Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Previous requests & responses

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 24 days may be automatically archived by .

Help with International reaction to the 2009 Honduran military coup

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like editor assistance for this article. Another editor and I have a strong disagreement about the relevance of an edit that I placed in this article about 2 weeks ago.

The edit runs roughly as follows (latest rr on diff):

The edit

This edit had previously been placed on another page 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis, reverted several times (I admit that as a newbie I did not understand WP:3RR at the time), and then the suggestion was made by one of the reverting editors to place it on its current page International reaction to the 2009 Honduran military coup. I followed this suggestion. This seemed to satisfy everyone except for the editor with whom I have the disagreement, RicoCorinth.

When he discovered the edit in its new home, he tried to revert it but was reverted by another user:

1 revert by RicoCorinth, then a revert of the revert same day by Ed Wood's Wig.

RicoCorinth then came back a week and a half later, and tried to revert again 2, and I reverted his revert the same day, all the time discussing the issue. He does not think that Republican attempts to disrupt Obama's Honduras foreign policy are a notable part of the US reaction to the coup.

That same day, one of the editors who had originally reverted the content in old article during my foolish newbie edit war reviewed and made a minor edit to the edit, and did not revert it or drastically change it, a reflection on consensus on the content.

RicoCorinth then reverted again the next day 3 and Ed Wood's Wig reverted him again that same day, with more dicussion on my part.

He has since reverted 3 more times: 4, 5, and 6, and been reverted another 3 times.

As I said before, he does not think that Republican attempts to disrupt Obama's Honduras foreign policy are a notable part of the US reaction to the coup in International reaction to the 2009 Honduran military coup, and he is conflating the why of Republicans' actions versus the what effect have they had on the overall reaction.

RicoCorinth accuses me of WP:IINFO, WP:Notability issues, WP:Recentism, edit-warring (even though that was only a newbie mistake that I made my first time), being tendentious, etc. I have tried to supply sources to support the notability of the information that I have included, but he does not seem to want to accept the idea that the information might be relevant. I know that we have to assume good faith as Wikipedians, but it is difficult to do because many times he just repeats previous discussion comments or edit summaries without further elaboration when he summarily reverts.

I would like more fresh eyes and minds to look at this article and topic. Please, editors, look over the discussion page, the edits, and the content in general and let me know if I am in the wrong about this one. I don't claim to know everything about WP, or the guidelines, or the subject at hand. I am new, and I admit to making mistakes. But I do feel that the content is sourced, notable, and relevant. I am willing to follow the consensus on this content if it goes against my position. If the opposite is true, it is my hope that the other editor can accept that as well.

Any other improvements to the article and new MIPs would be welcome!

Moogwrench (talk) 07:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moogwrench is no newbie. -- Rico 17:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can look at my contribs. First time I started regularly contributing was with this edit, on 10 October 2009. Before that, I had just dinked around and done like maybe 10 contribs in like 2.5 years. But I would actually like editors, and not pedantic edit warriors, to look over my work. Moogwrench (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a disagreement about article content with another editor and having read WP:Consensus, been unable to achieve that, you could ask for a WP:Third opinion, or start a WP:Request for comment. Remmeber that to achieve consensus, you may have to make concessions. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_Grand_Slam_Men%27s_Singles_champions

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IN THE ARTICLE ABOVE THERE APPEARS A NAZI FLAG NEXT TO SOME GERMAN PLAYERS! DOESNT ANYONE EDIT THIS STUFF? I AM APPALLED!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topspin19682000 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. The flags were used for Nazi-era German players, so it may have been good faith. Rd232 ^talk 13:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The flags on that page are the official national flags of the nations the tennis players represent. That meant the German champions in 1934, 1936 and 1937 got the flag of Nazi Germany and not Federal Republic of Germany. See Flag of Germany#Nazi Germany. Wikipedia is not censored and I don't think we should show a wrong flag because the correct flag has bad associations. The flag was generated with the Nazi parameter to Template:Country data Germany. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons). If it's not widely known that the Nazi Party flag was for a time the "official" flag, showing the official flag without explanation is confusing and problematic. Rd232 ^talk 14:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Couldn't the same be said for pictures of naked girls? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think RD232 has over over-acted. The official German flag from 1934 to 1945 was a swastika device so that is what should be there in the article. I see that RD232's chnage has been reverted. The Nazi flag serves as a good reminder to us now that it is possible for a gang of illiterate racist thugs to take over an entire nation, sadly. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without taking sides, I would point out that denial has never served a sustainable stablizing purpose any more than ignorance, hence the value of an encyclopedia. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Placing the Nazi emblem next to individuals simply because they were German would be problematic. I don't see anything to indicate this is the case here as it appears that was the correct flag for the time.- Sinneed 18:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still can't figure out what half the icons on many websites mean but if you must use a picture I guess it is reasonable to use something that indicates who sponsored the athlete. I assume that everyone driving a race car with a Coke logo is not a can of coke. While we are on the topic, the Nazi's also sponsored some good science etc and that is usually credited. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

incorrect and damaging information.

Resolved

– incorrect information removed Jezhotwells (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found in an article on the History of Triple J the following paragraph.

A small but vocal group was formed at this time the "Free the Jays campaign" they bravely fought on with the support of Gayle Austin until the treasurer reportedly absconded with all the funds they had raised.[citation needed]

This is incorrect and libelous information. It implies that I was associated with and somehow leading a group of people where funds were mismanaged. I had no association with the Free Jays Campaign. I was one of the announcers who were purged from the station. The Free Jays Campaign were a group of listeners who were heroic in their efforts to save 'their' radio station. I admired them, and was appreciative of their efforts to save our jobs, other than that, I had no connection with them. It was totally a listener led response. Unfortunately their passion for Triple J as it originally was, was let down by their accountant who was a member of their group, who they trusted, and under mysterious circumstances made off with the money. Please correct this information, as placing my name just before the mention of the treasurer absconding with the funds is incorrect, and is damaging to my reputation.

Gayle Austin, you can contact me at my email address: <email redacted>

I love the work you all do, and appreciate the effort towards freedom of information, this information should be somehow verified though in order to give your efforts real impact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.132.156.55 (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the problematic sentence from the article, as it is against our biography of living persons policy to allow contentious information about a living person to stay in any article without being cited to a reliable source. Thank you for pointing out the issue.

I have also redacted your email from your post, as search engines index this page and having your email address showing would open you up to a lot of spam. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Pro Bowl: avoiding an edit war

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Pro Bowl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hello! Recently, several users (or possibly just one) have been redirecting 2011 Pro Bowl to Pro Bowl per WP:CRYSTAL. I originally reverted the redirect, asking for a discussion, but this goal was not met and the page was redirected again. My reason for not redirecting is that the article complies with the guidelines if they are read through thoroughly. I began a thread on the talk page of the article. I do not want to start an edit war, but I need some help. Thank you! 98.111.75.8 (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask for a WP:Third opinion. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GiveVaccines.org

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I am a new editor to Wikipedia. I am having difficulty posting about a new non-profit organization, GiveVaccines.org. GiveVaccines.org is already noted on wikipedia through the Gavi Alliance or Gavi Fund. I would like help from an experienced editor to re-post my information and clean it up a little. Thank you very much!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asiefkes (talk • contribs) 00:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that GiveVaccines.org does not meet the WP:Notability guidelines so currently this would not be a good subject for an encyclopedia artcile on Wikipedia. This is not a judgement on the oragnisation but on its notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Asiefkes has removed a speddy deltion tag without any comment on the talk page, I have nominated this for deltion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GiveVaccines.org. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

new post for Okefenokee Oar

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those weren't references; they were e-mail addresses! --Orange Mike | Talk 18:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Genocide Portal Selected Biography Section

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, as a new user to Wikipedia, I want to be sure I am working within standards prior to making any changes to existing pages. I have reviewed the information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Selected_biography and am looking for some specific help.

Currently, there is only one entry on the selected biography page of the genocide portal. I would like to add eight additional notable scholars in the field. It appears that the current format is just a cut and paste from Dr. Stanton's wikipedia page. It seems to me that this is not the format discussed in the templates outline. Is it appropriate for me to rework this entire section to match the template design? EG: provide a summary of information with a link to the main article.

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Solgress (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the face of it yes, but you should discuss this at Portal talk:Genocide first. That is where other editors on teh project can discuss any pros and cons. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing sourced section

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question: in 20 October 2009 user:Lecen started to erase several sourced informations from article Brazil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). His justification to erase them was "Adding a much better and correct text with sources to Empire section"[1]. After a few days, the entire section about History of Brazil, which was already there for years, was erased by this user, and replaced by his own contributions. The new contributions are too long, biased, and controversial. The article Brazil, which was considered to be good and stable, is now under a conflict because of this controversal removal of an entire History section.

