Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests: Difference between revisions
Line 314: | Line 314: | ||
:It did look like that briefly, before it was reverted by one of our "bots" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Louis_Stevenson&diff=next&oldid=470461961], if you try clearing your cache it should be correct--[[User:Jac16888|<font color="Blue">Jac</font><font color="Green">16888</font>]] [[User talk:Jac16888|<sup><font color="red">Talk</font></sup>]] 20:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC) |
:It did look like that briefly, before it was reverted by one of our "bots" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Louis_Stevenson&diff=next&oldid=470461961], if you try clearing your cache it should be correct--[[User:Jac16888|<font color="Blue">Jac</font><font color="Green">16888</font>]] [[User talk:Jac16888|<sup><font color="red">Talk</font></sup>]] 20:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
:(ec)The ariticle was vandalised yesterday. The text in question was reverted by a bot a matter of second after it was entered, see the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Louis_Stevenson&action=historysubmit&diff=470461979&oldid=470461961 change log]. If you are still seeing the old version of the page you may need to [[Wikipedia:Bypass your cache|bypass your cache]]. '''<FONT COLOR="red">Я</FONT>ehevkor''' <big>[[User talk:Rehevkor|<FONT COLOR="black">✉</FONT>]]</big> 20:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC) |
:(ec)The ariticle was vandalised yesterday. The text in question was reverted by a bot a matter of second after it was entered, see the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Louis_Stevenson&action=historysubmit&diff=470461979&oldid=470461961 change log]. If you are still seeing the old version of the page you may need to [[Wikipedia:Bypass your cache|bypass your cache]]. '''<FONT COLOR="red">Я</FONT>ehevkor''' <big>[[User talk:Rehevkor|<FONT COLOR="black">✉</FONT>]]</big> 20:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
== Herostratus conspires, in an open post, to alone completly redact the work of the current editors (as we complete our work?) He's a former administrator who knows the Wikipedia ystem. == |
|||
This is the problem edit containing a conspiracy to redact an article unilaterally. {{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WLU#The_Rind_et_al._controversy_article.|WLU's TALK page}} |
|||
WLU's TALK page}} |
|||
I will post a page like this to the Rind et al. Talk page later today. |
|||
I am working with TruthinWriting, Legitimus and a few occasional other editors for the past 5 weeks to improve [[Rind et al. controversy]]. Herostratus and WLU are occasionally disruptive to the work, and have no interest in building consensus. They abuse their status as experienced editors (who know little about this subject) to ignore consensus. |
|||
The problem today is Herostratus, a former administrator. [[Herostratus]] is also a maybe still involved with the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch]] |
|||
Copied from this post above, Herostratus wrote that he felt the [[Rind et al.Controvery]] article: |
|||
<big>"was basically ok <u>before,</u> and I'm going to restore it to it's pre-Radvo/Truthinwriting state and just insist on that". Not the best thing, he continues,..but preferable.</big> |
|||
Herostratus supports the current bias, but he does not want to work with the group of editors, but abuse his position to impose his views on the study when he show up briefly from time to time. I see this conspiracy as part of his overall attitude toward his participation in our work.. |
|||
Here is a larger quote from Herostratus' edit: |
|||
:::::This [Rind]article has been vexing lately. Thank you tons for engaging on it. I think that Flyer22 has (understandably) stated "I'm outta here", and Legitimus is busy, and I'm busy, and I don't have the expertise to do much (not sure about Flyer22 and Legitimus but maybe them too). Before you came along (thank you again!) I was starting to feel inclined, looking at the totality of the situation, to just be like "You know what? It was basically OK before, and I'm going to restore it to it's pre-Radvo/Truthinwriting state and just insist on that" or something. Obviously not the best thing but possibly preferable I guess. Anyway, if you too end up throwing up your hands or if you wish any other assistance let me know. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 09:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Herostratus and WLU have a history of redactions and IMHO destructive edits in the past 5 weeks. The conspiracy fits their current behavior. |
|||
The main concern is what may happen in the future. Herostratus does not contribute constructively to the work of the editors, but shows up occasionally to destroy the contributions of the few active editors. |
|||
The most constructive contributor is Truthinwriting, who claims to be a professor, who teaches statistics and research methods. My opinion of TRuthinwriting's edits is very high. Contact him for confirmation of my story. He does not know about the conspiracy yet. |
|||
