Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Unacceptable references to inane content

Stuck

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 13:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I am currently involved in a potential edit war on a quotation in the Islamic terrorism#Interpretations of the Qur'an and Hadith article. In particular, it regarding the following quote:

Certain Scholars such as Zakir Naik have said all Muslims should be terrorist in the context of war and fighting evils of society. When he was asked about the verse

"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies". ^{[Quran 8:60]}.

He replied.

"Every Muslim should be a terrorist. A terrorist is a person who causes terror. The moment a robber sees a policeman he is terrified. A policeman is a terrorist for the robber . A Muslim should be a terrorist for the Robber and all other anti-social elements."

My complaint against this quote is based upon:

1. The absurdity of its content
2. The POV references
3. The unreliable references - From ILoveZaikNakir.Com? a fan site for a lecturer is hardly appropriate for encyclopedia content and other refs include a post on Scribd - look for yourself above>

I removed this content earlier and was reverted by User:Misconceptions2 I explained my issues with the quote in more detail and re-removed the content and then the other user removed it once again. I am deferring this matter to any concerned editor and do not intend to make any further edits until this is resolved. Thanks in advance. Supertouch (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The objection would be based on original research or synthesis. Thsis is often a result from cherry picking pieces of primary sources. At issue would be the citation of similar material for similar points by reliable secondary sources. IF this is a widely held attitude towards the topic, innane is not really a factor. There are probably rebuttals that are just as reliable and prominent and offhand finding these would be probably a better strategy than arguing against inclusion of prominent inane views. Wikipedia has articles on all kinds of inane subjects and inane views of serious topics are often prominent and mainstream. I guess if you want a philosophical justification, the hope would be readers could appreciate how inane a given viewpoint is.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk)

i just want know someting supertouch. you said you have a problem with it because of :The POV references how is it a POV reference, they are not secondary sources. They are primay sources and quotes. They do not come to a conclusion. they are JUST QUOTES.unless i am blind or have my head stuck up my ass. what i see here is that the addition of this quote this created a NPOV making it balanced. not a POV like you say.

in my opinion. The way u talk is like saying there should be nothing negative about islam on wikipedia. only people are allowed to read positive stuff

1 side of the article says why islam is violent and why terrorism in allowed (this is the view of the sources) and the other side says why Islam is not violent. ithink its balanced

--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• The references are reliable: there are 5 references for 1 quote, and you make it look like theres only 1. Ilovezakirnaik.com is not the only reference for that 1 quote

I cut and pasted the entire quote including references and then later in my quote referred to the most absurd example before saying: "and other refs..." Read carefully.Supertouch (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, i posted that message first.before reading that. Furthermore that quote has been on wikipedia for 1 year if i remember correctlly ( i could be wrong, why dont u check). no one seems to have problems with it.

I see that the two of you are discussing the issue. That's probably better done at Talk:Zakir Naik, but seeing what's going on here, I think unclear communication may be why you're at a deadlock. Supertouch, on your end, the fansite is not the only source. You will probably have to look at the references to determine what can be sourced to what, and then determine what's not sourced well. What can be a perfectly reliable source for one thing can be meaningless for another. That's tedious, but it's really the only way to untangle a situation like this, and will allow you to clearly present what you think isn't well sourced and why. Misconceptions2? Can barely read what you write. Spelling and punctuation are very helpful in written communication. "You" is not spelled with one letter, this is not a text message. If your point cannot be understood, then even if it's a good one, it will be ineffective. Slow down and take the time to proofread what you say and make sure it's clearly stated and clearly presented. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

18:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Why would quotes from a non entity (pseudo Doctorate) and unreliable scholar like Zakir Naik be quoted in any wikipedia article?Cathar11 (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Addition to Incomplete List of Terrorist Incidents

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Add the following to the list at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents

April 4, 1968: The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. in Memphis, Tennessee

June 5, 1968: Senator Robert F. Kennedy in Los Angeles, California

These assassinations meet the same criteria as the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wendyalisonnora (talk • contribs) 22:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• i think saying that the assassination of those people are terrorist attacks will not be accepted by the majority of people. Even if it was a terrorist attack.if you add it anyway it will definatley be removed by somon later in my view.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

this the problem with lists like this, it invites moralizing and arguments over words. What about ambushes on British soldiers in Colonial America? Is that terrorism? You need to find sources that use the term, you can't inflict your own morality onto the topic. This is no better than "criminal" or "inane" etc etc. If you want to include an incident, you need to find a reliable source that already makes the claim, you can't just say "well surely this is terrorism" etc etc etc. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the JFK assassination from List of terrorist incidents - doesn't appear to me to meet the criteria. – ukexpat (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Australia Day article

Answered

 – answered multiply Jezhotwells (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

There have been attempts by political and community leaders to involve the common people in the debate over moving the 26 January Australia Day holiday to another date. Yet when I write this fact into the article it is repeatedly removed.

Also Captain James Cook claimed New South Wales in 1770. When I write this into the Arrival of the First Fleet subsection this to is removed.

I don't know that the whole "debate" is a fringe discussion of radical aboriginal rights activists and something that is being kept artifically alive by sections of the political class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.51.99.250 (talk) 09:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with the other editors that "common people" is a loaded term, introducing a point of view. Here at WP:EAR we don't make judgements on who is right, it is up to editors to establish consensus on the article talk page. Please read up on how this works. It is not a matter of saying "I am right" and then forum shopping to get support. Remember that we are creating an encyclopaedia here, not a platform for points of view. It is a matter of give and take, of editors assuming good faith. Keep discussing at the article talk page. If you really feel that other editors are being unreasonable then consider formal steps for WP:Dispute resolution. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There have been attempts to get people other than political and community leaders and radical aboriginal rights activists involved in the debate.

But when you mention this fact in the article it gets removed.

Why should that be?

124.183.245.186 (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Australia Day

Request unclear

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as suggested new dates for Australia Day go practically every day on the calendar has been suggested at some point. But by who?

Just because a scribe working for a daily newspaper with a barrow to push pens a piece suggesting an alternative date does that become immediately noteworty? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.245.186 (talk) 12:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

And your request here at Editor assistance/Requests is what? Or are you just posting a point of view? If you wish to discuss improvements to the article Australia Day, then Talk:Australia Day is the place to do it. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Australia Day (again)

There have been attempts to widen the debate over the date of Australia Day by getting engaging the common people.

Yet when you write this into the article replete with references it gets removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.245.186 (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Content on the article about Arístides Mejía

Answered

 – — æk^Talk 00:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello:

Over the last few days I have been deleting soe content on the Arístides Mejía (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, because I thought it was contentious and it was unsourced. I left my reason in the discussion page yet the person making the changes just reverted it without adding a source or responding to the post in the discussion of page. I'd rather not enter a back and forth but I feel that the information should not stay on the page. Any help?

Brumere18 (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, what do you mean by "soe" content? Jezhotwells (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I presume that you mean unsourced content as that is what you reverted. You need to warn the other editor when this sort of thing happens. If it is an IP, as in this case, use an appropriate template such as {{uw-unsourced2}} (level 2 as the editor already had another warning.. There are plenty more at WP:Template messages/User talk namespace. I use WP:TWINKLE to do this. If the editor carrie son then report at WP:3RR or WP:AIV as appropriate. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident?!?!?!

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia has no editorial board. Revisions are not reviewed before they appear on the site. Content is not the result of an editorial decision by the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff."

Get real - at some point you guys have to take responsibility for clear distortions of truth on your site, and Orwellian attempts to outright censor and misinform the public.

If 'ClimateGate' is not a valid term, then I agree, we might as well just throw Wikipedia in the trash along with all the other liars and phony propaganda sites out there masquerading as real discourse.

You have a responsibility to, and a faith in humanity, and you wouldn't be doing this site if you didn't. Allowing this kind of cynical obfuscation of truth is not only disgusting and fascistic, but violates every principle that drives WikiPedia to its foundational core.

A tax on CO2 is a tax on BREATHING.

Are you willing to have your body's annual CO2 output evaluated by some stranger whose salary is the sole purpose of the tax which they will assess upon your very person?

CO2 is NOT A POLLUTANT. To criminalize CO2 is to CRIMINALIZE HUMAN LIFE.

The contributors who have so cynically turned 'ClimateGate' into a fancy piece of NewSpeak on your server should have their privileges on this site unceremoniously REVOKED, in the interest of free speech, transparent debate, and frank analysis of the increasingly cynical world we live in.

If you allow this kind of behaviour to occur on your page, then there won't be a world left worth having WikiPedia in it. What is the point of having an information site that can be so easily and disingenuously manipulated?

