Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 92

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

17th Test Squadron page error

Resolved: Kudpung (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

:

The unit patch on the 17th Test Squadron page is incorrect. I have the correct image. What is the process for making this correction?

Assistance is appreciated. The commander would like this corrected. Thank you

Naomiruth (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Upload is where to start. You need to check that copyright status is OK. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Fixed via OTRS. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Island of stability page has some link issues that need attending to

Resolved: fixed by bot Jezhotwells (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

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

There are some issues at the bottom of the page: # ^ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named predictions; see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text # ^ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named longlived; see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text # ^ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named nuclear; see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text Just figured posting here would get someone's attention who could do something about it, not sure where to flag this sort of thing:

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.91.81.114 (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC) 

That has been fixed by AnomieBOT.



What should be done with dead/recycled links?

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

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

I noticed a Reference that has been "recylced" in the Nortel article - it no longer contains the information it apparently once did. What is the practice at Wikipedia in this respect? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean the URL no longer has the same content? What you can do is check the website and see if you can't find the new location for the old content. Another strategy would be to look up the old URL on the Internet Archive and provide an archiveurl for the reference template, trying to use a version from around the accessdate in the template. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 21:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes exactly. There are several such references in the Nortel article. One in particular is of concern right now since there are several contributors claiming that information is not sourced as criticism in the article. However, an old reference originally titled by its publisher "Bailout billion - Taxpayers to prop up mega-loser Nortel" has been removed: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nortel&diff=prev&oldid=330746694 Ottawahitech (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah, that's gonna be a tough one. Looks like canoe.ca is a blocked site for the Internet Archive. Searching for the reference title on Google reveals nothing. Last suggestion I might have for that particular reference is to try LexisNexis, though you might have to go to a university library to get that. Remember: references don't have to be available online, they just have to be verifiable. Since there's no retraction or anything, it seems more likely that the article has just been archived and is unsearchable. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 11:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Is using the "deadlink" template a good solution to this problem? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
{{deadlink}} isn't solution at all. It's just a flag to try and alert other, interested users that a replacement reference may be needed. If you're an interested user and capable of researching a replacement reference, then please do so. If not, then {{deadlink}} plus a talk page note is probably the best you can do. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping this section alive. In regards to the comment about references not having to be online, just verifiable - how does this work? I have excerpts of the article in question in my email box - obviously this is not verifiable for Wikipedia purposes? Does it require someone with access to university computers?- my own time is rather limited. This is becomnmg a sore point with the public who wants access to what really happened with Nortel, not the whitewashed Wikipedia version supported by only a couple of Wikipedians. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Basically, a verifiable reference has to be something that can be reasonably or readily researched. If what you have is in a published book somewhere, from a real newspaper, or in an academic journal, that's just fine. You just need to provide enough information for someone to find the source. For books, that's usually author, title, year and page numbers. Newspapers and periodicals: author, article title, publication title, volume/issue, date of publication and page numbers. ISBN/ISSN are also helpful.
If what you have, however, is some information you've compiled yourself through, say, interviews or reading blogs and forums, then that's not acceptable. Please take a look at WP:V and WP:RS for some additional hints. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 04:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I seem to have misread your last reply a little. You say you personally have the text, or at least parts of the text, of the article whose link has gone dead. The main question of using the article as a source has to do with its verifiability by people in general. All you need is to give enough information in the citation for readers to go out, find and read the relevant reference themselves. With newspapers, this is frequently going to be through a service like LexisNexis, since many newspaper websites take down articles after several weeks or months. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 00:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again for your continued help. I have re-entered and added information at Nortel. One of the references I provided was the newspaper deadlink which another Wikipedian replaced months ago, with no explanation, by a link to a page at the company's own website. This same Wikipedian then proceeded to claim that there was no evidence of critical language in outside sources - and that criticism was "original research" on my part. The deadlink reference I re-introduced comes complete with source of article, date of publication and article heading. I hope this time my edits will "stick". Ottawahitech (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Looks like the current disagreement stems from whether the content belongs in a criticism section. I think that editor is technically correct that it isn't criticism, though it may be a notable historical event. Certainly it ought to be discussed at Talk:Nortel.

By the way, is this the article you're trying to use? It seems to have a slightly different title, but the same date. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. This is the correct article and one that is still available on the web. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Moved from section "Copyright infringement?" to here, where I think it was intended to be placed. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I have done the best I can at Talk:Nortel/Archives/2011#John_Roth.27s_claim. I doubt, though, that this will be the end of this dispute, sigh... Ottawahitech (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Lucin, Utah#Lucin today currently reads:

"Lucin is currently a ghost town. It consists of a pond fed from a four-inch pipe that brings water from the nearby Pilot Range, a group of trees in an otherwise barren desert, two cylindrically-shaped cast concrete phone booths with wooden shelves and wiring, a rusty ice box, and several community root cellars equipped with electric wiring. Scavengers can find metal pins, nails, spikes, hinges, and small pieces of laminated marble. There are no remaining buildings. The original grading of the railroad can be found heading northeast toward Promontory, Utah and the Golden Spike National Historic Site."

