Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Need help with a reversion war that is starting

Please take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Major_Overhaul, which explains pretty much the whole issue. In summary, I wrote up a detailed rationale for a major overhaul of WP:OUTCOMES on its talk page, with problem statement, solution, and a place to discuss said solution, and it was reverted by a Recent Changes Patroller. Said patroller initially cited WP:BRD, but when I pointed out he wasn't actually using the process as it is outlined and reverted his reversion, he reverted it back. Since then, other editors have reverted his reversion, and he's reverted them back. I'm not going to do any more reverts myself; I'd like to talk this out, but he doesn't seem to answer my questions or respond to my points. I feel he's digging in and not looking at the issue in a solution oriented manner. Can I get some help, please? ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 17:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You have an WP:RfC going so it is best to let others comment there. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I need an experienced editor to come in and mediate, I think. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 18:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:Mediation is that way. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If there's a revert war, good sir, it's because you started it. Are the two IPs who are taking your side sockpuppets, perhaps? Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I am those two IP addresses, (and this is a third) and I am not Noraft's sockpuppet. Notice how I only voted once? He's here asking for help in good faith, and you're following him around wikipedia casting aspersions and laying blame. Nice behavior for an administrator. Personally, I think you started the revert war with your first revert, and now you're holding the page hostage until you've decided there's been enough consensus. You've reverted the edits of three people now. Let it go. You don't own the page. Regarding consensus, nobody has come out strongly on your side, and I count four people (including myself) who have come out on Noraft's side, either before or after his original edit. Move on. 222.128.199.6 (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

So you're a meatpuppet, then? Sorry, but one user pushing a change hard + a bunch of SPA IPs who blindly support that user is not two editors. Those whom you count as expressing concurring opinions are in fact engaged in constructive dialogue with me on the talk page, while all you (singular, meaning Noraft+IPs) are doing is revert warring to some form of this monumental change against consensus. Want to earn some good faith? Engage on the talk page, stop pleading for other people to excuse your non-collaborative behavior. Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Good faith is assumed. I was also going to say don't bite the newcomers, but I took a look at the contribution history for the IP user who wrote above, and he/she isn't new, and isn't SPA. So can we stop with the allegations? Your evidence is weak (i.e. two people agreeing must be in cahoots if one is unregistered), and the investigation ruled against you. I think this just distracts from the main issue, which I've put up for mediation. I'm making attempts to resolve this, first through discussion, then through an RFC, and now through informal mediation. Hopefully we'll see something positive come out of this at this step. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 02:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors image contributions

Discussion moved

 – to Talk:List_of_alleged_alien_beings#RfC_on_pictures Jezhotwells (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I am looking for assistance regarding the use of images and illustrations that do not introduce new ideas and abide to the WP:NOR but can be perceived as such by other editors. I am referring in particular to this case. Thanks.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you consider carrying on contributing to the debate at Talk:List_of_alleged_alien_beings#RfC_on_pictures as that is where the matter will be decided by consensus. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

animated demo?

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I have animated instructions for how to do the basic needlepoint stitches. Am I able to contribute them? Needlemaven —Preceding unsigned comment added by Needlemaven (talk • contribs) 19:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Starting an article. It would need to be cited from verifiable and reliable sources. If is is essentially original research then it will be swiftly deleted. You may find some useful information at WP:Starting an article. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a how-to guide, so I doubt these instructions should be hosted on Wikipedia. Depending on what these instructions are, it is possible that we might want to link to them from Needlepoint. Fences&Windows 23:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Or if they meet the requirements for Commons, they could be uploaded there. – ukexpat (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Dunbar content

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to request that on the Dunbar, Wisconsin content page you would add the existence of the one local church in the area.