I would prefer that Herostratus be banned from editing at this particular site because of the conspiracy and because of general abuse of position. [[User:Radvo|Radvo]] ([[User talk:Radvo|talk]]) 20:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:46, 10 January 2012
Archives
Need help on how to list London Southend Airport as destination in airport articles
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Wavy_arrow_down_right.svg/20px-Wavy_arrow_down_right.svg.png)
I am having trouble if any experienced editor with airports, airlines, and aviation on how to list London Southend Airport as a destination in airport articles. The dispute is whether or not Southend Airport is considered a London airport (i.e. Gatwick, Stansted, Luton, Heathrow, and City Airport) eventhough most of these airports are about 30 or 40 miles away from London itself and located in the suburbs....also a couple of IPs are listing it as Southend-on-the-Sea (which I believe is part of London). I have started a discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#London_Southend_Airport but only 2 editors replied. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- There's not much we can do here at EAR to resolve any such dispute. You have already started discussions in the two most logical places and I fear that you'll just have to wait for more participation. WP:Airports is a fairly active project, but you could consider also leaving a message at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation and with one or two of its more active members . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Southend-on-Sea is **not** part of London. It's part of Essex. The name 'London Southend Airport' is because of its private owner's branding, not location. Regional Airports Ltd (RAL) has a tendency to put 'London' on every commercial venture they acquired. Such as renaming 'Biggin Hill Airport' as 'London Biggin Hill Airport', 'Southend Airport' as 'London Southend Airport' and so on. LSA is now owned by a different company, but the name remains the same. I personally do not consider LSA as a 'London airport'. We don't even consider Luton (Bedfordshire) and Stansted (Essex), in spite of the use of 'London' in their current names, as London airports either. The only "real" London airport is London City Airport (please note that there are more than one English airport with 'City Airport' as a name). Heathrow and Gatwick are part of Greater London while City Airport is part of London (as it's in Newham Borough). For what it's worth, anyhow. 0zero9nine (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Now that would be an excellent addition to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Gatwick isn't in London either - it's in West Sussex! Deryck C. 16:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Now that would be an excellent addition to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Periyar_(river) origin dispute.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Wavy_arrow_down_right.svg/20px-Wavy_arrow_down_right.svg.png)
Hi, Periyar_(river) origin dispute. The reference's are being removed continuously without valid reasons, Also people fail to discuss the edit's in most cases. Please assist me on how to resolve this. I have earlier applied for the article protection but have failed to achieve one. Thanks. Pearll's SunTALK 09:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- I see that the page is protected until tomorrow, if edit warring recommences, you could consider making reports at WP:3RR, especially if the other edits refuse to engage in discussion. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
deletion of <unknown>
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Wavy_arrow_down_right.svg/20px-Wavy_arrow_down_right.svg.png)
Hi,
Since I don't know where else to ask this, I'll just do it here. On my Watchlist, the following entry appeared: "(Deletion log); 01:53 . . (Username or IP removed) (log action removed) (edit summary removed)". Note that my timezone settings are CET. I was wondering... what can be *so* secret that we can't even know which admin performed this deletion or what log entry was given? Or which page it was all about? (which was on my watchlist, so it can't have been thát bad...) Any help in shedding light on this issue would be appreciated. effeietsanders 09:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Very sorry, really can't help you there - not enough to go on. I'll do one qiuck check and let you now what I find that might help you locate it so you know what the article was, but it must have been pretty bad to have been revdel'd and oversighted. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- No, sorry, I can't even find anything in your deleted pages that correlates. You'll just have to forget about it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, that is exactly why I worry about it - and why it shouldn't happen this way :P Maybe in the deletion log, at 00:53 UTC ? You can find it on this page between "Yamamoto Ichiro (talk | contribs) (log action removed) (test)" and "Nyttend (talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Floydian/Archive 1" (U1: User request to delete page in own userspace: G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup)". effeietsanders 10:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- If you can't find it there, neither can I. If it's been oversighted even I can't see it. If it's not a page you created, I shouldn't worry about it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, there's no real way to be able to find it. I guess you could look over WP:OVERSIGHT to see what the oversight policy is. Other than that, there's no real way to know.