of contemporary 1960's hair styles especially on the women being the most obvious.The British ambassadors wife also wears a very 1960's twin set and pearls and Ian McShanes wife seems to have gotten her cloths in a 1969 high street the day before filming. In one scene Ian McShane is shown giving his sons a pair of Spitfire model aircraft, these are obviously plastic airfix models and could not have existed in 1940 as airfix did not begin to make such models until 1954.Another scene with Ian McShane and Robert Shaw leaving a cottage in the early morning shows that the cottage has a plastic electrically operated door bell that did not exist in 1940,a modern (for 1960's) glass front door and a metal up and over garage door.Garage doors in 1940 were made of wood, came in pairs and opened outward. Pity the makers did not make more of an effort with the fine detail13:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by KALASIM (talkcontribs)

Hi, and thank you for your interest in contributing to Wikipedia. The reason the people keep removing your contribution is because you are adding your own criticisms of the film, not that of critics that have been published in reliable sources such as books or magazines or newspapers. Adding our own analysis is called original research and is not permitted, so sorry. I have posted some helpful links on your talk page. --Diannaa (Talk) 13:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Alexander McKenzie American Politician

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Eventhough I have spent the summer searching and contacted historical societies in North Dakota, I cannot find birth information on alexander McKenzie. The given birthdate does not bring up anyone on ancestry.ca. Do you have any further detail on more specifically where he was born? Or can you tell me where you got the information that you have on him? any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time, Deborah Cousins

I don't think we will be able to find any additional sources, but maybe the Reference Desk can help. – ukexpat (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Westland Lynx Speed Record

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

There is currently an edit war regarding the Westland Lynx on Wikepedia regarding its speed record.

The section in question follows:

In 1986 a specially modified Lynx broke the official airspeed record for helicopters, which it still holds.[1]

An attempt to clarify that there is a limit to the speed at which this type of helicopter can fly and this helicopter did not exceed it have been repeatdly deleted. Reference to this limit were supplied. Additional clarification was to the term official speed record not referencing who - this is important as this aircraft did not exceed the limits nor establish a new technology such as when the X-1 broke the speed of sound there are also several different speed limits and the correct limit broken is not identified. As written, this sentence only serves as propoganda for Westland who is currently disputing the Sikorsky X2 as a helicopter that has unofficially broken this record.

Attempts at reconciling this entry was made as follwing and further editing would be apprciated to avoid obfuscation and propoganda use by this company which may result in unfair business practices:

In 1986 a specially modified Lynx was recorded by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale as setting the airspeed record for helicopter subcatgeory (Sub-class E-1) demonstrating that the theoretical maximum speed for single rotor helicopters can not exceed 250MPH.

It is also requested that this information be removed from the lead of this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.165 (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Empirical actions don't demonstrated diddlysquat about theory; "demonstrating that the theoretical maximum speed for single rotor helicopters can not exceed 250MPH" sounds like an assertion which is not backed by the source. Read WP:OR. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Notability

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Dylan's Candy Bar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I dont understand why my edits are not noteable. I have tried everything. Deleting information, editing it, citing every sentence.. and it still says at the top of the page that it is notable. What do I do? Emich367 (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Erica

Hi, perhaps you acn give us a link to the article. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I've found your edits. It appears that it is probably the article itself that is not notable, rather than your edits. A candy store (sweet shop) is generally nothing unusual even if they stock a lot of different candies. It's even possible that the entire article may be completely deleted, if administrators reach a decision based on the notability tag. Two editors have already tried to explain the situation to you on your talk page. We can only reiterate their advice. --Kudpung (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ventureño Language

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Greetings. I am attempting to resolve a dispute about the Wikipedia article on the Ventureño language. In the article, I am asking the editor JorvisVS to separate two types of sounds in a column listed on the Ventureño Language page. I've tried resolving this issue on JorvisVS's talk page, but the editor insists on drawing out a long and complicated argument.