The question is: is it allowed to erase several sourced informations from an article (without justification) and replace them with new ones (which are biased)? Opinoso (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I need the answer to this question, because I already tried to reverte the article to its original History section[2], which was erased, but I got reverted by User:Lecen (once again without any justification for this attitude). Thanks. Opinoso (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can see that there is an edit war going on. You may want to request help from Wikiproject Brazil members to judge who is right and wrong or you may wish to start a WP:Request for comment. If you cannot resolve the dispute with user:Lecen and achieve consensus those might be course of action tat you could take. Sometimes tehse sort of disputes take a long time to resolve unfortunately. You may want to try WP:Mediation as another option. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that all these measures may be taken. However, there is a fact: the entire History section was removed, and there was no reason for that. It means that the work of many other users was lost there. What I'm asking is if it is allowed to erase sourced contributions from other users and replace them with your own contributions. I need the answer to this question, so that I can reverte that article to its original form and not get reverted because of this. Opinoso (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking me to amke a judgement on which material is better (or better sourced). I am not prepared to do that having no particluar knowledge of teh subject matter or sources. These kind of disputes have to be hammered out on the artcile talk pages. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will add, however, that in a situation like this, it is much more advisable to change one small section at a time, discussing any disagreements as they arise, rather than to commit the kind of sweeping replacement described here. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point. The user Lecen did not discuss anything, no disagreements about the original text content was rised. He only said the original text was "incorrect" and then he reported he was going to change the text and nothing else. I was traveling at that time and I did not see he was erasing almost half of an entire article . I only realized it later. Please, leave your comments at the talk page of article Brazil too. He's not the owner of that article, he cannot erase informations without a long previous discussion involving different users. Opinoso (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issues - Star Trek insignia

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Starfleet ranks and insignia has a number of photographs of physical items representing the insignia used in the Star Trek films and television series. These have mostly been uploaded by Flans44 (talk · contribs), released into the public domain. As derivative works, however, the copyright to the underlying design still rests with CBS.

In August 2008, I addressed this with Flans44 (see User talk:Flans44#Possibly unfree Image:Starfleetflans44.jpg and subsequent sections of that talk page). File:Starfleetflans44.jpg was deleted as non-free, even though Flans44 apparently contacted a lawyer who supposedly said the photos were okay. EEMIV (talk · contribs) then raised User talk:Flans44#Fair use rationale for Image:Starfleetinsig.jpg, to which Flans44 responded by writing a fair-use rationale (after some prompting). (That image was later deleted, in February 2009, for being unused for 5 days.) Flans44, however, said he/she would not do the same for the other images he/she uploaded: "I don't have time to worry about all of the other photos. I'll worry about them on an 'as needed' basis."

I let it go at the time. Flans44 has not been a very active editor over the past year, so when I stumbled on File:Starfleetinsig real.jpg recently (September 28) and noticed it did not have a fair-use rationale, I nominated it for deletion. Flans44 did not respond to the notice on his/her talk page, and the image was deleted. As it was a bit of a test case, I then nominated the rest of the files in Category:Star Trek ranks and insignia for deletion. They, too were deleted, on October 28.

That was the point at which Flans44 returned to find files being deleted. Flans44 complained to me, posted in frustration on the article talk page, and posted in frustration underneath the deletion nomination. I attempted to explain, apologizing for the trouble and inviting Flans44 to ask for undeletion of the images so that he/she could write fair-use rationales for them.

Now, after perusing Starfleet ranks and insignia, I notice that several of Flans44's images are still in the article. They were not deleted because I only went for the ones in Category:Star Trek ranks and insignia, and these remaining images were not in that category.

I have little interest in inviting again Flans44's insults and invective by doing yet another mass-nomination of Flans44's images. Yet the images cannot be left to sit there claiming to be free when they are not so, and I'm not really 100% sure that fair-use rationales would be valid for all of those images.

What I'm looking for is some help on this issue. I don't want to be "the bad guy" here because I'm the only one bringing up these issues and trying to explain Wikipedia reasoning, especially when I'm not 100% sure I'm interpreting policy correctly in the first place. Can anyone help me address these issues?

Thanks.

-- Powers ^T 14:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that WT:Copyright violations is the correct venue for this. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ChaCha Mobile Search

Dear Editors:

ChaCha Mobile Search is a unique service because we employ thousands of independent contractors or “Guides” (over 50,000) across the nation to answer questions. Since we launched in 2006, we have made several changes to the service for both Guides and Consumers. Therefore, a handful of independent contractors have spent quite a bit of time editing and contributing to both the founder page (Scott Jones) and the ChaCha Page.

Other Guides have attempted to correct the content. In the process, we have outdated content, biased content and several tags and warnings on our page. We are looking for assistance to correct the situation and provide an accurate representation of our company and the founders.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.255.241.78 (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you are alleging that some of the people who may once have worked for you are subverting the pages by posting inaccurate information? I think one of the main concerns is the notability of Steve A Jones (notability in Wikipedia terms, that is). The best way to proceed would be that anyone who has a connection with Jones or the company do not edit anything due to conflict of interest. If you think there is something seriously wrong point it out on the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That seems like the best way to proceed. How do I find an unbiased, unconnected editor to update both the ChaCha page and the Scott A Jones page so that there isn't any conflict? Is there someone here that can start over and provide accurate information without the company or employee's involvement whatsoever? Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.20.144 (talk) 02:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia is a volunteer project there is no question of your attempting to find an editor that suits your purposes. Please discuss issues that you feel are inaccurate on the article talk page, but you cannot and should not steer the content of the artcile. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bio for barbara mcalister-opera singer

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

my biography that was placed by someone on wikipedia has incorrect info, that i speak fluent ojibway, cherokee, and some other native amer. language. i do not speak them, but do sing in these languages. please can this be corrected? sincerly barb —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamama1 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. You may wish to bring up your concerns at Talk:Barbara McAlister (opera singer). GlassCobra 19:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Resolved

– merge proposal posted. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if somebody could merge List of wars 1900-1944 and List of wars 1945-1989 so it can be like List of wars 1800-1899. The wars in the 1990s (1990-1999) should also be added. B-Machine (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you discussed this at the relevant talk pages? You should read WP:Merge. If there is interest on the relevant talk pages, place the templates, instructions at WP:Merge, and then await further comment. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

image upload, vanier cup

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.pbase.com/goldengaelsphotos/image/70777203

Looking to change the image on the 'vanier cup' site to the image above.

It is located on the commons as well under Vanier2Mountie.

No success in translating it to the wiki page.

It would be appreciated if the current image could be replaced.

The reason for this is that the image I suggest is indeed clear.

Kind regards,

ETL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rik4216 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the copyright holder of this image? That is are you the photographer, Jeff Chan? Jezhotwells (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a college to your list of US College team nicknames

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please add this college to your incomplete list of US College Team Nicknames. The College is Westminster College located in New Wilmington, PA. Our nickname: Westminster Titans. Below is the link to your Wikipedia page. Thank you! Coach D. Roud

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._college_team_nicknames —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roudds (talk • contribs) 23:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion regarding List of U.S. college team nicknames . 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. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Tim1357 (talk) 04:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linda O'neil (model)

Resolved

– vandalism removed Jezhotwells (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linda O'neil's article recently stated that she is in a coma from falling down stairs at her home. I am startled, saddened and upset by this news and I am unable to confirm the info. anywhere else. Is it possible that this is an error? Can you confirm if this bit of news is true? Thank you.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.163.114 (talk) 12:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was apparent vandalism to Linda O'Neil that has now been removed. There is no news story about such a fall. Best, CliffC (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New external link for Joan of Arc

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a good idea to add this external link on Joan of Arc page. French site containing pictures and descriptions of Medallions devoted to Joan of Arc.Médailles Jeanne d’Arc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.170.174.89 (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might think so, but probably not - what would this add to the understanding of the subject of the article? Please read WP:EL to get some idea. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page: Mary Beth Buchanan

Resolved

– IP and sock blocked. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I ask for editors assistance. I have added points on a discussion page and archived old discussions per Wiki Policy. A user going by the tag Drmies has taken it on his or her own to revert my edits three times. In addition, the user is being aggressive and threatening in nature. I do not see why a discussion page can not be used, but for some reasone Drmies seem focused on preventing such actions. Jacobe2727 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob2727 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you edited from IP address 69.215.5.92? Tiderolls 03:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. BTW, Drmies is indeed my 'tag', but I have only reverted Jacob's edits twice--unless Jacob, of course, is also the abovementioned IP. And Jacob is being facetious: talk pages can be used! But they cannot be abused. BTW, I would have been glad to reinstate your 'discussion points' ([3] and [4])--but these points, unfortunately, don't make a lot of sense. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree that this is very DUCKish. Q ^{T C} 03:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked IP and user, opening a CHU/SPI now. tedder (talk) 04:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response, tedder Tiderolls 04:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise! Drmies (talk) 04:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TPS has its advantages. Here is the report: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jacob2727. Actually, it's TWO reports, Marek69 beat me by 10 minutes. tedder (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involuntary euthanasia

Answered

– answered, btu not satisfaction of IP Jezhotwells (talk) 10:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involuntary euthanasia

I made an edition on involuntary euthanasia. But Ratel deletes it again and again. We discussed Ratel's questions, but now he is not giving arguments but acussations. Therefore here I'm asking for an editor assitance.

