Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

International distribution - linking to non-English Wikipedias

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 12:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

An editor has been changing links to a Japanese TV network from the English to the Japanese Wikipedia. See, for example, here. My reading of Wikipedia:Link#Non-English-language_sites is that the English Wikipedia link should be used. However, I haven't reverted the editor's change or any of the other changes made to other articles. I thought I'd ask here first.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If the English Wikipedia has an article then it's definitely preferred, but it doesn't in your example with AXN Mystery. Inline links to other Wikipedia languages are sometimes made in such cases although I'm personally not a fan of it. See Help:Interlanguage links#Inline interlanguage links. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, for some reason I thought the link existed - I guess I missed it. Someone reverted the change anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no advantage in providing links to, and/or using as reference, non English language sources for plainly English language articles in the en.Wiki about topics and subjects located in the native English language regions. To do so could under certain circumstances, be considered as disruptive or tendentious editing. Although it is technically possible because the site software permits it, all external links should generally not be placed inline. Their preferred location is in an 'External links' section. BTW: in the article mentioned, the flagicons should be removed from the table per WP:MOSFLAG. --Kudpung (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

First, thanks for the TB on my Talk page - how I wish we had the ability to watch sections - it was considerate of you. Second, with respect to the flags, why do I so frequently find Wikipedia guidelines so unsatisfying? I read the guideline, and I was struck foremost by the fact that it has this large section on "inappropriate use" and absolutely no section on "appropriate use". You have to read through the "inappropriate use" part to find inklings of when it's okay to use flag icons. Even the main section above that is generally about the use of icons has a tiny appropriate use section and a large inappropriate use section. To make matters worse, the inappropriate use section in the flag part of the guideline doesn't really address the issue of these kinds of tables - at least I didn't see it.

I also saw your message on the White Collar Talk page about it. I haven't removed the flag icons myself, though, because, honestly, it gives me pause. I haven't been able to find one other article about a TV series with a similar section (in table format) that doesn't use flag icons. My guess is they all clone each other, and there probably are articles out there somewhere that omit the flags, but even if your interpretation of the guideline is correct, it hasn't been applied that way. I don't suppose you could find something more definitive, either somewhere else or perhaps something I missed in the guideline (I confess to not always having the patience to read every word of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I work in a diversity of areas on Wikpedia and Wikimedia and must have read at least half of the 1,000+ policy and guideline pages by now - that's why I also work here at EAR. I'm expectd to implement the rules, although you can be sure that there are some I do not wholly agree with - and I say so too! I do however agree with the guidelines about the use of flagicons and I find they look messy and are unnecessary in long tables. I don't generally remove them when I see them, but I rely on regular editors of the concerned pages to reconsider. The good thing about Wikipedia is that it is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, but we expect them to read the instructions first. The downside is that most of them don't, and very few of them were trained in the golden rules of page and web design :) Happy Wiki Birthday! --Kudpung (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If you've read over half of Wikpedia's 1,000+ policy/guideline pages, then clearly you need therapy. Indeed, the fact that you even know how many there are is probably a symptom of some deep-seated mental illness. :-) More seriously and more to the point, I have two questions for you about the flag/icon guideline: 1. What part of it makes it wrong to use them in these international distribution tables? 2. In what circumstances, is it acceptable to use flag icons?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

MOS:ICON is the relevant guideline. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Requesting uninvolved editor

Hello, I am requesting a uninvolved editor to please revert this. It's not particularly controversial, but we are supposed to be discussing the article's content, not the users involved. Tedder collapsed it for probably that purpose, and the user that placed the edit it is extremely upset that a COIN is in progress regarding her and the article that is being discussed for deletion. I don't know what the warning is referring to when Tedder supposedly "Gave false options" according to Anarchangel. But that defense has been used already at ANI and COI, and I'm certain that it does not need to be in a third place. Phearson (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion is here regarding edit on the talk page [1]. Phearson (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This would appear to be a matter for WT:Articles_for_deletion, not this request board. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Blue Army - Poland

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I have had some very disagreeable and salacious interactions with an Editor who goes by the name Faustian. He obviously has a racist agenda and continues placing highly negative and damaging material on Wiki-pages/ articles where his view seems paramount. He quotes selected and trimmed down sources to make his point, but when confronted by multiple sources against his opinion, he usually gives up but returns using other angles. He has already had to accept one of my corrections as factual, but since then, has altered the site on the Blue Army, changed my additions which were properly documented, and recently renamed the new section I had created, to suit his needs. By renaming the section, he has changed the point I was making and this allowed him to continue to spew his venom.

Is anyone REALLY watching these pages?

As a historian and writer, I take a high disdain for individuals who push their political agenda and blatantly are racist and demeaning to suit their needs.

I am new to Wikipedia and have tried my best, but if this continues, I surely won't accept it and will share my experiences with my students and readership.

Hallersarmy (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, the article in question is Blue Army (Poland). I don't know enough about this issue to comment, so beyond suggesting you try discussing this on the article talk page, I can't really help. From what I can see, this definitely needs looking at closely though. Any volunteers? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

He shouldn't be uncivil by falsely accusing me of being racist and demeaning. Not good. See discussion on the article about the changes I made: [2]. User:Hallersarmy, whom I suspect of having a conflict of interest with respect to facts involving Haller's army (the actual military unit) is trying to keep reliably sourced information off that he doesn't like. Faustian (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hallersarmy, If you begin an enquiry here with even mildly inflammatory tones, it does not bode well for reducing any incivility past, present, or future, whoever made it. EAR is not the place to continue a dispute that hasn't even properly germinated on the article talk page where it should be.

Faustian, perhaps you could take a good look at the material and references that have been placed on the talk page, and discuss there why you oppose them.

