Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 11:43, 12 April 2014

Archives

Previous requests & responses

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by .

Help clearing talk page after archive

I'm having trouble with archiving a talk page. The discussion is old and no longer relevant since the article has been rewritten. I have successfully moved the current talk page to Talk:Rollercoaster_(song)/Archive 1 but now cannot clear the main talk page as it appears to be vandalism. Can someone please help? I tried posting this in the false positive reports but has been days and no response.

147.69.137.58 (talk) 10:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem like it needs archiving to me, and in any case, even if the 2007 threads were to be archived there really isn't a need to archive the one that is just a few days old. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done, though it should be noted that archival was not necessary here. The vast majority of article talk pages are never archived despite having eight- and ten-year-old discussions. It's just not needed where the talk page doesn't get enough traffic for it to truly get overloaded with threads. I don't think it was disruptive in this case, and since it's already been done it should probably be left to stand. However I wouldn't advise you to make a habit of doing this, 147... it's just unusual and that can set off alarm bells for a number of editors. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing a map!

I would like to replace all instances of: File:Map_of_Roman_roads_in_Italy.png

With: File:Italy_topographic_map-ancient_Roman_roads.svg

The latter is based on data from the 1926 edition of the "Historical Atlas", by William R. Shepherd, traced by me (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Ancient_Roads_of_Italy_and_Sicily_nopng.svg), with a geographical map made by User:Sting (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Italy_topographic_map-blank.svg) and combined into one by User:Flappiefh.

Do it?

--Agamemnus (talk) 03:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first off, I was a bit concerned about the fact that you traced the roads from something produced in 1926, but it seems William Robert Shepherd died 80 years ago so that's probably okay in most countries. Hmm. Yeah, it seems like you'd be safe replacing the former with the latter, but you may want to let people at WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome know. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure they're equivalent, so i don't think all instances should be replaced. Is there any reason why the two Sicily roads (via Valeria and via Pompeia) were left out? And what happened to Ancona?! Via Flaminia is no longer considered to go towards it? -- Jokes_Free4Me (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can a category from Wikimedia Commons be used in a main wiki article?

Hi! There is a category in Wikimedia Commons that I would like to use in an article, but no equivalent category in main Wikipedia. Is it possible to use such an imported category? Thanks! --BenBurch (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot add a Wikipedia article to a Commons category, the categorisation on the two projects is entirely separate. However, you can create a category of the same name on Wikipedia. See WP:CATEGORY and HELP:Category. On the other hand you may have wanted to link to the Commons category from a Wikipedia article. In that case you can use {{Commons category}}.

By the way, you should include a datestamp in your signature. Either you are using three tildes instead of four or you have "treat as wikimarkup" checked in your preferences. Spinning Spark 18:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gawd or God in English

Request unclear

– Requires clarification. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew GAWD- English GOD. Name of the Assyrian deity, and is repudiated by Yahweh in Isaiah 65:11 "But ye are they that forsake Yahweh, that forget My holy mountain, that furnish a table for God, and furnish a drink offering to Meni". Traina, A. (2007 reprinted). Holy Name Bible. Ronceverte, WV 24970: Yahshua Promotions. pp. 869–870. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: location (link) Holy Name Bible translation DamondLMitchellSr (talk) 06:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)DamondLMitchellSr[reply]

Nam(u) Myōhō Renge Kyō

Could someone help out on above mentioned article? Beginning edit war with IP user. 1. This article is not about Nipponzan-Myōhōji-Daisanga 2. This is NOT the Russian Wikipedia. When looking at the article's history its been a long way to reach consensus as Nichiren Buddhism relatated issues tend to be controversial by nature. Links to Nichiren Buddhism which leads to articles on respective schools included. Please note that Nam(u) Myōhō Renge Kyō is the fundamental mantra to basically all Nichiren Schools who seem to have nothing better to do than to kick each others head in online – proclaiming peace. Cheers.--Catflap08 (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of an aside, but what's up with the parenthetical in the name? It's a bit unusual to have an alternative spelling indicated that way in Wikipedia. My understanding is that where we aren't compelled to use a particular spelling by what's used in particular sources, we use the standard romanization for article titles. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editing / relevance / sourcing dilemma

Hello, This is a revised version of a request I posted on Talk:Sale High School a week ago, to which there have been no responses.

I came to that page while searching for information on Sale High School for Boys, attended by playwright Robert Bolt. The current co-educational Sale High School is completely unrelated to the old one, being the successor to Norris Road Secondary Modern School. On closer inspection of the page, I see that John Andrews, named as a Sale High alumnus, would have attended the old Sale High for Boys in the 1940s, unless he was one of the first pupils at the Norris Road Secondary Mod.