See the discussion here: Talk:Involuntary_euthanasia#Murder

This is my edition and the quote box I added to the article:

Also in the modern world, any euthanasia, thus also involuntary euthanasia refers to some special legal situations, precisely some specific legal exceptions. For example in the Netherlands, euthanasia has not be decriminalized nor legalized by any means but it is illegal and defined in the Criminal Code as murder, although under certain conditions, the physician is not punishable when he or she terminates the life of a person[5] (Groningen Protocol is an example).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Involuntary_euthanasia&diff=323488822&oldid=323469068

"...The Committee is well aware that the new Act does not as such decriminalize euthanasia and assisted suicide...The new Act contains, however, a number of conditions under which the physician is not punishable when he or she terminates the life of a person"

UN - Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: Netherlands.[6]

190.25.99.55 (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree with other editors that your additions have not improved the article and have introduced errors of fact and grammar. If you can't achieve consensus then walk away. Be aware of the three revert rule. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

buzzwords flag

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mecha ant 16:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mecha-ant (talk • contribs)

Buzzwords are explained at the relevant wikipage which is linked here and on the banner. Glancing at the article it does seem to have a surfeit of buzzwords. Clear plain English is best for an encyclopaedia, so that is what should be aimed for. You may wish to enlist the help of the WP:Guild of copyeditors to improve the article. Oh, and please remember to sign your posts using four (~)s. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate actions by a volunteer

Answered

– Further guidance appears at the talk page of article on Amy Grant. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am reporting the volunteer Hullabaloo Wolfowitz for numerous inappropriate actions, including: inappropriate editing without explanations, summaries or discussions; for renegade editing and undoing of other volunteers' content and edits; erratic behavior related to editing popular pages at random times; and lack of explanation about his credentials and knowledge related to specific pages.

Thank you for addressing this request. Relax777 (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, this is WP:Editor assistance/Requests. If you believe that another editor is behaving inappropriately then you may wish to read the list of places to report things at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. These should only be used for serious misbehaviour howvere. You will need to provide diffs. Editing without edit summaries is generally frownnd upon, but is not a capital offence. Editors are not required to prove their "credentials and knowledge related to specific pages". Statements which are likely to be contested should be sourced with reliable 3rd party references.

If you disagree with the actions of another editors, the first thing to do is to discuss the edits on the relevant article talk page - you could also ask on the other editors' talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the Wikipedia: Administrator's noticeboard, and there does not seem to be a better place to report a volunteer for the inappropriate actions of this volunteer, H. Wolfowitz. I will look into placing a protection on the page in question. I will also look into blocking this volunteer from pages I work on (he edited two pages yesterday right after I made quality, time-consuming edits on pages I have worked on in the past and am an authority on- Amy Grant and Warren Norman. Here is the diff: [7].

To Jezhotwells, before I posted this entry, I did begin discussion on the Editor's talk page for the page in question (Amy Grant). I have seen other edits and undos by this volunteer (Wolfowitz) but have never seen this volunteer participate in discussions of any kind.

The following is from Hullabaloo Wolfowitz's personal profile on wikipedia: "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is back after a long absence. And after a longer period of silence. I do not know how long I will stay this time. The last time I did what I could to follow policy. But I was regularly hounded by aggressive editors because they did not want to. Perhaps things will go better this time." This entry is revealing about this volunteer. He admits he "did what I could to follow policy". His behavior is erratic. One of the sentences makes absolutely no sense. I will continue to do what I can to protect pages from this volunteer and push to have him blocked. Relax777 (talk) 05:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a post by an editor regarding H. Wolfowitz. This was posted within the past day in response to my post regarding H. Wolfowitz, who continues to make destructive, erratic changes to the Amy Grant page.

I'd like to comment on the behaviour of Hullabaloo Wolfowitz on Wikipedia. His "contributions" are mostly destructive where he undoes and deletes what other people contribute in a a very offhanded manner. I think that he's vandalizing pages. It may be a better idea for him to be more constructive in his editing. Instead of merely deleting or undoing, perhaps he should consider fixing the problem himself. Try and do some of the work in creating pages of high quality. This would be a more collaborative approach and more in line with what Wikipedia is all about. I'm sure that his intentions are very honourable, however, I believe that he needs a more constructive approach to editing pages. I hope that my comment is perceived as constructive because that was my intention. Michaelbarreto (talk) 04:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Relax777 (talk • contribs)

Note that the above comment was copy-edited into this page. You should not do this. It makes it look like Michaelbarreto is contributing to the discussion here, when he is not. If you want to provide a link to a comment made elsewhere by another editor, the best way to do this is with a simple link to a diff where the edit was made. In this case, such a link looks like this.

Note also that as you were advised, this is not a case where you should be reporting other editors. In fact, the user you are trying to report is editing appropriately, and you, and Michaelbarreto I suspect, all need some help with normal wikipedia conventions and working properly with guidelines and with other editors. You have now also taken this to ANI, which was again the wrong thing to do.

The immediate cause of the problem appears to be the article Amy Grant, and I have joined in there at the associated talk page to give some more specific notes on the applicable guidelines. There are some more comments there from other experienced editors which will also help. You should check that you understand these guidelines, because they tend to be commonly used by all the editors you will have to work with. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk)

I just installed the merge tag at List of wars 1945-1989. Spread the word. B-Machine (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. FYI, the common place to do this is at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. I added your request to the list. Them From Space

Confirmation of Notability

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wikipedia Recently I tried to put up a Wikipedia page for a Republican congressional candidate in the Illinois 11th District, Henry Meers. However, it said that candidacy does not confer notability, thus his page was taken down. I was just wondering why his opponent Adam Kinzinger was allowed to keep his page up. He has not won the Republican primary and is notthe solo challenger of Democratic incumbent Debbie Halverson?

I'm very new to Wikipedia and don't exactly know if this is the right place to post. If it is the wrong place, could somebody please direct me to the correct forum to post my question. I appreciate all the help Cgougs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgougs (talk • contribs) 23:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cgougs. You created two pages on the same subject, Henry W. Meers Jr. and Henry Meers. The first page was deleted under section G7 of the criteria for speedy deletion (deletion log entry) as you blanked the page, which we take as a request to delete for a new article. The second page was deleted 4 separate times (deletion log entry): once also as a G7 as you blanked the page, earlier under section WP:CSD#G12 as a copyright violation (and restored with the violating content removed), and ultimately under section a7 as failing to indicate the importance of the topic. This is very important: we judge notability based on the subject having been written about in reliable sources. The article cited no sources whatever. Please see WP:CITE for how to cite. See also Wikipedia:reliable sources and Wikipedia:verifiability. Our notability guideline for politicians is here. You'll see that on that page it says:

Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."

Now as to your specific question, the simple fact that an article exists on one topic and another, similarly situated has been deleted, tells you almost nothing. Because of the way Wikipedia is administered in a non-central fashion, there are often many pages that exist that should not. Please see by way of analogy What about article x?. In this case, though, the page you compared the deleted article to is not similar. The article on Adam Kinzinger cites five sources, whereas the page you posted cited none. That is night and day here, once you understand that sourcing content is the gold standard upon which all of our content policies ultimately rely. Finally, you should note that articles deleted under A7 only have to assert importance, not meet notability standards. I personally would not have deleted the article as I think it did enough to indicate importance. However, avoid all these problems: recreate the article with reliable sources cited that are independent of the candidate and treat him with substantive detail. If you can't do that, Wikipedia probably should not have an article on him. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Information related to an article about a catholic school in El Salvador

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello to all,

As you can see in my history I have edited (with solid knowledge of this matter) the article regarding Liceo Salvadoreño, A Marist Catholic School in San Salvador, El Salvador. Twice the update I made to the page has been deleted by another user (the same both times) I know for a fact I am correct in the two updates i made to this page. Both in english as well as in Spanish. I graduated from this school in 1979. I started my studies there in 1968. I visit the school frequently at least 2 twice a year since 2004 and I have spoken whith the previous pricipals of the school since 2001 in regards of the updates that were deleted form both pages. I need to ask/find out how I can have help/assistance in preventing this other user from deleting the changes I make to the english/spanish versions of the page.