I was going to send you money in the New Year, but now I have serious doubts about the value of your site. "ClimateGate" is already a solidly entrenched colloquialism in the common consciousness of the world, and on that basis alone merits inclusion on it's OWN page on your increasingly irrelevant site.

I now see the true value of WikiPedia - it's a FANTASTIC place to find walkthroughs for computer games!

We do not live in a Democracy today, but a Hypocracy - shall history ultimately confer the same judgment upon your clearly failing concept of intelligent human discourse, which has now shown itself to be little more than another platform for the concerted and indifferently selfish agendas that permeate every corner of our modern age?

The choice is yours. Show some backbone, or you will never get a dime from a least one person in this world.207.6.254.220 (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.254.220 (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC) 

Request unclear. You want a page on climate gate and it was rejected? Again, after having to remove halocarbon graph from the little ice age page I can appreciate your apparent concern. Wikipedia is about documenting the state of human knowledge which presumably will "save the world" without a need to have wikipedian editors inflicting a POV paving the road to hell with good intentions. The rest of your argument is not relevant to a specific article but there may be other pages for discussing overall wiki policies. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Censorship at Wikipedia

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

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

What is your policy when two editors have opposing views on the same topic?

I have seen the entry on Max Gerson and know that some items are not there that should be. When I asked the Gerson Institute about this, they said whenever they add the items, those items are immediately removed.

I'm using this tool to ask my question because I can't find a "contact us" link anywhere.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary5Montano (talk • contribs) 05:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the page? Presumably a site controlled by the subject would be a reliable source about itself but citations to the site can't create an advertisement tone. For example, it is probably ok in an article about Foo Inc to say something like ("cnn reported that joe said foo is evil but foo issued a statment [foo site]"- even this is a bad example since it reads like a news story and needs to be encyclopedic with balance reflecting coverages). You have to avoid doing original research and cherry picking observations and an intellectually dependent source can not establish notability. But probably you could collect observations about issues which have already been raised by other reliable sources. It depends, some editors will just remove material that appears to be from a COI source without much thought but often it is material that doesn't make a better article. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't see you discussing this on the article talk page which is the appropriate venue. Also I note that the Gerson Institute clearly has a conflict of interest so they need to be careful about any information that they add. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Information Technology Infrastructure Library RfC closure

Resolved

 – Superseded by events so assistance not needed.—Ash (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

At RfC: Remove the open wiki http://www.itlibrary.org from External links? an editor with RfC experience and independent of on-going (if unsubstantiated) accusations of personal attack by one of the contributors is needed to summarize the discussion and help close this RfC. Note that there has been an attempt to use sockpuppets during the discussion and the RfC has been re-listed due to an initial attempt to close the RfC with a biased result. Ash (talk) 08:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The RfC has only just started, I suggest you let it run its course. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No, as I mentioned above, it was re-listed after a biased attempt at closure summary. The original RfC was opened on 22 November 2009, see diff. The link the RfC was about has now been removed as per apparent consensus but I was looking for someone independent of the heated debate on the talk page to close.—Ash (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"The English Qabalah" page vandalism

Hello, The English Qabalah page (link here: English Qabalah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) is undergoing repeated vandalism by individuals wishing to monopolize the subject by promoting their own theory. The users causing this problem are "Sticky Parkin" and "Dan" (who may be the same individual). A detailed account of what's happening can be seen from the page's history. For the sake of comprehensiveness, I've added information on other theories which they continually erase to aggrandize their own entries. Many thanks, Yuri —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.72.132.4 (talk) 14:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you discuss your differences on the article talk page? That is why talk pages are provided. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really interested in discussing anything with banned sock-puppeteer User:EdwardLeeFrampton. Dan (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

OK if you reckon that is a banned user report at WP:ANI. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Fenestra and Fenestrae

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Fenestrae B.V. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have just created a new article for a software development company called "Fenestrae". I have named it "Fenestrae B.V." (the legal name of the company - B.V. is the Dutch equivalent of Inc.) due to a conflict with an existing article.

The conflict is actually with a redirect to a stub called "Fenestra". That article itself defines 'fenestrae' as the plural of "fenestra'.

"Fenestrae" is the common name of the software development company. Neither "B.V." nor "Inc." appears in the company logo.

Is it appropriate to remove the redirect under these circumstances and allow "Fenestra" and "Fenestrae" to stand as separate articles?

Thank you.

Wuahn (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The simple answer is no. If you change that redirect you would have a knock on impact on several other article that link to it. In addition the artcile on Fenestra (which are always present in the plural, Fenestrae) is about a far more notable subject. Alternative names for your article could be Fenestrae (company), but I see nothing wrong with the BV ending. Your article requires some cleanup to conform with wikipedia standards, please read WP:MOS and the referencing could do with improving, most of the references appear to be company press releases or close paraphrases of the saem. Find some WP:RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Would a disambiguation page be appropriate for "Fenestrae" then? Wuahn (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That would probably be a good idea. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Multilateration

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Multilateration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The link under the references section for "The Multilateration Executive Reference Guide" is not a neutral link. It takes you to a page that is controlled by a manufacturer of multilateration systems - it is advertising.

Jagdz123 (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't appear to have discussed this on the article talk page. That is what the talk page is for - discussions on article content. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't realize that. I see someone else already commented on the same thing on the article talk page. Jagdz123 (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hunters Bar map location on google earth

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The location listed on google earth shows a spot near Carr Vale in derbyshire this is wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diddyell (talk • contribs) 10:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It was spot on when I looked on Google Earth, Google Maps and streetmap.co.uk. I note that an edit made on 4 September [1] corrected the coordinates which were previously incorrect. If you are talking about place marks on Google Earth these are not uncommonly incorrect, it takes them quite a while to correct things. You can report such things to them via their forums, but Wikipedia has no control over Google Earth. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sunee Plaza - constant vandalsim

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The page for Sunee Plaza is being subjected to constant and unhelpful vandalism. I keep putting it right, but an unregistered user keeps adding unhelpful comments. Is there a way of stopping this? I have posted full details on the talk:Sunee Plaza talk page. GoScoutUK (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You need to warn the other editor when this sort of thing happens. If it is an IP, as in this case, use an appropriate template such as those which you can find at WP:Template messages/User talk namespace. I use WP:TWINKLE to do this. If you reach level 4 warnings then report at WP:AIV as appropriate. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Need Help editing Infobox and Cleanup

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I have updated the infobox on the page that I have created. However, there are messages notifying that I am missing valuable data in the infobox:[[2]]. I'm not sure what else needs to be added. What is counted as valuable data that needs to be included here?

Also, there are other messages that advise to clean up the page. Where/What should be cleaned up? --Aerospace79 (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I assume that you mean Inventory Locator Service, LLC (ILS) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Whilst some fields are not completed that is not an absolute requirement as far as I am aware. The detail acn be filled in as mores sources are found. I removed the in-line html link as that should not have been there. you could ask the editor who added that tag, visible through the talk page history. You could do with finding some more reliable sources as quite a few are definitely not RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Earth

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I do believe that the wikipedia entry for the planet known as "Earth" should include, in addition to all its current accurate information, the description of "Mostly Harmless" -- in reference to Douglas Adams' "Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy". Although this data may hail from a source of fiction, it cannot be disprove, and is a part of social popular culture of humanity and should be documented in encyclopedia form. This is, what I believe to be, the heart and spirit of Wikipedia. Of course this entry of "Mostly Harmless" should be properly documented as reference to Douglas Adams and his novels. As a modestly well known futurist and cosmologist I can say on behalf of the scientific community, that fiction has just as much of a right to be documented as non-fiction -- on occasion more so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.167.0 (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia, not a venue for inane joke additions to articles. Crapedia is probably what you are looking for. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably prominence would be the big issue, prominence among all the works which relate to the topic earth. I'm probably the biggest advocate for inclusion of questionable material but inconsequential fiction that happens to mention a common topic would be hard include in any context ( " The earth has been the topic or mentioned in various works of fiction, including ... "). To some extent this is a popularity contest- is this material prominent in some way?- scientific merit is not really an issue but presumably the first priority for article content would be something which describes prominent beliefs about the earth, maybe you could argue for mention of something like " previously meny people thought the earth was flat[] but ". Determining a belief per se can require mind reading but works that are explicitly fiction of no known consequence I'm not sure how you argue for prominence here. I guess the most general question to ask would be about the encyclopedic merit of this material for the topic earth. Is there anything more specific than what you mention above? Science fiction is thought to have driven some real innovation ( although a specific example escapes me right now ) and where appropriate maybe such observations could be included ( " today's flying cars look oddly like thos in the Jetsons ") if they aren't original research. I guess at issue would be from the reader's perspective would be if you found the article using google are you likely to be looking for something that relates to doug adams ? I haven't looked at the earth aricle, and maybe there is a bunch of conjecture from Sagan or Azimov, but you don't want to argue variants of " other crap exists." Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It's already in Earth in fiction#Hitchhiker's Guide. It doesn't belong in the main Earth article. Many smaller topics have mentions of fiction in their main article but Earth is too big a topic to include this reference. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

NPOV dispute on US state DA article

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

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

This request for assistant pertains to two blocks of text that I've removed from the article for a candidate for Georgia State District Attorney. The first block of text refers to former Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young (who endorsed the candidate in question as) "Ayatollah Khomeini endorser" and draws parallels between Young's endorsement and his "other controversial statements...such as those smearing Jews and Asians." This is a clear violation of WP:NPOV.

