Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 99

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


Species-specific wikipedia pages

Answered: Danger (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm considering contributing to wikipedia some knowledge I've gained while doing my PhD in malaria, and in particular the cell biology of the parasite (and its relatives). It isn't clear to me what the best practice way to present species- (or more generally, lineage-) specific information is. For instance, if I contribute something about the parasite's nucleus, then should I create a new section in the nucleus article dealing with the nuclei of my parasite? This doesn't seem scalable - as more species' nuclei are commented upon, the nucleus page will get too big, I think. On the other hand, creating too many species-specific pages will mean that it will be harder to understand because the information will be spread out over too many articles. Am I making sense? Any ideas? Thanks in advance. BenJWoodcroft (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I see what you're getting at. In general, you would put any details about the nucleus of a particular species on the page for that species, like the Plasmodium falciparum article. If the information is relevant to the whole group of organisms, you would put it on the genera page Plasmodium. And so forth, on up to "cells have a nucleus" on Eukarya. However, if the nucleus of this group is widely used as an example of some feature or has significantly atypical features, then you might add that on the Nucleus article. (Like, you'll probably want to talk specifically about snakes and caecilians in an article about amniote body plans.) If you're unsure, ask on the talk page of the article or on WikiProject Tree of Life. --Danger (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I still remain somewhat skeptical though. Seems there is too many articles, and too few editors for many biology articles, especially species-specific ones. Oh well, I'll just write stuff where I think it fits best. BenJWoodcroft (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think biology is the area of Wikipedia that relies most on eventualism in it's philosophy, at least of the areas I'm familiar with. Thankfully, Plasmodium-related articles have a lot of eyes compared to other areas. --Danger (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Gordon Smith - Article Bias

Answered: Danger (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

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


Despite editing the odd Wiki page here and there, this is the first serious attempt on a forum, so I apologise if I am in the wrong place.

I have come across the article below and have the suspicion that as it contains no references and several key words that this has been written either by the subject or a representative. What can I do to prevent this page from being in this state on Wikipedia?

--Alliebobz 18:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alliebobz (talkcontribs)

Thanks for the heads up. The article is pretty messy. It now has more tags than information (put there by various editors). I did a little clean-up, but it needs quite a bit more. You're, of course, welcome to improve the article yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting this out. Is it wrong that these types of article enrage me so? Ha ha!

Alliebobz (talk —Preceding undated comment added 15:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC).

Does this article meet notability requirements?

Answered: Danger (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi there,

I received feedback on this article ( and have, in my opinion, sufficiently edited it to meet notability requirements. I would like to now transfer it out of my userspace. If someone could please confirm that it does indeed meet notability guidelines (or alternatively, provide additional feedback) that would be great. I have posted requests on the Wikipedia Feedback Request Page, as well as on the talk pages of editors who've looked at my article before, but have not had any responses (it's been at least a week).

Also, how does the transfer process work? Do I simply copy and paste into the new page?

For further context on feedback I've received, see my talk page.

Thanks, --Graduate researcher (talk) 01:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that she meets WP:ACADEMIC. Also, the writing does not meet WP:MOS (not a sine qua non, but it would read more neutral if you followed the MOS, e.g. by not repeating the academic title every time you refer to the subject). If you think it's ready to move, the best way is to simply rename the article via the "move" option in the interface. I don't know if everybody can do this now, but you should be able to find a friendly admin to do the renaming. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Since you are auto-confirmed, you should be able to move the page yourself, following the instructions here. Please don't copy and paste the text. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you both for your assistance! --Graduate researcher (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Page Moving - technical difficulties

Resolved: Danger (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi there,

I moved this page out of my userspace over 24 hrs ago. The move seems to have been successful except that the userspace page is still showing up on google and does not redirect automatically. When I try to move it again, it reverts to the new page. i.e.:

(old page, which is still working without redirect message, and showing up on google)

(new page, which also works)

Is this just a temporary glitch? If not, how do I resolve it? Graduate researcher (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a temporary phenomenon; Google crawls sites every 24 hours or so and updates its index accordingly. The mainspace page should show up after their next update. Nothing we can affect here. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Not a glitch. Google had the old page page cached, see this. The page move was successful and automatically created a redirect page to the new title. Google has now referenced the new page already you can see this because the cache page is displaying: (Redirected from User:Graduate researcher/Sheila Cavanagh). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok - thanks to you both! Graduate researcher (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Article Renaming Issue/Question

Resolved: Requester indicates issue is resolved. Danger (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no experience with article renaming. There was an article for "leap week calendar" recently renamed to "week calendar". I've posted a question to the user who did the change as well as to the talk section, inquiring of the purpose of the rename. I'm waiting for a reply. Meanwhile, I did attempt to undo the rename, but it was unsuccessful, so I presume this is some sort of special edit that has different rules.

So this request is specifically about the rules about renaming articles (citation to a reference may be sufficient by way of reply). If someone wants to weigh in on whether that specific article should be renamed, this thread may not be the best place for it. Victor Engel (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm really not sure about your specific case, but as for policies: Wikipedia:Move#Reasons_for_moving_a_page and Wikipedia:PRECISION#Precision_and_disambiguation seem the most pertinent. Hopefully someone else can give you an opinion on the specific move. Monty845 17:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I was going to move it back but you beat me to it. Leap week calendar appears to the the most appropriate name. – ukexpat (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. That's my first move. And now there's a redirect from Week calendar. I have no problem with that. Victor Engel (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Dispute over hyphenation

Answered: Request complete, per requester. Danger (talk) 02:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed hyphens from a number of articles (using AWB) that had phrases such as "a critically-acclaimed album" or "the album was critically-acclaimed", as the vast majority of style guides indicate that a hyphen should not be used in a compound modifier where the first part is an adverb that ends in "ly". User:Lloyd Wood complained on my talk page, and User:Walter Görlitz mass-reverted 88 articles that I had changed, continuing to revert even after I asked him to stop and discuss. Both of them insist that the hyphen should remain (because there are two of them and one of me), even after I pointed out several sources that support my change. How should I proceed? The discussions began on my talk page, then moved to the talk pages of the other two editors. Lloyd Wood has deleted the discussion on his talk page so you will have to look at the revision history. A few of the articles; The Beau Brummels discography, The Art of Insincerity, The Annunciation of Marie, The Black Crowes. Chris the speller yack 23:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that anyone who has the user id "Chris the speller" should always win in any edit dispute. Not to mention your edit summaries, which are first-class (notice the hyphen). You could clone yourself so there are two of you. Kidding aside, is there any guidance on Wikipedia style here? Wikipedia style does not always match other styles.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
MOS:HYPHEN states that "A hyphen is not used after a standard -ly adverb." - SudoGhost (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. I don't know why I didn't start there. Maybe just trying to stay cool. The edits have been unreverted now, and I'm back on track. Happy editing! Chris the speller yack 01:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Dispute over criminal nature of Contempt of Parliament

Resolved: Resolved on talk page without intervention. Danger (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Contempt of Parliament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is my frist request for assistance. I hope I use the correct format.

This edit has gone back and forth, and I am tired of having to make the same correction. I notice now that the edits are coming from IP addresses without user accounts, making it difficult to discuss the page and reach a resolution.

The substance of the dispute is about the nature of the law of Contempt of Parliament. I contend that it is a criminal law, since it is a law made under S. 4 of the Parliament of Canada Act, or simililar statutes in other jurisdictions, which brings with it the power to fine or imprison individuals who are found to have violated its provisions.

Hopefully we can reach a resolution to end this ping-pong editing. I look forward to hearing from you and learning more about the Wiki disputes resolution process.

KBillie (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears that things are proceeding properly on the article's talk page. In this case, I think it would be helpful to remember that if there is some doubt over the veracity of a sentence, it can be left out (ie the article could make neither an affirmative nor negative statement about the criminal nature of CoP). --Danger (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeshiva University

Resolved: Danger (talk) 11:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

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

This article has a list of notable alumni. Until recently, each name either had no description or a brief description as to the person's occupation. As I stated on the article's Talk page: Avunculator added Baruch Goldstein to the list of notable alumni with the following description: "physician and perpetrator of the Cave of the Patriarchs Massacre." I removed the information after physician as "unnecessary". After Avunculator reverted and I reverted back, an IP (not sure if the IP is connected to Avunculator) added the information back. Three different editors reverted, but I believe the central basis of those reversions was that the information was unsourced. The IP then sourced the information, which was already in the Goldstein article anyway. My reason for reverting was it was more information than any of the other notable alumni had.

No one except the IP has responded, and not only has the perpetrator information remained in the article, but the IP decided that physician shouldn't be there because "He is not known for curing people, but killing people."

The characterization is inconsistent with the other entries and therefore jarring. It also gives undue weight to the massacre, as opposed to its aftermath and controversy, which, of course, is covered in more depth in the Goldstein article. It also seems that the IP (and Avunculator, if they are not the same individual) may have an agenda that doesn't include improving Wikipedia.