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 15:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am not entirely sure why you're pointing to that policy page. I am aware of oversight, but I simply see no reason why the oversighter should be hidden as well. Now it suggests that the oversighter tries to hide his action - and very effectively because people tell me basically "don't bother". effeietsanders 14:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, there's no real way to be able to find it. I guess you could look over WP:OVERSIGHT to see what the oversight policy is. Other than that, there's no real way to know.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 15:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- If you can't find it there, neither can I. If it's been oversighted even I can't see it. If it's not a page you created, I shouldn't worry about it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, that is exactly why I worry about it - and why it shouldn't happen this way :P Maybe in the deletion log, at 00:53 UTC ? You can find it on this page between "Yamamoto Ichiro (talk | contribs) (log action removed) (test)" and "Nyttend (talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Floydian/Archive 1" (U1: User request to delete page in own userspace: G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup)". effeietsanders 10:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
New editor needs WP:COI and WP:RS explanations
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Wavy_arrow_down_right.svg/20px-Wavy_arrow_down_right.svg.png)
I have been explaining these policies regarding my recent reverts (see second one re: WP:Coi and WP:RS problems here) of User talk:Marc R M Gauvin's material at his talk page. I tell him to read the policies but I don't think he has. He just keeps disagreeing with me. I think he needs to hear it from another editor so it doesn't seem like I'm just some ill informed person biting a newbie. CarolMooreDC 16:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- It looks as if an editor has already chimed in on the lines you suggested. I don't think there's any need to escalate right now, but if the issue persists, the best venue would be WP:DR. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Six Million Crucifixions references
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Wavy_arrow_down_right.svg/20px-Wavy_arrow_down_right.svg.png)
Quite a few months back Wikipedia editor Mike Rosoft left a comment on the Six Million Crucifixions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) page regarding references to sources affiliated with the subject, rather than references from independent authors and third-party publications. I made a couple of attempts to contact him both on the article's Talk page and his own Talk page, to no avail.
The question is, what if some of the third party remarks in the article were written directly to the author by all those scholars in the field of the book, none of whom are affiliated with the author? They are very relevant, very significant and independent, but they were never published in an independent publication. It seems to me those are valid references. Thanks! Esautomatix (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- This is a matter to be discussed among the contributors to the article (and anyone else who drops by) at Talk:Six Million Crucifixions. As there has been no reponse as yet, you may wish to consider making a neutrally worded invitation to the other contributors on their talk pages to take part in the discussion. You can find out who they are here where there are also direct links to their talk pages. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Afghan National Army
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Wavy_arrow_down_right.svg/20px-Wavy_arrow_down_right.svg.png)
Article in Dispute: Afghan National Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Point of Dispute: Size of the Army.
The US Army officer responsible for the success of the program, General Caldwell, has now assigned an Army officer at the program headquarters in Kabul full-time responsibility to propagandize this entry. The correct numbers were provided by statisitcal analysis from the US Army's own "Military Review" magazine. However, the U.S. Army continues to propagandize this page with numbers the Globe and Mail has shown to be false. The correct information in the U.S. Army's own magazine may be found here: http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/MilitaryReview/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20091231_art004.pdf
Noted Afghan scholars Professor Thomas Johnson (Naval Postgraduate School) and Professor M. Chris Mason (Center for Advanced Defense Studies) have attempted repeatedly to post accurate force size numbers using the U.S. Army's own statisitical analysis.