The second block of text regards Hodges' alleged ethical violations. The inclusion or exclusion of this block of text is certainly open to debate (though all the charges have been dismissed). What is clear, however, is that the discussion of these alleged ethical violations overwhelms what should be a modest entry for a sub-national politician (albeit one with state-level ambitions). The two reversions I made to remove the offending blocks of text were done in good faith to support WP:NPOV. I welcome any assistance you can provide to prevent a potential edit war. Tightgrid (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You need to warn the other editor when this sort of thing happens. If it is an IP, as in this case, use an appropriate template such as those which you can find at WP:Template messages/User talk namespace. I use WP:TWINKLE to do this. If you reach level 4 warnings then report at WP:AIV or WP:BLPN as appropriate. I have placed a level one warning on the user page of User:Jacksmith100. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am asking for a third opinion if my audits were not appropriate

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I added several (17) external links to the web-site www.opentradingsystem.com. The web-site is of academic nature. It provides direct professional level information on the subjects described in the Wikipedia's articles and it provides additional information, another point of view, examples of calculations and so fourth.

My links were deleted. I received a message; "Stop hand nuvola.svg This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you add inappropriate external links, as you did with this edit to Fokker–Planck equation. Zhang He (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)"

The link in question was http://www.opentradingsystem.com/quantNotes/Backward_Kolmogorov_s_equation_.html which I attempted to add to the "Fokker–Planck equation" article. It provides a generic way to derive a Kolmogorov's equation (another name for Fokker-Plack equation) that extends the Kolmogorov's equation to a situations with accumulation of payoff, stochastic discounting and stopping time.

I read the guide lines on adding external links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#LINK "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate. See Wikipedia:External links for some guidelines."

This is the mentioned "more useful content-relevant links to an article". I understand that Mr Zhang He may have a problem with adding several links but these links contain material which is useful and additive to content of the articles. Kaslanidi (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you discuss the addition of the proposed external links on the relevant article pages. Try to reach WP:consensus with other editors. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

My third opinion: an obvious case of link-canvassing and conflict of interest, and possibly WP:Reliable sources (as it appears to be a self-published site). Not appropriate. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Just skimming the site and taking the author's resume at face value, I would encourage you to extract the sources you used to make your own site and cite them here. If you can show some editorial oversight or others who have referenced you own site, you may be able to make a case for it being reliable or itself being notable but this is likely to be difficult if not impossible to do. If you have authored peer reviewed work or works which are well known in your field and find it relevant you may wish to cite that- you would still have a conflict but the contribution will be judged by its impact on the article. My condolenscense for using an education in EM for work in technical securities analysis. (humour). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sanisera

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The article Sanisera was changed and my opposition thesis omited.

I wrote the original article.

Ferran Lagarda Mata (archaeologist) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.153.121.162 (talk) 11:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I see only evidence that you made one edit, inserting references to your own published works. Please read our conflict of interest guideleines. Someone else has since rewritten the article in plain clear English, added WP:RS and generally improved it. If you have issues with any of this please discuss them on the article talk page, that is what it is there for. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Meddler (short story) need help with move & redirect issues

I created an article Meddler (short story) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in my user sandbox and moved it to the "live" Wickipedia. This was my first new article and I seem to have messed something up in the process; possibly while doing the clean up. It's maybe functioning properly for the most part though I have an impression many more links should be present and active. The article doesn't show as a suggested search result in the search box, I think there is a redirect problem I don't know what to do about and it's time to ask someone to straighten out whatever mistakes I made. Info on avoiding such mistakes in future would be appreciated. I also think a disambiguation page for Meddler might be a good idea. Thank you for any assistance. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You're pretty much OK, I think. Meddler (short story) doesn't show up in the suggested search items yet because there's a delay (of a few hours or a few days if I recall correctly) for new articles to appear. I agree Meddler should be a dab page, I've done that and will tweak it further in a few. If there's anything else I didn't cover, let me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, hang on; it seems Meddler (short story) is definitely the most common target for all the links to Meddler; let me look and see some more. If so, I'll move the pages I can, and ask for admin help with those I can't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, All those links were because Meddler was in Template:Philip K. Dick, which is widely transcluded (he wrote a lot). I've changed that link in the template now; as long as everyone is happy with Meddler being a dab page, I think we're set. If you think Meddler (short story) should be the primary topic, then there are a few hoops to jump thru, but they aren't insurmountable. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I like disambiguation pages and think that's best for something like this. They help in finding things well and sometimes draw attention to interesting articles I wouldn't have thought to look for. I'm surprised "meddler" doesn't have a lot of entries it can refer to. I may do an article on The Builder soonish and if so that's liable to have a problem with linking to "building". Anything I should know about that ahead of time? Did I do something incorrect when moving Meddler (short story)from my sandbox? (Maybe it was just "Meddler" when I moved it.) If I did something incorrectly any advice on correctly moving drafts from sandboxes to the "live" Wickipedia would be appreciated. I thought I was following the directions when whatever went wrong went wrong, if something did go wrong. I will look at the Editor Assistance FAQ and other Help stuff more but there's almost an information overload at the newbie stage. If Meddler (short story) doesn't show up in the suggested search items within a few days I'll let you know. Thanks for the assistance. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like you did everything fine. You moved your sandbox article to Meddler (short story) (correctly done), then it looks like you decided it might belong at Meddler and moved it there (a not un-reasonable decision, done correctly), but then had a change of heart and moved it back to Meddler (short story) (IMHO, the correct final decision, again done correctly). All I did was make Meddler into a disambiguation page, and change the link in Template:Philip K. Dick to point to Meddler (short story) instead of Meddler, so the new article had some incoming links.

The only reason it looked wrong was (a) the delay in the search auto-complete feature for new articles, and (b) the delay in the "what links here" for Meddler. But both of those things are WP:Job queue issues, not anything you did. Both seem to have now fixed themselves. So, all seems well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding a link to one of your pages.

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

When in the wiki article for the USS Fulton AS-11 @ USS Fulton (AS-11) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a link to the Facebook homepage that should be added to the bottom of the page, this link is http://www.facebook.com/#/group.php?gid=9843963663&ref=ts

Thank you, James Maxwell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.254.16.201 (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No, please read WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

I am writing this mail to be sure about an information regarding that link. In this link its said that the name of the cities (Sodom and Gomorrah) are mentioned in the Quran in the Sura Al Hijr. But I have gone through this Sura and I didnt find these.

"Sodom (Hebrew: סְדוֹם, Modern Sədom Tiberian Səḏôm, Arabic: سدوم Sadūm, Greek Σόδομα) and Gomorrah (Hebrew: עֲמוֹרָה, Modern ʿAmora Tiberian Ġəmôrāh/ʿĂmôrāh, Arabic: عمورة ʿAmūrah, Greek Γόμορρα) were two cities in the Bible which were destroyed by God. For the sins of their inhabitants Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim were destroyed by "brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven."[Gen 19:24-25] In Christianity and Islam, their names have become synonymous with impenitent sin, and their fall with a proverbial manifestation of God's wrath.[ Jude] Qur'an(S15)Al-Hijr:72-73 Last accessed on 01.01.2010"

Please correct this.

Many thanks

Sarah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.50.176.194 (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggest that you post this query on the article talk page and discuss it there. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Article subject appropriateness?

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 15:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I have been wandering all over Wikipedia, trying to discover if the article I wish to submit is acceptable as being sufficiently noteworthy about an individual.

Briefly: My Father designed and built a yacht (1962), with the intention of circumnavigation. The yacht was pirated by the crew members on her maiden voyage (1963). Captured and damaged by a French freighter, the owners of which subsequently sued for salvage in the Australian Supreme Court. Several Maritime Precendents were set with the outcome of this case.