However, when I attempted to add a note mentioning the existence of the two earlier schools called "Sale High School" (the Boys' school and the corresponding Girls' school on a separate site) and the risk of confusion with the current establishment, it was removed by an experienced editor. I don't think the older schools merit an article of their own (and my information is purely personal knowledge, the only potential references being somewhat unclear Friends Reunited pages), so can somebody please suggest an acceptably Wikipedian way to stop the confusion of old and new. 90.246.91.194 (talk) 11:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest in the first instance you speak directly with the other editor involved to establish what the problem is. Their talk page is at User talk:Flyer22. It is not entirely clear to me from their edit summary exactly what the objection is. I can see several problems with your edit, but I couldn't say if this is why Flyer22 reverted you. Most importantly, you provided no source for your information, and have admitted here that it is all personal recollection. Presumably it would be possible to source this from somewhere but if it cannot then it does not belong on Wikipedia. I can see some books on gbooks ([1][2][3]) that might be helpful but there is no preview available. Of course, the entire article is unsourced, but that's another issue (someone might take it into their head to nominate it for deletion). Another possible problem (easily fixable) is the style of writing. We don't tell our readers what they should be noting or what is important—see WP:WTW. We are not trying to teach anything here, just present information. Feel free to come back here if you are still having difficulty. Spinning Spark 14:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me like there could be grounds for starting a disambiguation page if articles exist for those other schools. At the very least a {{about}} or {{for}} disambiguation link at the top of the article if there's only one or two existing articles about places that were once called "Sale High School" would work. But if those schools weren't called "Sale High School", but something similar, it's probably not appropriate to use the disambiguation link or disambiguation page structure to link people to those schools from Sale High School. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article about the old school although it seems to have somewhat more notability. It would seem it no longer exists, presuming the poster is correct in saying these are two unrelated schools. In any event, article disambiguation is not an issue as there is no other article to disambiguate. Spinning Spark 15:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I have managed to find a couple of sources which allow me at least to put in a basic note about the existence of the earlier pair of schools called Sale High School without straying too far into original research. 90.246.91.194 (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there's doubt about the "notable alumni", even if it's not based in sources, since that person's entry isn't supported by a source anyway, it should just be removed and noted on the talk page, rather than a clarifying note being made in the article. It really isn't encyclopedic tone in my view. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I've managed to add refs for both John Andrews (writer) and Robert Bolt as alumni of the old boys' school. 90.246.91.194 (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Next-Generation Incident Command System (NICS), marked for deletion

Can you please provide more specific reasons why you marked my content for deletion? The reasoning is quite vague. Jlrsn (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've also nominated it for deletion as a blatant copyvio of its sole source ([4]). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a notable subject (there are scholarly papers on it) and the speedy deletion rationales are dubious, but Mendaliv is quite right, you can't simply copy material from a website without permission or attribution. Spinning Spark 19:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do have direct permission to copy the material. And I can attribute it, if necessary - any suggestions on how it should be attributed? I have spoken face-to-face with the author, the content is not licensed, public domain, free to copy. Jlrsn (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You want OTRS, though frankly I do not see that page being kept as-is. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain more what you think I want on the OTRS page? Also, additional reasoning for, "frankly I do not see that page being kept as is" would provide more help in resolving this. Jlrsn (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you might find Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials more helpful than the OTRS page, but OTRS is who you'll ultimately need to contact to arrange the permission for Wikipedia to use the material. The problem with the page as written is that (in my view) it's overly promotional. A Wikipedia article should begin with a short, neutrally-worded, and clear description of what the subject is. In this case, the first sentence being "NICS is a web-based command & control environment for small to large to extreme scale incidents that facilitates collaboration across Federal, Tribal, Military, State, County, & Local/Municipal levels of preparedness, planning, response, and recovery for all-risk/all-hazard events." is pretty meaningless to your average reader. It's software, used apparently in disaster management, for something called "command & control" (which isn't explained). The entire second half of the sentence, where it says it's for small, large, and extreme scale incidents, for collaboration between various organizations, etc. is fluff, needless wordiness, and frankly reeks of a marketing style of copywriting (where it's critical to get all the keywords in) rather than encyclopedic writing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mendaliv that it is preferable to rewrite the article in an encyclopaedic style rather than simply have its copyright released. However, if you are in control of the page, or can influence someone who is, you can simply put a notice on the page that the material is in the public domain. This is acceptable to us, even preferable to OTRS as all editors are able to verify the PD status of the material. Spinning Spark 21:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, while a lot of your feedback seems like subjective judgement - I think I understand. I appreciate the clarification and examples. Jlrsn (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that much of what I state is subjective, but I make it based on my experiences on Wikipedia with respect to what the article standards are. Sometimes it's difficult to put a finger on exactly which style guide or policy specific content may run afoul of, but I can tell you that the phrasing in the (now-deleted) article—even if we presume it acceptable—is not an effective way to write a Wikipedia article. By the way, I see you recreated the article, and it got deleted again partly on copyright violation grounds. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, the article title is now salted. Seems a bit odd for only two deletions, but given G12 apparently applied to both deletions it's probably appropriate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are these good edits?