I am a US citizen living in San Francisco. and my email address is <email address redacted> Any help you can provide me will be welcome

Francisco Jaime Mejia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liceo (talk • contribs) 00:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you haven't bothered to discuss this on the article talk page which you should do. I can only assume that the earlier reversions you mention were made by you using an IP address as none of your recent edits have been reverted. as the article has no references at all, it is not possible to determine which versions are correct. The article has a number of issues, which I have tagged. I have placed some useful links on your talk page, which I suggest you read, if you are interested in improving the artcile. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HIV dissent

Resolved

– pointed at Talk:AIDS denialism#HIV dissent Jezhotwells (talk) 10:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I a writing regarding a biased POV issue regarding the current editors of HIV and AIDS denialism. The issue is this: Numerous people have presented edits to both of the above pages to clarify biased POV, inflamatory language, and attempted to include information of a somewhat dissenting viewpoint to the more popularly accepted viewpoints on the topic.

The end result is that none of the alternative information has been included, and the editors personally attack those proposing the edits, as well as the sources for the edits. As a perfect example, I recently posted to the HIV talk page regarding an interview with Luc Montagnier, the discoverer of HIV. I was told that he was an unreliable source, not on the basis of his historical contributions to the topic, but rather on the basis that the editors disagree with the viewpoint contained in the interview.

I feel, as do others who have expressed concerns in the HIV and AIDS denialism talk pages, that important information is being censored based on a clearly biased POV.

In an attempt to include the dissenting information in the Wiki, I started an article entitled HIV dissent. In the past 48 hours, it has been reverted to forward to AIDS denialism, and the reasoning is that the editors of HIV and AIDS denialism seem to view it as a POV Fork. That being said, the information I have thus far included on the HIV dissent article is not duplicated on the AIDS denialism article.

HIV and AIDS are not the same thing, and there are those who question the science behind HIV, and those who deny the existence of AIDS. While there are those who can be classified into both groups, the two topics are not identical, nor is the information or science behind them.

Thank you for your time. Neuromancer (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss at Talk:AIDS denialism#HIV dissent. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all...

I did insert a link to an External Website in regards to the Wikipedia Article about The Sacred Lake of Ganga Talao ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganga_Talao ). The link is http://www.gangatalao.org which is a website that provides more information about the Sacred Lake itself, prayers, event coverage at the lake.

But a couple of months after, it was removed by a specific user (Ronz) stating that the website is a Tourism Portal thus an innapropriate link. We do acknowledge that for most of the people outside Mauritius, the lake is considered as a Tourist Spot, but for us its really not that.

I added the website in the External Links section in order for the visitors to be able to get more information and not as a Source for the article itself.

So i humbly make a request for some assistance in regards to this query.

With Thanks Kamal Rambauz

Kamal2099 (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Ronz that the page shouldn't be linked to from that article. The website generally does not give an encyclopedic presentation of the subject in a way which our article can not. Please read over our external links guidelines to see what types of links we accept and what types are discouraged. Them From Space 16:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Review Intelligence

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for an editor to advise on how to whitelist the Movie Review Intelligence URL. I understand that the site was blacklisted for editing individual movie pages to include its review information - this has ceased and will not continue. We would like our URL to be whitelisted for possible future constructive use (i.e. a topic page when it is deemed appropriate). Is there an editor willing to review our case and help us co-operate with Wikipedia and its guidelines? Thank you Ashleyetc (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this point in time, there is no reason to whitelist. If an established editor with no connections to the site deems it warrants an article in the future, an application for whitelisting for that specific article could then be considered. However, the site doesn't currently appear to be notable enough for an article. (This is not a comment on the site itself, but instead a reflection of the scope and purpose of Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia with a global audience and not a directory service.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute on Talk:Brazil

Answered

– discussions continue at article talk page Jezhotwells (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a content dispute on the Brazil talk page. Also some disagreement about reliability of sources. The dispute is between User:Lecen and User:Opinoso. Other editors have already tried to help but with limited success. User:Lecen is still appealing for help. If anyone could help calm the waters, it would be hugely appreciated. Marek.69 ^talk 01:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consider one of the many routes for dispute resolution.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 01:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Want Editors to contact poster of Mercy International foundations that organisation can edit/update the content

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Directors of Mercy International Inc of Australia want to update the content of Wikipedia on Mercy International Foundation but they do not know the registered account holder for the entry. Could Wikipedia contact the person and request them to contact the MI office that is now in Brisbane (Kallangar) or make themself known to one of the managers/directors in Thailand or go through the contact page in the new website www.mercy-international.com MercyInterRod (talk) 05:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody can edit any article. The identity of an editor is private. Grsz¹¹ 05:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But also note our conflict of interest guidance. If you have concerns about the article, please raise them on the article's talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ND-NOTIS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTIS: I am trying my best to be as concise as possible. I myself have coded large pieces of the software, managed more. On the top of the page you post:

This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2008)

OK - but the Internet was not invented before 1993, so little if any references exist of software that lead up to the net. What I have is printed manuals: "User Guides." - and I contest someone to search e.g. the Seybold report for 1983 to find descriptions. Please understand that Internet documentation has to start somewhere, and since this has remain uncontested now - just remove the banner, and replace with a plead should anyone know of references.

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. (May 2008)

Hmmmpp. It is pretty neutral and to the fact. It cannot be advertising, because the company - Norsk Data seized to exist in 1996, and the only place they still conduct support of the NOTIS products is in the UK. So allegation of advertising is like talking of the dead, and Wikipedia should be better than that. Remove the banner and send contributors a apology - or no further articles, postings and corrections will be done on historic material.

I can post articles of how Norsk Data was involved in the financing of Oracle, Ingres, Sybase, Microsoft, SCO (Novell), SGI, Sun - and how these companies thrive on software and hardware that originates from this company in the cold north (and funds). One of the products mentioned as NOTIS-QL - or Access-1 is the template for Access in Microsoft Office Suite. They worked on an early version of the NOTIS-QL, and consultants from ND worked in Seattle.

I do not have the timesheets that these consultants filed - so there goes that "evidence" I could use. But that does not alter the fact that the same consultants can go with me to court and explain what they did. With the database software it is more obvious, since the funding is traceable. But: Do you want reference to SEC filings in the early 1980 in Wikipedia? Is such "evidence" interesting for anyone? What I write is for the reader that search for information - and not for the editors of Wikipedia.

If this is a problem - you need to sort out the legal issues. A simple way would be to ask me to email you a scanned copy of parts of the system documentation - sufficient to knock anyone claiming otherwise of their feet in court. Then you amend to the article that "evidence supporting claims have been submitted". In the above case, I still may even be able to submit source code - in PLANC

KHF 15:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC) - Knut H. Flottorp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khflottorp (talk • contribs) 14:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC

You need to read and understand Wikpedia's guidelines on reliable sources for referencing, verifiability, notability and other Wikipedia policies including conflict of interest. How to edit a page is a good place to start. Timesheets and softwae documentation are not good reliable sources, but 3rd party reviews and comment in the press or technical journals are. Print sources can be used, there is no requirement for sources to be online. How do you think articles on dead writers or politicians or most anything that occurred more than fifty years ago are sourced? Take some time to look at a number of other articles, see how they are structured and referenced. Unsurprisingly it takes some time to learns the ins and outs of this. Oh, and don't forget to sign your posts with four (~)s. There is a link at the bottom of the edit box.

like an ad doesn't need a sponsor as puffery is not testable in any case- the hallmark is untestable claims or adjectives. You need others to have noted the topic in citable sources to establish notability but then other verifiable sources can make some contributions but gnosticism ("secret knowledge") doesn't help here. There are plenty of places for original or creative or documentary works but probably not here. Even scientific review articles are arguably different from encyclopedic articles. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

new article entitled: Direct-EI LC-MS Interface

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just prepared a new article which is ready for a review. How does it work? If accepted, when the article will be visible? --Ac01it (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is in the mainspace at Direct-EI LC-MS interface. I will review it shortly, but in the meantime, is that the most common title for the article's subject matter - would someone searching for the article search for that title? – ukexpat (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the content is completely over my head, but I have tweaked the formatting per the Manual of Style. It does still read more like a scientific paper than an encyclopedic article IMHO, but I can't fix that. – ukexpat (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Clark (author)