Can you please let me know if this is acceptable, before I go to the effort of writing the pages?

I am the daughter and have all photographs and newspaper clippings from the Sydney Morning Herald, in addition to the precedents. I was also there.

Thank you so much for your attention. Belleami (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC) PS: There are more adventures of the vessel, for which I have documentation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belleami (talk • contribs) 22:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, is there coverage of this boat in verifiable and reliable sources that establish its notability? If so then maybe create an article in your sandbox and then ask folks here to look at it and give you a steer. I have placed some useful links on yoru user page, Happy New Year! Jezhotwells (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Dana Perino

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This is in regards to the Dana Perino article. The user named Cmgone keesp removing sourced information that only he or she seems to think is not relevant to the article. I tried to report this to the 'Reporting Vandalism' page but I did not understand this page. Another editor, who helps me out a lot, has been Away From Internet and unable to. I would revert it but I don't like even getting in spitting distance of 3RR. Lots42 (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, your "source" the Huffingtom Post is not considered to be a reliable source, please see reliable sources notice board - check out the archives. If you are unhappy with another editor's reversions try talking to them either on their talk page or preferably on the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a more direct link as to why the Huffington Post is not reliable? And the source URL plays a video showing Dana's mistake. Seems pretty reliable to me. Edit: Talk page discussion has already failed, IIRC. Lots42 (talk) 04:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

My bad, I failed to notice the search function the first time around. But all I found was that some people think the Post is reliable and some do not. This tells me nothing. Lots42 (talk) 04:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Time sensitive entries

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I was watching the finale of Survivor Samoa on the west coast. I looked up biographies of current players on the wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Survivor_contestants) with all survivor bios. I inadvertently saw Natalie White's bio near the entry I was interested in. It indicated she had won. Some impatient person in the eastern part of the US saw the show 2 or 3 hours before pacific time; even more before Alaska or Hawaii, and quickly entered those winning results. It basically ruined the surprise factor for me and my wife. That information could have waited a few hours and in the future those edits should be prevented. Interestingly, the header for the article states, "...There have been eighteen seasons, which have been filmed on five different continents." At the time of their premature biography entries they failed to change that "eighteen" to "nineteen". I'm sure there are other shows with similar possibilities which should not be updated until all time zones have viewed the episode.

While I question the encyclopedic merit of this "information" wikipedia is not censored and afaik no one will try to protect you from information. LOL. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Spoiler. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia intended to provide information and also gives away the ending of books and films. I understand your frustration though. When watching a sports transmission from earlier in the day, I try to stay away from places which might bring the result. They are often in Wikipedia within seconds. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If we followed the OP's "logic" then nothing would be added to Wikipedia artciles about reality dumb shows until every re-run in every continent had finished. Mind you, that might be a good a thing as this sort of TV trash wouldn't be covered at all. BTW, if you are watching WWII films, the Germans and the Japanese lost!. Happy New Year. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that comment is entirely fair to the OP. The first showing in different time zones of the home country on the same day is considered a premiere and not a rerun. I can understand viewers may not predict that Wikipedia has already been updated by editors in other time zones (that doesn't mean I think Wikipedia should wait). By the way, I have another recollection of watching A Bridge Too Far (film) and Tora! Tora! Tora!. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Graviton

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I discovered the graviton particle. The current Wiki listing is way off. Please contat me: <email redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.241.49 (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, why not discuss this at the artcile talk page. Please don't post your email address here unless you want tons of spam. And please sign your posts with four [~}s. Tips on your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Your theory at [3] is original research and Wikipedia does not allow original research. If you get your work acknowledged by the scientific community, for example by publishing in a peer reviewed journal, then you can make a suggestion on the article talk page. Since you have a conflict of interest you should not edit the article itself. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Excessive reversions

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

United States expedition to Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The U.S. forces were not badly damaged, due "to the bad gunnery of the Coreans, whose fire, although very hot for the fifteen minutes in which they maintained it, was ill-directed, and consequently without effect."

The "C" in "Coreans" is a direct quote from the original 1871 report. People keep on changing it to "K" (Koreans) to make it modern. Direct quotations should remain with original spelling. In 1871, "C" was the proper way to spell "Coreans". Bluelake (talk) 03:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

i see that you have attempted to discuss this at the article talk page which is good and I feel that the response of User:Sgt Simpson is not particularly helpful. I have placed a note on User:Andy120290's talk page. That is the appropriate action to take. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Help in fixing username

Hi. I have recently renamed my username from "Rehman Abubakr" to "Rehman" (usurpation). I was told that i could re-register the old account to prevent it being recreated. Unfortunately, i cannot re-create that account because, during my editing as "Rehman Abubakr", some accounts on other wikis have been automatically created (unified login). Is it possible to delete those accounts? Those accounts have zero editcount. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 04:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure this has come up before. You'd probably best off asking at Meta, since this involves SUL and cross-wiki stuff. The editors at Meta are more experienced with that type of thing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Possibly this is the venue [4]. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Muhammad and assassinations, USER: Cathar11

how do i report a user. i have been giving the stament of an "authors opinion" as per wikipedia policy WP:Rs . but a user keeps removing it. (user:Cathar11)

the stament i used is below

• critics of islam(such as Nonie Darwish,Geert Wilders e.t.c) think this was a terrorist attack carried out by Muhammad.

i have given the view of the critics and have not called anyone a terrorist or even stated a fact.just opinion to make an article balanced. these views are notable because they are opinion of high profile critics such as "Robert Spencer, Nonie Darwish, Geert Wilder, Ali Sina"

but the user keeps removing it. saying this is not possible because terrorism is a word that was invented only recently(about 50yrs ago). his conclusion is that this view of the critics can not be true, so should not be on wiki.

he also has the idea that in an article i am not allowed to say "critics of islam claim that what Muhammad has done promotes terrorism because..." he claims terrorism can not not be used, claiming it is a modern word.even though the references use that word.

in my opinion the way he talks is like saying "Julius Caesur had a house" then he would say, this is false because, the word "house" is a modern word invented 50 years ago (or however many years), so can not be used.

But this is not the case. he would never remove such as thing. but if something is critical of Islam. He removes it !

he also edited the article Islamic terrorism and added a tag that says "the title is not neutral" and is a POV title. I dont understand this person. He is also engaged in edit warring in the article Muhammad and assassinations --Misconceptions2 (talk) 11:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You could try talking to the other editor. If they ignore you and continue to revert properly sourced material, you can warn the other editor when this sort of thing happens. You can use an appropriate template such as those which you can find at WP:Template messages/User talk namespace. I use WP:TWINKLE to do this. If you reach level 4 warnings then report at WP:AIV or WP:3RR as appropriate. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The position isn't quite as the user describes it. It has been forum shopped on 4 forums which is frowned upon to say the least. His use of reliable/unreliable source(s) is being actively discussed here at the RS Noticeboard.[5] which is probably the most approriate forum. The discussion has been interesting if somewhat confusing in layout. It is normally common courtesy to send a message to a user if they are being discussed here. I can elaborate on his Agenda/POV issues if it assistsCathar11 (talk) 08:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Unable to have editorial changes posted

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

We are trying to update an old Wikipedia entry on the Tsunami Society. There have been many editorial changes that were properly formatted, saved and downloaded, but the old page always reappear without the changes we have made. Please advise what the problem may be in fully editing or substituting the entry on Tsunami Society with a revised and corrected entry on Tsunami Society International. Any assistance will be appreciated. [personal information removed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megawave (talk • contribs) 21:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears that you've been uploading material straight from the Tsunami Society website, which is a presumptive copyright violation. Other editors have responded by removing the copyrighted material and returning the article to its previous state. Take a peek at WP:Copyright and WP:Copyvio for tips on how to avoid this problem. JohnInDC (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, I note that you're saying "we". If you're affiliated with the organization, we strongly discourage you from making major edits to the article on it. If you do, remember that they must be strictly neutral, and may under no circumstances serve any purpose of promotion or boosterism. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The website http://www.tsunamisociety.org/AboutUs.html asserts copyright 2008 with all rights reserved, which is incompatible with our license. I am not familiar with the other sponsoring organizations, but my impression of lanl at least is that they seem to generally favor wide access to scientific information. For squaring the material on this end, please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Alternatively, rewriting the article with an emphasis on what independent sources have said about the Tsunami Society would be good. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Robert Prechter article