I've already reverted these edits twice, so I can't revert again. But maybe I'm missing something. Are these good edits? [5], [6], [7]. Thanks for some help with this. 70.235.85.36 (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it; seems like a classic case of WP:IINFO/WP:WEBHOST. There may be some agenda, though I haven't read the edits closely enough to say for sure. I also left a NPOV warning on the user's talk page. He's on his second actual revert since 09:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC). Should keep an eye on this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request to creat a new entry "A closed form solution for Linear Programming"

Can you please help me to create a new entry "A closed form solution for Linear Programming"?

Thanks, Garry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrynewyork (talk • contribs) 13:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first thing you need to do is respond to the editor who removed your additions at Linear programming. This is being discussed on that article's talk page. If you are intending to create an article based on the same paper you cited there, you need to consider the notability of the subject. I can see no examples of other scholars having cited the paper. It is very new and it may be too soon for any analysis by independent authors. If that is the case then it is not a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article, at least for the time being. Spinning Spark 14:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And with respect to noting the new approach in the main article on Linear programming, WP:UNDUE would be the controlling policy; new approaches, theories, hypotheses, etc. generally don't get mentioned until they've gained more prominence in their respective fields. I would say that even in the most niche articles, you wouldn't be able to talk about a new approach like this until the article was cited at least once. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright, spam issue, and difficult editor

Wercengetorix (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=goingthruvinyl&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go[reply]

I started to remove links in Wikipedia which direct to a site that I say is now in copyright violation. As well, the links were initially inserted into Wikipedia for advertising. My removal of the links have been reverted twice over by an editor "Hobbes Goodyear" who states I do not have evidence to back up my position. I have not been able to settle the matter with the editor; they either fail to see my reasoning, or choose to ignore it, and I feel it has come to a battle of will over reason. The editor's approach has always seemed to me as authoritarian and dismissive.

I was the one who inserted the links and requested the article which heavily relied on the site for references because I was directed by the owner of the site to do so. I am locked out of the site, and not in communication with them anymore, so the matter cannot be resolved there, and I think that any more discussion with the editor will be wasted time.

below is the interaction on the editor's talk page:

Extended content copied from User talk:Hobbes Goodyear

copyright claim appears spurious--please explain your rationale on talk page

Wercengetorix (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Hello Hobbes Goodyear:

I am the original contributor and editor of the site of the link in question and the original editor of the placement of the links in the Wikipedia article in question, and of every edit remaining that lists or references goingthruvinyl.

In Canada, copyright exists automatically when a work is created. My work has been taken by the site against my will and requests to remove my work, or to be paid for it have been refused, my name has been removed, and my access to the site has been locked out.

Not only is the site in infringement of copyright, but the links were put in at the request of the owner, not to increase knowledge or for respect of the artist, but simply for advertising his site. Other links and cited references have been discovered and removed as being advertising. The ones that remain are the ones that have not been discovered.

Below are the sections of the copyright act to which I am referring:

From the Canadian Copyright Act:

Moral Rights Infringement Infringement generally

28.1 Any act or omission that is contrary to any of the moral rights of the author of a work or of the performer of a performer’s performance is, in the absence of the author’s or performer’s consent, an infringement of those rights.

Nature of right of integrity

  28.2 (1) The author’s or performer’s right to the integrity of a work or performer’s performance is infringed only if the work or the performance is, to the prejudice of its author’s or performer’s honour or reputation,

      (a) distorted, mutilated or otherwise modified; or

      (b) used in association with a product, service, cause or institution.

  R.S., 1985, c. 10 (4th Supp.), s. 6;
  2012, c. 20, s. 19.

       You have provided no evidence that you are the actual author.
       You have provided no evidence that the website in question has acted unlawfully or immorally.
       You have provided no evidence or claim that this website is acting in contradiction of any legal decision in the matter. If you have pursued this matter within your own legal jurisdiction and have obtained some sort of judgment or injunction against this website, please point to evidence of same. If this is a legal matter, please have it decided in your local jurisdiction, not here.
       In my own opinion, some of the refs to this website are useful, some are pointless--I agree that the pointless ones should be removed. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Wercengetorix (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC) First you reverted my removal of links for not explaining the removal, then you reverted my re-removal of the links with my explanation of violation of the Canadian copyright act. You stated my claim appears spurious and asked for my rational. I provided this, and did so in a way that was concise to not overburden the reader whilst not to attach my name any further to a site I deem to be unethical. I provided most relevant points to which I am referring with enough information for the reader to easily verify the copyright act for themselves, should they wish.