It is Dunbar Community Bible Church. The website is DCBC4God.org if you would like to include the link. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.230.215.234 (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If the church is notable, why not be bold and make the addition yourself? – ukexpat (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not notable, so please don't add it. It only gets two Google hits, and of course there are others local churches. Fences&Windows 23:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Posting Photos

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Can someone please tell me how to post posts of navel ships on pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astraldunepirate (talk • contribs) 23:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi - Wikipedia:Images is a good place to get further information on uploading images. Please do not post copyrighted images as they will be deleted, all images must comply with Wikpedia's image use policy. I have placed some useful links on your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for guidance on releasing article to Public

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I am Keakea123 - or Frank Summers I have put up an article about CHRIS SHAW and it is in my User section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keakea123

I have tried to amend/change it as a previous helper suggested. I am not much good at this, but it seems to me now that it is about the same informatioon as the one for Danny La Rue.

May I have further comments/criticisms please so that I can get this released ?

Appreciate you comments, Regards, Frank —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keakea123 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly you should move this to a user subpage, such as User:Keakea123/Chris Shaw, rather than your user page. The article is unreferenced, does not follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style guidlienes for article layout. I see that two other ediors ahve commented at your talk page to this effect. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Help with editing

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

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

I am new to Wiki editing - and am already completely frustrated. Every edit I have made has been reverted immediately by two other editors reverting more than three times a day and now I have been accused of violating the three times a day rule. I have stepped only briefly into the discussion but have found that largely one-sided as well.

Initially, I attempted to address only one instance, the problem with the article immediately stating via a quote: "There is no known anatomical or histological basis for the existence of acupuncture points or meridians.[2]" This is one man's (Felix Mann's) biased opinion and does not reflect current research in this area (published in 1996) as articulated in detail in the wiki article on Acupuncture. This item has been discussed previously in regards to this article and others have requested change here. I changed that area to remove the biased reference and refer readers to the full discussion of acupuncture on Wiki - which was immediately reverted.

It appears that these editors insist on slanting this article to their own bias and refuse to allow any other information to be provided by others included already discussed and added info on acupuncture in the wiki on that topic. Other edits that I made were to change "belief" to "theory" which of course something is a "theory" rather than a "belief" if it can be researched and I added other references (which I may need to do a better job of sourcing - please excuse that as newbie status). However, these other editors do appear to desire to give a negative slant to the subject of Colorpuncture rather than allowing for a multi-perspective and unbiased presentation of the current information on this topic.

As a newbie, I do not know how to approach this when it seems I am being stonewalled by these editors in adding anything to the article. What are their qualifications to be deciding here what is posted and what is not? Though I made various other edits - some quite minor - none remain.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantummech (talk • contribs) 16:14, 12 December 2009

There are wiki guides etc for dealing with medical topics. Pesonally I've run into a whole spectrum of contribs and it is possible that a small group or single editor can bring a tone to an entire article. Certainly there are people who either reject or accept various alternative theories out of hand and balance in content between popular beliefs and better tested ideas can be difficult and subjective. Try posting here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine for more complete guidance and I may try to post some sources on the related talk page. The objective here of course is documenting the state and past state of human thought on a topic, not settling a debate, but of course no one wants to mislead readers and there can be a tendency to push certain viewpoints out of various motives. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It's quite simple: you're making unsourced changes. This is original research. You need to provide sources for all edits, not just add your own personal knowledge. I've reverted your edits again. Fences&Windows 22:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

OR Cloud

Resolved

 – tag removed. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

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

A user inserted an OR box above the People Skills article and raised questions on the talk page. (Note: The user who uses several names including, AJCham and DrMandrake, has been against the article from the outset and initially by assuming the role of Helper caused its Quick Deletion. Subsequently, there was a several month process of re-writing the article.) After clarifications by editors and citations from reputable sources, requests were made to remove the OR box.

In response, the user complained about two content references being insufficiently explicit. Two changes were made to further tighten citation linkage and reference connection. The user still objected and initiated a Request for Comments. During the following 30 days visitors made a few minor changes. There were no comments about Original Research and/or Synthesis. Over 150 visitors per day continue to view the article. What are the relevant policies and procedures for removal of the OR box? PSY7 (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no point a tag remaining on an article if there's no clear idea why it's there. Individual problematic parts can be tagged without having to have a glaring banner at the top. Fences&Windows 22:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks fine to me, I checked out the referencing. Whilst improvements can be made, i see no serious problem with it so I removed the synthesis tag. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

When does an article contain too much information?