The editor is not qualified to discuss the phonetics of this particular language. I believe I've laid out my credentials on JorvisVS's talk page, and other linguists, all holding doctorates, agree with my assertions. I do not have the patience, time, or space to argue with this editor over why he should not be spreading incorrect information in regards to Ventureño's phonetic and phonemic system. The Ventureño article also cannot reasonably contain ALL the information it would take to justify my position (and that of other Chumashist linguists) in this instance. I believe I've already offered enough data to justify my conclusions. In addition, I'm sure the main editors of Wikipedia understand that every single assertion of every single Wikipedia article does not necessarily need a dissertation discussion behind it.

I do not mean to sound cruel or unfeeling. I appreciate the help and concern of this editor. But in this matter he is pressing an issue in which he is ill-informed, or completely uninformed (these conclusions based on his responses). The real issue is that he is spreading incorrect, or 'bad', information the entire time he refuses to undo his edits on the table. I have 'nothing to lose' by being 'right' or 'wrong' in this matter. But the Ventureño tribe I work with accesses this article, and I am concerned particularly about them accessing incorrect information. To say nothing about other linguists and the rest of the world wanting to learn more about this language.

Please help resolve this issue and thereby restore accurate information to the Ventureño article.

Alaquwel (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You might consider enlisting the help of editors at WP:WikiProject Languages to assist in improving the article. I don't see any discussion on about your concerns on the article talk page, which is the appropriate venue. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. This user JorvisVS has also been editing other pages he has no reason to edit, as I hear from other linguists, so perhaps someone can intervene for us. Based on interactions with JorvisVS, I do not think reposting my concerns on the article talk page will prevent him from continuing to undo my edits (including my original creation of the page). Alaquwel (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Qualifications are not required. If you belive that someone is inserting incorrect information, then please use the bold, revert, discuss cycle to revert incorrect additions, discuss on the talk page and work to reach consensus anongst the editors on that article. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


TV series list of character pages

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's say you have a wikipedia page for a TV series. Then you also have a page that is "List of characters" from that series. Do you need to cite third party sources for the characters list page or can primary or secondary sources (like the show credits, the TV series web site, a book on the series, etc.)? Thanks! Mathewignash (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably best asked at WP:WikiProject Television. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Mathewignash (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
It's been a couple days and no response from the Wikiproject Television. Anyone want to take a stab an an answer here? I'd appreciate it. Mathewignash (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, generally all information in Wikipedia should be sourced to third party reliable sources. Without specific examples it is hard to say more. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that in those cases primary sources are acceptable as long as they're only used to state "actor X" plays "Y" (in Season Z). However, there may be reasons other than "unsourced" for not including a character in such a list (for example that the character only appears in one or a few episodes), so if you're in doubt you should start a discussion on the article's talk page (or try WP:BRD).--Six words (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

When suggestions made as a joke are taken seriously

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate a bit of advice in regard the following: Not my suggestions, but in the course of discussion on some articles there are editors making obvious joke proposals for illustrating articles, and those proposals are being taken seriously by other editors. It's fairly obvious when a proposal is made as a joke, yet as a result at times, others jump on board either to cause more trouble or because they really didn't see it was a joke to start with. How do we handle this when some editors just don't realise it is a joke, and others want to disrupt by pretending to seriously support the proposal? End result of this is that it makes editing feel like working on a school project in a class at a particularly nasty school.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.133.139 (talkcontribs)

Editors should be reminded that wikipedia is a serious project, and proposals intended as a "joke" are not appropriate for that reason. Could you provide a link to the discussion? Are you sure that it was meant as a joke? The fact that it's gaining support from others makes it more likely that it was a serious proposal rather than a disruptive one; remember that you should assume good faith, and if in doubt, discuss it with the users involved. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The page is Cum shot. It was spotted as a joke about four years ago by another editor, and that part of the discussion (Illustration or not) is still open (the last comment there is clearly sarcasm). That it was mistakenly taken as a serious proposal is fairly obvious, there has been a very strong consensus formed over that time for its removal. Editor comment in the discussion: Oh for pete's sake, the request for an illustration was joke. This is an encyclopedia. The description of the cum shot and its variations is about as visual as my stomach can take. ~ Otterpops 21:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 62.254.133.139 (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You can try collapsing it:

Or if you notice it before anyone has mistaken it for a serious request, you can remove it per the talk page guidelines. Active Banana ( bananaphone 19:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Again though, if there's any doubt, you should discuss it with the user and ask them to retract it instead, since as a general rule you shouldn't refactor others' comments. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll close it as the last comment there was Dec. 2008 And thanks for template guideline, very helpful for a newish editor like me.62.254.133.139 (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


Since the editor made a "You again?" comment to me, it's obvious he's not "new". He might be a "Brucejenner" sock, for example. Also, the original premise is wrong. Even if someone makes a suggestion as a joke, that doesn't mean the idea doesn't have merit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
And it doesn't mean it has merit either. Most of the arguments in favor here of the original joke proposal are fallacious as per Wikipedia arguments to avoid. A consensus in favor of keeping can't be taken to have been formed when based largely on arguments to avoid. For instance several arguments (repeated in one form or another) for keeping the illustration and even the article are based on I don't see why notWP:IDSWN, and Wikipedia is about everything WP:EVERYTHING, even though these are both listed as invalid arguments to be avoided.
WP:IDSWN - to quote: "Editors often perceive only the good points of a proposal/nomination, and do not see the bad ones...."
WP:EVERYTHING - to quote: "Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such, it should convey information on all branches of knowledge. However, "all branches of knowledge" is not "everything"."
I have stated this on the discussion page of the article but there seems to be a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in regard to any suggestion or reasoning for removal 62.254.133.139 (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say it has merit. And I didn't say it doesn't have merit. What I said was that just because it may have been intended as a joke, does not mean it does not have merit. The merit issue should be based on the idea itself, not on whether it was originally supposedly intended as a joke. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say you did (or point out to me where), I was merely stating that for balance. But it raises questions about merit when other editors take it to have been a joke suggestion. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Translation of article on NL vs. COI

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 12:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been working lately on Eindhoven University of Technology and related articles. As part of this effort I have translated some articles on the Dutch edition about (former) rectores magnifici.

One of the articles on former rectores available for translation is on prof.ir. Martinus Tels (w:nl:Tinus Tels). I'd like to translate it and add it to the collection -- but the subject is my father. Which of course opens up WP:COI questions.

Can you guys advise on the best way to proceed? Translate, declare interest and request a review (i.e. {{Request edit}})? Or try to request a translation by someone else (which might not yield a result for a long time)?

Thanks, -- BenTels (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest "Translate, declare interest and request a review". As long as you are open about the COI, declaring it on the talk page should be OK. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Drop me a note if you want once you've made Martinus Tels and I'll be happy to check it over, you could also create it in a sandbox first if you want to be extra good. You need to make sure everything comes from reliable sources - the Dutch version wouldn't meet our standards as far as I can tell, but hopefully you have some sources which show your father is notable. Smartse (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll drop you a line (won't be today; I shouldn't do serious writing today). Regarding notability (i.e. WP:ACADEMIC), I'd say he automatically meets criterion 6 (having been rector magnificus of the Eindhoven University of Technology). He was also a member of the KNAW (which would fit point 2), but I don't think I can demonstrate that with on-line resources anymore. -- BenTels (talk) 13:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

were did bon jovi record the album circle plz

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 12:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

send anwers plz ty all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.10.225 (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Please rephrase in English. Active Banana ( bananaphone 21:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
LOL!

Can anybody please tell me where Bon Jovi recorded the album The Circle?
Please answer my question; thanks everybody!