This site says:

"Today Lucin is somewhat of an "oasis in the desert". Approaching the area from highway 30 to the north one can see a clump of lush green trees about 3 miles to the south/southwest. A small (4 inch) pipe originating in the Pilot Mountain Range to the southwest, supplies water to the area. Originally the ponds served as reservoirs for the trains water needs.

Other than the pond and clump of trees one can see two cement-cast telephone booths complete with wooden shelves and wiring, an old rusty ice box, and several community root celars also equiped with electrical wiring. Other items to be found include various metal pins, nails, spikes, hinges, even some small pieces of laminated marble, etc. No building structures remain at the site."

The article never provides a link to the site above, yet it closely paraphrases the site without providing credit. Should I take this to Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems, or should it be taken elsewhere? Thanks, The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 23:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Well the first step, as always, is to start a thread about this on the article talk page. You could also place a suitable template, such as {{Close paraphrase}} in the section. If no one responds then rewriting the section comprehensively would be a good idea. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. Thanks for your help. I was hesitant on leaving a note on the talk page because it's not very active. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 23:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Asking at the copyright problems page wouldn't hurt either if you're concerned about not getting a quick response. The folks there are pretty knowledgeable and should be able to give you a clear idea of what to do. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Tree structure

Answered: Kudpung (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

:

Hello, I need a tree structure to write an article, who can I do it?

Example

+ 1

 +1.1
   1.1.1
 +1.2
    etc..

Bosqueniebla (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have that kind of structuarl possibility, which is found in MS Word and Open Office. Perhaps you should try the Wikipedia:Article wizard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jezhotwells (talkcontribs) 10:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
You could do something like that with indents, but frankly, looking at what you're trying to do in article space, I think you might be misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Stack Exchange

Answered: Kudpung (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

:

The Stack_Exchange entry had some criticism but was erased twice by User:Qwfp who has already tried to place links to tex.stackexchange.com in several wikipedia articles.

Tried to discuss it with him, but he keeps erasing it without discussing removal.

The sources cited are reliable, expert blog entries and threads on serious sites, but User:Qwfp keeps deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.170.90.111 (talk) 09:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you take your sources to the reliable sources noticeboard for some expert input. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

References and template

Jack Tarpley Camp Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Resolved: resolved Kudpung (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

:

I added a template that various sections in the article needed references here. The sections noted have no inline references. Another editor removed the template here, explaining that there is an article in the Sources section that supports the information in those sections. My view is that having what amounts to a See also is not the same thing as sourcing each assertion in the article. First, the reader would first have to know to look at that source as it wouldn't be obvious from the body of the article. Second, for me as an editor to know if each assertion is sourced, I'd have to check each against that one source. Now, I know I could improve the article by going through each section myself and pointing to that one piece (assuming the assertion and the piece match), but I'd like an answer to the more narrow question about whether, given the current state of the article, the template belongs or doesn't.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Citing sources, inline citations are needed for any material likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The unreferenced sections in this article don't seem to be controversial, but they do contain quotations. So perhaps {{More footnotes}} at the top - the wording of this template exactly matches your concern - a {{Citation needed}} after each unsourced quotation, and a note on the talk page referring to Wikipedia:Citing sources. Or is that overkill? -- John of Reading (talk) 12:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Good suggestion, John, but I do think it's a bit much to do all those things. So, I added the template at the top and referred to WP:CITE in the edit summary. If someone else doesn't do it first, I'll insert inline citations appropriately when I have time (I'm already spending too much time on Wikipedia :-) ).--Bbb23 (talk) 12:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

RE HELP

MOTHER MARIE ELIZABETH HESSELBLAD

Answered: Kudpung (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

:

MAY I SUGGEST YOU ADD THIS GREAT SPIRITUAL LEADER TO YOUR LIST OF SWEDISH AMERICAN --- RELIGIOUS PERSONALITIES —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.241.118.140 (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

We have a department for that at Wikipedia:Requested articles, you can list it there. Alternatively, if you sign up for an account, you are most welcome to have a go at writing the page yourself.--Kudpung (talk) 05:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the actual request is to add Hesselblad to List of Swedish Americans#Religious personalities. This individual seems to be in List of blesseds, List of people who converted to Catholicism, Chronological list of saints and blesseds in the 20th century, and possibly List of Righteous among the Nations by country. The proper place to ask would probably be Talk:List of Swedish Americans. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 14:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Article on Color Blindness Not Correct

Answered: Kudpung (talk) 14:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

:

Hi,

I have noticed some inaccuracies in the article on color blindness:

I am hoping that my feedback has been helpful. My US cellular telephone is <phone number redacted>. You can also send to <email redacted>. Michael Cole—Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolcatcoleelectrical (talkcontribs) 19:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You might want to try checking out Talk:Color blindness. That's the talk page for the article color blindness. Also, you will probably want to check out our guidlines on citing reliable sources in a neutral fashion. By the way, the word "negroes" is considered archaic at best. Why exactly do you want to point out a supposed correlation between color blindness and race? Considering your statement "This is because the gene for Protanopia proves that blacks are the least evolved from apes," I think you may want to see our guidelines against tendentious editting. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the OP's contact details as per the notice at the top of this page. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Neither this page nor this website is the place for conspiracy theories on racism. Collapsed for good measure. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 04:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible Wikipedia Policy Violation