Answered

 – suggestions given. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching the article on Frank Wead, aviation pioneer and screenwriter. In the past weeks it has gone from a 5K article to around 26K, all from one editor. The editor has good, detailed information, but it seems to me he is, in effect, writing a book on Wead and posting it on Wikipedia. Information on Wead's dormitory mates and addresses of various bases where he lived, and other examples of what seem far-too-detailed material are, in my opinion, cluttering the article to the point that someone wanting basic information on Wead would have to dig for it in the article. I absolutely do not wish to discourage knowledgeable and energetic editors, and have not confronted the (apparently unregistered) editor about the issue. Rather, I wanted to understand more clearly myself what the guidelines for WP are. Is there a limit to the amount of desirable detail, or is anything that is accurate and verifiable acceptable, no matter how large the article becomes? Monkeyzpop (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Section headings would help break it up. Also, try talking to the IP editor about whether the info on his navy colleagues is really necessary. Fences&Windows 22:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, there is some guidance at WP:UNDUE that might help. Fences&Windows 22:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Even with fundamental policies I always sanity check based on what I think an encyclopedia user would find useful if the article came up on google. As a kid, I used to browse encyclopedias while on the toilet and often use paper versions for various purposes. Wikipedia, not being paper, means it is harder to read while on the toilet but it also doesn't neet to fit on a bookshelf of kill any more trees if it is too large. So, personally, I tend to err on the side of inclusion. Note that included material still needs to be encyclopedic. Trivia. gossip, however you want to define them, are probably not encyclopedic. Wikipeida talks about a mindless collections of facts which should not be confused with an article. So, essentially, you could arguc that clutter is unencyclpedic or irrelevant if it doesn't strike you that a reader is aided by that stuff. Perhaps terser article with more links would be more apropos. For obscure topics, it is likely there are a few good references to which an interested reader could go to get the questionable stuff with one click while avoiding a cluttered main article. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Undo function

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I created an article Henrietta Scott, Countess of Dalkeith‎ which has recently been deleted without discussion through the redirect function. I would rather it be submitted to AFD for proper determination of article worthiness. I am thinking about using the "undo" function to bring it back. Would that be acceptable? Daytrivia (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I have seen discussion somewhere, sorry can't recall where, that non-notable (in their own right) spouses should be merged and redirected to the artciles on husbands. Perhaps WT:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage would be a good place to ask about this. You could also talk to the person who created the redirect (visible through the artcile history) Jezhotwells (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

WP abbreviations

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate if anyone can provide the link of the list of Wikipedia abbreviations, e.g . OP? Thanks. —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Alphabet soup. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, there must be some more (or another list perhaps?) —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

OP is not included in that list but if you enter WP:OP in the search box then you are redirected to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

On opages such as this, OP sometimes means original poster, which in this thread is User:Mihkaw napéw. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

OP means original poster. @Mihkaw: You can find that on the WP:Glossary, which is prominently linked at the top of the page I linked above. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Scott Chisholm

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Although the 1967 case is mentioned under "flag desecration" and so forth, there seems to be little about Scott Chisholm, the Indiana State University English teacher who burned a small flag in class to illustrate the difference between an idea and its representation, between a physical act for political purposes and the same act for no political purposes.

Maybe Professor Chisholm's career was ended by this attempt at teaching and he spent the rest of his career selling encyclopedias or something. I have no idea. But I would be interested in knowing more about how things turned out.

Thanks for your consideration.

Dan Kirklin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.255.43.156 (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what article you're referring to. You might be able to get a better response if you post this at the talk page associated with the article, rather than here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

content link

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

What format should I use to link the table content of my page?