 ;-)
Answer: partly at Henson Recording Studios in California, partly in Sanctuary Studios in New Jersey.
-- BenTels (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
For future reference, Wikipedia:Reference desk is the place to ask. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I didn't post the original question. :-) -- BenTels (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 12:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Peer Review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bytown_Mechanics%27_Institute

Hi Wikipedia, I am a relatively new wikipedian. I'm enjoying my time on Wikipedia and would like very much to contribute to the greater knowledge of pre-Confederation Canadian history. I've written a little bit and have had some truly good peer reviews, so please don't misunderstand my intent. The peer reviews are generally spot on and offer clear useful advise for a medium at which I am new. I appreciate the efforts of the editors doing the work.

However, the peer review for the Bytown Mechanics' Institute was really over the top. I don't know how to tell you how astongished I was when I received it. In short, I'm sure there must be some useful information in this peer review, but under the circumstances of condescending comments, any value is hard to get at. What do I say to this person?

These are some of the things that floored me.

  • Peer review comment: "Sad to say, I had no clear inkling what "knowledge transfer organizations" was trying to say during my first reading"

My comment: I knew I was in trouble when I saw this! The term is common enough to have a Wikipedia atricle. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_transfer

  • Peer review comment: ""These institutions were Victorian and moralistic in tone and class oriented in structure which, in part, explains their failure. The way this sentence is structured makes it seem pretty biased (stating the characteristics as negatives). Which reliable sources said this and on what authority? "

My comment: Victorians were moralistic, and they were proud of it! They were also highly class oriented and equally proud of that! I can't see the harm in stating this. Anyone with a background in Victorian social history would have no problem with this.

  • The comments about other references. Now here I am just blown away.

Peer review comment: The closest text in the body (Membership samples) that relates to this claim is sourced to a site that looks more to be a self-published website, which collates self-published genealogies.

My comment: Neither of the references are to websites. The 1st source is to an MA Thesis, which unfortunately is not available online. It is, however, available at the Ottawa Room of the Ottawa Public Library. The 2nd ref (Hardy) is a very, very standard text used in Library Science. It carries the weight of many years of academic scrutiny. I’m astonished at the comment.

  • Peer review comment: In short, there are about 400 Book Google sources on BMI, whether they be primary or secondary sources and they should be used.

My comment: These source fall into 2 categories: first are the one line entries in sources. I don’t think a single line in an entire text is a good source; second, they reference the references I’ve already used. Again, I’m truly astonished. There are really very few good sources on this subject and I am acquainted with most of them. Thanks so much CJ_WeißSchäfer 00:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CJ3370 (talkcontribs)

I see nothing particularly untoward in the peer review suggestions. You may not agree with them, that is your right, but there are several useful suggestion there. Wiki-links to terms such as "knowledge transfer organizations" would help; generally an MA thesis is not regarded as a particularly goo source, although it may contain references that could be investigated; {http://www.bytown.net/} does not look like a WP:RS. A google books search[8] produces 70 results, which may produce useful material. The article could do with development and expansion. it is a start, but only that. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't want this to go on too long, but you seemed to have missed the point unfortunately. Based on past experience I assumed that there would be some value in the peer review, however the condensending language makes that hard to get at--for example "sad to say". I don't for a minute think that the article merits Feature Article status--I was looking for some help; not a sad to say review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CJ3370 (talkcontribs) 20:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If you are unhappy with the peer review, then please talk to the reviewer. And don't forgetto sign your posts, using four tildes [~]. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Glock Hand Gun Information.

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Glock pistol

Under this link you list various agencies/countries that use this weapon. I just wanted to add that Florida Highway Patrol just went to the Glock 37 (gen4) .45GAP. The FHP website is http://www.flhsmv.gov/fhp/index.html. This information is given to you from a current Trooper.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.2.205 (talk) 08:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I have added the information to the table. Thanks for your contribution! -- Diannaa (Talk) 17:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Keith Springer

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 12:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, What you can do to improve this page, Keith Springer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I am not sure whether something should be merged, deleted, or expanded. Does anything need formatting, proofreading, or rephrasing? Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by JScottWL (talkcontribs)

De-jargonising would be a start - reading it, I have absolutely no idea what this guy does. – ukexpat (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I followed the references -- although he seems to be eminently quotable and frequently quoted, the references don't support the claim that Springer provided financial analysis for any of the news organizations listed. I'm going to rephrase that. I also agree that de-jargonizing the article would help immensely. I think he is likely to be notable, but I'm not sure that the current article and references support that -- some explanation of why he is notable and has been noted would be useful. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I have re-written the lead to give a little context. --Diannaa (Talk) 18:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

How many sources are needed? Proper formatting? How to properly include verified information? Listing in both "Compton" and "East Compton"?