Answered: Kudpung (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

:

Chino Hills High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Does the linked article violate Wikipedia:NOTDIR? Saiarcot895 (talk) 05:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Not directly, no. It's tone is a tad promotional but we generally regard all secondary schools that go to grade 12 as de facto notable. Thanks for pointing it out. The article has already been earmarked to be edited for encyclopedic content by a member of the WP:WPSCHOOLS project, but if you are familiar with Wikipedia policies, and those regarding schools, please feel free to make any changes you feel appropriate.--Kudpung (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
So will it be appropriate if I do a similar page on the Ruben S. Ayala High School page even though I'm not officially a member of the WP:WPSCHOOLS project? I just want to clarify on this since some time back, some content was deleted, with the reason being Wikipedia:NOTDIR. Saiarcot895 (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, you could join the project if you are intersted in that area, but you don't have to be a member to edit or create schools' articles. You may find useful pointers to layout, structure and content at the Schools Project pages. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
(ec)You don't have to be a member of anything to be able to make any edits that your logged on tools will allow. We naturally welcome all constructive edits. if you would like to take on some of the more general housekeeping tasks associated with the schools project, please don't hesitate to visit the project page, read all about it and join ;) --Kudpung (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The specific edit to which Saiarcot895 is referring is this one from January. I would tend to agree with Drmies' assessment in removing the content per WP:NOTDIR. Primary and secondary school articles seem to have a great difficulty avoiding running afoul of this policy. A lot of it comes from all the options the infoboxes give (street addresses and phone numbers generally don't belong in WP articles), and this has come up several times in the past but never quite got settled.
As to what does belong in a school article, while it's good to look to other school articles and to any guidelines put out by the school project, the best way to see what belongs in a quality school article is to look to these ones: Category:FA-Class school articles. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 21:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto

Answered: Kudpung (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

:

Rabbi Pinto just need fresh eyes. Anyone who bothers to review the info will see:

A $30 Million building referenced in NYT is relevant A death curse cited by numerous newspapers in a mysterious death is relevant The users editing against the creator of the page are all new users who participate only for editing Pinto info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talkcontribs) 01:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Please note that this request or something very similar has been posted here three times in the last couple of weeks. If you have serious founded concerns, please take them to the biographies of living persons noticeboard where they will get attention. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Time window between article submission and viewing.

Answered: Kudpung (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

:

Greetings! I have just "saved"/submitted my first article to Wikipedia. Would you please tell me how long it will be before it appears in the general Wikipedia articles base for viewing?

Title of Article: Mattthew Skenandore Changed/Submitted: November 29, 2010 Username: Curlyharpy1 email: (redacted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curlyharpy1 (talkcontribs) 01:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't post your email, sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Everything is pretty much real time once it's saved, unless there's a server lag (doesn't appear to be on my end).
Ah, now I see what the problem is, you didn't create the article in general article space, you created it in your userspace, twice. You're going to want to check out the reliable sourcing guidelines. Blogspot does not count as a reliable source. You're also going to want to check out the notability guidelines, which requires an article's subject have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, ... to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." So far, neither article you've created has those (the three Seattle newspaper articles come close, but they emphasize he is a local artist, you really need at least something from a neighboring state, if not national or international), and if you move them into general article space, they will be deleted. Also, don't say he's innovative, it's not Wikipedia's job to show off for other people. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ambati Rayudu's Wikipedia

Resolved: Kudpung (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

:

There is a conflicting information regarding Ambati Rayudu in wiki. It is stated that he has played one ODI {One day International} against Sri Lanka and got out to Lasitha Malinga for 4 of 12 balls.

Ref: "Amabti Rayudu was selected for the national cricket team for the first time after his heroic performance in the Ranji season.He first played against the Sri Lankans and had the opportunity to play only a single match where he scored 4 runs in 12 balls.He got out to the yorker from Lasith Malinga".

This information is incorrect, Ambati Rayudu has never played cricket for Indian national team, he is currently playing for Baroda and in past he has played for Hyderabad, Hyderabad Heroes, ICL India X1 and Mumbai Indians. Ref: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/player/33141.html

Kindly correct the information posted on wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.84.123 (talk) 09:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You need to post this information on the talk page of the relevant article, with of course some reliable sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Abusive User/IP -- 208.120.254.41

Resolved: Kudpung (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

:

The IP Address 208.120.254.41 has gone to several generic wikipedia pages (messenger bag, ovens, etc) and added an external link to a commercial website selling the item in question. I suspect it would be best if his IP were blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.91.30 (talkcontribs)