Your point 1 states I provide no evidence that I am the original author. True, I do not. I do not wish to associate my name with the site at all nor have any of my work there. I do not have to be the original author to say the site is in violation of copyright. I assert there is work there that is "in the absence of the author’s or performer’s consent", that is "used in association with a product, service, cause or institution", and believed to be "at the prejudice of its author’s or performer’s honour or reputation". Point 2 states that I have provided no evidence that the site has acted unlawfully or immorally. Point 3 again states that I have provided no evidence that the site has acted unlawfully or immorally in the matter then says to have my legal matters decided elsewhere: "If this is a legal matter, please have it decided in your local jurisdiction, not here." Point 4 says that in your opinion some refs are useful, yet you agree that some of the refs to the site are pointless. I admitted that the refs and links to the site were done for advertising and not in the interest of the artist involved, or for the benefit of knowledge in general, and the ones that remain are the ones that successfully circumvented the filters and rules of advertising on Wikipedia.

I am considering which legal option to pursue with the site. No determination has been made. As for sufficient evidence for yourself, what evidence would be sufficient aside from the evidence that you, yourself have found that some of the references are pointless and perhaps used as that as evidence enough to back up my claims that the references and links were inserted for advertising, and carried that further as evidence to reason that the site itself may not be ethical? And even if it came to an either/or decision doesn't the negative claim seem to hold much greater weight, proof, and a detriment to people involved rather than to let them remain?

And if I am to have my legal matters decided "not here", why then didn't you state that earlier when I used the violation of the copyright act as my explanation? Can the removal of the links be adjudicated by a higher authority in Wikipedia? I feel that I am being met with resistance and a battle of wills and control issues rather than a reasoned condition for reversing my edit. If I sound frustrated, it is because with this issue of copyright, I have recently been at the losing end of someone at the attached to a computer with more control while I was trying to do the right thing.

Or perhaps the matter could be settled here; if you could explain which refs and links you feel should be removed and which should stay, perhaps we are in agreement; I'm agreeable to keeping the references and links to articles which refer to theft of material and unethical contracts. I find the irony amusing.

   There are two issues here. Leaving copyright aside for the moment, if the external links are not useful to a reader of the article, then they should be removed. Please see Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided for guidance, although it might be better that you post requests at individual article talk pages, rather than remove links yourself, as you hardly seem neutral in the matter. I have reverted some of your changes, but left others intact, assuming that you also edit under the name User:Utsid3sP1q3. And as a side note, please edit under a single user name or at least identify on your user pages that accounts are operated by the same person--see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. You should assume that where I reverted, I thought that the links were of use. In at least some of the cases where I did not revert, I thought the removal was valid because the links were more spam than useful.

   You are making unfounded claims that you previously behaved wrongly at WP (by adding these links in the first place) and, now that you have a business grievance (again, unfounded), that you have seen the light and would like to undo your past wrongs and, incidentally of course, damage the other party. I do not find that this makes you especially credible. You provide sections of copyright law, but no evidence that they apply here at all, other than your anonymous assertion. I am not an expert on what constitutes a good case in theses situations, but it seems to me that you provided no case at all. You might want to briefly summarize the situation here: Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems, and ask for help on how to proceed. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Wercengetorix (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC) There are more than two issues here, and more important than the ones you listed. I can see only one of two reasons for your omission; either you fail to understand, or choose to ignore. Additionally, you are making your own determination into my motives and actions. I asked if there were a higher authority to adjudicate the matter. I tried to reduce the issues to simple logic, and I find your logic does not follow and you seem to fail to build upon evidence and reasoning before you, including your own. If not an honest mistake, then I feel you are simply recalcitrant to overturn your action and ego is determining your thought. The links you provided seemed to be more misleading than pertinent. I have provided the information asked of me. I never claimed to be neutral, but stated my position openly when asked and the reasons for my action; to which you, in some circumstances, have found yourself in agreement.