Kudpung (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Lobby group editing page

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

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

A lobby group that opposes polygamy in Canada has posted a biased interpretation of a letter from Saskatchewan Attorney General Don Morgan on his Wikipedia page. I work for Mr. Morgan and would like to remove this misleading material. Here's the problem: no one in the current provincial government has made a public statement on polygamy so there are no references I can cite to counter what this group says in their post. The public discussion of polygamy in Saskatchewan consists of this group's blog and their comments on various news web sites. What is the best way to proceed?

Thank you.

Canoe67 (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence in question, as internet blogs are not reliable sources for articles (and especially for statements about living persons.) As you have a connection with the subject of the article, the best place to add your input would probably be at the article's talk page. Some other parts of the article seem a bit one-sided as well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I try to stay away from editing/commenting on the page because that might look like I was trying to censor comments that didn't make my boss look 100% wonderful. There are some other references that could be added to the page and I'll post those on the talk page.

Canoe67 (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The Cult

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

On The Cult artcile, an IP editor has been constantly adding "(Black Sheep)" next to the The Cult as well as the heading of a section within the article, argueing that the album was refered to as Black Sheep. After searching, I could not find a reliable source that backs it (only one that says the Black Sheep is a metaphor) and reverted the edits. This has resulted in an edit war with the editor replying "knock it off, and stop editing random subjects that you have no interest in at all" in their edit summary.

I tried explaining the issue on their talk page (though it is a shared IP). I asked for a reason for its inclusion, a source and tried to divert them to the article's talk page with no luck. They continue to revert with the same reply as above. I was wondering if I could have some assistance, before going to an admin. HrZ (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The IP editor was unacceptably rude in his edit summary. However, you both should be aware of the three revert rule WP:3RR.

A Google search for "Cult black sheep" shows that the album is regularly referred to by this name on fan sites and the blogosphere, for example, "The Cult wanted to get back to basics with a self-titled sixth album — title overruled! The Black Sheep record was also renamed for its cover art." http://monkeygoggles.com/?p=685 While a blog would not be WP:RS for an assertion about an incident in the life of Ian Astbury, for example, it probably would be considered reliable for an assertion "The self-titled 'Cult' album is commonly referred to as the 'Black Sheep' album by fans of the group'. If you want to pursue this issue further, you could post something on the Reliable Source noticeboard WP:RSN. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That certainly would be better than "the band released The Cult, also called The Black Sheep album" and would have no problem with that source while it would be more accurate also. But what of the additions of Black Sheep to both to heading and the discography? The same paragraph mentions both the Alice in Chains and Pearl Jam self-titled albums (Tripod and The Avocado album), neither are mentioned or added to the headings/discographys of either articles, only on the album articles themselves. Also I completely forgot the three revert rule in this situation, will not happen again. Thanks for your help. HrZ (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

How to reference "the only"

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The particular issue is solved, and I don't want to bicker, but as a general question or thought: What references does one need to prove that something is "the only XYZ". I received the concern that the ref I had given was from 1983 and something might have happened since then; fair enough — admittedly, 1983 is quite a while ago.

However, the general notion always holds true, and one can say "well, your source is from 2010, so it could've changed yesterday." In fact, somebody could just show up and say "I saw another XYZ yesterday, prove me wrong." This when it gets hairy, since the other XYZ's non-existence can hardly be proven. On the other hand, it could mean that claims of "the only XYZ" are never acceptable.

Thoughts?

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Are "XYZ is the only" claims necessary, i.e. encyclopedic, or just trivial? If exclusivity is a defining characteristic of a subject, I imagine coverage in third-party sources will make the claim, and it can be cited appropriately. Phrasing along the line of, "As of [this date], XYZ was the only" might be useful. Absent that kind of substantiation, I thin, in general, "XYZ is the only" claims are interesting but ultimately trivial; asserting XYZ's exclusivity solely by asserting the non-existence of other XYZs would be hard to cite and ORish. --EEMIV (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

In that case, there'll be a lot of clean-up to do. Before I posted here did a search for "is the only", and found a quite few that make this claim... "unreferencedly" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Question about an administrator

I recently had a problem with a particular administrator, User talk:Favonian, who seemed impatient and heavy handed.

I am unclear on the community rules here or the hierarchy of administrators, but I would appreciate someone reviewing this administrator's status because it seems like their talk page is heavily biased toward negative interaction with others.

I have a PhD in economics, I do research on transportation, and I am interested in history and have often made helpful yet simple edits without problems. Most of my edits recently have been without logging in, because of time and frequency of changing computers. This seems to upset some administrators, like the one in question. This is the first time I have had a negative experience with the Wikipedia community; this episode is very discouraging.

I am not disputing the final result, only the way this administrator behaves. I suggest that some further review of this person's status be considered or at least a comment to him/her that the purpose of administrators is not to scare off contributors. I get the impression this is the administrator's goal from his/her user page. Thank you for your time. Michael (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the discussion. I can't find anything on User talk:Favonian. Have you notified them that their behaviour is under discussion here? Jezhotwells (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Could you please provide more specifics, most helpfully diffs, of just what you think is wrong here? When I look at his talk page, it doesn't look all that unusual. Any admin that engages in anything remotely controversial will have a talk page full of complaints (check my archives if you don't believe me!). I don't see him lacking civility in handling them, or engaging in any other type of misconduct. Another thing notably absent from his talk page is you bringing up your concerns with him before bringing them to a wider forum, or at minimum inviting him to participate in a conversation that involves him. I will remedy the second of those shortly.