One possible solution is to list the names without any qualifiers. What do editors here think?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, are you really trying to suggest that Baruch Goldstein was more notable as a physician than as a mass murderer? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
No.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Quote: 'I removed the information after physician as "unnecessary"'. The list is of 'notable' alumni. Notability does not imply notability for positive actions.
As for listing the names without qualifiers, I'd suggest that the best guide to this would be similar lists of notable alumni. To treat this list differently because of the notoriety on one person in it would seem a breach of NPOV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Sigh, when I said unnecessary, I was just trying to be consistent with the other alumni with qualifiers as all they listed was the occupation. Regardless of whether Goldstein is notable as a physician, that's what his profession is, and that's what his article says he is. As for your comment about other lists, that sounds appealing, but without even looking, I know I'll find little consistency, which means that it's just an editorial judgment for each list and not NPOV. However, to make you happy - if that's possible - Harvard University has a "list" in which the title/occupation/profession is listed. Yale University is simlar to Harvard. Oxford University categorizes its alumni by prime ministers, international leaders, saints (I kid you not), etc. UCLA is kind of a hybrid of categorization and occasional longer descriptions of particular alums. So far - and I'm stopping - no one lists killers. But Yeshiva University could certainly be a first. After all, notability is notability, positive or negative.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Not generating much enthusiasm here, so I'll leave the article as is. If Oxford can boast about alumni who are saints, then I suppose poor Yeshiva University can boast about alumni who are non-saints.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of reported comments by a New Zealand politition.

Answered: Danger (talk) 11:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

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


The personal reputation section of "stuart nash" article is consistently being removed.

Can you please check whether the content is appropriate. I believe it is, as it repeats what has been reported by a national sunday newspaper (the link is referenced).

Thanks very muchMossymanwgtn (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe the information belongs either. A single source making allegations does not make it widepread. It gives undue weight to a single person's opinion. I have removed the information from the article. Please don't readd it your self, continue to discuss it to get a consensus. GB fan (talk) 10:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

NCAA Men's Lax Div I scoring data left me out

Answered: Danger (talk) 11:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Please refer to your page:

My scoring data was left out for the year I played at Cornell in 1974, and at Penn State for 1971. I contacted the NCAA records office and have made sure they updated the data. They did the updating by contacting Cornell and Penn State athletic departments, and using Sports Illustrated as a source, and will include the updated data in 2012 edition. The 2011 edition has already been finalized. The person I contacted at the NCAA Records office was a Ms. Jennifer Rodgers.

If you need copies of my emails to the NCAA, please advise.

Jim Trenz —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Until the corrected data is made available in a reliable source that can be verified (personal e-mails don't count) we cannot add this information to the article. – ukexpat (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

National Black MBA Association

Answered: Danger (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The information on the site is outdated. Yes, I am affiliated with the organization, but who else would know what the accurate information is? Its ridiculous that the page keeps getting changed back to the old version. I'm sure you want the information on the site to be current. If not, what would be the point of having the page at all? I understand the copyright information issues, but I don't want that information to be viewed by others as accurate reflection of our association. None of the information I posted was advertising, selling or aggrandizaing our association. It was just factual data found on our PUBLIC website.

Either allow me to edit it or delete the page. Its wrong to have information up there that is wrong. ~~NBWrite~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by NBWrite (talkcontribs) 17:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:COI and then use the article's talk page to discuss the changes that you think should be made.  – ukexpat (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Complaint: User: Future Perfect at Sunrise states that they are changing my article, and too bad....

Resolved: as per comment below. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
    • The User:Future perfect at Sunrise, had warned me as of last night, which I didn't see because I was in edit mode in my article to clean up the tags that were on the article.

This user seems insistant on changing all the name references in the article to the last name of my article which is the person's maiden name and the references are not about a person with her maiden name. The article in question is: Almine De Villers, The Countess of Shannon (Almine Barton) This person keeps making these changes all the while, I was not being given notice that these edits were being done or why they were being done, and this seems to go against the wikiettiquette and general newbie guidlines I read about. They insist not only of the last name being in every part of the article in question, but also keep deleteing an entire section on Kirilian photography calling it psuedo science and I don't understand why this is so if wikipedia has an article on this psuedo science?

  • Also, they not only made dozens of edits, but with out any notice the reasons why, and while I was editing my links and refenence citations, this person gave me a warning without due process of notifying me of the supposed 'clean up' they were doing. I had wrote a lead in, they changed that, I had been fixing all the typos for the name and they keep on isisting that I use the last name, Does Madonna go by her last name?

So while I am trying to fix my own article, this person is taking it over!!!!! This person goes by her first name only in most of her work, and I can only do so much in a day, while I get a warning for editing my own article. Please put a stop to this, I have worked very hard on this article.

Please ask this person to lay off my article for a couple of days so I can fix the issues that were tagged on it just two days ago!!!! If there was an edit dispute it is new to me! They are changing it every time I change it. This is like wikiharrassment. And they aren't giving me any other alternative but to undo all the work I have done and that is final, without a warning or previous notice of these reasons for changing it.

Thank you for your help!Theonelife (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do not start another thread on the same topic. You have already raised this issue above. Firstly, you need to understand that it isn't 'your article': when you contribute to Wikipedia, you do so on the basis that others may edit your work. The person starting an article has no more rights over it than anyone else. As for any issues with the article content, these are best discussed on the article talk page. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise is an experienced Wikipedia contributor, so will be familiar with how articles should be styled and referenced etc, and about how to write in a proper encyclopaedic tone. I'll take a look at the article myself, to see if there is any substance to your complaints, but frankly, I think you have simply misunderstood the way Wikipedia works. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

A couple of pages you should read, WP:FRINGE, WP:SURNAME, and WP:OWN. The article is not yours, and if there are errors on the page that can be fixed, people are not going to "lay off your article for a couple of days" and let the errors stand. See WP:SURNAME for the surname issue; in short: "After the initial mention of any name, the person should be referred to by surname only". She is not commonly known by a pseudonym, so that does not apply (As it does for Madonna, which is technically a pseudonym). Please see the discussion on the talk page for more information, and remember when using the talk pages, less is more! People tend to skip over long drawn out entries. Thank you. - SudoGhost (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I've taken a few whacks at the article but have made only fitful progress. It needs work and I invite other editors to spend a bit of time with it too - JohnInDC (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The subject article has been removed from article space for a period of off-line work; I think this matter can be marked as resolved for now. JohnInDC (talk) 11:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

There is not a correspondence in translation between the french page and the english one in "Dieudonné"/ "Dieudonné M'bala M'bala"

New contributor creating numerous quasi-historical articles

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

User Chasteroue has added a number of new articles in the last two days, most of which have "Genocide" in the title. I checked some sources none of which use the word "genocide" so I am sensing a big original research and neutrality problem. Each of the articles isolates a single alleged instance of Arab against Jewish violence. A lot of attention is needed here: some of these articles probably need to be merged or redirected to articles on the underlying wars or controversies; others may describe notable incidents but need to be much better sourced and copy-edited for neutrality. And it goes without saying that nothing should be called a "genocide" in the article title unless there is a reliable source characterizing it as such. The user has also been incredibly busy wikilinking his new articles into others on genocide, Palestinian nationalism and the like. Other eyes would be appreciated, as this is a very big clean up job. Thanks....Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

These have all now been PROD'd. Thanks to those who jumped in to help. Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Some of the PRODs have been removed, other articles have been merged. The user has created several similar new articles. These use very unreliable sources (advocacy sites, citations to unavailable books, even novels); misquote the sources whenb they can be checked; and add highly POV unsourced assertions. Some of the articles are only one sentence long, some are duplicates of existing articles or sections, some are clearly POV forks. The user has also been adding links between these articles, and from other articles. The articles fail to substantiate the claims made; but clearing this up may be a long job. The user has almost completely ignored talk pages; their very few comments appear to be abusive descriptions of other editors as "antisemites". RolandR (talk) 10:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Platinumshore and Peak oil again

Discussion moved: noting to do here, discusssion is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Platinumshore_reported_by_User: Jezhotwells (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests/Archive_98#Platinumshore_and_Peak_oil, apparently this editor has not stopped editing. They just waited some time and then reinserted the same text yet again.[1] Still no/non-RS/non-supporting refs. Would appreciate oversight assistance on this article. (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Details are at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Platinumshore_reported_by_User: (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Attention to the article on the Timeline of the 2011 Libyan uprising

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The article Timeline of the 2011 Libyan uprising recently moved to a new article name without mentioning the issue in the article discussion site. This isn't necessarily a problem. Nonetheless, as it appears that the article has been receiving a considerable volume of changes, it appears that it would benefit from the recurrent attention from a set of administrators in order to make sure it avoids vandalism/abusive editing. -- Mecanismo | Talk 21:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Administrators, or sysops, are just ordinary editors like you but have access to tools such as deletion, page protection and/or blocking, they are not policemen. Sort it out on the talk pages. If you can't achieve consensus, then request a request for comment. If editors are violating policy, then consider reporting at [[[WP:ANI]]. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Paula Francis, Olavo de Carvalho