Removal of links to a site I claim to be unethical and in violation of copyright requires a determination from court or does not, and if not, either my claim backed up with the evidence I provided is sufficient to remove the links, or if not, then it comes down to your opinion, in which circumstance, you admit you're not an expert. Then let someone else in a better position adjudicate the situation. I stated my position, and backed it up with evidence, including your own agreement. Reasonably, where does the greater harm lie; promoting a site which may be unethical and in violation of copyright and shown to be advertising, or removing a link? I feel that you are abusing your position as an editor to impose your will, blindly. Let me hear from someone else that I am required to get a determination from court, if that's not required, then direct me to someone who can make a reasoned determination; I find your approach a little insulting. If I am misinterpreting you, I am sorry, but I don't wish to deal with you for the reasons stated above.

If you have been wronged in your business dealings, then I commiserate, but is it reasonable to expect me or any other Wikipedia editor to support your actions based solely on your anonymous say-so? You refer to "the evidence I provided", but I see none, other than your anonymous claims. If you just want to vent on my talk page, well, okay, that's fine. I have already agreed with you that, in some cases, these links are just spam, in which case they should be removed, regardless of copyright. But, if you want me or other editors to act on your claim that these links are to copyright violations and so to be avoided even if useful, then I think you have failed. If you want advice on how to make a better case, then I again urge you to seek advice at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. Here's what I would post there: "Hi. I wish to remain anonymous, but I used to work with this website where I provided content. We had a falling out, but they continue to publish content where I hold copyright, without permission or compensation. I am considering but have not yet begun legal action to stop them. There are links to some of this material in Wikipedia. One or more other WP editors believe that some of these links are valuable, and so disagree that they should be removed, unless they are in violation of copyright. Unless and until I am successful in my legal proceedings, is there anything I can do to have links to this material removed per WP:COPYVIO?" --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Wercengetorix (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC) Ok, I am frustrated (with the issue in general and with some points in specific). Please bear with me. I still feel as if I am being treated dismissively, and I am surprised at the opposition with which I am being met. The matter seems clear enough to me to require quick and decisive action but am meeting a bulwark. But perhaps we can end the matter here. For the matter most important in specific: you (you, not me, but you) are still affirming there is evidence that back up my claims that the site is unethical and spam/advertising then saying that I provide no proof (or just "anonymous say-so") I'm not referring to what I'm saying, but to what you have determined. Your confirmation is my evidence. I tried to make that clear, but we seem to be stuck there. Something more than nothing is not nothing. x > 0 ≠ 0. That is as clear as I can make it.

If you are reluctant to remove the links because you have yourself gone to them and enjoyed what you found there, I can appreciate that, but the site started out with good intentions and it has greatly deviated from it's beginnings to where it is now in violation of the law and in violation of Wikipedia's policies. I am now asking not only for the site's links to be removed, but also for the site to be blacklisted from Wikipedia, as from what I've found so far seems to be a sufficient case to do so. If you will confirm that and act on that-good, the matter will rest there. If you still feel it does require further proof, I would like someone else to arbitrate the matter. Please bear in mind that even at the beginning of the site's inclusion into Wikipedia that the intention was to advertise the site, upon that, within Wikipedia's policies, the links should be removed. Upon that the site is now in copyright violation and other repeated violations within Wikipedia, it seems sufficient to have the site blacklisted. If you still feel it does require further proof, I would like someone else to arbitrate the matter.

Going through the links you provided more thoroughly has led me to the following to enforce my position in hopes that we come to complete agreement.

from: Wikipedia:Copyright violations

   "Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues."

From: Restrictions on linking

   "For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception:
   1. Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted :works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work, or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that :violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement.[2] If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its :copyright, do not link to it. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly :relevant when linking to sites such as Scribd or YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright."

Not to be rude, but to illustrate my argument, that seems to take precedence, despite what you find useful. "without exception"

Additionally, this would have been helpful when I asked if there were anyone else to arbitrate the matter: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_requests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution

From: Links normally to be avoided.

   4. Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions. See external link spamming.

   11. 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 who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)

From: Advertising and conflicts of interest

   "Main pages: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Spam

   It is obvious that a link from Wikipedia to an external site may drive Web traffic to that site. But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a :site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if Wikipedia guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and :let another editor decide. This suggestion is in line with Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guidelines.

   Wikipedia uses the same standards for evaluating links to websites owned by for-profit and (real or purported) non-profit organizations. Links to potentially
   revenue-generating web pages are not prohibited, even though the website owner might earn money through advertisements, sales, or (in the case of non-profit :organizations) donations. Choose which pages to link based on the immediate benefit to Wikipedia readers that click on the link, not based on the organization's tax :status or your guess at whether the website's owner might earn money from the link."

I have more evidence to back up my position, but hope this is sufficient to end the matter here. I think it is sufficient evidence not only for the site's links to be removed, but also to be blacklisted from Wikipedia. If you feel it does require further proof, I would like someone else to arbitrate the matter.

Is that enough to remove the links and blacklist the site, here, with you, as it stands now, or are we still in disagreement?