As to the rest of what you said, certainly anyone's contributions are valued and appreciated, but they will also be subject to scrutiny. I realize from my own experience that this can be a difficult process, but it's a critical part of what makes the whole project work. There is no "hierarchy" of administrators. We do review one another's work (as can editors, as well), and call attention to something that may be erroneous, but here, I'm failing to see anything that's out of line. In egregious or persistent cases of misuse of administrative permissions, the Arbitration Committee can place restrictions (up to and including desysopping), but I don't see anything here even coming near that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I was was not logged in. I have no idea why this administrator didn't take time to explain himself, and I was clearly in the wrong, but he seems to be quite heavy handed. When I posted a comment on his talk page he deleted it under the name, "rubbish." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mthomas1776 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I am concerned not with the result, but with the fact that the administrator is assuming bad will. I don't think I have the type of history that suggests I am a vandal, but this word seems to be used without much reason (see admin's own admission on his user talk page) Michael (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The only recent exchange that Favonian had with an IP that tracks to Utah State Univeristy is this one. If that was you, he was in his right to do what he did. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I know that you seem to think this is clear -- a matter of right -- but that dose not help me understand. What precisely did I do that can be considered vandalism? Michael (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You insisted on removing the Shared IP-notice from the talk page. You were asked not to do so more than once. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It is unclear to me that my University IP address is common property, it is also unclear that changing a user page (with an IP where my own edits were the only ones) is vandalism. Not sure that the admin made the case without just asserting authority. Michael (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Another editor was kind enough to alert me of this thread. Michael appears to be 129.123.120.99 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). If memory serves, I was drawn to his activites by an AIV report regarding incivility directed against Sottolacqua. I did not find sufficient cause to intervene but did tag the IP's talk page using {{sharedIPedu}}. For some reason, the editor removed this, which goes against WP:BLANKING. I reinstated the tag and left a message explaining why. He blanked again, and I issued a final warning. When he blanked again, I blocked for 24 hours as this was clearly disruptive. Just prior to this, he had left this line at the end of an old thread, with no explanation and no signature. This I admittedly reverted with the impatient "rubbish" as summary. Finally, the editor blanked the talk page, deleting the shared IP tag, and I revoked talk page access.

I stand by my actions, but I'll soon retire for the night, this being the Central European Timezone. Favonian (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the complete story. In short, Michael, you were given the link WP:BLANKING. Did you read it? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I read the link, but I don't agree with it (again, my user talk page related to an IP address for my computer). I don't understand the claim of incivility or of vandalism -- I find the abuse of administrator privileged to be a much bigger problem for the community than removing a line of code which was in dispute in the first place. On what grounds do you assert that the IP address is used by more than one person? Michael (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It is registered to the University. Therefore we assume that more than one person could use it, as is the case with many institutions. This is not meant to be some sort of Cain's mark, it is to help people understand why they might get messages that refer to something they didn't do (it is unclear, btw, why you take issue with that). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you stand away from this before you dig a big hole. It is common practice to tag IP talk pages of shared IPs, and such notices should not be removed. You can avoid this by always logging in. It takes only a few seconds. And if you have an issue with any other editor it is common courtesy to discuss first on talk pages. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Mike, the IP address 129.123.120.99 is in fact registered to Utah State University. See here. When you say it is an IP address "for my computer," I'm assuming that you use the university to access the Internet and that the University then assigns you an IP address. It is not your IP address. Thus, as others have already told you, Favonian's tagging was normal practice at Wikipedia. As for the use of the word "rubbish", Favonian already acknowledged that he was "impatient" at that point. You were wrong and you had pushed fairly hard, and editors and admins are human.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems that marking the box with information about vandalism is precisely the thing you say it is not (Cain's mark). Sorry, there seem to be some inside terms that I just don't follow here.

Is threatening language common Jezhotwells? I had no idea that wiki was getting so influenced by bullies. I did bring this up on the talk page and it was deleted, see above. If you want to threaten people, just kick me off the site, actions like yours destory the community.Michael (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, I started this thread in good faith. I am getting the impression that questioning administrators is impossible. I think the original admin was acting hastily and not making his actions very clear or thoughtful. I simply meant to bring this to the attention of the community. I don't think there is a case for much else to be said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mthomas1776 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to see this from your perspective, Michael, and I can somewhat sympathize; however and yes, especially administrators, and especially administrators as active as Favonian are subject to harrassment — esp. from IPs w/o account. Maybe we are influenced by bullies. On the other hand, you could check what your students are doing when you think they're taking notes on their laptops during your lectures; a lot of IP-pages from Educational Institutions are full of warnings because students think it's cool to post anything from "John is cute" to "motherfucker" on random pages. We're trying to deal with that, and that's what the Shared IP note is for. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me understand this CHoyool, the simple fact of the matter is that no unusual activity has every come from this IP address before I flagged a user for reverting suspiciously and made a comment on their page. Again, I don't disagree with the box being there, but I do disagree with administrators making demand and asserting things that are factually inaccurate. Before this interaction the only edits that are made from this IP are on obscure articles that I was reading and noticed errors, hardly seems like the work of an IP shared by undergraduates. Michael (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Posting "Threatens users" on a user's talk page is hardly engaging in constructive discussion. No wonder it was deleted. Remember to sign your posts and assume good faith. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Saying threaten's users when there was a threat, is a factual claim, not incivility. 00:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Look, I am usually on you guy's side. I am not a wiki whiz, but I edit when I understand how to make an improvement. I have been wrong before, and I am wrong about removing the box, but now that I have seen how the administrators deal with issues, I am under the impression that some of them need naps. I am very disturbed by this whole interaction and did not think that it should pass without making you aware of the impact these actions have on users, sometimes editors. Michael (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bring it to our attention. As a member of the community who has (purely coincidentally) also had contact with Favonian within the last 12 hours, I have reviewed Favonian's behaviour in that regard :) and, rather than being impatient and heavy handed, I viewed them as being swift and effective in dealing with the concern that I raised. One imagines that administrators deal with a lot of events like this, and although I'm sure it's always possible to find new ways to be patient with what seems to be disruption, I think you are being unreasonable to expect that Favonian's level of explanations and patience towards you, should have to be orders of magnitude better than the level of explanations that you provided to them. Wikipedia policies may seem arcane and illogical at first, but if you read back over the above, don't you think you've rather over-reacted? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I can go as far as "over-reacted" -- It seems that my claim was that the administrator should be a bit more careful, that I was not disputing the decision, only the manner in which it was delivered. Maybe it is simply a weakness in the code, as you have pointed out. Wiki can be a strange place with very strange quirks. The project is bigger than the jargon and silly games that have to be played in order to regulate it. Don't you think that there should be a way to communicate that is not heavy handed and threatening. I honestly didn't know how to find out more about the situation after the admin blanked my comment. It took me an hour to find this page and start the thread. I am mostly too busy for this, but that shows you how upset I am. Michael (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