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Compton, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and East Compton, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For about two months now, people have consistently deleted any and all references to Yuin University, making the unsubstantiated personal attack, "It is a diploma mill." (See, the Compton, California "History" page, for the date and time 03:34, 11 September 2010).

Moreover, there has never been any attempt to legitimately "edit." Rather, these people just immediately delete everything.

All of the following has been verified by State and local government records and reports. If the formatting needs to be corrected, or if there needs to be more sources/references, please advise:

Compton (education/schools)

For decades, Yuin University has operated in Compton, California, and it recently opened up its law library to the general public. [1] Yuin University offers a number of bachelor, and also, graduate degrees. Notably, Yuin University caters to working professionals and offers several evening and night courses, all leading to degrees. Additionally, Yuin University has a University Acupuncture Clinic, which provides low cost acupuncture every Monday through Thursday.[2]

East Compton (education/schools)

  • Yuin University[3] For decades, Yuin University has been situated at the far end of East Compton, and it recently opened up its law library to the general public. [4] Yuin University offers a number of bachelor, and also, graduate degrees. Notably, Yuin University caters to working professionals and offers several evening and night courses, all leading to degrees. Additionally, Yuin University has a University Acupuncture Clinic, which provides low cost acupuncture every Monday through Thursday.[2]

Tiffspiro (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Tiffspiro

Calling Yuin University a "diploma mill" would not be a personal attack, unless you're Yuin University. So far, no source has been presented that places the school in East Compton, California. It lists its own address as Compton.   Will Beback  talk  22:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Calling anything anything is probably not appropriate for an article about a settlement, and certainly to call a recognised facility a Diploma mill is unencyclopedic point of view unless very correctly and accurately sourced, such as, for example in a documentary or, magazine, or newspaper article with appropriate citations; otherwise we could still get into trouble for libel. See WP:POV, WP:NPOV.
The details of the education establishments (esp; the courses they offer, times and dates of classes, etc;) go beyond what is required for an article about a settlement, and indeed do not even generally belong in articles about schools and colleges unless the establishment is of exceptional note in its own right, and probably has an unblemished article of its own in Wikipedia, and its curriculum is of particular importance to the article. More on this at WP:SCHOOLS
Sourcing is required for any statement where a reader might ask himself (or us) the questions such as 'Who said that?', or 'Where is that stated?'. If a single source is weak, additional sources may be needed to support the claim. Policy and guidelines are here: WP:RS, WP:V and WP:CITE. It's quite a bit of readiing, but all editors should be familiar with it.
Any one of thousands of Wikipedia articles on settlements will give an insight to standard formatting, especially ones that are Good Articles, or Featured Articles. Check out the categories to find which ones are listed - you can find the lists on the WP:SCHOOLS page and more help isavailable at WP:MOS.
BTW: a city or a county library does not normally belong in an education section; more appropriate would be to locate it in a section on Amenities; Kudpung (talk) 02:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
To clarify, I don't think anyone wanted to add "diploma mill" to the article. Rather, it was put in an edit summary by an editor who removed the entry.[9]   Will Beback  talk  05:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Math of General Relativity and page swap