I have warned them and removed some of their links. This is something any user can do. Spamming is vandalism, and once enough warnings accumulate, spammers can be reported as vandals at WP:AIV, and may then be blocked by an administrator (which I am not). Thanks for helping out. --CliffC (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Just like yourself (please sign your posts), an IP address is probably being used by many different people on a network. Blocking the IP would prevent others using it. Consider for example the publicly available computers in a public library or a school, or even a company. A vanadal or disruptive editor could be one editor among many who are providing serious contributions. You can place warnings on the IP talk page at each of the severity levels. An administrator will decide if blocking is necessary if the problem persists.--Kudpung (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I have checked it over too. The amount of recent activity does not warrant a block at this time, in my opinion. Thank you for reporting this. --Diannaa (Talk) 22:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal or solution needed

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

At least few editors that are informed about WP:ARBMAC, and contemporary Kosovo status, are highly needed at Talk:Kosovo#Kosovo article split. Thanks. --WhiteWriter speaks 00:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

What is you precise question? It appears that the items you mention are the subject of an WP:ARBCOM intervention. We generally only make suggestions and give advice on editing articles here.--Kudpung (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
There's really nothing extra the folks here are going to be able to do. There's already a RfC listed. Discussion will either happen or not, a solution will either emerge or it won't, and the problem will either resolve or it won't. If it doesn't, then continuing with the dispute resolution cycle is your best bet. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 21:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
But nevertheless, you are welcome to help us with neutral advices! Read the threat, and post your opinion! We need your help! Read, and post! We need more uninvolved advices regarding proposition. --WhiteWriter speaks 11:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion A7

Answered: Kudpung (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

:

I created the following page,

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

but it was quickly deleted with the reason given as A7. I would sincerely appreciate some guidance in what I need to do to fix this problem.

Thanks

Dblaser (talk) 17:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you see the notice on you talk page? If that doesn't explain it sufficiently please let us know. – ukexpat (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):The full explanation that includes:
because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant
is given on your talk page. It was probably because there were too few sources that prove that the article is about a notable subject. You can ask the deleting admin to restore the article to your user space if you think that you will be able to find all the references that conform to acceptable reliable sources, in order to assert notability.Kudpung (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

1972 Canad/Russia Series in Moscow

Answered: Kudpung (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

:

Hi: I have found 3 reels of super 8 video of this series taken in Russia. Is CTV interested in this type of information. My contact e-mail is <removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.59.236 (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

AROBAZE.png Please do not include contact details in your questions. We are unable to provide answers by any off-wiki medium and this page is highly visible across the internet. The details have been removed, but if you want them to be permanently removed from the page history, please email this address.
I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 4 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
That'll be Canada Russia '72. Anthony (talk) 05:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Trying to move Valeri "Tiger" Lilov

Resolved: Kudpung (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

:

I was going to move Valeri "Tiger" Lilov to Valeri Lilov, but it says that the page is blocked from being created. There must be some reason for that. If there is, perhaps the page Valeri "Tiger" Lilov should be deleted? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the page was deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valeri Lilov (2nd nomination), so can an administrator remove the new page? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I was just reading about the salt tag and speedy deletion. Someone hads done that - thanks. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Valeri "Tiger" Lilov is now deleted. Not sure what else can be done here. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 21:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Requesting Editorial Help

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I created the following page for Kellyco Metal Detectors:

User:Kellycodetectors/Kellyco Metal Detectors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would appreciate any help in making this article more notable. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Detma (talkcontribs) 15:38, 1 December 2010

Notability isn't the problem, it's nothing more than an advertisement masquerading as a (draft) article and has been tagged for deletion as such. Please read WP:SPAM, WP:CORP and WP:CORPNAME. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well to make the company more notable in Wikipedia terms would mean getting national, if not world wide attention in the quality press. A wholesaler generally doesn't meet the notability guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Also, you username appers to be promotional and thus not in accordance with our policies. You need to change that fast, read our policies on editing articles when you have a conflict of interest. I shall leave a note on your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Changed nickname in the preferences, and thank you for the advice concerning world wide attention. Many of the buyers from this company are international - however it is hard to find credible press sources linking back to Kellyco Metal Detectors. Again, I appreciate the help!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellycodetectors (talkcontribs)
Changing your signature in user preferences is not sufficient. You will have to create a new account that complies with the user name policy. But before you do that, if your sole purpose here is to create an article about your company, please read WP:COI. You are strongly discouraged from creating an article where you have a conflict of interest. If the company is notable or becomes notable in the future, someone will write an article about it eventually - there is no deadline. For present purposes WikiCompany may be more useful to you. – ukexpat (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Translated pages

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Anna Chromy, the European artist, has carved a fifteen foot sculpture called the Cloak of Conscience from a 250 tonne block of white marble. It has global significance and I am trying to translate her English wiki page into 16 other languages. We have succeeded with some, but others are being edited immediately after publishing with much of the content being stripped out.

These are the languages we are trying to translate to: Spanish, French, German, Portuguese, Indonesian, Arabic, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Italian, Greek, Korean, Hebrew, Dutch, Czech, Hindi.