So it's this that you objected to: "Please don't delete that template at the top of the page. It's is one of the few things prohibited according to WP:BLANKING.".

Or something else? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

First -- It is unclear to me that the IP address is shared, it is a .edu address, but that does not logically mean that it is shared, looking at the activity prior to this conflict seems to prove otherwise. Second, the box currently reads: vandalism and threatens reports to the university -- this is very dramatic language, and hardly describes me blanking an IP address in attempt to annoy an admin who seems to be a little short on investigation. Could you let me know if I need to talk with the IT personel at my University. If action is going to be taken, or if I am going to be subject to threats, I would like to know that up front. Michael (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

>OH, one of your main concerns dawns on me now; naw, no-one's gonna report anything. That kinda stuff is for the hardcore kiddies who've had a history of posting stuff like "I know where you live and I'll kill your mother" over several weeks. :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Whatever the ins and outs of the dispute, I feel you may be misinterpreting what's meant by "administrator". Admins aren't (and aren't intended to be) in some way "better", "wiser" or "more prone to turn the other cheek" than anyone else. We are simply editors like any other, but with a few more buttons to click (most notably "block" and "delete"). Certainly admin status may imply a greater familiarity with WP policies and guidelines, probably admin status may imply more experience with editing (which itself may imply a higher threshold of pique), but please don't get the idea that admins are in some way "special". We are, of course subject to the same WP rules as anyone else in our interactions. There is a specific noticeboard here to report administrators who allegedly have misused admin tools (such as inappropriate blocking). Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts is a good place to report breaches of Wikiquette, by admins or anybody else. Regards. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Michael, I think that Favonian is well aware of the situation. We generally presume that institutional addresses are shared, as they almost always are. That's a natural consequence of network address translation, and it would be unusual for a school to have a setup so that every user of its network would have a unique IP. Not impossible, but unusual.

For the rest of it, I don't see any further action needed. Michael, instead of putting "threatens users" on someone's talk page, make a clearly worded post indicating your concerns. Favonian has already stated the "rubbish" edit summary was made from impatience, and well, we're human. I wish I could say all of our editors and admins act with perfect patience, but unfortunately, that's unrealistic. I don't see any need for anything but the two of you to shake hands and walk away. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I am not attacking Favonian, I think that the point has been made. Frankly, I have learned some things through this conflict, which is good. I didn't know about the three strikes rule. I didn't know what an administrator was. I still don't know the process for getting extra "buttons" but I do know that the process is a bit counter-intuitive. My point was to remind people with the extra buttons what we lowly user-editors see. Thanks for that opportunity. Michael (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you've learned more about the community and I hope this incident doesn't scare you away from Wikipedia. Happy editing! Zachlipton (talk) 08:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Article on Gravity Brake needed?

I searched for an article on Gravity Brake and got a page telling me that there was no article on it. The page suggested contributing such a page, however it would be relatively short and the guidelines appear to discourage short pages. Essentially, a page on Gravity Brake would just refer to two usages, a type of check valve and an elevator brake mentioned in the movie The Towering Inferno. Should I build a wikipedia page with a short paragraph on each of these two usages and references to the appropriate Wiki pages, or not? TundraGreen (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know much about this stuff, but perhaps you could look at the article Elevator and see if you could work it in there. You could also discuss the issue on the Elevator Talk page first.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Maybe it would be more suitable for Wiktionary? Jezhotwells (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If I understand everything correctly, this term is used as a synonym for a type of check valve and is also referenced in a movie, but the movie object isn't a real thing. If you were to create an article, it would be a disambiguation page linking to check valve and The Towering Inferno. Disambiguation pages don't have any novel content, but are navigation aids so that a person who searched for "gravity brake" would be able to find which use they were looking for.--Danger (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Up to you, really. If the article meets the criteria required it'll stay, otherwise not. The applicable criterion might be this, which describes a "stub" article. Basically a stub "should contain enough information for other editors to expand upon it." The usage in The Towering Inferno, as I recall, is about 9 words ("we've activated a gravity brake on that outside elevator") with no further explanation which isn't really enough to expand upon. The usage in check valve seems enough in itself. There's also a patent for something that seems to describe what they used in the movie (but published in 2000, 26 years after the movie was first screened), and something rather odd here. Possibly a disambiguation page might suffice, mentioning (and linking to) check valve and the movie (though the usage there is so minimal I'm not sure there's any point). You may have found a research topic here - take a look at WP:N, WP:NEO, WP:RS and WP:V. Cheers, Tonywalton ^Talk 02:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The only reason I suggested a disambig is that I can see myself watching the movie, hearing that line, looking up "gravity brake" and thinking "this doesn't have anything to do with elevators". So the disambiguation gloss would be "A fictional device used in the film..." Perhaps just redirecting to a subsection in check valve would be more appropriate than a full on disambiguation page. --Danger (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, though that 2000 patent looks as if life has imitated art somewhere along the line. I watched the movie recently (shown on UK TV around Xmas) and decided that "gravity brake" meant "fictional thingy that conveniently stops lifts (elevators) plunging to the ground with the loss of all passengers".Tonywalton ^Talk 02:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a disambiguation page would be appropriate. I'll generate one. TundraGreen (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