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Introduction to mathematics of general relativity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mathematics of general relativity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We have an odd situation here. Introduction to mathematics of general relativity is supposed to be a non-technical page for those not familiar with relativity, while mathematics of general relativity is supposed to be technical for those that are familiar with the topic. What we have is an intro article that is almost purely equations and an other article that has lots of explanatory prose that ordinary people can understand. What seems to be needed is not a move or a redirect, but a page swap. I've never heard of this happening on Wiki, so as far as I know, this is the place to post this. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that there is a stalled merge discussion on these two articles. The existence of both is an example of content forking which should be avoided. Mathematics articles, as with all other content on Wikipedia, should be accessible to the general reader and should not be written as a textbook. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't see this as content forking. "Introduction to" articles are explicitly part of wikipedia policy for topics that are very complex and technical to provide the basics for new readers, while the main article goes into the complex details. Mathematics of General Relativity is definitely one of those topics. You do, however have a point about textbook style. Based on that, sounds like the "intro to" article in this case should be deleted and directed to the main article. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

New Article Problems Due To Error

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't publish my article as I receive continuously the error that one of my sources would be blocked by the spam filter. My sources are triple checked and 1A. I wonder if someone has made similar experiences and could advise me what to do, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adlerauge2010 (talkcontribs) 11:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you succeeded. However, there are some problems. All your raw urls should be turned into references. You need to read MOS:LAYOUT and WP:BLP. Statements such as "yet the ambition for football was stronger." need a source. Take a look at other articles on footballers such as James Tomkins (footballer) James Tomkins (footballer) for examples. Dougweller (talk) 11:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

How to activate the Contents box on a page

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 12:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a Contents box on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dell How can it be activated? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

A table of contents will appear when the page has three headings - see WP:TOC. If you're desperate to have one anyway, include the magic word __FORCETOC__ in the page header somewhere. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply - I will try it out. In future, if I forget this magic word, how can I search for such information? - I searched for "magic word" on Wikipedia but did not find the article you link above. Ottawahitech (talk) 05:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
See Help:Searching. If you leave the "search" box empty and click on the magnifying glass, you are taken to another search page with an option to search the "Help and project pages". That would have found it. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
See Help:Magic words. – ukexpat (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Radiohalo - bias in article

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 12:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

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

There is bias/opinion on a page relating to the science of radiohalos. Attempts have been made to make the article fair but is unresolved.

The link below illustrates the bias, and the correction that should remain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radiohalo&diff=387433421&oldid=387393257

"Repeatedly and soundly rebutted" is a statement of opinion that cannot be confirmed. The article should be rephrased to say "repeatedly made rebuttals for". This change is more encyclopedic and unbiased. Daracon55 (talk) 01:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The place to discuss this problem is on the article talk page, which appears not to have been attempted yet. You may wish to mention exact excerpts from the cited books in order to demonstrate how those rebuttals are put forward in the source material. A consensus should be reached - don't be disappointed if it doesn't go your way.--Kudpung (talk) 02:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

wiki could reduce dithering, increase worthwhile uses

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 12:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

...persons otherwise likely to contribute..., especially with respect to "invitations" for "expected" improvements, are likely to be less able and interested if remarkably cumbersome "wiki" procedures/priorities remain as operative as they've long been and when unavoidably compared to better options, and given that the results could be being as expected, one of many ideas is that no wiki increased usage, as would be likely..., is to be more than approximated indefini tely. this has been a general impression about wiki provisions/options, though, in terms of this brief message, specifically "prompted" today (9-28-2010) by (mostly wasteful) attention today to sever al pages about logic, computing, ETC.; and mindful of said attention/topics, no "extensive" attempts to meet various levels of cogency likely will often be attempted (as primarily for wiki) or less often, unless many lasting "site changes" enable, if not cause, better results (for and from many), etc.................................................... :( ..... :/ ............... :) ....