If you could help me I'd appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3lisa (talk • contribs) 23:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Help desk is the best place to ask this as experts on formatting and suchlike are on hand there.. I have always found them friendly and helpful. Please don't forget to sign your post using four (~)s and provide a link to the page that you are working on. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You'll stand a better chance of a helpful and sensible response if you link to the article you have in mind, and perhaps a link to show the effect you're seeking would be good too. You can link to another page by putting its title between double square brackets. --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

IP addresses of Users

How does one locate the IP address of a USER who has been blocked by sit administrators? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piitaabin (talk • contribs) 01:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a list of banned users at WP:List of banned users, but their IP addresses would vary according to the machine and connection that they use. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If you mean registered users, you can't. Only a very limited number of users with the checkuser right can find this information. This is one of the advantages of creating a user account – your IP address will be invisible to others. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If one needed the IP address for a legal proceeding, who should be served the court order requesting the information be released? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piitaabin (talk • contribs) 01:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation. – ukexpat (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Subliminal stimuli

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

I recently added the following to the 2000 - Present section of this article:

In 2009, a feature documentary entitled "PROGRAMMING THE NATION?" directed by Jeff Warrick, was released. The film examines the alleged history of subliminal messaging in American mass-media - categorically exploring issues such as the subconscious mind, the James Vicary experiment, subliminal research, backward masking in rock music, and asserted claims of subliminals in film, advertising, politics, U.S. Psychological Operations and Project HAARP in Alaska.[44]

While this may seem blatantly promotional in nature - The film does exist and can be confirmed through several additional sources by simply Googling the title "PROGRAMMING THE NATION?".

One of which is the IMDB link here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1023345/ - which also contains a streaming trailer for the film.

This documentary also recently premiered at the 2008 Santa Cruz Film Festival as "A Work In Progress".

The completed film can be viewed temporarily online here: http://www.buzzledom.com/ptn_prescreen

IgniteTheMind (talk) 04:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you here to discuss the removal of the material above? If so, then please be aware that existence is not sufficient for a topic to be included in Wikipedia; the topic needs to be notable, according to our general notability guideline and in the case of a film, according to WP:FILMNOT too. IF there are sources to verify the notability of this film, then please cite them. Please also feel free to come back with questions. Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion of this issue is to be found now at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:IgniteTheMind. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Desert greening

An editor has created a page at Desert greening with very little content. Most of this seemed to have been covered at Desertification#Countering desertification so I redirected. However the same editor from multiple IPs has reverted this and now pasted the entire contents of Desertification#Countering desertification into Desert greening. I'm sure this is against guidelines (which one?) as it removes the section history and violates copyright of the original authors, but I'm not sure what to do about it. I guess it could go to AfD but I think an artile on Desert greening might be justified, as it's not just about resisting desertification but converting existing deserts. --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted to the most recent best version before the IP dumped in content from the other article and I added expansion and referencing tags. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Eric Schmidt article

Eric_E._Schmidt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

If you go down to the bottom of the discussion page, you'll note an escalating argument about whether or not another user's "Political Views" section belongs in an encyclopedia. I'd like a neutral party to take a look at it if that would be okay.69.244.64.30 (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

On a first look, that discussion does seem to be aimed at improving the article. Views are being aired fairly robustly, but that's OK. Are you suggesting that the discussion can't be resolved? --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Paine Field

Paine Field There is/are one or two people reverting all references to commercial air service at Paine Field. While I understand that they may personally be opposed to such service, their edits are either non-encyclopedic using such words as "unwanted", or just complete deletions of materials. The last edited comment (deleting factual ongoings about the airport had a reference of "Commercial Air Service: Jeesh,, you airline whackos have to use wikipedia to advertise. I am removing your ads." Sbrynen (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Careful sourcing of any additions will help. This edit looks better, but you and the IP might want to use the talk page to hash this out rather than continuing to edit war. I see you started a thread there; I'll move it to the bottom of the page, as per convention. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

What information is appropriate for the Paine Field Commercial Air Service Article?

Paine Field (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There has been a lot of back and forth editing regarding commercial air service at Paine field, in the article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paine_Field#Commercial_air_service

Rather than having 3-5 or more parties going back and forth making edits regarding what is appropriate to include in an article (see article history), I thought it might be wise to contact an editor who may be able to provide some insight in what is correct and incorrect to include for this article.

Essentially the "commercial air service" section of the article has turned into a political sounding board, with both sides presenting points of view that may or may not be factual, but are probably incomplete, and with both sides having separate agendas as to what should be included (for instance one says that including the names of airlines interested in providing air service is a form of advertising, while another states its is significant to the article and should be included).