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

An anonymous editor continues to editorialize and spin Robert Prechter's biography. I have attempted to include some of the points he brings up in the lede, but this editor continues to attempt to chartacterize Mr. Prechter essentially as a charlatan. I have no interest in an edit war. To be open, I have written a book on the same subject as Mr. Prechter, and have met him a couple of times. However, I have absolutely no business relationship with him now, nor have I ever had one. Thank-you.Sposer (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that although you have made a comment on the artcile talk page, you have not communicated with them on their talk page to initiate a discussion. That would be a good first move. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have now done so now. I avoided it to date, because I really wasn't looking for a fight with this person. Hopefully it works. Thanks. Sposer (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Generally, it is better to start communications immediately, then it is less likely to turn into an edit war. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

As I'm sure you are aware, many view the whole field as alchemy or astrology and as such it would be difficult to not have that attittude project onto experts in the field. Keep in mind that prominent criticisms are quite appropriate content. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I am very aware of that. However, that doesn't mean that what this anonymous editor is doing follows Wiki policy. Further, I have attempted to include the criticisms in the lede, but this person is creating an ad hominem attack on Prechter, which is pure opinion and completely unsourced. As far as your comment regarding alchemy, I assume you are referring to technical analysis overall, and not just Elliott Wave. If you are, then I am also sure that you are aware that there are many prominent academics that find technical analysis to be valid. You should also understand that much of Quantitative Analysis directly applies technical analysis, except it is done by people with doctorates. Additionally, much of Behavioral Finance exactly supports technical analysis. Technical analysis does not use any astrology. There are a couple of technical analysts that do use astrology, but that is not considered technical analysis by the profession.Sposer (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, on quick look at some diffs,this does seem to be just a content dispute and neither of you sourced your examples of his success or failure. Note that undue weight would require that you not just cherry pick an example you or your adversary happen to like as that seems to be one issue in first few paragraphs. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to include his chosen content, which is the well known fact that Prechter has been bearish on the stock market since 1987. However, that has been sort of correct since 2000, and so I was trying to prevent undue weight and NPOV problems by offsetting it with correct calls. The gold call that the anon editor mentioned is more complicated. Prechter was more correct than anybody until the commodity markets reversed in 1999. He was among the more bearish in gold. He also does not talk about what Prechter has been correct about, and personally, I do not know his whole record. The main issue that I have is not stating about the bad calls, because being wrong on stocks especially is a valid criticism. It is editorializing that he adds, stating he is a marketer, etc and implying that he's a charlatan. Robert Prechter is a 100% honest human being, who truly believes in what he does, whether he has been correct or not. He is not a charlatan or an uber-marketer. He is a financial markets analyst with a mixed record who uses a methodology that many people do not understand. This editor is putting his or her personal opinion of Prechter into the lede of an article, which is not allowed by BLP or anything else I have ever seen on Wiki.Sposer (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Savant or charlatan, if you want to call him names it would help to source the names and some terms maybe you could omit for relevance ( is marketter like calling him a human? if he's selling something he is a marketter). "He has been called foo by the fooists[] and bar by the baristas[] " etc. If you can source charlatan it may have a place along side genius. It is hard to make up names without sources. I guess there are things like "self-dscribed" that may be literally true too, not sure if that would be original research if not sourced. We aren't mind readers and determining what he really believes would be difficult if relevant. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. That is my point; the anon editor has not sourced anything and just makes up the terms. Sposer (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Correction to a Reference

Resolved

 – reference fixed Jezhotwells (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I created a login simply to make one correction and it seems it is protected so that I cannot edit it. Reference #1 on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopal_Diocese_of_El_Camino_Real points to a URL that no longer exists due to our implementation of a new diocesan website. The new location for Reference #1 is http://www.edecr.org/sitefiles/file/otherdocs/Hist-ProfileExcerpt-200610.pdf . Since I could not update the reference, I added an external link for this. How does the original reference get corrected?

Stephenie Cooper, Web Sacistan, Episcopal Diocese of El Camino Real, [email redacted] --Src4ecrwiki (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed the url.[6] References are written and edited in the section where they are used as references. See more at Help:Footnotes. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Stephenie Cooper --Src4ecrwiki (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Source question

So, I'm confused.

If another wiki isn't a valid source, therefore can't be used as a reference for "X is part of Y", on page Y, then how, on page X, can "X is part of Y" be legitimate without a citation?

Dagard (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Many statements currently have no citation but that is usually not (there are exceptions) sufficient reason to remove them right away as you did in [7]. If you think a statement needs a citation then it is often better to look for a reliable source yourself, or request a citation with {{Citation needed}} and give other editors time to look for it. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Alfredo Devoto

Resolved

 – deleted as a hoax Jezhotwells (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Although there is a reference, Alfredo Devoto is a fictional footballer. At least he never plays for Happy Valley AA and VB Sports. Also someone makes fake record in the Hong Kong First Division League 2007-08 and AFC Cup 2007, and I undid the edit. So, how to delete the article Alfredo Devoto? Thanks.--FootballHK (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Only administrators can delete pages. I have deleted it as a hoax (not the first time I deal with this particular hoax). You could have marked it with {{hoax}} or requested deletion with {{db-hoax}} or a process at Wikipedia:Deletion. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

On my request the Italian it:Alfredo Devoto and the French fr:Alfredo Devoto have also been deleted. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

AC30 page - removed edits

Hi, I was going to let this go but it has continued to niggle me for a while so here goes: I added a little text to the AC30 page within Wiki - specifically on the page that lists famous users of the VOX AC30 guitar amplifier - I added Ritchie Blackmore (guitarist with Deep Purple, Rainbow etc) whose use of the AC30 is well documented. Well, this appendment I made was removed after a while - I don't recall how long - I wasn't monitoring it, but having seen that it had been removed, I thought it may have been removed as there were no citations or links to any substantiating information/webpages. By the way, most if not all of the other guitarists listed don't have any substantiation either. So...I add in Ritchie Blackmore again, this time with a weblink to an online article I found after a brief search. This time the addition lasted a few weeks but its now been removed again.

OK, I can perhaps understand that the original author may not want his work to be edited, but the addition I made was well intentioned, correct, accurate and relates to one of the key innovators of rock guitar.

I find Wiki very helpful, interesting and informative, but I'm not inclined to spend any more time on edits/appendments if they can vanish without consultation.

Regards, NAC

ps - by way of experiment, I've re-edited the AC30 webpage. I can't believe I have the patience or inclination to do this but I'm curious to see if this latest edit will lead to any dialogue.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nchadderton (talk • contribs) 21:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Click the "history" tab to see the page history. The article has many contributors. Ritchie Blackmore and several others were removed in this edit with an edit summary indicating the editor thought there shouldn't be a long list. A place for dialogue is the article talk page. There is already a short section with two old posts at Talk:Vox AC30#"Notable users of the AC30" section. You can also contact a specific editor at their user talk page. If you want to improve the chance of your preferred name staying in the list then do something none of the other names have: Add a nicely formatted citation with <ref>...</ref>. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. Note than whenever you make an edit there is text saying "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." All regular editors experience their edits being changed or removed by others. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you join the discussion on the talk page at Talk:Vox AC30#"Notable users of the AC30" section. See what the other editors think. It looks like the consensus at the moment is to not have a long list and to stick to those who uses the amp consistently. Jezhotwells (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Image Legality?

I was just browsing some images and stumbled over some whose content surprised me. I am presently employed in developing an image library and one of the issues we face is determining whether we may use the images we possess. Almost any image that contains members of the public is problematic as we need permission statements/forms before we may use them despite the fact that we are not publishing to the internet, at least not at present. In contrast, the imagery I noted earlier on your site has been released live to the world with identifiable/near identifiable individuals and provides their location at a specific point in time. While no names are mentioned I very much doubt the original photographer asked the subjects permission before taking the image. I accept the likelihood of your being sued for invasion of privacy etc is remote (I'm not a lawyer so cannot give you the implications, details and lawyerspeak) but it seems an unwise risk. Is the image I encountered a rarity or have you no problem with these types of images? Thanks. 203.25.1.208 (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that WP:Media copyright questions may be the best place to start. You will also need to state specifically which files you are talking about, by providing the URLs. Jezhotwells (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not copyright as I think of it, but I was not sure where to ask.203.25.1.208 (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Editor conduct in regards to edit disucssion

I just wanted to check my position, regarding a recent edit. Although I still think the article is generally wrong (although it is a technicality admitedly) I have come out of the whole discussion with a rather sour taste in my mouth.

I made an edit, which I considered correct, but was technically wrong it seems. The first time I realised this was when I received a warning on my personal page from the user, warning me that I could be potentially blocked. I then attempted to discuss the edit/blocking message on their page.