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. I am seeking help with my article "Martin Clark (author)". Martin Clark (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) In the past, other editors have been very helpful in terms of assisting me with a disambiguation link for this article. People were both quick and skilled in answering my questions. Unfortunately, my article is now tagged with a NPOV template. Since that problem arose, I have recieved additonal advice, and I rewrote the article. (There was also a concern it read like an advertisement.) I am informed that my original entry seemed less than objective because I included too much positive info about Mr. Clark in an effort to demostrate his noteworthiness. Unfortunately, there were no specific notes or comments left with my warning templates, and I have not yet heard back from the editor who placed them on my piece, though I only contacted him/her recently. At any rate, now that the article has been redone, I'd appreciate input and help and advice as to how to get it finalized. Please feel free to change it or edit it or correct it. I'd just like to get it worked out. I'm a big fan of Martin Clark and would like to see him in Wikipedia, but I'm running out of steam. Many thanks and please feel free to reply on my talk page. Eddland1 (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post Script--Just got confirmation from the tagging editor that all is now correct. I'm good to go. Many thanks, sorry for the trouble, no need for any help.

MIT Blackjack team

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I have been trying to add information to the subject of MIT blackjack team. I am not a College Professor or anything but I wanted to add a few facts that I am aware of and post them. I worked hard this last edit to put everything out there correctly. I just wanted to set the record stright about this subject. here is what I wrote

It was in this time period that casinos began to subscribe to the services of Griffin Investigations, a company that provided the casinos information on individuals suspcted of "unfair" play.The first members identified in the late 1970's as team players were Carlos L. Minchew and Richard D.Guillot

Everytime I post this I get shot down. I am not a computer wiz, just a guy who know the facts of this section. What I put in is fact and I would like to see this entry added but I am at a loss. Please help me if you can

Thanks My email is <e-mail redacted>Scottbutari (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have reliable sources for your edits? I am afraid that your personal knowledge is not sufficient. – ukexpat (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your fast attention Yes I have reliable sorces. Griffin Investigations released this information in Griffin Book in December 1979. Carlos L. Minchew and Richard D Guillot were identified as "team card counters" and both were members of of the MIT team.

But the information that you added was not reverenced to reliable sources. Please read WP:Citations and find out how to add cited information. Discuss this on teh artcile talk page before adding. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi Editor

Unresolved

– pointers given - possibly answered Jezhotwells (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can you please be kind enough and explain me HOW I must proceed to correct a page with wrong statements? It havent notes or statements supporting statements

Well it would help if you provide the name of the page to which you are referring AND if you sign your post with four (~)s. Wikipedia:About#Contributing to Wikipedia is a good starting place. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Overkill?

Resolved

– – ukexpat (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am greatly expanding the article on the 9th Queens Royal Lancers:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9th_Queen%27s_Royal_Lancers

although I can only do it small chunks when time permits. All of my material comes from two books which deal with the Regiment's history and they are both listed in the page's 'References' section.

I think common sense says that it would be overkill to keep citing the same source of each and every sentence with these sources as it would be highgly repetitive and a waste of time and space.

However, another user has requested a specific quote to be cited in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9th_Queen%27s_Royal_Lancers#Boer_Wars section. Looking into the future I can see other users requesting citations for other sentences that come from the same two books also.

What is the best way to deal with this? Is it to add a sentence at the top of the sections I write saying something like "the bulk of this section is drawn from Refs A and B" rather than citing several hundred sentences with the same two refs?

Thanks --WickerWiki (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to the section on citations.[8] (It is also at the top of your talk page.) When I have been in similar circumstances I have sourced each section as I wrote it, citing a page range for each, e.g., pp 71-78. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that quotations require an inline citation to immediately follow them, always. So if you go with citing each section as Four Deuces suggests, do also add an inline citation, even if it is the same one you are using at the end of the section, also at the end of every quote inside the section. See Wikipedia:Verifiability ("All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation").--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Guys :-) That resolves my question. --WickerWiki (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget that you can use named references to avoid repetition of the citation details in the References section. – ukexpat (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete my post forever

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted an article but it has been removed. I actually want to remove it myself too. However, now when i search for it on google i can still see the link, when i click on it, it says the page has been deleted. My question is, can you delete it so that it doesn't show on google anymore and it doesn't say the page has been deleted? Is there a way that it's completely removed and even when i search for it, it'll just give me "no result"? thanks

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Juusiuyin (talk • contribs) 12:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Juusiuyin. We have no control over Google. Google catalogues our pages and then lists what it has found. When it does a subsequent cataloguing, it will update it listings but we can't influence that in any way I know of, short of communicating with someone at Google who has their hand on the button. My experience is that it can take up to three weeks for a change or deletion here to propagate to Google.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'LOL' I have read about situations where the government has been thought to have intervened ( removing links to whitehouse or stuff like that) and I don't think GOOG won any friends showing up in DC in tee shirts( don't recall details but I think something like that did happen, DC is all about show). Anyway, you may have better luck talking to a politician than anyone here. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It will still show up on Google, but, depending on the circumstances, you can request oversight.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 14:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced information

Hi.

I would like to report that somebody using the IP 81.158.212.206 is removing sourced information from this article: P.O.D. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The source is reliable (Allmusic), and the person using this IP simply removed it and don' give said the reason. Plese, I would like that any administrator could speak with that person. And sorry for my English.

Bye. (JoaquimMetalhead (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Yes these kind of edit wars inviolving different opinions on music genres are realtively common in artciles about bands. The best thing to do in my opinion is warn editiors who removed sourced matwrial, using WP:TWINKLE or similar, and build consensus on the talk paqge as to the appropriate genres. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

assumed office lack of clarity

in most irish politician pages, they have "assumed office" for both the date they win an election and they date they are appointed to particular position in government or party, which is quite unclear... i was hoping to scrape the info for timeline, but even dbpedia uses termstart for both coming from wikipedia

they also use in office

so i guess im looking for the categories to split and defined more clearly across all irish politicians,whats the best way to get that done?

eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Cowen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostexpectation (talk • contribs) 11:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, you might get some useful input at WT:WikiProject Ireland Jezhotwells (talk) 11:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok but its seem to be the same for all politicians, eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_blair "in office" used for positions and election —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostexpectation (talk • contribs) 12:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if you clarify exactly what it is that you are trying to do. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in most politician pages, they have "assumed office" or "in office" for both the date they win an election and the date they are appointed to a particular position in government or party, which is quite unclear, im looking for consensus for the categories to be split and defined more clearly across all politicians, ie consensus on a short title for the highlights boxes, one for "elected to office" ...date and one for "appointed to position in government or in party" ... date, what's the best way to get that done?

and "assumed office" if that's different then elected ie for presidents of countries"

Lostexpectation (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case then I suggest you discuss at WT:WikiProject Politics. Also note that some politicians are elected directly to an office e.g. many executive Presidents, others e.g. some Prime Ministers, Cabinet members are appointed. Practices vary from state to state. All the politician templates are derived from {{Template:Infobox officeholder}} where you will find further information and a talk page. Assumed office is associated with the current post, in office for earlier positions. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jezhotwells (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok wrapping up and going where you pointed me...yes looking again i see in office is for past periods(two dates), but again there still seems to be no distinction between dates and periods elected and time periods of position taken/appointed to once elected. its actually some sub class of 'office' that im looking for http://dbpedia.org/page/Brian_Cowen Lostexpectation (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Online directory company wants to post their general info product/service/process pages but keeps getting deleted

I'm part of an online company that serves as an industrial manufacturing directory. We have thousands of non-promotional, neutral general info pages on specific products/services/processes. Although we are a business, the information provided on our web pages could greatly contribute to wiki pages that lack citation (for example, centrifugal pumps). Is there any way we could post and cite the information pages on our web pages?