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

My edits in the two articles have begun to be mutilated by an editor who appears motivated by his political sympathies onlyCerme (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you attempted to discuss this with the other editor? – ukexpat (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
In my point of view it is completely the other way around, this editor (who appear to have a Left-leaning tendency, judging by his edits) reverted several of my edits in the first article (Paulo Francis) and proposed the second one (Olavo de Carvalho) for deletion under a false pretext (claiming the article "had no sources"). I request assistance in dealing with this situation. RafaAzevedo msg 20:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, what I know from the above signed editor (his cantankerous tendencies), here and at the, advise me not to attempt discussing with him - neither do I want to, under any circumstances. It would be a waste of time and I would like that the editor please to avoid edit warring. My political sympathies are fully known to anyone who has taken the effort to follow my contributions, just as the editor, with the difference I use facts and reliable sources in support of them Cerme (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Not only the editor above abuses this space to spread infamies and insult me, he now has taken to edit-warring and compulsive reversions in my edits in these articles - therefore I call once again to the attention of the administrators the inappropriate behavior shown both above and in these articles (especially worth mentioning are his use of false excuses to try to delete an article - something which thankfully an admin has already reverted - and the insertion via edit-warring of disputed content in another, even though a discussion on the subject was opened). RafaAzevedo msg 22:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe it's enough to read carefully the message above to see that the editor above is addicted to unbalanced behaviour and wild charges, since I do not remember interfering with his activities before - unless he considers interfering having a less then laudatory opinion about some of his idols - an opinion, I daresay, backed by fact. I will refrain myself from responding and will please ask other editors to offer a solution to the issue. For the time being, I rest my caseCerme (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
So what do you want us to do? If you can't assume good faith and contain incivility, there is nothing else for us to do. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for that. Unfortunately, the editor has a long record of provocative behaviour, which led me to (a) avoid a direct discussion, and (b) to give early warning to the other editors. For the time being, I want nothing to be done, only to make a general public record as a warningCerme (talk) 00:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Once again the editor (who doesn't even know me, according to his own words!) (ab)uses this space to attack me. I have no other solution but to show this behaviour to the administrators and request his punishment (or at least a warning). RafaAzevedo msg 11:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia use titles?

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

For example, on the article Western Economic Diversification Canada, honourific titles were added by User:Western Economic Diversification Canada and later by User:Wordiness. Should those be there? I don't see them on most other articles. -- (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

See MOS:HONORIFIC. I've removed them from the article. The first user you mentioned was banned. The second user you mentioned has only made one edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Advice on policy regarding posting screencaptures?

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I wish to contribute to the page on the English Defence League, using many further links and sources that I have collected.

The question I want to ask is whether or not it is permitted to post images taken from Facebook discussion threads and groups that are publically viewable? For example, if I take a screencapture from a post written by a prominant member of the EDL, can I use that screencapture in the article?

An example of a screencapute that I would consider using:


Likeanyotherman (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


Generally speaking no. Wikipedia:Image use policy gives further details. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, in case you were thinking of using those posts as sources, they would not be considered reliable sources. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

amorpous metals

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

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

International Welding Technologies has been working with Caltech for the last two years to develope a method for forming part from amorpous metals using capacitor discharge technology. Currently, Caltech has two such unit built by IWT for such purpose. The viability of this technology is widely known. Why can it not be listed in the article? What expertise in this technology do the editors posess? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilrlw (talkcontribs) 01:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It was removed because your edits were unsourced. You need to supply a reliable source so the information can be verified. GB fan (talk) 01:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
See the edit summaries in the page history at [2]. See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest since you apparently want to add information about your own work. You can post a suggestion to the talk page at Talk:Amorphous metal. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle matter

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please remove my name from User:AzaToth/morebits.js? I believe that this thread has resolved the matter. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 10:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you'd do better with an {{adminhelp}} request on your talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Kim Thomson birth date

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to edit the incorrect information, but am constantly blocked. The source for 1960 is cited as The Daily Record. This is unreliable. The Daily Record used Wikipedia as its source. Please feel free to confirm that with them. There is no source whatsoever for 1959. Both dates are wrong. i can supply various newspaper articles giving different dates. Why does one contributor constantly block any corrections when no reliable suorce for the incorrect information exists? Surely this calls into question the reliability of wikipedia itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KTLT1 (talkcontribs) 15:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You posted the same request on the biographies of living persons noticeboard, and it is being dealt with there. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Avi (talk)

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

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

I have made repeated attempts to politely discuss with the editor in question my proposals for changes in the article: "Mordecai Tendler." As could be seen on the discussion page, I presented a multitude of newspaper articles that directly contradict the current content and tone of the Wikipedia article. The current content is clearly biased and one-sided against the subject of the article. The editor (User: Avraham) has simply chosen to ignore the facts (presented in the form of newspaper articles), and instead is insisting on mantaining the article in it's current biased form. In addition, please see on the discussion page where the editor clearly implies that he has a personal connection to the article in question. It would seem that if that is indeed the case, he should immediately recuse himself due to personal bias. Thanks in advance for your attention.

Koltorah (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Please quote the specific comment you believe indicates that Avi has "a personal connection to the article in question." Beyond that, there has indeed been an ongoing discussion on the Talk page, and there appears to be a consensus about the article's content that you don't agree with. I don't see anything else.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Quote: Avi: "" Tendler is currently fighting to regain that position, perhaps, but the shul has had at least two rabbis since then, and I think Tendler has a minyan in his own house as wll, so to state he is the current rabbi now is factually incorrect.""

Koltorah (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, at least your inference isn't way off base, but I don't think you can fairly conclude from that sentence that Avi has been in Tendler's house.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

XM Satellite Radio

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The description of customer care in the article about XM Satellite Radio comes from an unreliable source and serves no purpose but to disparage XM and should be removed. XM Satellite Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Sresendez (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)sresendez

No comment on its truth or purpose, but the only source cited was indeed not a reliable source, so I have removed the entire section. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
First, for the record: I did not write the section of the article in question; I was on vandalism patrol at the time these actions came to my attention.
However, you are absolutely correct, Demiurge1000, the source does not meet the standards set forth in WP:RS. I reverted Sresendez's first erasure of the section (on 2011-03-22) because it had NO Edit Summary and looked like typical, blank-out-some-stuff vandalism. Since his account was new (created, I believe, earlier that week), I warned him with a uw-delete1 template on his Talk page.
The next day, 2011-03-23, he removed the section again, this time saying, in an Edit Summary, "This description of customer care is debatable and serves no purpose but to disparage XM, equally positive ratings could be sourced." He in no way questioned the reliability of the source of the material.
From my perspective, I saw a user, apparently on a crusade, mass-deleting sourced information, so I restored it. I again encouraged him, in my Summary, to add the positive ratings.
On 2011-03-30, Sresendez added a note to the article Talk page, saying "This description of customer care is debatable, equally positive ratings could be sourced, and serves no purpose but to disparage XM and should be removed." Again, no mention of sourcing.
A little later, I replied to him on the Talk page, saying "As I thought I (or someone else) told you ten days ago, you are welcome to locate such material--carefully applying the standards of WP:V, WP:N, WP:NOR, and WP:RS--and propose it be added to the article. Thank you, BTW, for not attempting to delete material with which you disagree, as you did a while back!" (My recollection of the time frame was a bit off, BTW.)
He then came here to complain, on 2011-03-31.
Frankly, I don't know what more I could have done to keep him happy, other than delete the material, which is factual. So, I've re-written the section, citing verifiable, reliable sources such as Reuters, Fox Business News and the BBB and will insert it into the article in a few minutes. Please take a look at it if you have time and let me know if anything seems amiss.
I'm also interested hearing if you can think of anything--within the rules of and guidelines--I could have done differently. Thanks!
And, Sresendez, I encourage you to add properly sourced information to the article that will refute or negate the criticism. This is how the encyclopedia gets better! — UncleBubba T @ C ) 22:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
UncleBubba, I think we have all been in your shoes at some point. I think it's important to keep in mind that new editors do not necessarily understand our policies and norms, especially non-obvious ones like sourcing. It might have been helpful to quickly explain why you thought the rationale that Sresendez made in the edit summary didn't justify deleting the section. From a new editor, that could be seen as a reasonable challenge to the material. That the source in this section had already been called into question should also have been considered here. (Tagged with {{verify credibility}} in December.) It's also important to remember that many new editors don't know how to view edit summaries; you cannot assume that information and arguments that you've put in edit summaries have been received.
And excellent work on the rewrite. I'm impressed with the grace with which you admitted your error and worked to improve the article. Danger (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Danger: Are you related to Peril? (Sorry--couldn't resist. Probably too much Monty Python...) Thanks for the feedback! I missed the {{verify credibility}} tag, dagnabbit! I try as best I can to be accurate, scientific and objective; sometimes, the hardest part of the job is not getting pissed off. I usually patrol during slow periods at work, while eating lunch or before retiring for the night, which isn't all that much; I appreciate comments, especially those with perspectives I might not have considered. Too often, it seems, folks are reluctant to give constructive feedback. Thanks again! — UncleBubba T @ C ) 01:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Second cousins actually. You may have met my sister, Risk. With regards to getting pissed off: I too usually find this the most difficult part of editing. Aside from getting templates to like me. Danger (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Disclosure Project Dr. Steven M. Greer

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I tried to edit a very small portion of the article on the Disclosure Project and both times I saved the page and later found the article returned to the original. The first point I have is that it should read "Dr. Steven M. Greer" to properly represent this individual as he has earned the degree of Doctor of Medicine. The second important point is in the article where it reads "Greer convened the conference with more than 100 other contactees offering testimony and arguing for investigations into a UFO conspiracy theory. Such arguments were met with by derision by skeptics and spokespeople for the U. S. Airforce who maintain that there is no convincing evidence for the speculation that UFOs are alien spacecraft." The chief problem here that I tried to remedy is the seemingly deliberate attempt to hide the FACT that most of the "contactees" were former military personnel and high-ranking U.S. government officials. Merely labeling them as "contactees" doesn't lend them the credence and credibility they deserve as American heroes that choose to speak up for the American people and the truth in general. I find it hard to believe that the author/editor is not serving an agenda to down-play and manipulate representation of this crucial disclosure of information. If this article was to be more factual and fair, the sentence in question should read something like: "...more than 100 other contactees, mostly comprised of former military personnel and high-ranking government offficials, offering testimony..." This is precisely the edit I saved yesterday only to find the article returned to the misrepresentation and literal ignorance of the facts of the event. I hope someone with a conscience can help represent the truth of this matter instead of an official agenda to hide it. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for posting here.
Our naming conventions, at WP:NAME etc, should guide the naming of the article, and we generally don't use honorifics and titles in naming articles.
In order to characterise the "contactees" in the way you seek to do, you'll need to show reliable sources that support that characerisation. Otherwise, the scepticism that you've already encountered will continue. You might also find WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE relevant. Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Needing help with boxes

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


I'm still quite a rookie ... willing to do more and more wiki editing, but find the learning curve (esp. where to find standards/editing info) pretty steep.