To https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arbor8 - I am sorry, but I do not know what ANI refers to.

Sorry for not indenting properly, etc.

   Again, if you have been wronged in your business dealings, I commiserate. But if I say, "Some is spam, some is not", this does not mean "all is spam, blacklist them". And it is unhelpful to keep regurgitating yet more policies against copyright violation. These are not in question. What is in question is whether there is a copyright violation in this case. Given that there is only your anonymous claim, and that you continually decline to provide any other evidence whatsoever, why would you expect impartial third parties to take action against this site? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wercengetorix (talk • contribs) 23:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The TLDR version of this would appear to be that Wercengetorix claims copyright to content being used on a website called "goingthruvinyl", which Wikipedia links to in several instances. I'm not sure if the issue is in part due to a dispute that Wercengetorix has with goingthruvinyl, or if there's a claim that Wercengetorix' content is simply being copied by goingthruvinyl without a license. The whole claim that it's spam seems like window dressing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneously deletion of SELERANT company article

Hi There, someone has filed a deletion for our Company Article in English, this is an error and I kindly request to restore the page online. The article is en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selerant‎. there is no reason for deletion as the company in on business. Ncolombo (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved

– Editor also posted to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, where it is more appropriately handled. DMacks (talk) 03:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of contested maintenance tag

Minas Morgul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I added the "Notability" template to Minas Morgul because it appeared to me that while sources are provided they are all inherently linked to the Lord of the Rings franchise and do not in and of themselves establish notability of the subject. Another editor disagreed and unilaterally removed the tag twice. It is my belief that when the removal of a maintenance tag is contested it should remain in the article until there is a clear consensus favoring removal. There is now a Talk page discussion regarding the sources themselves here, but I would appreciate a ruling on the appropriateness of removing the maintenance template. Thank you! DonIago (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that the documentation for the template explicitly states, "If the template is re-added, please do not edit war over it. Questions of notability can be resolved through discussion or through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If the article exists within the scope of a specific WikiProject it may be beneficial to invite feedback from the group." I have asked that the removing editor re-add the template as a show of good faith. DonIago (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is useless to fight over whether an article should be tagged or not. Tags are removed when an editor considers that the problem to which they relate has been dealt with. If there is subsequently disagreement over whether the problem has, in fact, been adequately dealt with then a much more productive activity is to discuss what the problem actually is and try and fix it. Perhaps it can't be fixed immediately and the tag ought to be replaced, but discuss first. I don't understand what you mean by "inherently linked to the Lord of the Rings franchise". Minas Morgul is a place in the fictitious Lord of the Rings universe so references to it are bound to be LOTR related. The real test is whether or not there are sources that have a substantial out-of-universe discussion of Minas Morgul such as in a review. If you really think that the subject is not notable the way to test it is to nominate it at AfD. Spinning Spark 16:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You ended up phrasing the thrust of my concern better towards your conclusion than I did; my apologies for any lack of clarity. In the discussion at the Talk page (linked above) the analogy I drew was that "The Star Trek Companion" does not illustrate the significance of Star Trek as a subject because it's specifically written to discuss Star Trek (though it is possible that such a book might discuss the out-of-universe significance...that would need to be clear in the text of the article I think). Hopefully that was clear.

In any case, there is a discussion, but I do feel that the tag should be in place until there's a consensus to remove it, especially given that the tag's own documentation says as much; what's the point of having that in the documentation if it can be freely ignored?

Unfortunately, it's not clear to me whether the editor I'm discussing the matter with has any interest in addressing my concern (given they apparently feel the sources present address notability), or simply wants the tag gone.

I don't know whether this is out of scope, but would you perhaps be willing to review the linked discussion and offer a third opinion? As evidenced, you seem better able to verbalize the specific issue.

Thanks either way. DonIago (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

notability and in universe issues are two separate issues. And template documentation is not binding. You yourself have admitted not actually reading the referenced book, you are making a judgement from your own bias. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 17:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I asked you to provide more information to establish that those sources constitute third-party sources; thus far you have not done so. Providing other, more clearly distinct sources would also moot this situation effectively. Secondly, template documentation may not be binding, but it would have been an act of good faith on your part to honor it, or at least honor my request that the template remain until a consensus emerged to remove it, rather than unilaterally claiming my insertion was unjustified. DonIago (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Articles on exclusively in-universe topics are really on the decline. Stuff like this more often than not belongs elsewhere. Anyway I'm re-adding the template because I agree there are notability issues. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. DonIago (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the article's at AFD now and Gimli and I are discussing the situation a bit at my Talk page (and the article's Talk page? I haven't looked there yet), I'd be content to see this closed or collapsed; in any case I consider it settled and thank all editors for their involvement. DonIago (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on direction