The reply I received is the reason for my request.

Firstly, the user edited my message, to allow him to insert his own retorts into the comment of the message. Which made it very hard to reply. The retorts were childish, mocking,offensive and completely inflammatory. Ranging from calling me a liar, to questioning my intelligence.

Finally, they then deleted my reply, claiming they were "vandalism", and labelling me a troll.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Quartet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cjmooney9

Cjmooney9 (talk) 12:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Please can you post a succinct one or two line request with a link to an article and then it will be looked at. I don't think many will want to tramp through a long ramble like that above. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reducing this request to readable proportions, please do not remove comments by others when editoing your own posts. So what do you want here? If you think an editor is being uncivil take it to WP:WQA. But the regulars there will look hard at both editors in such a dispute. Often the best thing in a squabble like this is to let it die down by walking away. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I really not that bothered about any of it to be honest. I don't even edit the site very much, and will use it even less from now on.

I just want to know whether there is any basis behind Editors putting "you will be banned" messages on new Editors walls every time they see an edit they don't like. The problem being, new users actually believe these people are acting from a position of authority (as in working for the site). Especially with the templates and fonts they also use to make it look even more "official". Or is it just one Editor throwing his weight around to intimidate another Editor?

I'm just a bit alarmed about this practice of Editors doing this sort of thing. While making no attempt to actually discuss the edit at all.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of user warnings is to guide good-faith testers and dissuade bad-faith vandals. Gernerally they are used to alert users to potentially harmful edits that they may have made. In your case, you removed a large chunk of text and several citations [8] from an article, rather than adding a or tag to the copy , which would have been preferable. Perhaps Quartet chose the wrong level of warning - he should have used a lower level warning - or, even better, he could have skipped using a templated warning and simply left his own message on your talk page alerting you to the issue. Either way I would suggest you follow the advice above and take it with a grain of salt. Repeatedly restoring unwanted content to this users talk page badgering them about the edit and other "rules" (that they're not actually breaking) [9] will probably not accomplish anything positive, and can also encourage further disruption. It is often best to simply let the matter rest especially if other disruption stops.--Yankees76 (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, this is probably the wrong forum to be discussing this, as suggested above. My complaint was merely the users attitude, and general rudeness towards me during the supposed discussion process. I was quite happy to admit that I was totally wrong in the way I deleted the line. However, I still had issue with the content. And when I tried to approach the user, and inform him of my issue on the subject, I got little more than mockery, sarcasm, and being continually told that I was too stupid to have my position considered.

Off the top of my head, these are the rules on these edit discussions.

1: Users should not be approached personally on edits. It should be done on the article page only. 2: All edits should be treated as they have been done in good faith. 3: The discussion should be polite and civil. 4: Discussion should be about the edit, and not the user that did it 5: Editors should refrain from inflammatory comments and rudeness.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, not everyone you run into on here is going to be smiles and chocolate, especially when you give them directions on what they should and should not do in the future, and cite Wikipedia "page ownership" rules that quite frankly do not exist or apply in this situation (per this post on Quartet's talk page [10]). When you post on someones talk page and make demands like "do not put this sort of thing on my or anyone elses personal pages in future" you're inviting just the response you got. I'm not saying it's right, however neither his nor your actions in this situation are going to earn either of you a barnstar. Posting 35 messages in 5 days on his talk page is not going to cool down the situation, it's only inviting more uncivil behaviour. Sometimes you just need to walk away.

Even though they are technically competitors for the same goal--fresh fish--this fisherman and pelican are ignoring each other and minding their own business.

Occasionally, on Wikipedia, despite everyone agreeing that we should not engage in personal attacks, harsh words get flung around—occasionally by longstanding contributors, but more often by newcomers. There are various ways to deal with this:

1. Just ignore it. Name-calling may be offensive but it is not very helpful or mature. Go about your business and do not worry about it; you are not required to respond.
2. Politely ask the person who you feel has insulted you to retract what they said. Sometimes people say something insulting by accident, not realizing that their words could be taken in a certain way. Other times people will change the way they act when they realize they have offended someone. That said, it is rarely useful to demand an apology or retraction.
   If you yourself, through accident or anger, insult someone, an apology might smooth things over. If you sincerely meant the insult and cannot honestly apologize, sometimes it is best to fall silent. If that does not work, try refocusing on the issue at hand; try to be more specific about what action you disagree with, rather than insulting the person.
3. Instead of reacting to the insult with a return insult, or getting upset, try to concentrate on figuring out why they insulted you. In most cases, they may just be kidding you. If that is not the case, then try not to let their problem(s) become yours. We all have enough problems in our lives.

--Yankees76 (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no real issue with the user. I was a tad offended, but it's not something that I'm going to be thinking about in the near future. I said numerous times (if you care to check) "Let's draw a line under this and end this conversation now". You know. Anyway, let's live and learn......

I think it's a real issue though. Sadly 39'000 editors left wikipedia in 2009 alone. The site simply can't and won't survive without inexperienced editors, making mistakes on articles. Experienced users need to be more forgiving. Not everyone knows as much as them.

There really is absolutely nothing fun or interesting in going on to a subject that you know a lot about, making an edit in good faith, and then receiving a message from an experienced editor threatening you with being banned as you broke wikipedia rule 456AZIL/4.2......? you know. Or making an edit and an experienced editor just reverting it as it technically broke rule 5463534/3L. You know, that's your 39'000 people leaving every year.

In true wikipedia style, I'll leave you with some source information on the subject. As it's quite eye opening.

http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/11/26/wikipedias-volunteer-story/comment-page-2/#comment-1938

http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/davesmith_au.htm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1230790/Fears-future-Wikipedia-49-000-volunteers-leave-site.html

Quotes:

"Quite simply, new editors are treated with contempt and discouraged from contributing if their edits are not consistent with the highly conventional beliefs of the editors who have seized control of the site/particular topics. "

"New users are being constantly bothered by more established users, many of who will band together to address a technical issue they don’t agree with, even if they at first had failed" (Not me, funnily. A comment on the wikipedia blog).

Anyway, let's draw a line under all of this, and get on to more interesting things.

However, I'd suggest that, in future, official looking warnings, threatening people with bans (I actually thought the user was a member of wikipedia staff when I first saw it) should not be used as the first point of contact between two editors, in regards to an edit issue. This would have been resolved in 2 minutes, if the user simply explained on the article discussion page what I did wrong.

take care

Cjmooney9 (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Longevity myths help request

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

This is arguably one of the biggest messes of an article I’ve ever seen. Problems with it are noted everywhere and looking through the talk and extensive archive it appears there will be no end to it. It is really just a bunch of POV pushing. You have a few editors, the most notable being JJB saying that the term “myth” is being misused and plainly are against religion being referred to as myth and you have Ryoung122, a gerontology expert who takes issue with religion being referred to as anything but. It seems like Wikipedia:RNPOV#Religion would cover this pretty well but so far it hasn't.

I would personally split the article to resolve the issue. Create a page for Religious Longevity covering the various religious beliefs around longevity, and one for Disputed Longevity Claims which would claim the rest and is especially appropriate given that most of the article is contemporary by comparison. I would suggest this on the talk myself but I am certain given this all seems to be about one side winning over another I would be shot down.

Thanks, PeRshGo (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

So - you want someone here to go to the talk page to suggest this for you? Why? I suggest you use the talk page, taht is whaqt it is there for. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Video assistance

Is there a project similar to the Graphic Labs image workshop but for videos? i.e., where you can request help with uploading videos if you don't have the software installed yourself? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not aware that Wikipedia has a project devoted to working on video content in that way, but Commons does host videos in Ogg Theora and GIF only. As these are free software you can install them yourself. This page on Commons [11] might be a good place to look first. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This link [12] gives some further information and also this WP:Creation and usage of media files#Video. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. A user I was talking to has a video (on Flickr) he might be interested in uploading but apparently he had some trouble getting the Theora software installed. I did give him some of those links, but mainly I was curious if there were other users who could upload the video for him. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Dispute over whether YouTube is a "reliable" reference for purposes of verifying that a cited expert made reported statements.

With regard to 9/11 Truth movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1) There is an issue, under dispute, as to whether a YouTube citation is deserving of a tag . The specific issue at hand is whether a YouTube video is a reliable reference for purposes of verifying that statements, attributed a person, were indeed made by that person. Specificly, the article in question attributes certain statements to Noam Chomsky. The referenced YouTube video shows Chomsky making these statements. It is my claim that in this instance is YouTube is *indisputably* an authoritive information source.