Here is an example of the information we provide on our websites:

"Centrifugal pumps are simple devices consisting of only a few parts that are designed to move liquids. All centrifugal pump manufacturers use an impeller and a stationary volute, also referred to as the casing or diffuser, that houses the impeller. Centrifugal pumps use these components to create the necessary force to move the liquid through the pump and out of the discharge outlet. The impeller moves the liquid away from the eye to the vane tips of the impeller, where the high pressure is located, and from the outer edge of the casing. The purpose of the volute is to take the velocity (or kinetic energy) of the liquid and change it to pressure force through the increasing size of its spiral shape. As the size of the volute increases, it acts progressively to reduce the speed and increase the pressure of the liquid." Knodellj (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:ELNO, WP:SPAM and WP:NOT. – ukexpat (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would elaborate on the terse comments above given the reasons I've stated many times already. The concern is the article, not the author. Experts always have conflicts. If you are able to recognize promotional material and discriminate that from encyclopedic material of arguable archival value ( NOT " one day only sale") you may be ok, even if encountering some passing templates or other criticisms. I made a ( rather brilliant LOL ) post on one of the talk pages discussing my interest in long distance saving and even weight loss products but question their encyclopedic merit. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terse, no, brief and to the point, yes. – ukexpat (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knodellj, I assume from your edits to the Centrifugal Pump article that you are talking about the directory published by IQS of Grand Rapids, MI. Similar edits were made yesterday by 67.59.38.18 (from Grand Rapids). I'm afraid there are several reasons why the material isn't helpful:

According to this notice the IQS material can't be re-used without written permission. The text you pasted into Centrifugal Pump is therefore a copyright violation.
Citing the IQS Directory doesn't help solve the problem where a page lacks citations, because it doesn't cite any references and doesn't identify its contributors.
The editorial process that approves text on the ICS website isn't transparent, so we have to assume it isn't authoritative (compared to material in published books, academic papers and serious newspapers/magazines etc).
The page you linked to (here) mainly consists of paid-for advertising so it is unacceptable under our "linkspam" rules.

I hope this helps explain. - Pointillist (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I am a bit torn here but I think this personal story may be of interest for wikipedians to consider. When I was a kid, junior high and high school, I learned a lot from promotional technical material in many fields including the industrial information this company apparently is pushing. My first reaction to your comments today is the more intellectual and probably that shared by most here, " surely there are academic sources that can be cited without favoring a commercial interest." But, on a few moments thought and some earlier frustrations with redacted google books hits on a medical topic, it occured to me that good, free information sources are likely to be commercial and you would maybe even want a rationale to use a non-free book source when a commericial but free source is available. For example, when I was a kid integrated circuits were fairly new. I could have bought a bunch of books but all vendors gave away complete databooks and application notes and the non-free books were largely just copies of these with banal comments from authors of questionable knowledge. So, I guess from the reader's and learner's perspective, I would not be so ready to dismiss citations to free commercial sources if they are otherwise reliable for the point made. Just a point for discussion, I don't know much about this company but it occured to me the glib response may not be the best. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I put some effort into reviewing the IQS site and trying to explain what the problem was, so I'm sorry if you thought my reply was glib. And I take your point that in the early 1980s if all you wanted to know was some detail about a serial controller it was cheaper to read the datasheet from Intel or Zilog than it was to buy the Osborne book. But your example of a description published by a chip manufacturer is way more authoritative than a few paragraphs of anonymous blurb at the bottom of a page of paid-for listings on a site that covers thousands of categories—even though there's no reason to doubt the intended quality of the material they present. Anyway, there's no need to accept inadequate references in an article about centrifugal pumps: they are well-understood devices thoroughly described in the standard works on the subject, and contributors who write about them are going to be trained engineers who have access to those works. If we accept second-best in situations like this, we're not doing anyone any favors. Pointillist (talk) 00:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't mean your response was glib maybe "party line" or some other terms would be better just to indicate it is the default or typical response. The Osborne books were helpful and there were others, but the best people at the time seemed to have commercial interest and be affiliated with the companies that had an interest in giving away books so people knew how to use their products. And, after a recent afd discussion, it became clear that academic papers ( and presumably books ) are often pushed ( by their authors or others ) out of proportional to the relevant body of knowledge. There is a sponsor or motive for most work and just because something is labelled as academic doesn't mean it is the best source for readers here. So, I am arguing for quality and non-non-free but I think most people would come to the conclusion you posted first without a lot of additional thought and that may cause useful quality sources to be dismissed quickly as promotional or biased. However, as you describe the present source, it sounds as if you would just be citing another encyclopedia and that may in fact not be helpful. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, there's no point in trying because we aren't an authoritative enough source and the link will just lead you do a bunch of advertisements? Our copyright policy isn't applicable here because it's the owner of the company that wants to post our info. Would that change anything?Knodellj (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections on Anastase Gasana Profile.

Allegations that Ambassador Gasana Anastase was a co-founder of the militias in Rwanda is totally wrong. He was in the MDR party. A confusion is made with Gasana James, an aide to President Habyarimana. Please very this input and avoid being sued by the concerned diplomat.

For more, please reach me on: Serge Nyambo e-mail: <e-mail redacted>

Phone: +33 6 68 74 14 09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.48.54.135 (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make what could be construed as a legal threat on Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What kinds of threats are ok other than legal? LOL. The issue of jumping to action scenarioes prior to merit discussion seems to be quite broad. I would ask if a wiki lawyer could comment however who has jurisdction here - consider online gambling or porn issues or maybe mention of Nazi party in neutral light that happens to be viewed by a German child. If the author of that article ever goes to Rwanda does he become a criminal? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wut? – ukexpat (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, editors, don't overlook legal threats. M. Nyambo, please direct your concerns to info-en-q@wikipedia.org. Wikipedia tries to take incidences of libel very seriously, and all negative material referencing living persons must be scrupulously referenced. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll make it a point not to overlook a guy waving a knife either. LOL. I would however ask if the above address is suitable for discussion of all disconcerting comments received related to wikipedia editing. Intellectual freedom, as with other freedoms, has historically been difficult to defend and I doubt that any serious parties here take it as a joke but the topic does invite passing one-liners. BLP of course can be broadly construed beyond overt bio's ( "joe was born in a barn ") and unfavorable comments about a piece of work (" this theory is too stupid to be considered by serious practioners in the field") can reflect on the author and cause monetary damages. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This posting looked to me like a legitimate attempt to got in touch with someone "official" regarding article content. That is what that email address is for; we random editors should not deal with legal niceties. As the poster is in France and presumably not a native English speaker, I decided to err on the side of caution in parsing the last sentence as a statement of intent rather than a notification or warning. If that is not the case, then this thread will just get archived with no harm done (presuming the article is well-sourced, of course).

In general, we should distinguish between a random rant to articletalk ("Richard M. Scrushy is a great man! How dare you accuse him of bribery and fraud!" → WP:RBI), serious BLP concerns (if this had been posted to articletalk without the legal threat, it should have been addressed there and at BLP/N; using the law as a blunt instrument of censorship is a serious concern, but where everything is well sourced we have nothing to worry about), and a move away from normal Wikipedia editing towards the courts. It is only in the last case that we should bump people up to the foundation. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality and Prose issues on article

RE: Vancouver Film School article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver_Film_School

I have made updates to the article to try and resolve both the prose and neutrality issues. Is there a way to get these disputes removed or assistance in fixing any remaining issues?

Thanks for the help.208.181.60.33 (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the maintenance templates at the top? If you think that the issues have been dealt with, you can remove them yourself, but please explain on the article's talk page why you have done so. – ukexpat (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Error in definition of QuickLogic

Hello, I'm writing about the following article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QuickLogic I tried to fix it myself, but I believe my edits were too extensive and were blocked.

The description currently online is out of date. As reference/verification, you may see the company's web site at www.quicklogic.com QuickLogic doesn't manufacture ASSPs or FPGAs, nor do they manufacture Programmable Logic Devices. I'd like to change two things:

1) Update the Products category so it includes CSSPs only.

2) Update the definition of QuickLogic with the following: QuickLogic Corporation (NASDAQ: QUIK) manufactures flexible semiconductor platforms for the hand-held mobile device market. Using ultra low-power patented technology, QuickLogic supplies design solutions for the portable consumer such as smartbook, netbook, mobile internet device, smartphone, wireless data card and portable navigation markets. QuickLogic’s customized solutions are called “CSSPs”—Customer Specific Standard Products. They are built upon proprietary ViaLink technology and offer a combination of hard-wired application-specific logic and a flexible programmable fabric for customer-specific applications.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. By the way, is it possible for me to add a new Wiki on CSSP? Do I simply log in and create an article in order to do this? Thanks again.