Rybob1 (talk) 07:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the answer given above is appropriate. You need to establish consensus on the talk page. That involves giva and take by all. I joined the threads as you obviously missed the earlier post. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Using YouTube video as source

Discussion moved

 – to WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Using_YouTube_video_as_source Jezhotwells (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There has ensued discussion in Talk:Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley regarding the use of YouTube video of a subject as a source on that subject in a biographical article. I'd like to have this clarified since the policies on self-published sources and sources for biographies doesn't mention this. The argument against goes that if a video has not been published or authored by the subject in question, it can't be used as a source in accordance with Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. In my view, however, this is a far too narrow interpretation of the policy. It seems to me that the purpose of that policy is to make sure that a blogger, tweeter, etc can't be used as a source of information about a subject. Only if the subject is the author can it be considered a reliable and good source. However, in the case of a recorded video of a subject, shouldn't the actual speech be considered as the source? Fabricating a video of someone in a convincing way is virtually impossible, so reliability shouldn't be an issue.

The case in question regards a controversial statement made by Lord Monckton, for which there exists qualified sources documenting the event. There exist on YouTube I think two videos in which Lord Monckton himself clarifies the background and motivation for this statement, but there do not seem that there exists any textual sources or similar that mention these, most likely because they are amateur-filmed videos so they don't exactly get any widespread circulation. In light of all this, shouldn't these videos be considered as valid sources?

Cpx86 (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, this should be posted to the reliable sources noticeboard where editors experienced in sourcing can discuss it. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. I will do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpx86 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Chris Gorog

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

The page "Chris Gorog" has been updated extensively, along with many 3rd party references. The page still has a request for checking neutrality and adding additional references. How do I go about getting these two alerts removed? Thanks in advance. Jennifer Wilbur 21:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstarjen (talk • contribs)

How do I get a neutrality tag removed. I have updated the "Chris Gorog" page extensively, including adding many 3rd party (neutral) sources/citings. I added a comment to the page discussion, but I am curious if I need to do anything else to highlight this and how long it will take before it is reviewed. Thanks. Jennifer Wilbur 21:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstarjen (talk • contribs)

As you have discovered you can remove the tags yourself but the article still has many other issues, including a t a brief glance, grammar, compliance with WP:MOS, could do with an infobox, could do with adding to relevant wikiprojects, and the references could do with formatting with citation templaes so that the sources can be easily identified. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Aeria Games and Entertainment

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

There has been a recent rash of vandalism (in my opinion) on this page. I would like to ask that a third party take a quick look at the edits in the past 48 hours, and update the page to reflect whatever is appropriate.

SupermanX (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have reverted your two most recent edits as blatant vandalism and placed a warning on your talk page. If you carry on like that you will be getting a block. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

And the other vandal User:Missdestructive has been indefinitely blocked. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Help with Problematic Editing

I am having an issue with what I believe to be inappropriate use of a talk page, found here:

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

(Forgive me if my linking isn't done right, I am referring to the discussion page on this article)

I 'believe' I am handling this correctly, but would like a more impartial opinion. I have been removing postings with the personal information of myself, and others. I have been removing extraneous comments that should be included in the article, not the discussion page, because this is not a page to debate.

Please take a little time to review the edits, and if any were done inappropriately, undo them, and let me know why, so that I can avoid this in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SupermanX (talk • contribs) 17:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

SupermanX (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

As I explained at the talk page you both need to stop this immediately. It would be appropriate to redact email addresses as the posting of these on Wikipedia is against policy. But you shouldn't be removing the entirety of other users' posts. I have placed warnings on both of your talk pages. Any further reversions and I will take this to WP:3RR. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Article on Oral Roberts

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

I wanted to see if it's possible to add a small amount of information to this article. In the early 1940's, Oral Roberts conducted tent revivals throughout Oklahoma. Often he would be accompanied by a Mr. Steve Pringle and Ms. Jo Ella Oliver. Mr. Pringle was an evangelist and Ms. Oliver was a noted Church of the Nazarene preacher.