Attempts to resolve this by compromise have failed. Entries which noted the size was "disputed by experts" have been erased by General Caldwell's staff and replaced with the falsified numbers, as reported by the Globe and Mail.
This is essentially a repeat of the Pentagon Papers, in which the U.S. military deliberately publishes falsehoods which it knows from its own sources to be false, in order to mislead the public on important matters of public policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.3.231 (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- We really only handle editing enquiries here. The place for disputes is the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. That said, this issue can be resolved through normal discussion on an article talk page. Please join the conversation at Talk:Afghan National Army #Size of the Army is Disputed and General Caldwell's numbers alone are not acceptable that you have not yet contributed to. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
New articles question
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Wavy_arrow_down_right.svg/20px-Wavy_arrow_down_right.svg.png)
Hiya.
eCan I make new pages for people and how do you make a new page?
Tazm123
Change Title of Page
Go pano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hello. I created the "Go pano" page but the title should be "Go Pano" . Can I or you change the Title so the word pano is a capital P?
Thank you, Christian J Murray<email redacted>—Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian J Murray (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2012
- Hi - as this stub has no indication of how the company may meet our notability guidelines for companies, I have tagged it for deletion. As you placed your request here while you were logged out, you may wish to follow the procedures at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight to have details of your IP and email removed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Discussion about BWI on user talk page
Please see the comments posted by Cali4529 on User talk:Folklore1#BWI. I'm not sure how to respond and think it might be better to leave the response to a third party. Folklore1 (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've left a response of a kind.. Яehevkor ✉ 22:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- (uninvolved) I know of no rule on Wikipedia that if a user edits a page too much they should be stopped. FWIW, and just as an example, there is a page I have edited over 500 times. I've askedCali4529 let me know where that rule is.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
MoS question
I've searched the MoS and can't seem to find guidance on this. Is it appropriate on Wikipedia to use the term "Senator Smith" or "Congressman Jones"? I thought we generally do not use titles like that with the name but I cannot find where it states this. Can anyone point me in the right direction? Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Try MOS:HONORIFICS and the "Subsequent use" section just below that. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Redirection of Climate of Northern Ireland article without consensus
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_of_Northern_Ireland&redirect=no
I am concerned that the above page is being vandalised to redirect to Climate of Ireland. I can also see evidence of sock puppets being used but I will report that separately. There were clear objections in the talk page to this proposal, however, an editor proceeded to delete the article's contents and redirect.
I repeatedly tried to revert to the original article but offensive comments were made such as "Northern Ireland is too tiny to have a climate" and "the climate doesn't change as you cross the border" and repeatedly stating "there is no consensus" for a Climate of Northern Ireland page, which is untrue because Northern Ireland is a constituent country of the United Kingdom and is served by the UK Met Office along with Scotland, Wales and England.
If you see the discussion of the original page, there was no 'consensus' to delete the page and redirect instead. There were clear objections by several users that they did not want the page to be redirected or merged with the Ireland page. The other users set out their reasoning for the page not to be merged very clearly.
There is a second page, "Climate of northern ireland" (lower case), and that was set to redirect to Climate of Ireland yet there is no discussion on the talk page for doing that.
How can I flag that the page is disputed if the page forwards readers to another page?
I tried to compromise by providing an 'about' template with a link to the Climate of Ireland page from the Climate of Northern Ireland page, but this was deleted and redirect put in place.