Sincerely, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnyvale1988 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you discuss your concerns at the article talk page as the reverting editor has not explained their edits fully. Don't forget to sign your posts with four (~)s. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linking Advice

Hi

I have created a site with short educational videos some of which I think are appropriate to be linked to in Wikipedia

As an example [9] which is about the 6 Wives of Henry VIII

I think the videos fulfill all the criteria as valid links the file size of them is also comparatively very small

I have read about self promotion so do not think it appropriate for me to put links on myself

So I was wondering if an editor would like to look at this and let me know

EManac (talk)eManacEManac (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I think you should ask on relevant article talk pages to see if the editors agree that links to these videos would be appropriate. Personally, I don't think the video you cite would add anything to the Henry VIII article. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content border

Resolved

– Pontificalibus~~

Can anyone work out what has caused the content border on 2009 flu pandemic timeline to have disappeared? --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "content border"? If you're referring to the border of the table of contents, it looks all right to me. Maybe a problem with your browser? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 11:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the border of the article content, the 1px grey border that creates a horizontal line under the article/talk/edit tabs and down the left hand side of the article seperating it from the left hand menu boxes. It's missing in Firefox 3 (but not IE7 I just discovered). It's present for all other articles I have viewed so I presumed there must be some content here that is casuing it not to be displayed. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get a black border on the left that starts next to the Swiss flag. Odd Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 00:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, I've found that's due to the size or dimensional length of the page, though for some reason I'm not seeing it in that article (or ANI for that matter) with Firefox 3.5.5. It's a pretty weird problem, and I'm not sure how it's resolved or even if it's the page size itself that does it, as opposed to some malformed HTML in a common template.

My suggestion would be to try a manual binary search for the problem; if you've got an article that has the bug, get the article text in a private sandbox (reproducing the problem) and try this... Remove the second half of the text, and if the problem remains, your issue may lie in the first half of the text. Repeat for that half until you find a weird template or HTML. However, if it's an overall length problem, this isn't going to do much. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After further investigation it seems that the problem is dependent only on the vertical dimension of the article. For example on this test page you can break the border by showing the contents or adding in extra lines of text. I am wondering if there is a bug list somewhere I could add this to? --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taken to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to Category Male Singers

Could someone research an omission in the above category? Under "N" the name of Ricky Nelson is unaccountably missing. Thanks if someone can help. (Bgoodejr (talk) 15:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Help in Correcting & Editing

Resolved

I have edited the "Samar Chatterjee" wikipedia page. I have added two new references. But, the REFERENCES section could not be prperly edited. Please help me correct it.

Also, there is a Template correction that I have entered. But, it still shows up in red in the text. Please help to revise it.

Thanks. Sushila69 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sushila69 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of putting the number between the ref-tags, put the entire ref there. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 00:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain about policy....

Resolved

What is the policy regarding spam/advertising on user subpages? See User:Northmanlaw/Northman Law Firm in Libya. For now, I launched an MfD, but if it could be "speedied," I'd go for that.

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 00:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I get dead time I usually scan new account contribs and get a lot of those.

I usually flag them db-advert or a7, often they seem to get deleted. Blatant ads usually go, presumably BLP/threats would not be an issue. I usually just go ahead and flag user pages and let someone else sort it out. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Computer illiterate

Request unclear

– Huh?--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 04:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Computer illiterate. Wished to correct minor oversight myself, however, unable to decipher approach. Your 'W' for Huntingdon, Abbotsford (British Columbia, Canada) is situated about 250-300 yards south in Sumas, Washington, U.S.A. Attempted to 'drag' it north across the border into it's own country. The method did not work. Take care, Skip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.113.250 (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which article are you talking about? (You can provide a link to the article by using double square brackets around its name—for example, to link to the article on the Sun, use the markup [[Sun]]—this will produce Sun). Once we know where you're looking, it'll be a lot easier to help! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Required use of Neutral Descriptors

Hello.

I have been trying to resolve a problem: My neutral descriptor for this entry has been consistently edited out and replaced with a non-neutral (negative) descriptor.

See the link/page above then see > Scientists > Stephen E. Jones

I have respectfully communicated a number of times with WebHampster, who is making those changes. See Talk:Steve_Jones

Despite my reasonable requests, I went back today and found that WebHampster had changed it yet again. I changed it back.

Having given WebHampster three (3) opportunites to refrain from making negative edits, I feel that it's time to take the next step, which I believe is to pursue Dispute Resolution.

Is that what you would recommend? If so, how could I get some help doing that? Here's why I ask.

This link Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_requests states," Requesting dispute resolution provides a central compilation of and an easy-access overview for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (WP:DR), and details the various different methods used at each of the Wikipedia WP:DR requests pages."

I'll tell you what, there's nothing "easy" to me about anything I read on that page. I have NO idea what it all means, where I'm supposed to go, what info. is to be included, how to write it, etc., etc., etc (i.e., I'm completely lost on it.)

Thanks, in advance, for any help and direction you can give me.

--Mokeyboy (talk) 09:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Mokeyboy Wikilinks in this comment have been reformatted to the correct link format. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight/POV? : I can't tell which article you mean, there are two scientists here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jones . The idea is to make the article match the reliable sources, that doesn't mean it excludes negative information or that wikipedians can even really determine good and bad ( excessive flattery for one topic usually causes harm to a counterparty, there is no real "negative" in the grand scheme of things). You can't introduce your own POV, but there are articles that describe a POV, for example Right to Life, in a controversial issue. If a number of sources say something "negative" that something is a candidate for inclusion. Intellectual freedom is not about pleasant or bland and an encyclopedia is not supposed to be fluff but libel/slander/fraud are or no real benefit to anyone either :) Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if it is the fusion/wtc guy I'm not even sure what "negaive" would mean in this context. People who work with messy data, those who try to do new stuff often turn out to look stupid, by "negative" you could mean "positive." If you are concerned about getting a right answer, or gaining approval from people, and calling the absence of that negative even if it is covered in reliable sources, you may be injecting your own desires onto the data about him and maybe even about WTC and fusion. If there were no anecdotes that made him look stupid, you would be suspicious that either the wiki article was biased or, beyond the scope of wiki, that the RS coverage was slanted for some agenda. Looking stupid is what research is all about. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, User:Mokeyboy is trying to have the description for Steven E. Jones which appears on the Steve Jones disambiguation page eliminate the phrase "conspiracy theorist" and replace it with "researcher". However, I have seen at least one normally reliable source call him outright a "conspiracy theorist" [10]. Thus, using the phrase "conspiracy theorist" may be useful to readers in terms of distinguishing him from all the other Steve Joneses out there. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are references normally put on disambig pages? In the past I have wanted to or did but not sure it is commonly done. Certainly if you want a one-liner that is likely to help the reader, that may be a useful description. Although, if he happen to find one incident for which the details were better explained by a more complicated theory I'd personally question the merit of such a term- you have to admit when you watch those demolition documentaries it takes a lot of effort to get a building to fall on itself without falling to one side, much more difficult when center of gravity is higher than base of structure dimensions. Muon-catalyzed fusion AFAIK is scientifically accepted idea. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and help in correctly linking something in my comments to the appropriate Wikipedia page. I hope I've done it correctly below.

In response to your replies, I went to the Wikipedia entry for Conspiracy Theory. I have several points to make, relative to it, in support of my position.

1. In my reading of this entry, Wikipedia itself does not consider "Conspiracy Theory" to be a neutral descriptor.

"Conspiracy theory is a term that originally was a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy claim. However, it has come almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning.[1][2]

2. The second paragraph of the entry relates to scholarly material.

"Conspiracy theories are viewed with skepticism and often ridiculed because they are seldom supported by any conclusive evidence and contrast with institutional analysis, which focuses on people's collective behavior in publicly known institutions, as recorded in scholarly material and mainstream media reports, to explain historical or current events, rather than speculate on the motives and actions of secretive coalitions of individuals.[3]"

A. I would like to reference a recent article from a peer-reviewed journal - The Open Chemical Physics Journal, Volume 2. Stephen E. Jones is a co-author.

"Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" pp.7-31 (25) Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen

Full article here: http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

B. I would also like to offer examples of mainstream media reports. ( I believe that Wikipedia is global in scope.)

Mainstream newspapers:

Danish:  
  
    JyllandsPosten: Researchers: Explosives in dust from WTC: 
      http://jp.dk/nyviden/article1654301.ece

    Videnskab.dk: Danish researcher: Explosive nano-material found in dust from WTC:
    http://www.videnskab.dk/content/dk/teknologi/dansk_forsker_eksplosivt_na...

    Videnskab.dk: Niels Harrit: Scientific evidence for old knowledge about 9/11:
      http://www.videnskab.dk/content/dk/teknologi/dansk_forsker_eksplosivt_na...