Thanks,

Rick Herron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickh1977 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources to cite in support of this, then by all means do so! --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Authoritative sources wrong & OR

This is a non-specific question. I've found a situation where authoritative sources I've found (extensive search) have a certain date demonstrably wrong. How to handle this?

All the authoritative sources I've checked say something first appeared in print in year X, but I can show a public source where it appeared in year X-20. Obviously I can't find an authority to certify that the obvious is correct. I'm trying to avoid OR and SYNTH here. I could simply cite the earlier source, then add a note to the citation ... or ???

Obviously it might turn out later that the date is X-30. So there'll never be a *definitive* answer. Twang (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The usual way of dealing with this is to say source(s) a,B, c 9etc) says X but source p says X-20. This avoids you determining which is correct. You may get further input on this at the reliable sources noticeboard. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Generally with putative superlatives many may be worhty of mention according to chronology or dispute. History is not testable and there is no way to prove "Earliest" but usually just "earliest known" or "previously foo was considered earliest by many[...] but blah apparently claims earlier knowledge []". Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Shabby_chic and Shabby_Chic_(Brand)

As a new user, I recently proposed edits to the article Shabby_chic, including the addition of several verifiable sources (a New York Times article and the website of the United States Trademark Office). When I requested that the article name be changed such that both terms “shabby” and “chic” should be capitalized, another editor, username Ukexpat, reverted all of my changes because he viewed my edits as promotional in nature. He then proceeded to further amend the Shabby_chic article to remove references to registered trademarks as well as to Target, which licenses and sells SIMPLY SHABBY CHIC merchandise, and to Rachel Ashwell, who is known to have originated and popularized the term and corresponding style. Because he viewed my article as promotional in nature, he suggested that I publish a new article under the heading Shabby_Chic_(Brand) rather than edit the existing Shabby_chic article.

Although I advised Ukexpat that the brand could not be divorced from the “concept” or “style” in view of the history of the term and Rachel Ashwell’s high degree of relevance to the topic, he refused to be persuaded, and directed me to this forum. I further noted that the current article along with his changes remained unreferenced, and that its inaccuracies were being mirrored on a number of websites.

Accordingly, I am writing to request assistance and support in reimplementing my proposed changes so that the article will benefit its readers by providing more accurate and referenced information and by notifying of the existence of a company and registered trademarks to avoid confusion and possible legal claims against those who rely on the information contained in the Wikipedia article. It appears to me that numerous other Wikipedia articles, such as the articles on Kleenex, Bandaid, and Xerox discuss brands and registered trademarks that may have been misused by other members of the public at some time. These articles are apparently permitted to persist in Wikipedia, and in fact, serve as useful and beneficial resources. I therefore ask your assistance in ensuring that the Shabby_Chic article may do the same.

If, upon review of my communications with Ukexpat, you agree with him/her that my proposed edits belong in an article called Shabby_Chic_(brand), I request that the current, unreferenced Shabby_chic article be removed unless the statements can be properly supported by verifiable sources.

Thank you for your consideration and assistance.

KSatSCB (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a quick look at the diffs, and I think the edits you proposed would be better placed at Shabby Chic (brand). I'm undecided on the notability of that. If you'd like to create that new page, then I'd recommend that you start in a subage of your userpace, perhaps at User:KSatSCB/sandbox. You should also read WP:YFA and consider using the new article wizard; both of these will enhance your chances of writing a successful article.

As for deleting the current page, you're welcome to suggest that. The process is laid out at WP:DEL.

Regards, --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that there is an open move-request discussion for "Shabby chic" → "Shabby Chic" at Talk:Shabby chic#Move? that touches on these same issues. DMacks (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have anything to add to the discussion that I have had with KSatSCB on our respective talk pages, though I would like to thank KSatSCB for raising this issue for discussion rather than charging ahead like a bull in a china shop as is sometimes the case with new editors. – ukexpat (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

New Aritcle

To whom it man concern.