One current thing I'm stuck on and i'm wondering if you would know - at the following page, two sections I added appear in grey boxes. I don't know why they appear in grey boxes, I did not do this intentionally and do not know how to remove the grey boxes if indeed I created them. The two sections are 'History' (about 2/3 down the page) and 'Leaky Bladder Lining' (about 1/5 down the page.

Appreciate any insight,


Playethic (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the boxes. It's because you indented lines with spaces. With respect to the history section, what are the bracketed numbers? Are you trying to connect them to numbered references? If so, that's not the right way to do it. Take a look at WP:REFERENCES.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Reporting a user

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

AFL (video game series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia editing protocol but would like to report a user removing content for personal or more likely their companies gain.

This page presents a historical list of Australian Rules football Video games:

As the developer of a game which belongs on this list I added it in a purely factual context - no marketing talk, just aknowledgement of its existence which is necessary to complete this list. The game appeared in major retail outlets, and thousands of copies were sold. There is no doubt that it belongs on this list.

Looking at this page you will see that my edit was made here: (cur | prev) 13:29, 22 March 2011 (talk) (13,301 bytes) (→Premiership Coach 2010) (undo)

And subsequently removed by this user here: (cur | prev) 10:31, 25 March 2011 Thegamemuster (talk | contribs) (12,656 bytes) (undo)

I am unsure pf how to add this content again without repeasting this process, and having it removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

First off, thank you for discussing the issue and not edit warring. In general, when we have lists like this on Wikipedia, we only include notable items on the list. (On Wikipedia, not being "notable" doesn't mean that something is not important or interesting; it just means that it hasn't receive enough attention from independent media sources for us to write an encyclopedia article about it.) Usually if an item is added to a list and it does not qualify for its own Wikipedia article, it is removed. So that's probably why Thegamemuster is removing your addition.
It does not look, to me, like your game has received enough attention to write an article about it that meets Wikipedia standards. I encourage you, though, to take a look at WikiProject Video Games and see if you might be interested in contributing to other video game related articles. (Or, of course, any topic you're interested in!) --Danger (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

History of Bouncy Castles

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

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


I have read the entry for the making of the first bouncy castles and would challenge this. Maybe the first Space Walks were made in America, but the first bouncy castle was made here in the UK, in Leicester in fact, in the early 1970s.

What do I have to do to correct this entry?

Thank you.

Vicki Russell —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggest that you post the information, with a reliable source for the information on the article discussion page. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the section in question as it was the promotional history of a single company based entirely on a self-published source. Danger (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles on cs 134 and 137.

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Caesium-134 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Caesium-137 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Your article says that these man made radionuclides come from nuclear testing fall out. I am reading a very sophisticated book on the subject that says no- quote "As a tracer for the containated water masses we used Cs-134 which did not virtually occur in the global atmospeheric fall-out prior to 1986. . . " It came from nuclear plant waste processing and accidents, apparently ditto for Cs 137. Waste processing peaked in 1978 and the cs 134 was all from that. The book is Environmental Radioactivity in the Arctic and Antarctic a collabrative goverment document. from 1993. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, you should post this on the article discussion page for consideration by the editors there. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Asma al-Assad and 3RR

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Asma al-Assad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User: (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User: (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The above IP repeatedly added egregiously problematic material to the al-Assad article. I reverted three times and posted warnings on IP's Talk page. I then successfully obtained a block. The admin blocked the IP for 31 hours for edit warring and WP:NPA (on me).

Can I revert again to restore the article without violating 3RR?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I have attempted to revert the edits (see the talk page), but the unregistered IP continuously reinserts the content. I would ask that another editor take a look at the content. Thank you. - SudoGhost (talk) 22:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The second IP (listed above) is most likely the same person as the first and avoiding the block of the first. As stated on the article's Talk page, I have asked for protection of the article. I may ask for a block of the second IP, but protection will be more comprehensive.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

BLP violation - request for deletion of link to libelous SPS

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

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

There is a post by Michaelbluejay on the above-reference page which is an attempt to promote his self-published-site (last post on the page). Although he has been told multiple times by established Wikipedia editors that his site is not a RS, he continues to try to link to it. The site is comprised of statements by an anonymous writer(s) that are very damaging to living persons. It contains copyright violations, is clearly defamatory and potentially libelous. Thank you for your attention to this matter. LoreMariano (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard would appear to be best noticeboard for this. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, though I'd think that you'd have to make it a little clearer who it is you think is being libelled, where the copyright violations are, etc. I doubt it is RS, but given that it purports to be a 'consultation' with the names of participants changed, I can't see it actually identifying anyone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) While this is obviously not a reliable source to use for sourcing content in an article, there is no such restriction on non-promotional links in talkspace. The placement of this link in the discussion makes sense and is not obviously promotional. I was unable to find the copyright violations that you referred to and also did not find obviously defamatory content. Regards, Danger (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you all for your comments. Yes, the editor is obviously not a RS. The link in question is clearly self-promotional as the editor owns the website and gets commercial benefits from it. There are copyright violations which can be documented. I will look into the BLP Noticeboard. Thanks again, LoreMariano (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC).

Dispute Deleted Article

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. This is David Fagin. I was the founder of the pop band The Rosenbergs. I know Chris Kreider deleted our band's page several years ago but I recently came across a google search with the page and noticed the reason for deletion, according to him, was 'not relevant'. I respectfully disagree with that assessment, as our band were pioneers in the area of artists' rights - were the first music act to go 'viral' online, solely responsible for forcing Universal Music to alter their record contracts after our statement about their policies went public, testified on Capitol Hill at the Copyright Arbitration Hearings, being invited to Harvard to represent artists at the global technology summit, speaking on countless panels across the country including the Future of Music Coalition and SXSW, partnering with Napster on a physical file sharing CD to combat the lack of artists played on terrestrial radio, were the first band to ever perform live on Sirius Satellite, first band to perform five nights in a row on Carson Daly, appeared alongside Gene Simmons of Kiss on the Howard Stern Show, featured in numerous articles in Spin, Entertainment Weekly, Billboard, Los Angeles Times, etc. and those are just a fraction of the things we achieved. All without a major label deal of any kind.

I'd have no problem if our article was deleted for any other reason, but if Mr. Kreider wants to delete a band for being 'irrelevant' I doubt he'd find a more 'relevant' band than ours. That is, unless his definition of relevant is solely based on monetary earnings. I respectfully request our page be reinstated as we made quite a difference in the political landscape of the music business.

Thank you,

David Fagin NY, NY —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The article was deleted in 2008: "Chrislk02 deleted The Rosenbergs because A7 (group): Group/band/club/company/etc; doesn't indicate importance/significance." It wasn't deleted because it was irrelevant, it was deleted as it didn't "indicate importance/significance" and thus failed our notability for music guideline. The article at deletionpedia had no citations to verifiable and reliable sources supporting any such notability. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

2012 Presidential Candidates

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I was unable to add/edit my information into Wikipedia. I just sent my photo to photosubmission. Could you please assist in editing my information into your page entitled "United States Presidential Election 2012

I am a declared Republican Presidential candidate 2012. My three references for verification are;

By my picture I would like the reference to say; Career flight attendant from Minnesota. My official campaign website is

Thank you for your help,

Thomas J. Miller Registered Candidate R., President of the United States of America 2012 Federal Election Commission ID: P20001947 Principal Campaign Committee: Reduce Government Miller for President ID: C00462010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coldcave (talkcontribs) 14:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I suggest that you post this on the article discussion page Talk:United States presidential election, 2012 for consideration by editors there. Our conflict of interest policies suggest that you shouldn't be trying to add material about yourself. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Cristina Ferrare

Resolved: Danger (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

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

UNDER CRISTINA FERRERA IT SAYS AS FOLLLOWS: she married automobile executive John DeLorean with whom she adopted a son Zachary and had a daughter, Kathryn. - NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED BECAUSE THE FOLLOWING IN John DeLorean says the opposite as follows: DeLorean also adopted a son, Zachary, as a single father. SO WHICH IS IT?...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amensigala (talkcontribs) 13:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I neither know nor care; but in either case, it should be discussed in the talk pages of each article, so that people can provide their sources for verifiability. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I fixed it.[3] DeLorean adopted Zachary before the marriage. Ferrera also adopted him after they married. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Controversial Prophets Images

Answered: Nothing more to say here. Danger (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

You are doing great job. keep it up.