A gravity brake is actually any type of devise that slows and or stops the decent of an object against gravity. You are actually on to something that has several names to include any free-fall brake such as the wet-type multi-disk brake used on winches (http://www.kobelco.co.jp/english/ktr/pdf/ktr_27/058-062.pdf., or an Emergency stop mechanism found on material elevators (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4359207.html), to the foolproof automatic braking system invented by Elisha Otis in 1854 (http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi279.htm), that began the use of elevators in almost everyone's life. The name gravity brake, obviously not coined at the time, probably would not have had preference to the words "foolproof automatic braking system". I am not sure of your actual intent or desire but you certainly have words that actually have meaning but that can use disambiguation, clarification, or association of some kind. The word "automatic" would remove the necessity of activating a brake so I guess the producers weren't using an Odis Elevator right?. The fact is that a "gravity brake", by whatever name it is called, is not a fictional thingy that conveniently stops lifts (elevators) plunging to the ground with the loss of all passengers, and any type of such devise would certainly be a gravity brake right? The one mentioned in the movie, while certain not known by that name, is still a stopping device or "brake" to prevent gravity free fall.

Maybe, providing there is interest, you can find something to build on or even, as suggested, find a way to integrate this in an existing article such as Elevator. By the way, a "check valve" would infer some type of hydraulic (fluid or water) system and elevators (passengers) have been electric since the 1850's. This would mean that an interrupt switch (or other safety switch) would be needed for electricity, that would obviously activate a locking mechanism or "gravity brake". The reference to manually activating a "gravity brake" (lacking any explanation in the movie) could mean activating some devise that would lock an elevator to prevent fall (a brake or locking pins) in case of a catastrophe. If this would not be the case you have just stumbled onto an error, as a result of not having an elevator technician as a consultant, and not something that is fictitious. The statement, "You may have found a research topic here" is certainly plausible. I hope this helps. Otr500 (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed 100%, but the usage in the movie of the phrase consisted entirely of those 9 words, following some apparent re-wiring of an elevator by one of the protagonists (so the "gravity brake" appeared not to be part of the normal function of the elevator). Whether a full technical description of the mechanism of a gravity brake was intended, or whether a gravity brake was a plot device, is moot. Could you clarify how your reply above is helpful to the original poser of the query, please? Tonywalton ^Talk 23:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Improving layout of an article

Hi : In order to improve the layout of an article Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I moved some existing content under the new subheads created - however even though I did not make any changes to the content (only moved it to other sections) the changes were marked as "vandalism" Refer User Baseball Watcher entry: # 19:15, 16 January 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:WikiCpa ‎ (Caution: Vandalism on Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. (TW)). I think user Baseball Watcher acted in haste without looking at the edits or seeing the result of the layout. Please see my edits. In particular the article needs improved layout and content and has been tagged for improvement. How do you expect improvement if you dont allow improved layout ? With his rolled back edits the page is a mess again with redundant headers which should be sub-headers. Please advise. WikiCpa (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Your version has been re-instated. It looks as if Baseball Watcher (talk · contribs) made a mistake in this instance. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt action.WikiCpa (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually it was Fuhghettaboutit (talk · contribs) who restored your changes. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Roy Jones, Jr.

Ubertoaster (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The page for Roy Jones, Jr. and related pages are constantly being edited by 69.136.103.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), distorting the facts to show Jones in a more favourable light. This user has had warnings in the past, but it seems the person who posted most of them has now retired from Wikipedia. 69.136.103.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) now appears to have deleted all the warnings from their talk page. I've tried to work out the correct course of action from the various help pages, and ended up here. If this is the wrong place to post this, or I've done it incorrectly, just say and I'll move along.

Removing warnings doesn't mean they no longer exist. A user can still be reported for blatant vandalism even if they've removed warnings for it, though you may want to note in the report that they are removing warnings so that the reviewing admin knows to look at the talk page history. If the issue is not blatant vandalism but rather a dispute over content, you may want to consider asking the editor to engage in discussion on the article talk page. Continually making the same disputed edit and refusing to discuss it is an unacceptable form of edit warring. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The IP user appears to posts in bursts with many months pause in between. Bear in mind that the IP may be shared as most are. IP numbers can also change. This IP has not edited since 7 January, but if similar disruption begins again under a different IP number, it may be worth reporting. At the moment it's unlikely that a block is necessary.--Kudpung (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:PUFFERY full of phrases like "As one of the best pound for pound boxers of all time, Jones is also acknowledged as being one of the most physically gifted athletes in the history of the sport." Needs a lot of attention. Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. Kudpung (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Just going to chime in again, before this gets closed or whatever happens. As far as I can tell, User:69.136.103.9 has made hundreds of edits to Roy Jones' page (making it the most distorted biog page that I've seen on here) and the pages of people he's fought, taking a break of a week (not 'many months'?) at most and deviating from this only to vandalise the user pages of people who undo his edits[change to user CarbonX][change to user Nlu]. I'd love to "fix" some of it (though I'm hardly the world's biggest boxing fan) but the fact is this guy will just overwrite or undo it like the edits of all the other people who've tried to fix those pages over the last few months. If what User:69.136.103.9 has done doesn't merit any real action, then what does? This is the first time I've really been wound up by someone on Wikipedia - it's caused me to be dragged into this. Sorry if there's a WP: about snitching, but - there you go. Ubertoaster (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The page has been copyedited and tagged for improvements. A summary has been left on the talk page. If 100% provable vandalism and/or disruptive editing by IP users persists, any editor can ask at WP:PP for semi page protection. Kudpung (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Updates to Template:Jon Christopher Davis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon Christopher Davis