Is there a way of doing this which prevents such action from happening, so that the resulting pages have as much information as the English version and are without warning messages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surrealist lover (talkcontribs) 11:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If you have problems on other language wikis, you need to find the equivalent page to this and post there. Each language wiki is a seperate entity. You will need to be familiar with policies on the various other wikis as they are not neccessarily the same as those on english Wikipedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
What's more, you should expect other language Wikipedia articles to be edited in the same way that you should expect your contributions to English Wikipedia to be edited. English Wikipedia is not an authoritative text to impose content on other language Wikipedias. Finally, the current English article on Chromý probably doesn't even meet our policies and guidelines (unfree images that wouldn't meet fair use guidelines, excessive number of images interrupting the article flow, complete dependence on the subject's website for sourcing). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 19:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

broken/vandalised main link on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pohick2/List_of_Nike_Locations

Resolved: page has been deleted Jezhotwells (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

hi, i'm not experienced enough to solve this issue, a "broken main link" on this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pohick2/List_of_Nike_Locations

it does come up (correctly) first on google when searching "Thomas Benjamin composer", and that's what the article is about ..

a user link in the article says User:Pohick2 This account is a suspected sock puppet of TRATTOOO and has been blocked indefinitely.

thanks for fixing it, kind regards,

88.153.20.54 (talk) 11:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well that artcile is a user draft article in WP:User space. Why don't you leave a note on the draft article talk page, pointing out the precise error. Being suspected of being a sockpuppet is irrelevant. Read the user talk page, they have been unblocked. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Pohick2 has been blocked indef for copyvio problems since July, and has not been unblocked as far as I can see. I see that 88 has already dropped a message at Moonriddengirl's talk page (the blocking admin). I'm not sure what else can be done here, though it's worth seeing whether this userspace draft needs to be deleted in relation to the copyvio problems. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 19:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Frankenstein

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed a major change to the article on Mary Shelly's FRANKENSTEIN. In the previous form the article cited my book FRANKENSTEIN, THE MAN AND THE MONSTER as a discenting opinion of the received analysis of Mary Shelly's intentions. That citaation is now missing from the Frankenstein article. How can I return the citation to the article?

Arthur Belefant. [email removed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by A.belefant (talkcontribs) 22:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The whole analysis section was removed in [1] with a brief discussion at Talk:Frankenstein#Removed Analysis section. You can post suggestions there. Per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest you shouldn't edit the article directly. If there is no analysis then it doesn't make much sense to quote a discenting opinion. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Please Update This Page With The Truth, Not Your Opinion.

Answered: answered but Op has not posted on article talk page Jezhotwells (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

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

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, retrieved Sept. 12, 2010

The Starchild Skull is an abnormal human skull …

They contend that it has other abnormalities such as the thickness, density, and strength of the bone that support their beliefs.[citation needed] This is true, but it is far from complete as a list of the characteristics that have led to the theory that the Starchild Skull may be something other than entirely human. It should be noted that the author of this “Wackypedia” article fails to use a neutral unbiased tone, calling our theories “beliefs” and their theories “plausible scientific hypotheses,” a clear violation of Wikipedia’s guidelines (2010c). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.69.68 (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Please post a concise and neutral description of your request. If you have issues with the facts in an article then post them concisely on the article talk page so that editors may examine them. please provide verifiable and reliable sources for your opinion. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

apparent vandalism at Tahash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I have withdrawn from contributing to this article for reasons that should be clear from the last several edits made there and the comments on the talk page. Please look at the sources and the statements made in previous versions of the article prior to November 30 this year. I know that anyone can edit. But for the sake of this encyclopedia, can something be done about what seems to me to clearly be an agenda of sabotage of content? My sincere appreciation for what you administrators are seeking to achieve. 20:03, 2 December 2010 User:Michael Paul Heart

Firstly, this page is served by assistants who are violunteers, some are admins, some are not. There is a note from User:Joe407 at Talk:Tahash, posted at 05:20 3 December which I suggest you read, as they are offering to help you combat the degradation of the page. It would seem that User:Pontificalibus wants to work with you as well. Mensaliv, who also contributes here, has made some useful suggestions. I don't see any particular vandalism in the article. It would also appear that you need to familiarise yourself with WP:Citing sources and WP:verifiability. Citing the "fact" that information is not available in sources is not evidence of anything. If you cannot directly support a statement then leave it out. In short, engage with other editors, assume good faith. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I should add after reading the talk page that you would be well advised to read Wikipedia:Multiple accounts#Sharing accounts as well. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Repeated problems with Prius article

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

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

User at IP address 173.206.234.126 appears to do little else but vandalize the page on the Prius with a (self-referencing?) section on EMP radiation that is contradicted by the cites it provides as support. When the page is altered to correct or at least address some of them problems with this, user simply reverts the section. (See history, multiple instances) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.195.102.82 (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is definitely edit warring going on. Both User:173.206.234.126 and yourself appear to have removed cited statements on separate occasions. Neither of you appears to have contributed to discussion on the talk page. Communicating via edit summaries is not a good way of carrying on. Instigate discussion on the talk page, I recommend that you get an account. And please don't forget to sign your posts, using four (~)s. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I really don't have the time or interest to deal with his repeated and obvious vandalizing of the Prius page. So I suppose there it shall remain, until some other hapless soul dares remove it. 66.195.102.82 (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Moving over a redirect