However i have noticed that whenever pages related to blasphemy is updated. You keep only prophets image in page which is very dis-heartening for muslim. however other religions controversial images are not updated just written.

I want to know why is this discrimination from wikipedia?

As a matter of fact i appreciate that we should respect all religion and peoples sentiment. As s proud muslim i will humbly request you to remove the contrversial pics considering the sentiments for muslims. This will help them and other to go hand in hand will make them change their wrong ways of approaching thing and make them feel more welcome in good and peaceful world.

Please respect sentiments and remove the picture as kind gesture.

Best Regard

Fateh Khan —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This discussion should on the discussion page of the relevant article. If you check out Talk:Depictions of Muhammad and its archives, you will see that there has been much discussion about this. Wikipedia is a secular encyclopaedia and does not censor images or text because some people may take offence. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Miguel de Cervantes date of death

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

There are two dates of death for the "Miguel de Cervantes" entry Miguel de Cervantes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): April 30th and April 23rd. Which is it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2011

Well in the body of the article it is cited as 23 April, and I found another cite supporting this so, I changed the infobox date which appears to be incorrect. Thanks for letting us know. For future reference if you notice something like this you can try leaving a note on the article discussion page. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

wrong birth date?

Answered: Danger (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the birth date is wrong, I have been to a couple other sites that say it is April 23, 1891. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

If you look at Note 3 it explains the difference. GB fan (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm having trouble with e-mail verification, could someone please help?- I don't mean to be disruptive, I just don't know where else to post this

Discussion moved: Moved to requester's and assistant's talk pages. Danger (talk) 02:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I noticed above, it says "Do not post issues here that are posted on another noticeboard — it causes confusion and may be considered disruptive." I don't want to be disruptive; I just don't know where else to post this request. I've changed my e-mail address since the last time I logged in; the address listed here as of 2011 is dead and I want to put my active e-mail address in.

I tried going to "my preferences," changed my dead address to the active one and tried to verify it three times, but got no verification e-mail. Could someone please post a step-by-step guide on my talkpage telling me what I have to do to fix this problem?

KellyLeighC (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I've posted a couple of questions to your talk page; let's continue there. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

5W Public Relations

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

5W Public Relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

5W Public Relations users are violating previous talk discussions and agreements for years of many users and making vandalism and inaccurate edits. Please assist. Need eyeballs and fair users. Emetemet13 (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll second that request, but for different reasons. The article bounces back and forth between a crap promotional piece posted by SPAs, and a controversial slam job. It would be nice to have some neutral editors take a look. Dayewalker (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Babasalichai/Archive for some relevant history of the sockpuppetry and other shenanigans relating to this and other pages. RolandR (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
You all have my eyeballs. (Ew.) It would look decent to me at the moment, if I had eyeballs of my own. Danger (talk) 11:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Asian films, Category issues and possible bias

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

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

The Incite Mill (2010) is incorrectly categorised as 'Japanese horror film' as it's a Japanese mystery-thriller. I believe a Wikipedia editor may have listed The Incite Mill as 'Japanese horror film' because of director Hideo Nakata's body of work.

I've been concerned for some time that so many Asian films here at Wikipedia are categorised as 'horror film' when in fact they are psychological thriller, mystery, thriller, puzzle film, or crime drama. Why are dark Asian films more likely to be tagged as 'horror' than dark non-Asian films?

Please allow me to cite an example:

Dek hor (My School / Dorm) is listed as a "2006 Thai horror-drama film" while a film with similar plot, elements, tone and style - El espinazo del diablo (The Devil's Backbone) - is listed as a "2001 Spanish-Mexican gothic thriller film".

Dek_hor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The_Devil's_Backbone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is one of numerous examples I found on this site. It's a concern because it's misleading and, perhaps, biased. This needs to be addressed, but I don't know who to approach regarding this matter.

I did find a list of cinema task forces, but it's separated by country, e.g. Korean cinema task force, Japanese, Chinese cinema task force and so forth, but this issue involves all those Asian cinema task forces.

Thank you for your time reading this and any advice you may have to offer.

0zero9nine (talk)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. As you have noted there is a lot of work to be done. i suggest that you raise your concerns on the talk pages of the articles and discuss with other editors. I have placed some useful links on your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Genre designations are extremely contentious here on Wikipedia because they are often so subjective. In order to really put a genre label on a film, one should have a reliable source, like a major review, that describes the film as part of that genre. A film might then be part of several genres (if major reviewers disagree), or may not be part of a genre that you think it should be in. (And I certainly hear your concerns about bias. Unfortunately, because Wikipedia reflects what is written in reliable sources, if there is bias in categorizing Asian films out in the world that will necessarily contaminate Wikipedia. You may want to look into academic-type material if you're interested in improving the actual genre pages; they might be more cognizant of bias.) --Danger (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, but The Incite Mill already has citations, under Notes, that label the film as 'Japanese psycho thriller' (Variety), 'psychological thriller' (Nippon Cinema) and 'psychological suspenser' (Bloody Horror). Other Asian films suffer from this as well. Almost all I found have citations that clearly state correct genre classifications and yet, Wikipedia still labels them as 'horror'. Hence my response.
Lastly, what is Wikipedia's definition of 'reliable source'? I checked that link and it doesn't say whether reliable sources have to be in English. If I find an established [Asian]-language publication that determines a genre for a film, it's all right to cite this as a reliable source or citation? Apologies for being a pest and thank you for your time.
(I hope this is the right way to respond. My apologies if not.)
0zero9nine (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
You're right, those sources identify the genre of The Incite Mill as psychological thriller. The genre may have been in the article before the sources were added and no one corrected that or the editor who added the genre may not have consulted those sources. You can go ahead and put the correct genre(s) in, followed by a reference that backs it up. For more information on how to do references, see here.
Reliable sources do not have to be in English; because this is an English encyclopedia, English sources are preferred, but for a lot of topics they are not available. I imagine you'll find a lot more in depth coverage of this film in Japanese language sources. Just use English sources where they are available and other sources for the rest.
Reliable sources generally are 1) not self-published 2) have some sort of editing or fact checking (so blogs are generally not okay, but online magazines are usually okay). If you have a question about a specific source, you can ask on the reliable source noticeboard. Of particular interest to film articles, IMDB is not considered a reliable source, as far as I know.
(It's the right way to respond. When you are replying to someone directly, you can use colons (:) in front of the paragraphs to make them indent so that the conversation is a little easier to read. I've done this for you here.) Trust me, you're not being a pest. If you have any more questions or need any help, feel free to bring them here or to my talk page. Danger (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for those helpful suggestions and for being so patient. I'll make changes to the The Incite Mill entry this weekend. I'll also read articles relating to WikiProject Film to gain enough confidence to join and contribute to the team effort as much as I can. Much appreciated, Danger. Thanks! 0zero9nine (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

What policies apply in this situation?

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I had a question about policies! (I'm not sure this is the best place for this, so tell me if I should ask someone where else.) I worked on the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy article a few years back—I declared my COI, worked on a draft in my userspace, and tried to get some external feedback. Eventually, another user copied my draft to the mainspace, after which I was kind of uncomfortable making changes. (It needs some external sourcing rather badly, though.)

Today, someone asked if we could post the EERE Funding Widget to the EERE article. This is for an office in the federal government, so it's not really an advertising issue. It's just a widget explaining what federal funding is available for energy-related R&D. That said, it doesn't feel encyclopedic to me, and my feeling is that it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. I'd like to explain Wikipedia's policies to them instead. Could someone please point me toward the specific policies that'd discourage this? Elispen (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Post it how? If as an external link, see WP:EL for general rules and WP:LINKSPAM for things to avoid. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
They want to know if we can put the widget (like, the Widgetbox thing in the middle of the page I linked above) into the actual EERE article.  :) I'm thinking no, I just don't know what the clearest policy on that is. Elispen (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Umm... I don't think the software is even capable of doing that. Is there a policy on not breaking Wikipedia? And at any rate, the only legitimate external link I can think of for this page is to the Office's home page, per WP:ELYES (oh we love our abbreviations). If someone who comes upon this page thinks to themselves "I would like to be funded by this organization", they can use their favorite search engine or navigate through the Office's site to find out how to do that. --Danger (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I hadn't even thought of that! I thought there might have been certain situations where you could use HTML. But you're right, if everything has to be in Wiki markup, then it's not technically possible to put the widget on at all. That's a very easy answer, then. And if they ask about adding it to the external links instead, I'll point to wp:el and wp:linkspam. Thank you both! Elispen (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Manhattan's Theater District

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Theatre_District,_New_York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not a wikipedia editor. I really don't quite understand how all of this works. I'm trying to correct the misspelling of Manhattan's Theater District in the articel on that subject. I understand that "theatre" is a legitimate alternate spelling, however, this place has an official name in teh city of New York, as shown in the resources linked in the article, and it is witht he conventional American "Theater" spelling. My attempted changes to correct this was undone. It's anything even really in doubt, but another editor seems to undue the changes. It'd be great if someone could fix.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2011

You need to discuss this with other editors at Talk:Theatre District, New York. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
To add on to what Jez said, you would do that exactly the same way you made your request here. Just click the plus tab at the top of the talk page. Danger (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Page problem