I am writing referring to Rosenberg shoes. We are a 111 year old company that has two choices. Do I follow a path of Historical relevance or one orientated towards one with a business bias. Both seem to be viable. Unfortunately business is easy to cite and source, where as historical, from my experience can be hard to provide excellent citations. I have created a balance and admit that I am still learning how to create the page. Another project I would like to start reviewing is the Prahran Club. The Prahran Club again is one of the oldest clubs in Melbourne or be it Australia, with a wonderful rich history but again hard to cite apart from photography. As I would like to participate more within wikiprojects, I would ideally like to start communicating with some more senior members of the Australian Wiki community. I would like to hear from historians or business authors as to how a historical / business page could be improved. Thanks in advance.Blueskiesinthemorning (talk) 06:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you're writing for a company with which you are involved. You may not realize, but this is frowned upon by the Wikipedia community. At any rate, the best advice I could give for how to write an article about a business would be to look at how recent featured articles about businesses are written; the structure of such articles likely conforms to what's considered standard. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mendaliv. As discussed I have been looking into the prahran club history also, but unfortunately it looks like developers and politics have engulfed the club. Thank you for your candid response, I could have hidden the fact but chose to be open and up front about my article. I am proud of the business. With many stores closing, our store remains stedfast considering the age, something that is against the norm. We have a wonderful history, a wonderful customer base and a beautiful store front. I appreciate your comments and will review similar listings to continue with improvements on the article. I have found some terrific historical documents from the national archives website relating to my great grandfathers naturalisation and grandfather service with the RAAF during world war II. Despite these documents, I am in agreement with you. To follow both paths makes the article multidirectional and possibly confusing in contrast with other articles. I will work on improving the article and provide a clear direction. I was pleased to see a recent post by the user 'Biatch' with a great write up relating to Windsor. Thanks again, I appreciate your response and understand the position. Blueskiesinthemorning (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should I request Oversight?

Recently the article Clarence Snyder underwent speedy deletion for copyright violation, and 123chess456 posted a notice on my talk page, apparently thinking I had written the article because of my edit history. I didn't create the article, don't remember what my edits were (this was apparently in 2005), and since the article has been deleted, I haven't been able to review the history myself. 123chess456 did say that one edit was "a major edit", but also that my "edits were minor".

I reviewed the Oversight FAQ and it really sounds like Oversight is for more serious things, but 123chess456 suggested that I request Oversight so that my edit history isn't connected with what was apparently a blatant copyright violation. Is this something that I should request Oversight for, and if so, what should I request? That all my edits to that article be suppressed?

(Also, is there any way for me to view them, now, after the article itself is deleted?) DavidConrad (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, my understanding is that the cure for an erroneous warning is to remove the warning from your user talk page. Oversight is not considered necessary. Same for bad blocks; you don't get your block log purged when a block is appealed successfully. You're welcome to ask for oversight of course, but my understanding is that things like that aren't considered needful of oversight. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few articles for proper translation.

Here are several pages that need for some proper additional translations, as always, no copyright usage there:

Narthakio (Narthace) - additional translation (from the Greek Wikipedia)
Artemisio - additional translation (from the Greek Wikipedia)
Afetes - additional translation (from the Greek Wikipedia)
Rossini in Wildbald - proper translation from the German Wikipedia, list the articles in the list: Articles for creation/Opera — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terriffic Dunker Guy (talk • contribs) 00:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to ask at the specific WikiProject talk pages for the countries associated with those languages. I think you'd have better luck finding people who speak those languages at the proficiencies necessary to translate articles there. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can make a request at Wikipedia:Translation. Spinning Spark 11:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with rude editor