I have just provided updates to the Jon Christopher Davis page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Christopher_Davis) and would like to see if the updates are good enough to remove the following warning:

"This article is written like an advertisement. Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view. For blatant advertising that would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic, use {{db-spam}} to mark for speedy deletion. (January 2010)"

Narciso17 (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Narciso17

You always can if you want, you don't have to ask permission. You've made a good start on it! I would have a couple of additional suggestions. First, kill or footnote the "puff" critic quote—that doesn't belong on the main text. It's enough to note that he was reviewed favorably by the source. Also, "JCD" should be changed to "Davis"—per our manual of style, a person should be referred to in an article by last name only after the first time they are mentioned in an article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Phares Oluoch Kanindo

This is a new article about a Kenya politician apparently written by the subject himself. I know nothing about Kenyan politics, but the article reads like an election pamphlet. A quick look at Google doesn't tell me much except that this person exists. The article could do with a review by someone who either knows the political scene (where the subject accuses others of "maneuvering" certain events", which may, in itself be a BLP violation) or more about toning down the hype. Bielle (talk) 06:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Contacting WikiProject Africa and posting a message on the Africa-related regional board would probably be a good start to improving the article long term. Because this person seems to be somewhat less active now, having access to archives of Kenyan newspapers will be critical to sourcing the article. There are also several editors particularly interested in Kenya listed; it might be worthwhile to contact a few of them, provided they are still active. --Danger (talk) 07:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

There are also a number of useful tags which any editor can use in cases like these. See the tags I have placed on the article, in particular the WP:BLPPROD, and the kind of message User Danger has placed on the creator's talk page. --Kudpung (talk) 07:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion of sock-puppetry not retracted after request.

User: Cyclopia has made a rather thinly-veiled suggestion of sock-puppetry against me on the talk page of ejaculation,where he said after a few comments from an IP: "Hi DMSBel, what about logging in?" (this is at the very bottom of the current talk page [[3]]) - this follows from earlier accusations of trolling and other personal attacks which he has made and not retracted either. He is wasting my and other editors time. I have asked him on his talk page to take down his accusation, but he says he still thinks two IPs on that page are me. Regardless as to whether (as he now says) he does not think I am "maliciously socking", his comment gives that impression and it affects not only me but the IP he is suggesting I am using. I have made it clear to him that those IPs are not mine and as he is refusing to do anything to resolve the situation I am seeking editor assistance. DMSBel (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I think that WP:Wikiquette alerts might be the best place for this. Instructions there. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Have gone to WP:Wikiquette alerts about this editor in the past, he simply ignored the issue, and did not retract his remarks which were personal and intended to undermine me. DMSBel (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Did he ignore the issue despite general support at WP:WQA that he has a problem and needs to do something, or was there not substantial support for your claim that there is a substantive problem that he needs to address? Without pointers to previous discussions there so others can see previous attempts to resolve this by the recommended way, your attempt to bring the same topic up here is just forum-shopping. DMacks (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Cut the bull, I am fed up with this editor and now you are using the same claptrap as he does "forum-shopping"!!!. This is not forum shopping. I think there is a substantive problem. I can provide links. I am however coming here about his latest suggestion of sock-puppetry. You folks are so damn quick to accuse of forum-shopping when a link is missing. I post it here in a second. But I will damn well not stand for one more accusation of that against me. DMSBel (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Then I strongly recommend you spend a few minutes getting your own house together before asking for help--making a single posting with the relevant details, but delayed by a few minutes, won't hurt your cause. You're wasting our time reading a half-formed complaint that lacks sufficient detail to act on. DMacks (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Clarify a few things. The previous WQA DMSBel is talking about is this thread he initatied which, to my reading, ended in a nearly complete boomerang. The case in point is however different -DMSBel is contesting what seems to me a WP:DUCK case of he having failed to login, something he does often; whether maliciously or not it is not to me to decide and I assumed good faith; however now I'm not so sure if I should continue to AGF. Perhaps a SPI check is worth? If it comes out negative, then I gladly retract and everyone is happy. --Cyclopia^talk 21:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Also: quite funny to say that I am wasting people's time when it's DMSBel only who keeps creating drama on my talk page and then here. Facepalm --Cyclopia^talk 21:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

All the detail is there regarding his current allegation. He is the one wasting my time and yours with thinly veiled suggestions that other IPs are being my used by me. Cyclopia you could take that comment out and all this would not have had to take place, I have told you they are not my IPs. You should have requested an IP check first. You are wasting all our time.DMSBel (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The relevant WQA is Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive96#Cyclopia. The claim was dismissed as unsubstantive. DSMBel announced his intention to take the matter to Arbcom again if the WQA did not go zir way. [4](apologies for the excess diff, but DSMBel added a relevant part of the comment much later.) The previous arbitration request can be found here. The request was dismissed as a content dispute.--Danger (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