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

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

I have been on the generation x page and it needs some help. The bottom of the page says that australian bureau of statistics use 1965-1981 to define generation. The source is on a government website but the report is from a company. This report however is not the newest one from the company. I have a later report from the company cited that uses a 1965-1979 date [4]. It seems the user was quoting a source that uses ABS data. However this company later come out with another report that uses different dates with ABS data. If you are to keep the source from the company that uses ABS data then you would probably have to use the newier report from them. I would like to make edits but the page has been in conflict. If you would like to help the article that would be good. (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The article was semi-protected by an admin, which means only logged-in users can edit it. Exactly which reference would you like to supersede with your link? --Deryck C. 21:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This is the one being used on the page.Generation_X#cite_note-24 The other report uses different dates. (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The report you linked to seems to agree with the others. What's the problem? --Deryck C. 23:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Starting point of Messianic Judaism

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

User Jayjg continues to assert as facts offhand assertions, that Messianic Judaism was created in the 1960s. His sources cite no origin point, yet he discounts any source that cites an earlier beginning as 'non-authoritative'. There are three non-specific references for his point, and half a dozen or more that give evidence of the term being used for Jewish believers in Jesus (though as a minority cadre) in the late 1800s, in the 1930s, and following WWII. However, instead of discussing the matter, he attacks my edits as 'disruptive' because they do not agree with his point of view. My latest 'disruption' was to remove the assertion of 60's beginnings completely, leaving a neutral statement. I need protection from his threats of edit blocking. DeknMike (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you want us to do? You both disagree on the talk page. Other editors have commented there. If you can't work together to achieve consensus, then try a request for comment. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I wan't DISCUSSION, not name-calling and harrassment. The rules of civil discussion should apply to all on the board. The rules of sourcing should be fairly applied. This is supposed to be step one in dispute resolution - you tell me it's not. On to step 2.--DeknMike (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Please calm down, I have pointed to WP:RFC which would be the appropriate next step. I don't see any name calling, but several other editors have commented that some of your assertions are WP:OR. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Ohm phanphiroj page

Answered: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


I have created a page of artist Ohm Phanphiroj, an international recognized artist from Thailand, but was nominated for deletion without merits every time. When I corrected the issues posted, others popped up. I tried to explain that the artist is a stellar artist with fan bases and achievement and need to be on wikipedia but there seems that the moderators, without doing homework or investigate, shut down the matter. I find this is not right, considering there are pages of artists of Thailand who has no reputation and weigh less in all aspects. Yet, his page is here on wikipedia. For example, see Airry Haruehun, photographer.

I feel Ohm Phanphiroj is a wonderful artists with great contribution to the art world with this works and teaching.

The moderator I have problem with is RealKYhick. I want other moderators to help resolve this matter. I created the page from a neutral standpoint and without commercial intention. But Realkyhick has accused me of spamming, commercialzing, among others. I want this investigated and his credentials reexamined to see whether he is suitable to be a moderator.


Afcasting (talk) 07:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The article has already been deleted twice, once as a copyright infringement, once as a patent advert. I suggest that you read up on Wikipedia policies and try creating the article in your WP:user space, and then ask for help at WP:FEEDBACK. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Madison Lindstrom

Resolved: User blocked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Deleted Article April 7, 2011 regarding Madison Lindstrom

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am the owner of Madison Management, a Talent Agent and Executive Producer in Film and television. I was having one of our voluteers enter information about one of our International Talents, Madison Lindstrom. Now, it appears that a gentleman by the name of Anthony deleted the account information for which we feel he had no right to do as it was a work in progress. Further, I guess he should go through all actors, models, hosts, ect. sites who have themselves and their information listed on Wikipedia removed also.

I feel we deserve a detailed explanation for his rash actions. We are also requesting that the information previously posted be reactivated in its entirety, immediately.


Bryanna Adalia, Agent

This is the information that was posted by Anthony Madison LindstromFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

20:05, 7 April 2011 Anthony Bradbury (talk | contribs) deleted "Madison Lindstrom" ‎ (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) Look for Madison Lindstrom on one of Wikipedia's sister projects: Wiktionary (free dictionary)

Wikibooks (free textbooks) 
Wikiquote (quotations) 
Wikisource (free library) 
Wikiversity (free learning resources) 
Commons (images and media) 
Wikinews (free news source) 

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Madison Lindstrom in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings. Start the Madison Lindstrom article, using the Article Wizard if you wish, or add a request for it. Search for "Madison Lindstrom" in existing articles. Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title. -------------------------------- Other reasons this message may be displayed:

If a page was recently created here, it may not yet be visible because of a delay in updating the database; wait a few minutes and try the purge function. Titles on Wikipedia are case sensitive except for the first character; please check alternative capitalizations and consider adding a redirect here to the correct title. If the page has been deleted, check the deletion log, and see Why was my page deleted?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madisonlindstrom777 (talkcontribs) 20:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read the messages on your talk page, which explain what has happened and why. The words shown there in blue will lead you to further pages with more detail on the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Notability/weight disagreement on Atlanta

Answered: . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Atlanta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A couple of days ago, while running Recent Change Patrol, I noticed an editor had added The Carlos Museum to a list of local museums in Atlanta. I'm from that city and have never heard of The Carlos Museum, which struck me as odd. (I also wondered if I could learn something new.)

Looking at the Edit History showed nothing: The contributing editor seems to supply Edit Summary data in only about one-third to one-half his edits.

A look into the article itself revealed no sourcing for the weight and notability assigned to the new entry.

I reverted the addition, explaining my action in the summary: [5]

In keeping with WP:BRD, to which I try to adhere, I explained my actions on his Talk page: [6] (Please note: He's since erased his talk page. If there is an archive, I can't locate it.)

He later reverted my revert and I reverted him. This was a mistake on my part that I wish I hadn't done. I was in the habit of reverting twice but, since re-reading some of the policy documents, I've decided to try to hold that to once, except in extraordinary circumstances.

He posted a note to my Talk page ([7]). I replied, briefly that this discussion should occur on the article Talk page and moved the discussion there (see [8]).

On the positive side, it appears he's since tried to add a source to the Carlos Museum tag. Unfortunately, the citation is a single picture from an AOL Travel collection of 15-20 places to visit in Atlanta. I really don't know whether it's a good citation or not.

Is anyone willing to look at this and tell me 1) what they think should be done next and, 2) what I could have done to better handle the situation (aside from not doing the second revert--I figured that one out myself!).

Thanks for any assistance you care to give! — UncleBubba T @ C ) 02:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Under investigation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
See: Michael C. Carlos Museum. It appears that the museum does indeed exist and is notable. You may wish to check through the references and point out any that may not be valid, and check that all claims in that article are substantiated. You can then update the Atlanta article as necessary. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! — UncleBubba T @ C ) 04:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Monty Hall problem

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

On Talk:Monty Hall problem, several editors are having a good-faith disagreement concerning how to apply WP:TECHNICAL and WP:STRUCTURE. While the Arbcom had to get involved recently, I see no hint of the sort of misbehavior that the arbcom addressed recurring, just a good-faith disagreement about how to apply some policies and guidelines. I would like to solicit some assistance to make sure that I am interpreting the policies and guidelines properly. Details on Talk:Monty Hall problem, especially the last section. Guy Macon (talk) 05:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I am finding the arguments rather abstruse and can't really follow what is being discussed. Perhaps a WP:RFC with a clearly defined question would be best. As far as WP:EAR goes, that is probably the best advice we can give. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I am preparing an RFC as suggested. Feel free to close this. Guy Macon (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Extension page

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:Http:// Inc. I have created the EXTENSION, INC. Wikipedia page, and when I go to look at the page again the title of the organization is spelled incorrectly. For some reason it comes up as "Eextension Inc." when it should be "EXTENSION, INC." I have included the link for the page itself above. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Khostetler (talkcontribs) 14:08, 11 April 2011

It looks like it has been fixed now by another editor. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The article was renamed from its originals all-caps title, following the applicable Manual of Style guideline. Unfortunately the person who did this made a small mistake, inserting an extra "e". I have fixed this by moving the page again; the current title is Extension Inc. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

mailing address

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

Resolved: (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been blocked for 1 week for threatening legal action. Goodvac (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

We are looking for a mailing address as we intend to take Wikipedia to Our local court in New Jersey Reason being that your org has stop anyone from using our Name and taking all references to our company off your site Thank you Stanley Rak [details removed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you elaborate a bit more about this? Wikipedia's legal agent's address is

Wikimedia Foundation c/o CT Corporation System 818 West Seventh Street Los Angeles, California 90017 Goswamir14- 01:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goswamir14 (talkcontribs)

I don't think this post belongs in this forum, and I'm not sure you should be providing legal information.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I merely retrieved from Wikimedia. Should I not have? User:Goswamir14 talk- 01:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikimedia's "registered agent" is listed on Wikimedia, but your interpretation that the OP's request for a "mailing address" means to give him the Wikimedia registered agent address entails drawing certain inferences from the post and making certain legal determinations. It would be better just to refer the OP to Wikipedia:Contact us, which I've now done.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
My apologies, shouldn't have done that. User:Goswamir14 talk- 02:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I should also note that the OP has posted the same message on the Help forum here and was issued a warning because the post can be read as a threat of legal action.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

For the curious, some background at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TheEatery/Archive. --CliffC (talk) 03:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
The site is blacklisted, so one could assume they just discovered that by trying to add a new link. --CliffC (talk) 03:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Question: Is there anything wrong with having an article about this company on WP? A quick search turned up two WP:RS NY Times mention and GM News full article. There is also a good amount of concise self-published stuff. I know this is not the place to have this discussion but could I hear a few voices? Joe407 (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we should not discuss this further until any possible legal action has been resolved. --Danger (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Continuing non-NPOV and promotional wording on Tangled

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 09:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

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

While on RC patrol, I noticed an editor had put "Tangled has been met with universal acclaim since its release" into the article. This doesn't exactly appear to be neutral, so I removed it (and some other promotional-sounding text) and posted a request on the Talk page: Talk:Tangled#Please_do_not_include_original_research.21.