2) My removal of the unreliable tag have been repeatedly reverted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cs32en and once reverted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arthur_Rubin . At no time did any reversion address my initial edit comment "The referenced YouTube video shows Noam Chomsky making the statements in the article. The YouTube video thus *verifies* that Chomsky made the statements in question."

3) Cs32en has made, on my talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Deicas , accusations of vandalism.

4) I seek confirmation that my assertion that YouTube is, in this instance an *indisputably* reliable reference.

5) I seek advice on how to, in the future, deal with other editors that undo my edits without addressing the material issue at hand. I seek advice on how to, in the future, avoid spending so much time addressing a seemingly straightforward issue.

Deicas (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

In response to your first question, instead of citing Youtube itself you should cite the conference, news broadcast, or whatever this appeared on. Certainly Chomsky made these remarks at some symposium or whatnot, and you can use that as the reference.

In response to your other questions, you were edit warring, and edit warring is never acceptable no matter how right you think your edits are. If there's disagreement, you must engage in discussion at a talk page to settle it; making 4 reverts in a day isn't ok. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, please read WP:YOUTUBE#Linking to user-submitted video sites. This link is to a copyright violation and thus is not permitted. If this was Noam Chomsky's official YouTube page then it might be considered OK, but as it stands, it isn't. If you persist in edit warring, you will be blocked. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

With regard to Jezhotwells "This link is to a copyright violation and thus is not permitted.": I see no indication that the YouTube page in question is a copyright violation -- on what basis are you making this determination?

Deicas (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

With regard to User:Rjanag comment "you should cite the conference, news broadcast, or whatever this appeared on. Certainly Chomsky made these remarks at some symposium or whatnot, and you can use that as the reference". I did not add, to the article, the Chomsky quote nor the associated reference, I only removed the unreliable tag. It is not clear watching the YouTube clip the circumstances under where Chomsky made the statements in question. What is certain, from the video, is that Chomsky made the statements referenced and thus those statements are thus on this topic via discretionary sanctions per authority granted by [[13]]. Given this information am I to understand that you continue to view me as a culpable participant in "edit warring"? If this is the case would you please provide a refer(s) to "edit warring" so I might better understand the topic.

Deicas (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

To Jezhotwells regarding your statement "If you persist in edit warring, you will be blocked.": I call to your attention to the paragraph just above. Given this information am I to understand that you continue view me as a culpable participant in "edit warring"? If this is the case would you please provide a refer(s) to "edit warring" so I might better understand the topic.

Deicas (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The Ku Klux Klan In Prophecy

Three sections at The Ku Klux Klan In Prophecy are of concern

1. Introduction and Two Klippings (both headings) are direct quotes with no commentary. Klippings is not a word. Under it, and without commentary from any secondary source, is the repetition of two racist jokes that insult African Americans. The question is this: does the text under either or both headings, quotes from early 19th c. book, belong in an encyclopedia? 2. This article copies every illustration in this early 20th century book and places it in this article without secondary source commentary. Is the purpose of Wikipedia to copy and paste text and illustrations from books that are out of copyright? Or is there another purpose?

I am interested in reading what other editors have to say about including gratuitous jokes that are racist in Wikipedia articles. Without commentary, this article includes several such jokes and the persons who have repeatedly re-added them have not entered reasons why they belong in an encyclopedia.

I would add that this article has been up for more than a year. I spent some time trying to improve it and was reverted repeatedly by user who claims the long term intent is to improve article, though over the course of more than a year, has added nothing but original text and images copied verbatim from the out of copyright book. I am wondering if the images etc. belong in Wiki Sources rather than in context of what is supposed to be encyclopedia. Skywriter (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree and have removed the racist content and images.Cathar11 (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The Ku Klux Klan In Prophecy violates WP-SELFPUBLISH in that it is a self-published booklet that attacks Jews and Catholics. There is a separate article on the author and this article ought to be merged into the author bio.Skywriter (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I am the article originator and have been the primary editor of the article Ku Klux Klan in prophecy. I also request review, assistance and collaboration from other editors with this article. I agree that the material in this book is darkly provocative. It's also quite complex as it combines 1920s feminism with racism, anti-Catholicism, anti-Semitism, prohibitionism and white supremacy. Five scholars have published on portions of the book. It's a difficult and charged topic to try and capture from both a neutral and non-OR perspective. But I am trying. I have repeatedly agreed that the article needs work. 95% of Skywriter's and Cathar11's solutions to these issues have been to delete most of the article and then claim the article is insufficient for retention. I desire to improve the article in a collaborative way. Please offer your assistance. Buz lightning (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This article was created as a way of pulicising racist, anti semetic and and anti-catholic viewpoint of a self published author by an editor who gratuitously included anti black jokes and cartoons as part of the article. It is the lowest common denominator type of article with no useful content that couldn't be transferred to the authors article. It was created over nine months ago and no effort was made to copyedit the content. Buz lightning is effectively a single topic editor and has only created or edited similar racist conected sites. Cathar11 (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the article meets the notability guidelines. The references given do not give page numbers for the books and the journal article cite is linked to a list of journal articles rather than being correctly cited to the journal itself. Reading the journal article it merely mentions this book in passing, in fact none of the references support the notability of the book. I would recommend that it is AfD'd and merged with the article on the author. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Fellow Editors: As you can see emotions are high and we could certainly use your involvement. Cathar11's comments about both my intentions and editing efforts are misleading and insulting. Please help. Buz lightning (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated the article at WP:Articles for deletion/The Ku Klux Klan In Prophecy as it does not meet the notability guidelines for books. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Information regarding updating the page & restricting others

I am an employee of COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, working as Assistant - Deputy Registrar, at Registrar Office Islamabad, and want to upgrade the information regarding COMSATS Institute of Information Technology available at wikipedia & restrict the other readers to make a change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawar (talk • contribs) 12:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, that isn't how Wikipedia works. It is not a trade directory, it is an encyclopaedia which anyone can edit. If you have information to add then please do so, but make sure that it is referenced by reliable and verifiable sources. Also please be aware of the conflict of interest guidelines. With regards to restricting other editors , the only situation in which that might happen is editors who vandalise may be blocked if reported at WP:AIV. I shall put some useful links on your talk page. And please remember to sign your posts with four (~)s. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of major content on Wikipedia page about Daniel Vovak

Today there has been some users who have removed major stories about Daniel Vovak in The Washington Post, Washington Times, WBAL, etc. I believe this content should remain and would appreciate some editors who would offer their opinions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Vovak DanielVovak (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

My first opinion is that you should have stopped editing this article a long time ago. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a squabble about removing puffery. Sort it out on the talk page and don't forget that you have a major conflict of interest here. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

For ref, puffery, it is very,very,very bad to use lots of meaningless adjectives too as one very,very,very really good example. If you can source it fine but often this is just postivie name calling which is little more encyclopedic than derogatory name calling Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Puff in the Washington Post? The first non-internet media outlet in America to break the Lewinsky scandal?DanielVovak (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is not about the Lewinsky nonsense, it's about you. Notability is not contagious; you don't become notable by writing an unfilmed script about a notable topic. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, this page is no longer mine, so I am done with this and somewhat retiring. Seriously, I went to 96 counties in Iowa out of 99, and met most journalists in the State. Editors, I just ask that you be fair and wig out, laughing as you edit edit edit edit edit! There's a ton of material out there about me for use another time. If I knew you all better, I'd send you all wigs and introduce you to some actresses I know, but those are for future days. DanielVovak (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The article was never "yours" in the first place. – ukexpat (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It looked from the citations, assuming they were real and the article I rmember, that notability was established by non-local coverage. Puffery can be fixed with editing, notability issues require more sourcing. Note that puffery is quite common and if it can be sourced fine ( " the greatest show on earth") but the article can't be contaminated with your own extra words to any great extent. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy Nichols

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

Hi, I am writing to request feedback on my article that was deleted. I have created my article again in the userspace draft section so I am asking for feedback in order to be able to post it with out it being deleted again. All of the information is factual, and in my userspace draft, I have provided more reliable sources. I have read the requirements for the sources and have updated mine to fulfill the requirements. I would appreciate feedback as soon as possible.

Thank you BRMG (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC) BRMG

It is still not clear that the subject meets the notability requirements set out in WP:MUSICBIO. – ukexpat (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That is the draft article at User:BRMG/Jimmy Nichols, right? You need to explain what he is notable for. Specifically the subject needs to meet at least one of the criteria listed at WP:MUSICBIO as ukexpat says. I see nothing in the draft article that approaches that standard. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Please assist

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

I need someone to help me with my article "Jimmy Nichols," which keeps getting deleted. Please read over it and give feedback so that I can post it live. It is currently on userspace. Thanks.