All you are saying here is rubbish Cyclopia, admit it, you are not AGF, you said so, when I brought this up on your talk page, did you care whether that IP was me or not? If you were AGF you would have accepted that it was not my IP and taken out your comment. One question I repeat: Did you care whether or not that IP was me when you made your insinuation? DMSBel (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I suspect that IP is you; apart from your declarations I see no evidence of the opposite. And of course I cared, I've seen a quacking duck. You used IPs too often and your styles are too similar to not suspect that. And also the IP commented suspiciously immediately after the last failed battle of yours about that page. The one and only thing I was going to assume good faith is that you didn't do it for explicit socking. Now, given your current behaviour I have doubts on this as well. Again, if there's proof that I was wrong (or consensus that the two editing patterns are indeed too different to justify my suspects) I will immediately apologize and retract, but not until then. --Cyclopia^talk 21:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. If the IP was clearly DSMBel logged out and he is not using the IP to evade a block or 3RR or appear to influence consensus, this isn't remotely a case of sockpuppetry, it's a case of an editor not being particularly adept with his web browser. (It's not puppetry if there's no sock over the hand, so to speak.) Why cause unnecessary drama with sockpuppetry accusations (which are serious and should never be tossed about lightly)? Why cause unnecessary drama by arguing about it? The situation is already inflamed. Am I missing something? --Danger (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I only come here because Cyclopia will not take out what (given his previous allegations against me), I could only read as an further insinuation. He simply does not seem able to accept that there could be more than myself expressing the same view. DMSBel (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, he was discussing on a talk page so it appeared very much to influence consensus; also the IP suspiciously shutted up right after I pointed that it could be DMSBel forgetting to log in. I didn't accuse anyone of maliciously socking (even if I suspected that); I just asked the guy to log in. I was (and I am) quite on the fence. --Cyclopia^talk 21:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Give it up Cyclopia, you are wasting everyones time, you didn't like the comments the IP made, because what? "They appeared very much to influence consensus", maybe? DMSBel (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

What should I give up? It is you who is stirring nonsensical drama here. If you just had commented on that talk page "Ehm the IP above wasn't me" I would have probably gladly retracted. All the unclaimed, unrequired noise you're making now only confirms my suspicions -why screaming so much for such a bland remark (you having possibly forgot to log in) if you really have nothing to hide? --Cyclopia^talk 21:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Asked you to take the comment out, you refused, asked again, you still refused. Could have been resolved ages ago, even now it could be resolved. Do you like prolonging matters?DMSBel (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not at your orders. I will retract it with lots of apologies if there's consensus or proof that the comment is wrong; until now it seems there's quite evidence that it is right, so it stays. We'll see. Bye. --Cyclopia^talk 22:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Protonk (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Simple - do an IP check. DMSBel (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I have told Cyclopia the IPs are not mine, He is refusing to accept this. The comment as it stands sounds like Cyclopia is insinuating new comments on that talk page to be from me. If he won't accept what I have said and remove his comment (which could have been done very easily), his claim to have been AGF seems very disingenuous. He says he thought they were still me not logged in even after I made my complaint on his talk page. DMSBel (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser doesn't exist to prove innocence, as it were. The best solution is to just let it slide. Ratcheting up the rhetoric over what you see as an off base accusation only makes things worse. If those IP addresses aren't yours then the accusations are off base and Cyclopia is making an ass of himself. Its that easy. There isn't really a mechanism for you to seek to have your honor restored, as it were. Protonk (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok I'll let it slide. DMSBel (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser doesn't exist to prove innocence ?? - well then it should. Run Checkuser on this DMSBel guy ASAP and stop this stupid arguement now. What a total waste of time for a project which has much more important work to do. -- Myosotis Scorpioides 22:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

so waste the time of a group of less than a dozen active editors with better things to do? That's a smashing idea. and checkuser has never been there to prove innocence. Go start a request to IP check an account in order to "prove" it is not linked to an IP address and see what happens. The request won't go past the clerks and it shouldn't. Checkuser is a very narrow technical tool which is appropriate for a small sliver of issues. Protonk (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a little notice that the Wikimedia Foundation has recently suggested that sysops on the English Wikipedia enforce WP:NPA more tightly, so I would like to remind everyone to watch their tongue / fingers... --Deryck C. 23:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Do you happen to have a link to that suggestion handy? Protonk (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to be sure: what attacks are we talking about? I see no PA from either side. --Cyclopia^talk 00:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

EDIT MY INFORMATION.

MY NAME IS MISHECK LUNGU. AM A ZAMBIAN FOOTBALLER AND STILL ACTIVE. BUT SOMEONE WROTE THAT AM CURRENTLY A POLITICIAN. PLEASE EDIT THAT POLITICIAN PART. AM NOT A POLITICIAN. THANK YOU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.205.147.50 (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Any editor is free to challenge and remove unsourced information from a Wikipedia article, so I have removed those words.

However, if, as I suspect, you have been editing the rest of the article recently, please read this guideline and especially the section "If Wikipedia already has an article about you". -- John of Reading (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Ethnocinema

Dear Editor,

Please embed a redirect from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocinema to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETHNOCINEMA. Previous redirection from ethnocinema to ethnofiction was incorrect as these two terms are distinct.

Thanks, Smaque (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a free host. If you are not prepared learn wiki markup and to do the above edit yourself, then please do not try and publish your essay here. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 10:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

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

The article has already been moved to Ethnocinema, since this is consistent with the Wikipedia naming conventions. A quick Google search shows that "Ethnocinema" is the more usual capitalisation outside Wikipedia as well. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect labeling of a photograph

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

I was looking at Donny Osmond's page and there's a black and white picture (File:Donny Osmond 1973.jpg) that says it's Donny performing in Hamburg 1973. In fact it's his brother, Merrill Osmond, on the guitar. In the background is his brother, Jay Osmond, on the drums, and his other brother, Alan Osmond, is to the left. Donny Osmond isn't in the photograph at all. So, it should either say "Osmond Brothers performing" or it shouldn't be on his page at all. I just thought it'd be nice to keep things as accurate as possible on Wikipedia :) Thanks. Vepiro (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)vepiro