Please advise on how to deal with this problem, especially regarding the redirection aspect. Seamus48 (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Have you discussed this on any of the relevant article talk pages? – ukexpat (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- (Talk page message posted) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- There seems to be a bit of forum shopping going on here in direct avoidance of any attempt to engage with other editors on the redirect talk page Fmph (talk) 08:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Photo request
Can someone please create a listing with photos of a 1985 Yale Law Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree, in Latin, as they are issued -- and also provide the translation in English? A clear photo of any one random such degree (in Latin) would suffice. Then, perhaps, a Latin scholar could provide a proper translation into English. Thank you! WP:SIG -- DDD — Preceding unsigned comment added by DebDupire (talk • contribs) 17:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- The best place to make this suggestion would probably be at the Wikipedia:Requested articles noticeboard (do follow the instructions carefully). However, you could certainly also mention it on the talk page of the Wikipedia Law project, with a link to your article request. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Francis Hastings, 2nd Earl of Huntingdon
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/Arrow_Blue_Up_001.svg/20px-Arrow_Blue_Up_001.svg.png)
Dear Wikipedia editor,
I have made the contribution currently listed for this entry in Wikipedia. I copied the entry from "Word" I had created to find that it has been word-wrapped. Is it possible to correct this?
sincerely, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.123.148.195 (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- There are multiple serious issues with this article. I will make some fixes for your and explain the rest on your talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Update: In spite of your brave efforts, the article was in such a mess from previous edits, after an hour I gave up and reverted it to the last coherent version. I have started a discussion on the article talk page and
will be notifyinghave notified all the recent contributors. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Adding context
Hello I made a small number of edits to the pages of an organisation, Atheist Ireland, and the page of it's chairman, Michael Nugent, and the edits have been undone a number of times by one of his followers. I've been careful to follow Wiki guidelines. The edit was reported to user Youreallycan by one of his members. Assuming I followed the correct procedure I have had no reply from user Youreallycan. What I've done is add the economic back round pertaining to writers in Ireland and secondly the economic implications of marital status relating to the death of a spouse/partner in Ireland. I'm not disputing the fact that I am personally involved since that's where my detailed knowledge stems from. However as I said I've been as careful as I can to make edits neutral as I understand the guidelines.
Thanks Frank Fexro (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- First, please do not add your signature to edits that you make to articles. Second, your edit to Michael Nugent was unreferenced, and, frankly, I did not understand its importance - he wrote some stuff and benefited from a tax exemption. Is that notable? – ukexpat (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- With respect to Atheist Ireland, you appear to have some personal involvement. In view of that, please discuss the changes and gain consensus on the article's talk page before adding to the article. – ukexpat (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Same goes for my interpretation of the situation. Topic ban is in order for Fexro from these two articles. Youreallycan (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- You are now edit warring - please stop. Use the articles' talk pages to discuss. If you continue to edit war, there may be consequences. – ukexpat (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Not the place for preaching--Non-neutral material in "Glossolalia" article
Hello, I'm very new to editing Wikipedia articles, and don't know how to deal with this particular situation. I noticed in the article "Glossolalia", in sections on Christian glossolalia, that there are highly ambiguous Biblical quotations given specific interpretation as though the only correct possibility. It's really just preaching a particular interpretation, and not neutral.
It's also not neutral in that it's saying that there were various "miracles", rather than just stating that this is what some Christians believe.
How should I report this? I've noticed that some articles have a note saying that the neutrality of its content is disputed. I don't want to get caught up in a dispute with evangelical Christians, I just wanted to report it to somebody from Wikipedia who knows more than I do, to take a look at it.
Thank you.
Deluno (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- The article's talk page is the place to raise this issue. – ukexpat (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Arain Foster
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
On Arain Foster has 2 born dates — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.32.193.200 (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- You mean Arian Foster. Thanks. I have fixed it.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Urine Therapy
Hi there, there is an issue in the page Urine Therapy. Can somebody please help since there's a dispute between me and another user on the section Islam? Thanks. Inai09 (talk) 12:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please continue the discussion that is underway at Talk:Urine therapy.Bear in mind that any possibly contentious content must be well referenced with reliable sources. If after a while there is no satisfactory conclusion, consider asking at the WP:3O noticeboard. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
External links in Glasgow Commonwealth Games 2014
I have attempted to put up links to external sites (blogs) for this entry, and they have been removed three times - hadn't realised I wasn't supposed to revert them, so sorry for that. The edits were taken down because:
Item 11 at WP:ELNO: "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid: ... 11.Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.) ..." - David Biddulph (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
However, my feeling is that this article needs at least some reference to the opposition to the Games. These two blog sites represent the bulk of information about opposition to the Games and the reasoning for opposing the Games. As Item 11 states "one should genearlly avoid" I don't take this as an absolute (i.e, it does not say "one should always avoid").