Hello I have been involved in a dispute over a relatively minor issue. I am trying to get an Infobox and have opened a Rfc. However, one editor is being quite aggressive towards me. He/she has also stated 'Allow me to say it again for your infobox... "it ain't happening". RfC all you want, I have no problem with everyone, Australian or not, having their say. But, it ain't happening'. He/she appears to be unhappy that I am trying to edit an article on Australian politics and I am not 'local'. Is my proposal for an Infobox really that stupid? Should I be allowed to edit articles on Australian politics? I took this to the talk page but this editor has been quite unpleasant. Please give me advice or assistance here or on the page. Thanks. LordFixit (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Sorry the dispute is at Talk:Australian Senate special election in Western Australia, 2014#Infobox LordFixit (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can edit articles. Consensus still applies though. You're flogging a dead horse, there's half a dozen oppose and only you support. It ain't happening. Timeshift (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for outside help as all the people who oppose it are friends of yours. Please stop following me. LordFixit (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've already claimed WP:CANVASS, WP:MEAT, and WP:VOTESTACKING. And as someone else said, "Gosh, how dare three people disagree with you? It must be canvassing! I mean, obviously you can't say that, because you can look at our contributions and see that no one has discussed it outside this page, but by all means throw the implication out there anyway. Or maybe they're all meatpuppets! Yes, multiple editors of more than six years in good standing are clearly throwing it all away over an infobox on a minor electoral article. It couldn't possibly be that other people have an interest in this article and disagree with you, now, could it? Perish the thought!". Timeshift (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you have anything better to do than spend literal hours following me around? All those people are friends of yours and it is a concern that they are the only ones to have had any input so far. One even stated they would 'turn gay' for you LordFixit (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps have a look around to see who contributes the most to oz politics articles. Could it be the same names you're claiming "have a long history of Wiki friendship"? One's even an admin. Stop creating stories please. Timeshift (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Timeshift9 asked me to comment here because I was the one that posted the "go gay for Timeshift" comment on his talkpage. I have not been canvassed by Timeshift9 for the discussion about the Infobox. The "go gay" comment was meant in jest, referring to the fact that Timeshift9 and I had years of animosity on WP, but eventually managed to establish a constructive working relationship. Timeshift9 and I still often find ourselves on opposite sides of content disputes, most recently here: (click). --Surturz (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. Timeshift (talk) 01:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where did he ask you to do that? It's not on your talk page, Surturz. LordFixit (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Er, here? Timeshift (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. LordFixit (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sinhala editors assistance required

si:ආර්නොල්ඩ් රොස්‌

I have translated the following article to sinhala language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Ross

But in my sinhala article (specially in that infobox) there are still some English words.But don't know how to change it.Please try to help me. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaturaka (talk • contribs)

The problem with the infobox is that the infobox template si:සැකිල්ල:Infobox scientist appears to have been copied from English Wikipedia and not fully translated. If you look in edit mode at the template page you will see parameters of the form "labeln=<foo>". The <foo> parameter needs to be replaced with a Sinhalese translation. For instance label10=[[Doctoral advisor]]. You need to translate "Doctoral advisor" into Sinhalese (also remove the wikilink if there is no equivalent Sinhalese article). If you are not confident editing templates you should find someone on si.wikipedia who is; it is very easy to make a mess of templates and this is not good when they are used on multiple pages. You also need to translate the image captions which you can easily find by looking at the page in edit mode. I also suggest that you provide translation of the quotations and references titles, but leave the original English in the article as you are citing something in English. The portal links at the bottom either need to point to Sinhalese pages or removed. They are all redlinks except for the Mathematics portal which redirects to si:ද්වාරය:ගණිතය. Replace the mathematics link with one going directly to that page to get rid of the English. Similar problems with other templates on the page. Spinning Spark 11:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick McKeown

The article is nominated for deletion (1 day left). There are a several sources, see the extra listing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick McKeown (2nd nomination). Needs general editing help and verification that those sources are reliable. There are several audios and few large textual interviews. Thanks. sobaka_kachalova 05:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SobakaKachalova (talk • contribs)

@@ Line 302: / Line 302: @@
 But in my sinhala article (specially in that infobox) there are still some English words.But don't know how to change it.Please try to help me.
-Thank you.
+Thank you.{{unsigned|Chaturaka}}
 :The problem with the infobox is that the infobox template [[:si:සැකිල්ල:Infobox scientist]] appears to have been copied from English Wikipedia and not fully translated.  If you look in edit mode at the template page you will see parameters of the form "label''n''=<foo>".  The <foo> parameter needs to be replaced with a Sinhalese translation.  For instance label10=<nowiki>[[Doctoral advisor]]</nowiki>.  You need to translate "Doctoral advisor" into Sinhalese (also remove the wikilink if there is no equivalent Sinhalese article).  If you are not confident editing templates you should find someone on si.wikipedia who is; it is very easy to make a mess of templates and this is not good when they are used on multiple pages.  You also need to translate the image captions which you can easily find by looking at the page in edit mode.  I also suggest that you provide translation of the quotations and references titles, but leave the original English in the article as you are citing something in English.  The portal links at the bottom either need to point to Sinhalese pages or removed.  They are all redlinks except for the Mathematics portal which redirects to [[:si:ද්වාරය:ගණිතය]].  Replace the mathematics link with one going directly to that page to get rid of the English.  Similar problems with other templates on the page. '''[[User:Spinningspark|<font style="background:#fafad2;color:#C08000">Spinning</font>]][[User talk:Spinningspark|<font style="color:#4840a0">Spark</font>]]''' 11:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)