You don't have to ask permission to make an edit, you really can go ahead and do it. Though you might want to be prepared to back up how you know that if anyone challenges it. I honestly can't tell. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I've edited it. Donny isn't in the picture - he played keyboards with the band and would be on the far right, if I recall how they set up on stage. That's definitely Merrill out front. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Tut tut. Elen engages in WP:OR of the most blatant kind. Send for the WikiCops! ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Replacing an article that was removed in 2008 with a new and current article on the same subject

I serve as the Director of Certification and Accreditation for the International Society for Performance Improvement(ISPI). In checking wikipedia I see that at one time there was an article for the International Society for Performance Improvement but that it has been removed. I cannot interpret the codes to determine why it was removed. My question is, can I submit a new article to replace the one that was removed if I ensure that I am following the publication guidelines? My e-mail address is or my phone number is

maurie colemanMauriecoleman (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"G11" stands for advertisement/promotional tone. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. For more, see my answer on your talkpage. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed your contact details to protect your privacy. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

You can start the new article in your user space or in your sandbox, and ask an editor (such as me, for example) to review it for you when you think it is ready for main space and conforms to Wikipedia policy. --Kudpung (talk) 09:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Louis J. Posner

Louis J. Posner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Afd anyone? – ukexpat (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Love to, but I can't think offhand of a suitable rationale about where it flaunts our policies. Maybe a PROD first?Kudpung (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The two sources in the article were fakes. The article has been reduced to a stub per Wikipedia policy. See Talk:Louis J. Posner. --Kudpung (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

As it fails to provide any assertation of notability, I have prodded it. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest the same treatment for Voter March and Hot Lap Dance Club. For anyone about to tell me to do it myself: I have to learn how, and will PROD them (if noone else has) after giving others a day to comment here. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I have escalated it to a speedy. – ukexpat (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Also proposed deletion for Voter March. I don't see any independent sourcing for it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Lawline has made two edits, first deleting and then editing this section down to a few sentences this morning, and has also blanked Voter March without waiting for the PROD to run its course. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

And again. I'd think collapsing this or manually archiving would be a compromise if the issue is deemed resolved, but no reason to delete this. Lawline is involved and certainly has no right to do so himself. Rehevkor ✉ 14:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified. See wikipedia:libel

Jonas Brothers Article Incorrect Geographical Location

The article states "From the shore region of New Jersey", but Wyckoff, NJ (close to where I live) is in the Northeast corner of the state, far from the shore. Ksajdera (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

That's probably a better subject for the article talk page, and you may want to bring it up there. Do keep in mind our guidelines on original research. I also do not find any mention in that article of Wyckoff, NJ. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Actor Don Knight

Don Knight was my father and I own all rights to all of his career since his passing in 1997.

Some goofball linked "Actor" with "Politician" and as a result I cannot touch it, correct it or edit the links. Two very different Don Knight

Mark Knight Knightrec

Candidates for the 2011 steward elections are asked to submit their nominations by January 28. <--NOPE!

http://www.knightrec.net/ <-- YES! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightrec (talk • contribs) 00:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Mark. I'm not sure what you're asking here, but are you sure you have the right article? There are several listed at Donald Knight, Don Knight (actor) may be the one you're looking for. You seem to be looking at Don Knight (politician). Neither article seems to be protected so you are free to edit it. But please be aware of our guideline on conflicts of interest and verifiability. Rehevkor ✉ 02:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm also unsure what you mean. Don Knight redirects to Donald Knight which mentions several people of that name. This seems sensible. If there is a specific page which mentions your father but links to the wrong article then please name the page so we can fix it. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't generally refer to our editors as goofballs, and very often the complaints of this kind by Knigtrec who didn't sign his post, are due to not doing enough research in Wikipedia in the first place. The Donald Knight page is a disambiguation page - all Knightrec needs to do is click on the entry for the page about his father which anyone can edit. However, Knightrec needs to read up on the WP:COI policy, and to bear in mined that he has no ownership over the contents of any page on Wikipedia.Kudpung (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Need editor to take this over - BradHerzog

Hi. I am the publicist for an award-winning author, who also happens to be my husband. A conflict of interest, perhaps. But I am a legitimate publicist and he is a legitimate author who should be represented on Wikipedia. Can I get an editor to take over the article I submitted about him for approval? I posted it for editor review on Sept 25, 2010 but it was removed by someone. It is under user:Amyherzog/BradHerzog. Can someone advise how we can get this up on Wikipedia please? Thanks so much! AmyherzogAmyherzog (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Amy. One of the reasons the review was removed was because you did not correctly follow the review procedure [5], you needed to submit the article, not just your user name. One of my primary concerns with the article is that of sources. There are WP:BLP issues, biographies, particularly those of living persons, need to be properly sourced. The vast majority of the information in the article is not attributed to any sources, if you are unable to source this, you should remove it from the article. Personal experience cannot be used as a source. Wikipedia articles should always rely on secondary sources, these are sources one removed from the topic, rather than personal blogs etc. You will need these sources to support the article and satisfy any notability concerns. You also need to be familiar with our conflict of interest guidelines, as this will help make sure the article is neutral. I have rambled on a bit here. I am, alas, not prepared or familiar enough to address the article itself. But I hope the above will assist in doing so yourself. Rehevkor ✉ 21:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

"legitimate publicists" are particularly inappropriate editors for articles of their clients. WP:NOTADVERT / WP:COI / WP:NPOV all come into play. Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Nor does Wikipedia give anyone representation or presence. If he is notable and sources can be found to demonstrate that he is (the ones in the current draft are insufficient) then an article about him is appropriate. – ukexpat (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The article reads like what it is: a publisher's promotional essay about one of its upcoming authors. I have recast it for encyclopedic style and neutrality. However, notability must be confirmed through first-class third party sources per WP:BIO, WP:BLP, WP:AUTHOR, which must be verified per WP:V before the article is moved to main space. Kudpung (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)