The explanation I included on the edit was: Rv promotional, POV wording. "Universal" means "everyone", which ain't the case, even at 90%. Such statements must be sourced and meet a very high standard of verifiability to be included.

This has been going on for a while now and there are some IP editors that really like to re-insert this into the article (P.R. firm, perhaps?) Nevertheless, it seems to fly in the face of Wikipedia's goal of being encyclopedic and neutral in its stance--and not allowing spammy links or text.

Before I go and rattle some overworked Administrator's cage, I wanted another opinion. Would someone care to take a look and tell me? Thanks!

BTW, since the "other folks" change (and are unnamed), this didn't seem like a case for "Third Opinion" and I don't think it rises to the level of an ANI filing (yet).

But I'm not willing to get jumped on for violating 3RR, either. Thanks for any help you can offer! — UncleBubba T @ C ) 00:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the latest IP and expanded on your discussion on the Talk page. In my reverting edit summary, I've asked that editors comment on the Talk page, not revert. These kinds of topical sentences are generally inaccurate, but, additionally, they are unnecessary. The facts about all the reviews speak for themselves. You don't need an editorializing intro.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm curious. I've skimmed the article, and I don't recall ever seeing as much detail about earnings in any other film article. Not only does it go into every market, but it gives a blow-by-blow accounting of its ranking and grosses on a weekly basis. This strikes me as way too much information about this issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, those updates are impressive in their detail; I've not checked their veracity. The source is user Spinc5, who seems to be doing same for all the Disney movies (at least, all the animated ones).
BTW, thanks so much for your help! — UncleBubba T @ C ) 03:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Dispute over including four-line original obituary, plus reference and link to it, in entry headlined "Knut Hamsun's obituary for Adolf Hitler"

Resolved: OTRS permission certified, text re-instated in article. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Knut Hamsun's obituary of Adolf Hitler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi there,

Being a newcomer to other than sporadic editing of Wikipedia, I suddenly have found myself attacked in an "edit-war" over whether to include a four-line translation of the entire original obituary, plus reference and link to it, in the entry headlined "Knut Hamsun's obituary for Adolf Hitler".

My stance is that the translation of the text of the very short - four line long - obituary self-evidently should be included under the eponymously named "Knut Hamsun's obituary of Adolf Hitler". However, after including the short text at the beginning of the eight times longer discussion of it, plus link and reference, I found my contribution deleted. I reinstalled the improvements, only to find them quickly deleted again. I reinstalled again. It was deleted again. This went on, until I found myself threatened by the deleter to be blocked from Wikipedia. This I find not only unfair, but unreal. I added facts, only to be told by an apparent zealot that the text of the short obituary itself had nothing to do in an entry "about" it!

In Norway, Nobel Prize-winnning Knut Hamsun's country of origin, there's been a discussion since 1945 over whether Hamsun was a nazi or not. He was by then a largely deaf old man of 86, most likely quite ill informed of world events (particulary as radio-listening was banned in Norway until the day after the obituary appeared on May 7th, 1945, and all papers censored).

The rest of the entry about the obituary is quite slanted against Hamsun, even to the point of stating that Hamsun "was sentenced for [membership in the National Fascist party] in the legal purge in Norway after World War II", but failing to mention that charges of treason were raised and dropped. Arguments for Hamsun's Nazism are presented, whereas arguments against are omitted. One such omission is the obituary itself, which appears to be partly critical of Hitler, on account of it saying (more or less - any translation of Hamsun's archaic Norwegian is awkward): "and his [Hitler's] life and doings does not invite any sentimental arousal". Further, the obituary-entry originally claimed, in a translation erroneously exaggerating Hamsun's praise, that Hamsun called Hitler a "Prophet", whereas the original obit at most called Hitler a "preacher" (forkynder)- "of the Gospel of justice for all nations". These slants are negatively biased towards Hamsun. A reader might correct them for hirself, with the text to the obituary readily available. However, the deleter "Eisfbnore" even claimed neither reference nor link to the original text was necessary in the entry "about" the obituary, as that might be found (but only with difficulty) at Wikisource. By insisting on omitting the obituary itself, the deleter appears to prefer maintaining the slant against Hamsun, whether or not supported by the factual content of the obituary.

I maintain that excluding the very short text to the obituary from the entry named "Hamsun's obituary of Adolf Hitler" is in violation of Wikipedia's core principle of NPOV.

I ask you (whomever that is) to advise on the topic.

Regards Factlover1 (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think WP:QUOTE is the policy with most relevance. It says that when we are discussing biased or controversial opinions of biography subjects, it is best to give their exact words, rather than our interpretation or paraphrase of them. I think including this entire short obituary serves that purpose. However, a couple of other issues are raised: inclusion may be a copyright violation and (to the extent that the obit is a complete short work of Hamsen) I am not sure whether a fair use argument would prevail here. Perhaps editors with more experience of Wikipedia copyright issues will comment. Also, the translation is rather awkward and unidiomatic (I understand the original itself is rather stilted and complex). If you did it yourself, it is preferable to find a reliably sourced English translation which can be used. Jonathanwallace (talk) 07:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I think Factlover1 has been answered rather extensively at the article talk page. If you don't like the opiinions of other editors on this then please raise a request for comment. Do not carry on edit warring as you will get blocked. Please read up on our policies. I have placed some useful links on your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Jezhotwells - Why be partisan in the edit war, by deleting link and reference to original obituary, as well as the obituary, while admonishing not to "editwar"? - That action does not promote the facts about the obituary. Factlover1 (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
When you get around to reading up the edit warring policy and the copyright policy, you will see that my revresions were justified. Cheers. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Your deletions of link and reference to the original obituary can NOT be due to a violation of copyright, nor policy. On the copyright-issue, Aftenposten is happy to have the original obituary on Wikipedia (cf. Aftenposten, Morten Abel, April 8, 2011) Your "revresions" - whatever that is - are not "justified". Why shouldn't the deleter be the one to "raise a request for comment" rather than contributors protecting references and links? Factlover1 (talk) 10:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Permission where? I don't see any evidence of permission, and we're not likely to just take your word on it. Until it has been confirmed without a doubt that is it not a copyright violation to use the text you should not be using it, continuing to do so will likely result in a block. Rehevkor 10:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
What will suffice as "evidence"? - The persons responsible at both Aftenposten, Morten Abel, T. (Redacted), and Hamsun's estate-manager publishing house Gyldendal, Gerd Hjelmtveit, T. (Redacted), have given permission for this specific use on Wikipedia. Are you still in doubt, pls make the effort of a phone-call to these reponsible people. Re "not likely to take your word on it" - I thought Wikipedia was all about words? - Hope I have not entered into some sort of hierarchy competition where "some words are more equal than others". Anyway, thanks for the welcome, and now that I've obtained the relevant permission for "you" - Wikipedia - I'll refrain from trying to contribute any more, as this has been a MOST unpleasant experience of gratitude missing. Factlover1 (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Permission "for this specific use on Wikipedia" is not enough, because the text at Wikipedia has to be available for re-use under the terms of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. Other sites may and do re-publish Wikipedia text, even for commercial purposes. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Now I know you're nit-picking. The permission was specifically for use on Wikipedia, with all it entails. Just ask the copyright-holders, phone no. provided. Good joke, though. - Now I know you really don't want contributions to Wikipedia. Stupid of me to help. Tnx for the clarification. Can I leave you now, sirs, pls? Factlover1 (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I have redacted the phone numbers, you must not most personal information here, especially information that is not even (apparently) your own. Evidence must be provided by yourself or the copyright holders, no one is going to do the work for you. As I said, we cannot just take your word. Copyright is taken very seriously on Wikipedia, and it's not as simple as you like to think it is. Rehevkor 11:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
With all possible respect and deference due, I have answered all your quieries. You have not divulged what constitutes "evidence" to you. The phone numbers you deleted were NOT personal information. They were numbers at the work-place of the relevant people, copyright holders, who would be happy to confirm the copyright-permission given. But you preferred deleting it. Maybe in case it would prove the case? - It appears you, Rehevkor for Wikipedia, take copyright even more serious than the copyright-holders. That's impressive, sure: a guy who won't take "yes" for an answer - then deletes contact-info supplied for confirmation. I've already understood that you resent ordinary evidence. Would you clarify exactly how you want your "evidence"? - Or maybe doubting the copyright-holders is too much fun for you. I'm sorry Mr. Hamsun isn't available directly, but he's still dead. But I'm sure you'd have doubted him, too. Now, do tell - how do you want others (me) to do the work for you? Web-link to the publishing house, with phone no and the name of the hush-hush person listed? Fine, here: . That's the copyright-manager for Knut Hamsun's estate (don't take my word for it, harass her a bit instead - I already have). Or perchance you prefer the email-address to the copyright-manager for the newspaper where the obituary was published (ditto on my word)? - Be my guest (once again - don't even consider it abusing hospitality): (Redacted) . - Don't worry, it's not personal - this is the chief editor of the paper, at his office, who is eager to confirm. My guess is you're still not convinced, you being such a "very serious" guy, and all (implied the rest of us aren't, of course, particularly not the copyright-holders). You may not believe your own eyes, I presume. If you want proof Mr. Knut Hamsun really is dead, with a copy of his death-certificate - I'm sure it can be arranged. If you say there's no need to be sarcastic, I'll have to say: "Thanks, I had no idea that was so". Want me to prove to you the sky is blue (behind any clouds, of course)? Just ask. Factlover1 (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
The procedures to follow are at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. It just takes an email. Then the permission will be seen and checked by the volunteers who are best at doing this sort of thing. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Tnx, John - finally some useful practical info: the Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. I'll get on it, Monday (as it's now after office hours) - i.e. ask the publishing house to fw that email filled in. In the meantime, over the week-end, I hope the obituary can remain on Wikipedia. Otherwise would seem unreasonable: delaying providing practical info until after hours, thus causing deletion. Take my word for this (yes, you can! - using yr own common sense): the obituary's been in the public domain (albeit not quite as formally) for nearly 60 years, and the copyright-holding publisher's only too happy (my impression, rather solid) to have it on Wikipedia under that entry. They even wanted an email back - and got it - confirming the efforts to have it posted there. Very pleased, they (she - no name!) were (was). Again, tnx for the constructive input. Happy week-end 2 U Factlover1 (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You don't understand, Factlover; compliance with copyright laws is not voluntary here, it is mandatory. That obituary has never been in the public domain; and the only way we can keep copyrighted material on Wikipedia is if the copyright holders give specific licenses, which are much broader than "OK to use on Wikipedia". In the meantime, we cannot and will not leave up material which breaches copyright protections. This is a reference work, not a daily newspaper or blog; there is no deadline, and having information you'd like to see omitted for a weekend does the project no harm. A number of editors have been and are continuing to be patient with you, and are assuming you are operating in good faith; do them the decency to return that assumption. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Get real, Mike. I understand well enough, even sympathize. But for all practical purposes that obit HAS been in the public domain - for more than half a century. You're a bit inflated there, so I understand your flatulence. C'mon block me, your loss, I couldn't care less for your inflated self-importance. Fighting to help you - Wikipedia - for free, while receiving foggy, unsufficiently specific practical feedback, hasn't been much fun. Oh well, not quite true: I've laughed a lot at you. But that obituary should be available, instead of the mean biases - lies, even - of that entry on the obituary, so I slogged on - being overly patient with YOU. Now, don't be patronizingly patient: block me if you so wish, and I'll laugh at you again, while that obituary will remain in the public domain - outside Wikipedia. - How about smbd just ONCE saying "tnx" for my efforts here, too?