The page is here: [2] The links removed are: Don't Back the Bid! and Games Monitor 2014
thanks Lazenbee (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- If they violate WP:ELNO you will ideally need consensus on the talk page to include them, you should initiate discussion there and state your case. However, Blogspot and Wordpress sites are self published and rarely acceptable. Яehevkor ✉ 15:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think it'll be more helpful for the readers if some text is actually written about the opposition to the games. Currently there isn't any information about opposition on either 2014 Commonwealth Games or Glasgow bid for the 2014 Commonwealth Games, so some related information may be helpful. Of course, care should be taken when using self-published sources; but in general the inclusion standard as a cited source is more lenient compared to being used as an external link. --Deryck C. 17:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Talkpage template for flagging up sources
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Hi folks, sorry for the lame request but I can't find the template for adding potentially useful sources to a talkpage (the one that goes near the top with the wikiproject banners). Can anyone point it out for me please? Someoneanother 21:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Do you mean {{Find sources}}? PrimeHunter (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- No, there's one where you can drop a source you've already found onto the talk page to give future editors a heads-up, I'm forever seeing interesting sources I don't have time to use. Thanks for responding though. Someoneanother 00:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sure such a thing exists, but can't seem to find it. Should be in Category:Talk header templates. Closest I can find is Template:To do. Яehevkor ✉ 00:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've had a look through the category, thanks for the link, but nothing resembling it is in there. I'll have another look around some talk pages, it would be a good template to spread around a bit. Someoneanother 13:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Found it :) It was on the talkpage of Mario 64 - {{Refideas}}. Thanks for the input, this can be marked as resolved. Someoneanother 00:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've had a look through the category, thanks for the link, but nothing resembling it is in there. I'll have another look around some talk pages, it would be a good template to spread around a bit. Someoneanother 13:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sure such a thing exists, but can't seem to find it. Should be in Category:Talk header templates. Closest I can find is Template:To do. Яehevkor ✉ 00:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- No, there's one where you can drop a source you've already found onto the talk page to give future editors a heads-up, I'm forever seeing interesting sources I don't have time to use. Thanks for responding though. Someoneanother 00:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Catullus 73
I recently submitted a translation of Catullus 73, a poem whose translation is not in the Wikipedia or Wikisource library. My submission was declined due to a lack of sources. However, the only possible sources would be the actual poem and a dictionary. Is there anything I can do to submit this post successfully?
Thanks,
Pjtdewire (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC) pjtdewire
- Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for original translations of literary works. Wikisource may be appropriate, see this page. – ukexpat (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Found art, which artists can be listed?
Found art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Question: I added a link to Marina DeBris, as a found art artist, on 15:50, 31 December 2011, and it looks like a short time later Modernist removed the link. I am not clear on the rules of which artists can be added and which can not, so I posted a question on the discussion page for Found art, but got no response. I went to Modernist's page but couldn't seem to add a question as that page seems semi protected. So my question is, what are the rules on which artists can be added to Found art, and which ones cannot? Is there any particular reason I cannot add Marina DeBris to the list of found artists? Thanks Socialresearch (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Unusually, that user's talk page is indefinitely semi-protected, I have notified them of your message here. Яehevkor ✉ 01:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- I responded on Socialresearch's talk page. This is what the article looked like at the time it was removed from Found art - [3]..Modernist (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Cheers, Modernist. Яehevkor ✉ 02:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- I responded on Socialresearch's talk page. This is what the article looked like at the time it was removed from Found art - [3]..Modernist (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I have an issue with bias in the image: File:ARRA_Unemployment_Rate_Graph_2011-05.jpg
The issue is that it has repetitively been used on right wing biased sites to imply that the ARRA has actually made the economy worse. This is due to the lack of a line of what the unemployment would have been without the ARRA being enacted. This is furthering the right wing bias.