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

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

I would like to move this page to a more appropriate name as per the article talk page, the creator agrees. However the destination, Transport for Greater Manchester, is already a redirect and to a different article (specifically, the old organisation). I've read up on the moving process and was confused over whether the move could actually be done by myself or had to be submitted to requested moves? I've moved pages before but not yet over an existing article so thought I'd ask for future reference. ChiZeroOne (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you move TfGME to Transport for Greater Manchester Executive? Then you can put links, disambiguation links and redirects in place as necessary. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Because it isn't the subject's common name, [2], [3], [4] etc by any stretch. I think the creator only called it TfGME in the first place because the correct name was taken. The article references both the executive and committee components which I noted on the talk page, so "Transport for Greater Manchester Executive" is incorrect. I realise the above would be quickest but I'd rather it was done right and was consistent with its closest relation TfL. So do you know whether moving over the Transport for Greater Manchester page would be acceptable without having to make a request? It's not a great problem if I do have to request, I just wanted to know, thanks. ChiZeroOne (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
It looks like the move has been made by Orangemike. It might be best to discuss what you want to do with him as he is an admin. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Using wikipedia for advertisement

Unresolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Resolved: Consensus now reached on article tp to merge. Kudpung (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

:

Drugwipe test (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Black cocaine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article about "drugwipes" is being undone by same person whenever the products problems with reliability compared to blood test are added to it. Whats more the same person is using article about "Black cocaine" for blatant advertisement: "For more information on Drugwipe, visit http://www.affiniton.com (formerly Securetec USA)." I woud guess the guy is connected to the manufacturer some way. Anythng that can be done about it? Talitintti (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is a mess. It cites no sources. It reads, at least in part, like an advertisement for the company that manufactures the product, at the same time criticizing the value of the product. It's almost a complete orphan. You and the other editor are edit-warring to no purpose. There's been no discussion on the Talk page.
I'm wondering if the article should be proposed for deletion.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Check out Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace. Normally, you'd present them with one of the warnings there (already did one for you), and if they don't stop, go to WP:AIV and report them as advertising-only accounts. I'm gonna start keeping an eye on Purechi, since it looks like he is nothing but an advertising only account. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Didn't have to wait long. He did it again on both artickles, Drugwipe, and Black cocaine. The original additions of unreliability weren't added by me, but I read the same news articles about it. So what is the correct way to remove the advertisements and add the ombudsmans comments about the test? Talitintti (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Ian seems to be dealing with the editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I would beg to differ to the comments here. The article is simply sticking to the 'facts' about the test. Mr. Talitintti published some very negative comments on the page that could have a detrimental effect, so the page has been 'cleaned up'. There have since been several additional links to articles published about the test and how it has been used in the US for the page 15 years with great success. The negative viewpoint was not founded, so therefore removed. I'm not sure why after so much time has passed, someone would publish incorrect information in order to hurt something very useful in protecting against drug trafficking/use, then report me for 'cleaning it up'. Purechi (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)PureChi

It's hard to evaluate any of the information in the article because of lack of sources. As I noted on your Talk page, the sources you've added to the External links section are reports from the company that sells the product; therefore, they are of little utility as reliable sources. At a minimum, the article needs to be pared back severely and be backed up by third-party sources. Statements like "The Drug screening test is easy and can be used by federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, as well as schools, workplace health and safety and homes." in the lead read like an advertisement. The Operation section is unnecessary; the article doesn't need to be an instruction manual on how to use the product or have sentences like: "As well as the individual DrugWipe test kits, they are also available as: DrugWipe Twins for either "Cannabis and Amphetamine/methamphetamine" or "Opiate and Cocaine". DrugWipe5 is a single device that screens for the first 4 groups above giving individual read out. DrugWipe5+ is a single device with multiple read out but tuned specially for saliva screening."--Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I would call the line ""For more information on Drugwipe, visit http://www.affiniton.com (formerly Securetec USA)."" blatant advertisement in the Black cocaine article. You can hardly claim that sentence is sticking to the facts. Talitintti (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

A link on the page has been added to the DRUID study in Europe. This was a HUGE study on roadside testing with saliva and various test devices. In this study, Drugwipe outperformed every other saliva test in the study and was found to be very reliable and accurate. This was 'saliva' testing only. Drugwipe can also be used as a sweat test or a surface test. Drugwipe was tested by ONDCP (office of national drug control policy) in 1996 for surface studies. In that study, Drugwipe was 100% accurate with zero (0) false positives, 100% true negatives. A reference to this will be added soon, as well as the entire Scientific Reference List. Viewers can read and form opinions for themselves then. Just stating the 'FACTS' and the 15 years behind the product.Purechi (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)PureChi

Aux Deux Magots/Les Deux Magots cafe in Pais

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

A picture of Bernie Taupin and Elton John is on the net sitting in front of the 1987 version of Aux Deux Magots cafe, or is it Les Deux Magots cafe. After a careful viewing of the photo, it is unclear which picture is real, the current one being displayed or the one they are in. Which Deux Magots cafe is real?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.255.12 (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the right board for this question. Are you asking something about Wikipedia's article on Les Deux Magots, or a photo therein? If you're just looking for general information on the cafe, you might have better luck asking at the reference desk. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 21:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Can Wikipedians be paid by third parties?