(I even just this morning leared about these four tildes for signing, and you people could't WAIT to throw every possible complaint my way - with only one editor excepted. - Nobody outside Wikipedia takes copyright quite that "seriously", meaning meanly. You're de facto trying to reintroduce copyright-protection for a text - four lines - it has been dropped for forever by the copyright-owner. Now THAT's funny !-) Factlover1 (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be confused about what "public domain" means. It is a legal status of a copyrightable item, like a piece of text. Whether it is accessible–legally or not–does not have any bearing on whether it public domain. (Compare, for example, music in the age of peer-to-peer file sharing and YouTube. The fact that "... Baby One More Time" is available at any time to anyone with a modem does not mean that it is in the public domain.) Similarly, the fact that the copyright holders do not defend their work against copyright violations does not mean that the work is public domain. In general, in order for a copyrighted work to be in public domain if a certain period of time (usually 70 years for text) has not passed since the death of the creator, the work must be explicitly released into the public domain by the copyright holder.
Please stop baiting other editors. They have been patient with you on this board and I ask that you treat them with respect. Consider this a warning. Consider also that if you do not like the policies of Wikipedia, there are many other places on the web where you can contribute. Regards, Danger (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we're done here. Next move is Factlover1's, let's give him no more rope to hang himself with. The assistance requested has been provided, job done, we can all have a beer. Rehevkor 00:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Concensus, at last. (talk) 00:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

On a totally different count, how come my IP-signature's changed? - Unless any of you good Editors haven't realized that, I don't know my way around these "editing corridors" at all. Clueless. No idea of the floor-plan, number of people, Editors, to be encountered here, relevance of issues to other issues, or the strange norms and conventions reigning. Interesting, but pretty wild. Very much like groping blind through a seeing crowd, not even really wanting to be (t)here. (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears that you have forgotten to log in. Many ISPs assign random IPs to their customers so you may get a different IP address each time that you connect. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Tnx. Ha-ha. Yes, I'm that clueless... :-) Factlover1 (talk) 03:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Outside comment: I believe inclusion of the text would be warranted under "fair use". We have a whole article dedicated to this brief text. If this was an article about a work of visual art, we would include a copy of the artwork as an image. We do this under the fair-use doctrine of US law, and under our non-free content criteria. While the latter are not worded in such a way as to include text content, it does make sense to apply the basic idea of these criteria also in cases of quoting text. So: would our use of the text infringe on commercial opportunities of the copyright holders? Hardly; there is certainly no commercial market for selling licenses to reprint this text (as there might be with bona fide literary works, poems and the like), and the permission obtained from the publishers ensures we're not stepping on anybody's toes. Does the inclusion of the quote add significantly to the understanding of the article? I'd say yes, just as an image usually does in an article about a work of visual art. Given how short it is, seeing the full text gives the reader an understanding of the tone and laconic style of the text that isolated shorter quotes would not. Fut.Perf. 10:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


TNX EVERYBODY, incl. those I blasted along the way, GLAD IT WORKED OUT IN THE END, and pls forgive my learning-process re "tone".Factlover1 (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sagamore of the Wabash recipient

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 09:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sagamore of the Wabash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello: My uncle Ned Browning Smith Senior of Washington Indiana is a receipient of the Sagamore of the Wabash. Can you please verify that I am telling you the truth and please list his name on his page. I am not sure what year it was approx 2007, the Lt. Gov. of Indiana presented it to him in a ceremony on the Washington County Court House steps. My uncle is a double purple heart world war 2 veteran, one of the five "Smith Brothers" who all served in World World Two and came home safely. He is in heaven now but his family would appreciate it if he could be on the list. I know you are very busy with the whole world writing in, no rush on this, but please help if you are able.

Mrs. Laura Johnston Greenville Indiana —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

If you have verifiable and reliable sources for this assertion then please post them on the article talk page at Talk:Sagamore of the Wabash. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
As a note, I've cleaned up the page as best I could, attempting to find as many sources as I could for the people listed, and tidying up the list a bit, as it was quite a mess. - SudoGhost (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I have been told I vandalized your page and I dont even know hwo the heck the person was I was supposed to have vandalized. I am a historian and do bonafide geneology I check and recheck sources before I change even my own records. I would not presume to change someone elses. I do not even have that person in my family tree so please erase my name off your list of vandalizers Toni Hector-Zepeda —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Because you are not a registered user, you are identified by your IP address instead. If your IP address is used by multiple computers, you may receive messages that were meant for someone else. If you did not make the edits in question, just ignore the message. Wikipedia does not keep a list of vandals. To avoid these sorts of messages in the future, you can sign in using a free account that takes about a minute to set up and requires no personal information. --Danger (talk) 23:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

topic disappeared and can't be found

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Some time ago at the request of members of an organic, sustainable agricultural group on the West Coast of the US I initiated a History_of_US_West_Coast_Organic_Food_Movement topic in the agricultural history portal. (I thought). At least one of the members added to it; later he reported to me that the page had been moved by someone and he could not find it. I, too cannot find it. I have no idea what to do next. it represented a lot of work on my part and I'm somewhat miffed that someone could arbitrarily move/remove it without a discussion. What to do? How to find it?

Thanks, Earl Scanlan (originally signed on as CoolHandUke, but that account, too, has disappeared.)

Earlscanlan (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The essay "Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?" may be some some use to you. Without details on the specific article or topic you edited or created I can't help with any specific reasons the article was deleted. You do, however, seem to be editing under a conflict of interest, in the future you should read WP:Conflicts of interest before proceeding to create or edit further. Rehevkor 18:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
No page with the name History_of_US_West_Coast_Organic_Food_Movement has ever existed. I note that Earlscanlan has only made two edits to Wikipedia (this request) - perhaps you created a page on another website? Jezhotwells (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Seems it was added to Timeline of agriculture and food technology by Amigocantisano (talk · contribs) in a series of edits, it was shortly removed by Steven Walling here. He did archive the text on the talk page, however: Talk:Timeline of agriculture and food technology#History of US West Coast Organic Food Movement, plus an explanation of why it was removed. I concur with his reasoning. Rehevkor 20:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Your account was created today and has no other edits. The only edit of User:CoolHandUke was the creation of a vandalism "biography" at Robin Fail. The article Timeline of agriculture and food technology has contained a section by the name you mention. See Talk:Timeline of agriculture and food technology#History of US West Coast Organic Food Movement. I agree that a list of US West Coast farms and people doesn't belong in the timeline. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

For articals of language origins

Request unclear: Jezhotwells (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you add a map to help show me where the language origin is on the map? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I am unsure what you are asking here. Are you asking for a map to be added to Origin of language? --Danger (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

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