Cdmcl3 (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a matter with which you require assistance? This isn't the place to make vague criticisms of wikipedia policy; if you wish to discuss wikipedia policies, WP:RFC may be a better venue. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I think you might be looking for this policy page: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Or maybe this page:) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Pata Khazana

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please assist in the page Pata Khazana. I cleaned up the article and added some new helpful information but the creator of the page (User:Sommerkom) keeps deleting my edits completely. Thank you.--Lagoo sab (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Your first step when involved in a content dispute is to discuss it on the article's talk page. I see that you have not done that. With regards to the dispute itself, first off, most of your formatting edits are very nice. However, I think that Sommerkom is right to be concerned about original research. When you say "MacKenzie seems to be mistaken because the letters he pointed out have been used in the 1923 Constitution of Afghanistan", you are making an original claim. You have gone to a source document and interpreted it. It probably seems like a silly objection, but Wikipedia can only report what sources say. There isn't a source saying that MacKenzie is mistaken. For more details about this policy, see the second case at the description of synthesis.
But my opinion really isn't that important. I think you ought to collaborate with Sommerkom on the article's talk page. Only if that goes poorly should you come here. --Danger (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
So just for that one thing my entire edits suppose to be reverted? The claim presented in the page by MacKenzie cannot even be verified because his book has no previews, Special:BookSources/9780728602724. The entire article is written without a single verifiable source. The page has a mention of a letter "Nur", and as far as I know there is no such letter in the Pashto language. Furthermore, the page's intro states "The manuscript could not be authenticated and is considered forgery by most scholars of Iranian Studies" but I don't see any sources that say this. I want to know, as an interested reader, who considers this a forgery? So basically, you're trying to tell me that whatever Sommerkom writes in the article is ok but whatever I edit must be done with his approval. There was already a discussion made at Talk:Pata Khazana but it seems that Sommerkom and Tajik don't feel like listening to facts. I provided an actual original pdf version of the manuscript but they removed it along with the official English version of the book called Patan Khazana that's now available via google book search. My intention is only to improve this article, not trying to support anyone's view on the subject. Currently it is written very bad, it makes no sense to readers.--Lagoo sab (talk) 16:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
See also: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Wikipedia:The_Wrong_Version, WP:WRONG, and the RFPP request. Discuss this with the editors you disagree with. If you don't, you won't get anywhere. How many times do I have to say this? Airplaneman 21:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Dude you're annoying me. I was just leaving a message to the user Danger. You messed up the article Pata Khazana by allowing it to be protected for the racist anti-Pashtun editors and now you're following me around.--Lagoo sab (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Lagoo sab, please refrain from making personal attacks against other editors. Please make an attempt at resolving this dispute yourself and stop wasting the time of other editors. --Danger (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry Danger, I was just frustrated with Airplane keep following me.--Lagoo sab (talk) 00:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to your accusation of racism against the the other editors working on Pata Khazana, not your response to Airplaneman. --Danger (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I know that. You don't notice what they are doing? Pata Khazana is the pride of Pashtun people and the creator of the article (User:Sommerkom possibly a.k.a. User:Tajik) belongs to the Tajik people group. [10] Tajiks are the biggest rival group of Pashtuns in Afghanistan. I don't see a single Pashtun editor going around messing with Tajik related articles. But if you follow the edits of these Tajik editors [11], whom do not deny being Tajiks, they are attacking Pashtun related articles only. They don't edit articles of any other ethnic group or other subjects but only Pashtun related ones and they add only negativity. I think that alone is very disruptive but Wikipedia admins turn a blind eye on them. So yeah that obviously frustrates Pashtuns and that is exactly their intention. Basically, they are focusing on the pride of Pashtuns. The guy below is another one who's every edit involves putting Pashtuns down.--Lagoo sab (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It is very likely that User:Lagoo Sab is a sockpuppet of banned User:NisarKand [12]--Inuit18 (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It is very likely that User:Inuit18 is a sockpuppet of banned User:Anoshirawan [13]. His every edit is identical to Anoshirawan and they both are in USA (likely California). Inuit18 and Anoshirawan both decorated their pages identically, both do small edits periodically, both edit same Afghanistan related pages with same identical POVs and both watch around for Pashtun editors only.--Lagoo sab (talk) 00:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations is the appropriate venue for that. WP:EAR is not. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)