I just wrote a small introduction for my company I just got back on the ground. We have't really done much with the company yet thats why it isnt a lot of information. I want to just add things as they come. Is this ok? I can't find my article anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perilouscoalition (talk • contribs) 02:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You appear to have written in your userspace, at User:Perilouscoalition/Perilous coalition LLC. The article as it stands isn't ready to go into article space, as the main encyclopaedia is known. Subjects must meet our notability standard, with information drawn from reliable sources. The best thing would be to wait until your company has been covered by some reliable sources, and then let somebody else write about it here, since you seem to have a substantial conflict of interest. Of course, we'd love to have you help the project in other ways. Why not look around, and soon enough you'll find something of interest. I'll put some helpful information on your talk page too. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You user name is also a clear violation of our user name policy. – ukexpat (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Request editing help

David Joseph Marcou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I would appreciate some editing help on the above article. Also I would like to know if it is specific enough, neutral in tone, and formatted properly. This is my first contribution to Wikipedia. --Kayak paddler (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Please double check the article name. It doesn't look like that article has ever been created by you or anyone else. --Leivick (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see it is here User:Kayak paddler/new article name here. I will take a look if I can get a chance. --Leivick (talk) 03:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

See also the feedback I have given at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback#David Joseph Marcou and on the user's talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 03:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution assistance

• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal has a lot of open requests. Things will probably be picking up even more over the next few weeks as many editors will have additional free time during the winter break season. No membership in any group is necessary to help out. Anyone can adopt a case. Please give them a hand with informal mediation if you can help.
• All of the content noticeboards, including but not limited to Wikipedia:Content noticeboard, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, need a few more regular outside editors to comment on requests. Even a small handful of additional regulars at each of those noticeboards would drastically increase their effectiveness. Volunteers only need to have a good familiarity with the ins and outs of the relevant content policies and guidelines.
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment has a spotty and generally poor response rate across all of the topic areas. Several more editors are needed to regularly respond to the various content RfC requests. No specialist knowledge is usually required for most requests, but a general knowledge within the broad topic categories is suggested.

I would be very grateful to anyone willing to pitch in and regularly help out in these understaffed areas of dispute resolution. They are essential for resolving disputes before they reach a point of entrenchment with its accompanying disruption to the project in the affected topic areas. Thanks for considering this request for assistance. Vassyana (talk) 06:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Warn or Ban Suggestion

Discussion moved

 – to WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Copied_from_Wikipedia:Editor_assistance.2FRequests.2C_probably_belongs_here Jezhotwells (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

This person, who has the user name: Puppyph and is also using the IP: 124.106.168.42 is trying vandalize SkyCable and Global Destiny Cable's Wiki Pages and is also acting up like a Wikipedia Policy police.

He thinks that the sub-article, Future channels is considered as a vandal when in fact the sub-article itself already has a disclaimer.

Is there a way you can ban this person or warn him?

Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.48.224 (talk) 11:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Copied to ANI Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Updating/uploading an image

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

I have been trying to upload an image to update this page. I have rights to the image I want to upload. How can I go about uploading this image and replacing the existing one? Should I create a new account, use an existing one, is there a specific format the image should be in?

Mrmets5211 (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You should find sufficient information at WP:Images#Uploading images. Please make sure that the image is correctly licensed. You don't need a new account, you are automatically registered in Wiki Commons]]. If your account is less than 4 days old and /or less than ten edits you will not be able toupload. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

One other point - it depends on how you got rights to the image. If the copyright owner just said "Sure go ahead an use it", that is not sufficient evidence of permission. To be on the safe side, you should ask the copyright owner to send a formal release as described at WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

seabass or sea bass

What the correct way to write seabass or sea bass, please advise sds-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.63.17.10 (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The Reference Desk is probably the best place to ask, but from sea bass, both forms are used on Wikipedia. Wiktionary favours sea bass. – ukexpat (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Australia Day article

I wish to describe the "debate" over Australia Day as a fringe discussion, which I believe it is.