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I assume, as many others do, that Wikipedians are not allowed to be paid for contributions they make at Wikipedia. Just wanted to confirm that my understanding is correct. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's frowned upon by most, but it's proven difficult to legislate against it. Issues are generally in the realm of "How would one know/prove that an editor was being paid" or "Doesn't WP:COI cover this already?" If you haven't already read them, then you might find WP:Paid editing (policy) and the proposed WP:Paid editing (guideline) interesting. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I have encountered a handful of places on Wikipedia where it's obvious that good faith editing was undertaken by an employee or otherwise paid representative of an organisation, someone who know more than the rest of us here, and where that editing has been ethical, honest, and simply just plain helpful to making Wikipedia a better place. I wouldn't want to stop that happening. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia editors can be paid by third-parties and frequently are paid by third-parties either directly or indirectly as in the example given by Hilo48. So far as I am aware, there are no policies which state that paid editing is prohibited and although various admins -- including Jimbo, before he relinquished his ability to block users -- claim that they will block paid editors, I am not aware of this ever actually happening. If you read this recent WP:AN discussion, you will see that many editors have mixed feelings about paid editing and that discussion of this topic is generally unwelcome, which is perhaps why there is no consensus yet. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
There is absolutely no way of proving whether or not people are paid to write articles for the Wikipedia. Conflict of Interest is unfortunately one of the weakest policies because it is based almost solely on a user name, or an innocent use of the first person plural in deletion discussions. Spamming is now a regular profession, and the Wikipedia is one of many on the list of popular forums and collaborative web sites to be spammed. Companies argue that that they are doing the world a favour by being mentioned. Their SEO firms who do the spamming know perfectly well what they are doing. We have to insist strongly and firmly that Wikipedia is not a business directory. The editors here are all volunteers and there is no reason why they should use their time to provide free publicity to those who have a purely commercial interest. That said, I suggest we end this discussion here, because Wikipedia is not a forum either, and WP:EAR is for getting help with editing ;) Kudpung (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── At the moment I am more concerned with editors who are paid to keep information out of Wikipedia, than those who try to use Wikipedia as an advertising board. Since many volunteer editors do not have any particular axe to grind, they will quickly bow to (potential) threats and (alleged)intimidation by those experienced paid editors. I realize this issue is not the purpose of this page, however, this is a problem that Wikipedia will have to grapple with if it is to keep the public’s respect.

My $.02 of the day Ottawahitech (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should assume that any of these paid editors are more "experienced". In addition, editors face a certain amount of intimidation, sometimes express, sometimes implied, from other editors; I don't think we should assume that that intimidation comes particularly from paid editors. As for axes to grind, all of us have axes to grind, it's part of being human beings. The goal is to try to put one's axe aside when contributing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I treat the removal of properly-sourced negative information as vandalism, and fight it as I would any other vandalism. I don't care whether they are paid vandals or not. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
To an extent I agree with Orange Mike's point. My caveat would be that the label "vandalism" always assumes bad faith on the part of the contributor, and in the absence of clear evidence (which, as mentioned above, is going to be uncommon), you run the risk of looking like an edit warrior. There are valid reasons to remove properly-sourced negative information (e.g., WP:WEIGHT), and even if you're absolutely right about the other editor's motives, if the outcome is justifiable you, again, run the risk of looking like an edit warrior. Trying to work within the WP:BRD cycle may be advisable, especially if the situation is one where new information is being introduced to an article, rather than a stable article having information removed. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The Northridge East Neighborhood Council is part of a citywide system guided by the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment (DONE).

Request unclear: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The Northridge East Neighborhood Council is part of a citywide system guided by the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment (DONE).

As stated in our Bylaws, the purpose of this Council is:

To improve the quality of life and business climate for the Stakeholders within the Northridge community To facilitate and improve communication between the Stakeholders, other neighborhood councils and the City of Los Angeles in order to improve the quality of life To provide a forum for public discussion of issues and to advise the City of Los Angeles on issues concerning City governance, the needs of this neighborhood council, the delivery of City services and matters of citywide interest. A Stakeholder is defined as any individual who lives, owns or rents property, or works within the geographic area of this Neighborhood Council.

http://www.nenc-la.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48&Itemid=60 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.102.238 (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Erm... so what's your question exactly? --Kudpung (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Missing Discussion page