The file it was taken from has the exact note in it's footnote:
- "Forecasts of the unemployment rate without the recovery plan vary substantially. Some private forecasters anticipate unemployment rates as high as 11% in the absence of action."
This means that the chart was never intended to be accurate, like the author implies.
I would like this either corrected as I had noted with the high end estimate of 11% unemployment as peak, or be removed.
The third option is to only leave the overlay.
Unfortunately I do not know how to plot an accurate curve of the maximum potential unemployment, or where to find other reports that have higher estimates. Additionally, being strongly progressive in political bias, I do not feel I could do such work without bias, and thus I abstain myself from more than reporting the obvious bias, otherwise I would do so myself.
Thank you very much --Robert Wm "Ruedii" (talk) 06:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- I see that you've brought this up on the image and article talk pages, which are the best places to do this. If there's no response in a few days, you might consider posting a short note on the WikiProject Economics or WikiProject United States Public Policy that links to your post on the talk page to get the opinions of more expert editors than you might find here. Danger High voltage! 16:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Mistake on article Conor McCormack footballer
Hey it is me Conor McCormack it says I am born in Dundalk when I was born in newry northern Ireland changing this and updating my artical to date would be very helpfull thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.77.131 (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Done, and thanks for letting us know. However, as there is no proof that you are who you say you are, I've left a cn tag on it. The references didn't confirm the previous place of birth either. Feel free to make any other changes yourself, but do check our requirement for reliable sources first, and take a look at WP:COI to be sure that it's neutral. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
National Anthem Audio
The user: Canterbury Tail and I are debating National Anthem additions to a few articles:
- National Anthem of England
- Royal Anthem of Jamaica
- Royal Anthem of Canada
- Royal Anthem of The Bahamas
I believe the addition of the audio track of these are important, as similarly displayed on the United States article page. However, my additions of these tracks are being purged by Canterbury Tail. We've both discussed the matter on each other's talk pages and cannot agree. We would like some mediation as to whether or not they should be added/posted.
Twillisjr (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: There is no official national anthem of England, there is a national anthem of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. See National anthem for some further information. You should discuss this on the talk pages of relevant articles. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- You may also find that member countries of the Commonwealth of Nations, the Commonwealth realm, British Overseas Territories, and Crown Dependencies that have the Queen as their sovereign or head of state, use God Save the Queen (see list of countries), as their national anthem. See also: National anthem of England. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Also, having reviewed the discussion, there is very little use in an encyclopedia for 'jazzed up' versions of a national anthem or poor quality sound files. Please see: Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files#Audio. Continue your discussions, do keep them civil, and consider requesting a WP:3O if you are unable to reach a compromise. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I am an avid reader of Wikipedia. I just took out a user name. Clicking a bit, I got here. Please look at Youvan's biography. Nasty comments all over, and 3 ebooks removed in the past 2 weeks. What is this? I actually use the Pseudocolor book to teach. Is Youvan being censored over his Christian ebook? Reader135711 (talk) 04:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- What 'nasty comments'? And no, Wikipedia doesn't censor people over 'Christian ebooks', though we do apply the same standard to them as any other - a biography is supposed to contain encyclopaedic content, not an advertisement for everything the subject has ever produced. Sadly, the subject of the article himself seems reluctant to accept this, as the article history indicates... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I have been blocked.