Some fellow wikipedians are being irrational about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.114.44 (talk) 08:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

How do you wish to describe it as a fringe debate? What evidence can you produce to justify the statement that it is a fringe debate? (An individual editor's personal opinion is not enough.) JamesBWatson (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"Bluesmobile" model year

3rdBluesBrother (talk · contribs) has repeatedly changed minor info in The Blues Brothers (film) to state that their car was a 1971 Dodge, rather than a 1974. This runs contrary to a wide range of online sources as well as long-standing consensus here. Another editor and I have both asked 3rdBluesBrother for citation, and got a response each time that was a variation on "I know I'm right." I tried to provide (anecdotal) evidence to the contrary, links to online images showing how the car could not possibly have been a '71 model, to no avail. I'm no longer confident that this editor is acting in good faith, and have turned here rather than let my tone become any more uncivil than it already has. Thank you. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion about this on the article talk page. Use it - that is what it is there for. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. Clearly, my mistake was in continuing to engage the editor on their own talk page, which obscures the discussion from other interested editors. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 12:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It is generally better to use the artcile talk page. You can put a message on the other editor's talk page, along the lines of "There is a discussion about ...." at Talk:????? Jezhotwells (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Constantine (film) Dispute Resolution

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

This is a basic request for a third opinion or mediating party, whichever is necessary. With regards to providing a background and information about this dispute, I'd like to take this time to direct the appropriate parties to the talk page of the article in question, specifically here. I do not know the entire dispute resolution process and have read the FAQ so I hope I'm doing this properly. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 20:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I have provided a third opinion on the article talk page. Let's see how the editors involved in the dispute respond. — æk^Talk 00:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:3O is specifically for making requests for third opinions, btw. Fences&Windows 22:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Need help moving image

Resolved

 – image renamed. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody move 17_7.jpg to something more descriptive such as Stupify.jpg? I can't seem to find how to do so. Thanks. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 03:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it has been done. I know that you have to ask an admin to do this on Wiki Commons, probably the same on Wikipedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Measurement Preference

I believe Wikipedia should default to using Metric first, then add Imperial in parenthesis if needed, and make that a policy. MetricCook (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)MetricCook

generally you want to parrot reliable sources- conversions may be passable but citing the original first is probably most wikipedian; Essentially you are talking about a translation issue- witness issues with units of measure in ancient texts. A parenthetical note may be a good guide to reader, esp if sourcesd, but citing the Bible with metric units may create a problem for example. Or even football would be confusing. Probably confusing to porn bio's too, you get the idea. IF there is a policy or guideline contrary to this it would be a bit of a deviation from standing wiki ideals( essentially you are trying to push something onto the existing literature about a topic. ) Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Our policy is stated in the manual of style, at Wikipedia:MOS#Units_of_measurement and at WP:UNITS. The talk pages there would be a good place to suggest any changes. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Is any of that contrary to what I wrote? When these guides say "most common usage" it isn't clear if they mean generally or by whom? Presumably this would be most commonly used by reliable sources on the topic. They mention scientific literature and "Strongly associated with a place" which indidates similar intent but my statement seems more general and concise. How does it differ? It seems it may be worthwhile mentioning you want to capture treatment of the RS's- and again presumably there are sources that cover the topic addressing a similar audence as that intended for wiki and those authors probably have a unit convention. Or, is OP suggesting "3.3metres(10 yards) for a first down"? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think there's an explicit contradiction. Ultimately we'd need to look at what the OP might write, and any contention there would be addressed by reference to the MoS rather than by reference to any of our opinions. Perhaps the OP would like to propose a change to the MoS, and the talk pages would be the correct place to go for that, I think. So I don't think my post was contrary to yours, but it added something further. Best, --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and the usage should reflect the usage in the country in which the subject of an article is located (if indeed it is located in a specific country or region) - so in an article about a Spanish river I use metric measurements followed by imperial, using the convert template - and for British rivers, vice-versa. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Zodiac Killer Book

For several years, in the book section in the entry Zodiac Killer, there was a book called "Dr. Zodiac" by Michael Rusconi and Douglas Oswell. That book is now out of date and out of print. I added the new version "The Unabomber and the Zodiac" by Douglas Oswell. Someone took it down. I went to the talk page and suggested adding the book. Someone suggested I do so. I did and it was again taken down by Hu12. In the past I tried several times to add an external link, but it was taken down and I was accused of spamming. I am trying to figure out the rules here. I no longer wish to add any external sites. But the book should be added - it meets all criteria.Akwilks (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)