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I was intrigued by the idea of attempting a clean up of Joseph_C._Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article which seems like a patchwork in places (especially of links to dueling opinion pieces). In visiting the page, I noticed that there is no Discussion page there (or at least not visible to me), and no explanation of why there is not. There is a link to an archive which is a year old. I sense some Wikipedia decision or policy unknown to me as a new user and would like some guidance. Thanks. By the way, I once found I was blocked from editing a Wikipedia entry, posted a comment to the Discussion page--then found that was all it took to give me immediate access to the main article. If in general there is any Discussion page "magic" it might be nice to place a link on each affected Discussion page to a document elaborating the rules. Appreciate any help; I am a newly-created Wikipedia obsessive and look forward to being more involved. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. There is a talk page at Talk:Joseph C. Wilson. The discussion up to November 2009 were archived by Athaenarain February 2010. How do I know this? I checked the article history which showed this information. You can start a new discussion on the talk page by clicking on the plus sign (+) to the right of the Edit tab. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, I found the Talk page, but was startled there was no actual talk there. Given the movie just came out, and the intensity of discussion on the Valerie Plame Talk page, I thought the absence of content on the Joseph Wilson page might reflect a decision of the Powers That Be to shut it down. Hard to believe there's been no discussion on this page since November 2009? I didn't want to dive into the middle of editing a controversial topic without fully understanding any Wikipedia procedural issues. Anyway, will post my ideas for changes to the article on the Talk page and will take it from there. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

guggenheim fellows 1963 and 1964

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

please add the name of david m. heath to the years for 1963 and 1964, as i was a recipient each of those years as a photographer (humanities). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.152.245 (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Please post your information on the talk (discussion) page of the appropriate articles, together with supporting citations from reliable sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The Guggenheim website's fellows search reveals a David M. Heath for 1963 (not 1964), in the fellowship category Creative Arts (not humanities) for photography. I can't tell what his competition was, though- setting the filter for either US/Canada or Latin America/Caribbean filters out Heath; List of Guggenheim Fellowships awarded in 1963 is organized by competition, so I'm not sure where to place Heath. I guess it's a question to ask on the talk page. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 19:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Help creating a disambiguation page

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I wrote an article about the musician, Justin James and I named the article Justin James (Musician) to differentiate from the baseball player, Justin James.

Now I think I need to create a disambiguation page, but I'm not entirely clear on how to do that. I've read the help files and I'm still a little unsure of how to do it, specifically, if I make a page Justin James (disambiguation), is that all I need to do or do I somehow tell label the page in another way?

Thanks in advance!

Eskayel (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I added hatnotes (you don't need a disambiguation page as there seems to be only one other article on someone with the same name. I also added project banners on the talk page. You are going to need more sources, also you need to read up on WP:MoS and clean-up the article, removing trivia and recasting in an encyclopaedic tone. I moved the article to Justin James (musician) as the disambiguating term should be lower case.Jezhotwells (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright infringement?

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I made the article The Breaker (manhwa). But page has been deleted, because "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement)". But I did not used non-free content. I wrote the article without copying text from other sites and did not used non-free images. I used free content and gave links where I took this content (it is official sites of authors and publishers). I don`t understand... Why has been page deleted?

P.S. If it is really copyright infringement, please delet this part of article, but do not deleted page. Амель (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You could ask the deleting admin, User:PMDrive1061 on his/her talk page. Only admins can review deleted content, so I can't see it for myself. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
But I can not do it, because talk page is "currently semi-protected and can be edited only by established registered users". My account registrated in EnWiki 6 December and I have 5 edits.Амель (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. I've asked PMDrive1061 to review this thread. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The text appears to be copied from a series of posts made on manga review sites by a user named gossymer. Is this you? If so, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, because any text is assumed copyrighted even if it does not explicitly state so on the original page. If not, you'll have to get permission from them to post anything they've written here. In either case, copying word for word from other sites is strongly discouraged even in the absence of copyright violation. Soap 15:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
No, it's not me. Ok, it`s my fault. Until the person gossymer gave me a permission, delete the text, where "copyright infringement", but don`t delete a page and a template. The text "copyright infringement" is a part of the article, but not the entire article!
P.S. Gossymer gave me a permission. See it proof (image Gossymer`s message) http://s015.radikal.ru/i333/1012/d2/bcb5dd8c37fa.jpg. I must obtain the permission on template or it`s sufficient? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Амель (talkcontribs) 17:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
That's not considered proof; Gossymer must follow our procedures for donating copyright permission for use under our license. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok. But please restore the article The Breaker (manhwa)! Delete the text that violates copyrights, but not all article. Why did delete all article, if only a part of article violates copyrights? –Амель (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • … or you could try the fairly obvious approach of writing in your own words. ☺ You should be citing sources that support your content, too. Uncle G (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I can`t do it because the page was deleted completely. –Амель (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Incorrect. You can do that. There is nothing stopping you creating a new article and writing its content in your own words. Uncle G (talk) 10:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
      • My understanding is that we have to completely delete copyright infringing material because even if modified, that article can be considered a derivative work; just cutting out the bad text, or even just rewording it once the copyvio has occurred is (from my admittedly limited understanding) not sufficient. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 19:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
        • The templates and such are not copyvios as far as I'm aware, and they really cannot be re-created in a different form since they're not really prose. I don't see any problem with restoring a shell of the article with all the body text removed but the templates and section headers intact. So I've done that, here. But please do not introduce it into the article space until it's ready. You may wish to copy it over to your own sandbox in the meantime. Also, we don't generally capitalize Korean or other surnames as some news sources do. If people are unsure which name is the surname they can click onto the link and if there is no article about them we can put information in a footnote. Note also that the stranded "interwiki" links at the bottom of the page are on purpose so that the bots don't think this is a live article. Soap 19:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)