I have been blocked, but I do not know why. I found this out when I went to my own Wikipedia page and wished to correct some misinformation I found there. Connie Crothers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Constancerhea (talk • contribs) 03:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Neither User:Constancerhea nor User:Connie Crothers has ever been blocked. Which username or IP address do you think has been blocked, and why do you think so? PrimeHunter (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Why is article not noteworthy?
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Captain Alan Leach RAF PO 185864 (Pilot)
I have recently submitted the above article and was advised to show it was noteworthy. Can I ask why another person noted in the article was seen as being noteworthy? What is the difference, I cannot see why this person should be any more noteworthy to the one in my submission? Please see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Greiner
If my editing is incorrect can you please advise.
Thanks and regards, Alan77.107.176.108 (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Responding on editor's talk-page. Haploidavey (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Robert Louis Stevenson page looks like it has been hacked?
Hi, could someone please check the entry for Robert Louis Stevenson page? The section on his childhood does not look correct.
e.g.
"Lewis Balfour and his daughter both had to "say it witcha chest!" and often needed to stay in the ghetto for better health. Stevenson inherited a disease called AIDS and developed an unhealthy attachment to horses"
"Stevenson's parents were both males. Homosexuals," — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.25.94 (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- It did look like that briefly, before it was reverted by one of our "bots" [4], if you try clearing your cache it should be correct--Jac16888 Talk 20:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- (ec)The ariticle was vandalised yesterday. The text in question was reverted by a bot a matter of second after it was entered, see the change log. If you are still seeing the old version of the page you may need to bypass your cache. Яehevkor ✉ 20:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Herostratus conspires, in an open post, to alone completly redact the work of the current editors (as we complete our work?) He's a former administrator who knows the Wikipedia ystem.
This is the problem edit containing a conspiracy to redact an article unilaterally. Template:Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User talk:WLU WLU's TALK page}}
I will post a page like this to the Rind et al. Talk page later today.
I am working with TruthinWriting, Legitimus and a few occasional other editors for the past 5 weeks to improve Rind et al. controversy. Herostratus and WLU are occasionally disruptive to the work, and have no interest in building consensus. They abuse their status as experienced editors (who know little about this subject) to ignore consensus.
The problem today is Herostratus, a former administrator. Herostratus is also a maybe still involved with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch
Copied from this post above, Herostratus wrote that he felt the Rind et al.Controvery article:
"was basically ok before, and I'm going to restore it to it's pre-Radvo/Truthinwriting state and just insist on that". Not the best thing, he continues,..but preferable.
Herostratus supports the current bias, but he does not want to work with the group of editors, but abuse his position to impose his views on the study when he show up briefly from time to time. I see this conspiracy as part of his overall attitude toward his participation in our work..
Here is a larger quote from Herostratus' edit:
- This [Rind]article has been vexing lately. Thank you tons for engaging on it. I think that Flyer22 has (understandably) stated "I'm outta here", and Legitimus is busy, and I'm busy, and I don't have the expertise to do much (not sure about Flyer22 and Legitimus but maybe them too). Before you came along (thank you again!) I was starting to feel inclined, looking at the totality of the situation, to just be like "You know what? It was basically OK before, and I'm going to restore it to it's pre-Radvo/Truthinwriting state and just insist on that" or something. Obviously not the best thing but possibly preferable I guess. Anyway, if you too end up throwing up your hands or if you wish any other assistance let me know. Herostratus (talk) 09:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Herostratus and WLU have a history of redactions and IMHO destructive edits in the past 5 weeks. The conspiracy fits their current behavior.
The main concern is what may happen in the future. Herostratus does not contribute constructively to the work of the editors, but shows up occasionally to destroy the contributions of the few active editors.
The most constructive contributor is Truthinwriting, who claims to be a professor, who teaches statistics and research methods. My opinion of TRuthinwriting's edits is very high. Contact him for confirmation of my story. He does not know about the conspiracy yet.
I would prefer that Herostratus be banned from editing at this particular site because of the conspiracy and because of general abuse of position. Radvo (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)