BRMG (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)BRMG

See two posts above... – ukexpat (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy Nichols (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I posted more notable information. Does this qualify? Thanks so much.

BRMG (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)BRMG

No - there is nothing notable there. I am sorry but session musicians do not generally meet the the WP:MUSICBIO guidelines - you have read them haven't you? A few such as Bobby Keys, Charlie McCoy, Scotty Moore do, mainly due to regular appearances with major artists, but thousands of others do not. This is not to say that they are not good musicians, many are well known within the music community but they really are not encyclopaedic subjects. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect Information: Perfetti Van melle

Resolved

 – vandalism removed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfetti_Van_Melle Looks like maybe someone had too good of a time with that last bullet point and following paragraph. Thanks G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.91.37.33 (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Uncited nonsense removed. – ukexpat (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Richard T. Russell

Resolved

 – With thanks to User:Jezhotwells for their help Chithecynic (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Please can the COI disclaimer for the article on Richard T. Russell be removed? It makes it appear as if the information is prejudiced or disreputable, but nothing could be further from the truth. If you examine both the article itself, its references and the discussion page you will see that it has been written (and contributed to) in a thoroughly NPOV manner. Thanks. Chithecynic (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I have left a note regarding the referencing at the article talk page. I believe that thee are some concerns still. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see my reply on the talk page. Chithecynic (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Angels Fancy Dress

Angels Fancy Dress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi

There are 2 error messages on the above article. I have added in more neutral text and added inline citations but they still remain. Is there a way to get them removed? Many thanks.

188.220.56.201 (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed the artcile is much improved, I have removed the tags. There are still issues, such as the Trivia section, which is not generally considered encyclopaedic these days. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Mother Sayamagyi or Mya Thwin

Mother Sayamagyi and Mya Thwin are currently identical articles, the latter containing all the editing history and talk page discussions. I'm asking for help building consensus on which name should be used so we can then ensure that article retains the history and discussions. --Ronz (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The former has now been redirected to the latter, so looks like the problem has been dealt with. – ukexpat (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The original page was Mother Sayamagyi and it contained all the page histories and talk etc. The move to Mya Thwin was made at a later date and is wrong. I tried to fix it, made mistakes and got bot-warned for my efforts. But Mother Sayamagyi is the most commonly used term. As far as I can ascertain, Mother Sayamagyi is never referred to as Mya Thwin in any of the sources, but always as Mother Sayamagyi or simply Sayamagyi.

English language sources are: Art of crossing cultures‎, Craig Storti; The Middle way, Volumes 71-72; The way to ultimate calm: selected discourses of Webu Sayadaw; The Buddhist directory: United States of America & Canada‎;

Mysticeditor (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem has not been dealt with. As far as I can establish, Mother Sayamagyi is not known as, and is never referred to as, Mya Thwin in any of the sources. Mysticeditor (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

In that case you will have to open a merge discussion as described at WP:MERGE. – ukexpat (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

But the page was originally Mother Sayamagyi and it was moved without discussion. Mysticeditor (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Acronym -- Addition of

Would you accept the Acronym:

ASS standing for Attractive Sitting Surface.

If not, totally understand.

Cheers

Maurits de Blank <contact details redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjbinmiami (talk • contribs) 20:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it notable? – ukexpat (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Typo in move request. How do I fix it?

I have made a move request for 'List of universities in London' to 'List of universities and higher education colleges in London', but embarrassingly included a typo in the 'move to' page ('universisties'). I have tried editing the page on 'Wikipedia: Requested Moves', but this is changed back by the bot. I have tried deleting and re-entering the move template with the correction, but this seems not to work. Could somebody please show me how to make the correction, or make it for me? Thank you. ThomasL (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like someone has sorted it at WP:Requested moves#January 5, 2010. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Aha. I think deleting and re-entering may have worked after a delay. Thank you for checking.ThomasL (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

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

I need help editing this article so it fits with the 'general notablity' and 'wiki' guidelines that appear at the top of the page. I can't work out what i've done wrong! Susanferreira (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If you click on the links in the tags you will be taken to pages that explain. In brief, please read WP:BIO for notability and WP:RS for guidelines as to what constitutes a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes, and Wikipedia:Glossary#Wikify for Wikification. – ukexpat (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Dealing with uncivil editor (Infinity0)

I am still new to all this so need some advice regarding a deliberately and persistently uncivil editor (profanity and personal abuse). The issue at hand arises out of some hot-headed anonymous remarks at Talk:Trust metric#Continuing reverts. Having knowledge that the person is a registered Wikipedia user I requested on his talk page that he cease the uncivil language (see User talk:Infinity0). His response was a blast on my talk page (which I have moved to his page), and further comment on his page. (See also User talk:193.60.95.68.)

It seems to me that there is no actual dispute here to resolve, just deliberate, acknowledged, and unrepentant bad behavior. Given his own comment ("Just ban me"), I am wondering if doing that would be the most elegant resolution here. (This would need to include 193.60.95.68 abd 131.111.248.85 as well.) I would appreciate some advice on this. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Infinity0 left the message after you posted the following warning on his talk page:

Ximin, your continuing uncivil language and disruptive edits on Trust metrics are not as anonymous as may have thought. This is not about Mentifex, this is about you. So last request: cease and desist. You are known, and administrative action will be brought to bear. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[14]

Since he had posted nothing to that page, you should apologize to him for your warning.

The Four Deuces (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Since you are also restoring text that is not not from a RS but from someody's website the IPs are entitled to delete the content which constitute an attack on a BLP. I am deleting it now.Cathar11 (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP with no sources since 2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Collier_%28political_author%29 has had no sources at all since 2006 and has been tagged since 2008 for having no citations.

Is this OK or should the article be taken down? Skywriter (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Accrediting Commission International

I have added some material to this article two or three times and someone keeps taking it off. Wikepedia is new to me and I may be submitting something wrong, as to procedures. It keeps saying that I have posted copyrighted material. If it is, I am the president of the Accrediting Commission International. I have the authority to use it.

I am pasting what I said here for your review. I certainly want arbitration because some of the materials on the present article are incorrect and every time I try to correct it, it is left and mine is taken away. Please advise. There have been accusations about Accrediting Commission International for years. ACI is incorporated in the State of Missouri, in good-standing. ACI has experienced continued growth, both in size and in quality, since its inception in 1989. In a sincere effort to promote transparency ACI has answered the accusations. There was another accrediting organization that has been out of business for around twenty-three years. While, most of the stories told about the other organization are only half-truths and outright falsehood, ACI chose only to answer the part of the stories as they applied to ACI. ACI has never had any legal association with the old organization. There is no proof of this association. The man who was co-founder of the other organization has been deceased for years. The Accrediting Commission International has tried to answer any questions in writing, while furnishing government documentation to verify their validity. ACI did not invite all the schools from a former organization to join ACI. Some of the better schools were asked to join. Each new school must eventually have an extensive on-site evaluation. Accrediting Commission International accredits approximately 320 learning institutions in thirty-nine United States and eight countries of the world. Approximately twenty-five schools, who are currently members of ACI, were members of the older organization. All of these institutions had to apply, receive a site visit, and meet other accreditation criteria in order to obtain accreditation from Accrediting Commission International. No school is given membership in the ACI association that does not have a stringent site visit to determine the quality of school. ACI reviews all complaints. ACI requires that the complaint be signed by the plaintiff, after which the complaint is investigated by both ACI and the accused institution. After the complaint is comprehensively investigated by ACI, the institution is consulted prior to an official decision regarding the complaint. ACI has the authority to decline membership to schools that do not meet its rigorous guidelines. Additionally, institutions that haven’t continually met ACI’s regulations have been revoked from the organization. The cost for accreditation is well adjusted for the amount of service given to the schools. The costs are kept as low as possible. The reader should be aware that most of the schools accredited by Accrediting Commission International are not state-regulated educational institutions. These facilities, because of the quality they have to offer, have chosen to have us look at them, critique their programs, make recommendations and to assist them in gaining higher standards of education. The student or prospective student of these schools should appreciate this. Every school which becomes a member of the Accrediting Commission International must certify that they are operating within the confines of the laws in their state or country of residence to become members. They must continue to work within the realm of law to maintain membership in ACI. Accrediting Commission International is an Accredited Member of the Better Business Bureau. ACI will soon celebrate twenty-one years of service to private and religious schools throughout the world!

John F. Scheel, Ph.D.