    Politiken: 9/11 conspiracy theories revitalised:
      http://politiken.dk/indland/article684567.ece

    EkstraBladet: WTC mystery: Nano-thermite in the towers: 
      http://ekstrabladet.dk/nationen/article1151442.ece

    Ingeniøren: Research team claims to have found nano-explosive in the World Trade Center: 
      http://ing.dk/artikel/97728-forskergruppe-paastaar-at-have-fundet-nanosp...

    Kristeligt Dagblad: Dane resurrects September 11 conspiracy theory: 
      http://www.kristeligt-dagblad.dk/artikel/319661:Danmark--Dansker-genopli...

USA:

  Utah’s largest circulation newspaper: The Deseret News:
     http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705295677,00.html

 DailyKos (on the web but definitely mainstream, these days):
     http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/5/716705/-Super-thermite-found-in-9-11-dust

Mainstream TV:

  Danish TV News Interviews:  (TV2)
    http://www.911blogger.com/node/19805

   German TV News Interview:
    http://current.com/items/90896718_german-tv-news-interview-with-danish-scientist-nano-thermite-confirmed-in-9-11-dust.htm

   KBDI, Colorado PBS - Denver "9-11 Blueprint for Truth" August 15, 2009
      www.kbdi.org/

3. Again from the Wikipedia entry:

"The term is therefore often used dismissively in an attempt to characterize a belief as outlandishly false and held by a person judged to be a crank or a group confined to the lunatic fringe. Such characterization is often the subject of dispute due to its possible unfairness and inaccuracy.[4]"

In closing, based upon Wikipedia's own entry, I respectfully submit that "Conspiracy Theory/ist" is not a neutral or accurate descriptor for Stephen E. Jones.

The descriptor which should be used for Stephen E. Jones, which would separate him from confusion with other Stephen Jones', and would follow the running format/pattern on that page which has something in parantheses after everyone else's name, should be:

Steven E. Jones, (American physicist) American physicist and 9/11 Researcher

I await your replies.

Thank you.

Mokeyboy (talk) 12:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Mokeyboy[reply]

Comment/Request Unclear: "take it to the talk page" ( cygwin mail list has an acronym for this, not sure wikipedia does LOL)- most of your citations are probably topic specific and would be better just elaborated on article talk page rather than here. Personally, I have a seen a lot of science impeded as people consider the personal implications rather than the data (" this can't be right since it isn't politically correct"). In terms of wikipedia, the issue is verifiability, if many reliable sources have called him a conspiracy theorist or some other term, it doesn't matter who thinks it is good or bad. Indeed, applying adjectives and moral classifications is neither scientific nor encyclopedic AFAIK. So, I'm still not sure what the request is. Is your only concern the "conspiracy theorist" on the disambiguation page? That may in fact be sourceable and helpful to a reader as he may find "conspiracy" in whatever sources in led him to wikipedia. The context of the label can be expanded ( or disputed to some extent ) in the article once the dab page leads the reader there. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patient with me. Your replies include a great deal of "lingo" that are common sense to you but completely "Greek" to me. I'm trying my best here.

Yes, the following is the issue completely: "Is your only concern the "conspiracy theorist" on the disambiguation page?"

A. I have understood that a PRIMARY requirememt in Wikipedia is that everything has to be written neutrally.

B. Citing Wikipedia's own definition,in my previous response above, clearly the term is NOT neutral and is actually pejorative - a disparaging, belittling expression. That alone, I would think should trump all lesser considerations, no matter how logical.

C. Logically, you wrote, "That may in fact be sourceable and helpful to a reader as he may find "conspiracy" in whatever sources in led him to wikipedia. The context of the label can be expanded ( or disputed to some extent ) in the article once the dab page leads the reader there. "

Using a term that does NOT apply and is perjorative should be used to be sourceable and helpful to readers? If so (and I'm not trying to be cute or funny here, I'm seriously trying to understand this) couldn't someone reasonably alter Dick Cheney's disambiguation from...

Dick Cheney, forty-sixth Vice President of the United States

to

Dick Cheney, forty-sixth Vice President of the United States and unindicted war criminal

Helpful to readers: There are an overwhelming number of people in the US and the world who would primiarly identify DC FIRST as an unindicted war criminal and second (or even further down the list) as 46th VP. (Hey, even I couldn't have told you he was the 46th VP!)

Sourceable: Everywhere; all over the media!!

And in this case, the term factually DOES apply, based upon Wikipedia's entry for war crimes/criminals and statements made publically by Cheney himself.

Now, I don't think I would be allowed to do that, would I? If not, then the "conspiracy theorist" phrase really should be removed from the Stephen Jones disambiguation for the same reasons and A., B., and C., above.

I look forward to your reply and REALLY appreciate your help on this.

Mokeyboy (talk) 07:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Mokeyboy[reply]

Help with Rushdoony

I would like rditor assistance with the Rushdoony article. I was previously involved in the article as I disagreed with some of the sources used to make what I saw very extreme claims about the individual. The claims were verified using multiple sources other than the one I was contesting, and the content has remained in. In addition to the content that makes the claims, I included quotes from a primary source that substantiated the secondary sources provided, which were provided to me by another interested editor on the suggestion that I use them in the section in question. Another editor who became involved in the article has taken it upon themselves to remove the primary source material.

I feel the editor is acting in bad faith, as the primary material clarifies and substantiates what the secondary sources leave a bit vague. I feel that, because they disagree with me, they are attempting to keep material I would like to see in the article out. Im attempting to assume good faith, but it's very difficult given their editing behavior in the past and the things they've said. With that in mind, I'd like some assistance as to what I should do, or if I can really do anything? Feeling a bit powerless because I don't have as firm a grasp as the one reverting me edits. Thanks! Shazbot85^Talk 07:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still looking for some help or for another editor to weigh in on the discussion on the Rushdoony talk page. The current contention is whether primary sources quoting Rushdoony should or can be submitted to corroborate secondary sources regarding his views. Shazbot85^Talk 02:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pork

I have gone to Germany many times, my husband everyone else, eat a lot of raw pork, I mean loads of it! Even children eat it, I saw it all the time. They eat it, ground raw pork with onions and spices on top of bread, like a spread. I'm very curious with all the disease raw pork has. What are the statistics in Germany with trichinosis? I did a research on their toilets; they are specifically designed to check for worms. Can you provide information on this subject? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.234.22 (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that you ask your question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science instead. Someone at that page may be better able to answer your question. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Entry for "Better" TV

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_(TV_series)

My name is Dan Berman.

I am the Promotions Producer for "Better" TV. Last month I began to update the page for our program. But the revisions I made were almost immediately deleted.

The current version has factual errors.. namely that the program is a product extension of "Better Homes and Gardens" magazine. As my revision stated, the show more closely resembles "More" magazine in its content.

In addition, the current list of broadcast companies that have signed contracts with the show is incomplete. And the implication that host Audra Lowe used to work out of Portland, Oregon is incorrect.

My entry also included additional details.. like the fact that the program recently aired its 500th show. I also posted names of our contributors with the goal of creating hyperlinks to their bios.

I see no reason why this information should have been changed and deleted. What can I do to restore the information and make sure it is not tampered with again?

Dan Berman —Preceding unsigned comment added by BetterPromotions (talk • contribs) 18:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be sourced and encyclpedic. Some editors do however crusade against COI editors- those who have an overt conflict, often expressed as an affiliation with the topic- beyond the guidelines form wikipedia ( I have found personally that all experts in most areas have conflicts so I may be more tolerant than most). So, I haven't looked at this but if you have control over an official website, that may be sourceable so you would first want to make this information available on a reliable source such as this. Note however that such a site, related to the topic, would only be a reliable source regarding the topic's opinions and maybe little else ( " foo.com says blah blah" would be about all that could be said based on this ). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over links

Internet Studies Section #3, Scholarly Organizations
I have attempted to add links to Web Science Trust and The Society of Computers in Psychology In both cases these organization serve the subject area of this article. "Internet Studies is an interdisciplinary field studying the social, psychological, pedagogical, political, technical, cultural, artistic, and other dimensions of the internet" Editor Alex Halavais deletes these links with what I consider to be WP:COI or WP:NPOV explanations which I believe are based in his role as a VP of AOIR and personal biases to this editor. In the case of Web Science Trust, they are building guidlines/curriculum for the field of Internet Studies The article itself was recently edited by Alex Halavais and it reads like an advertising piece for his organization. Please note, I am not a member of either Web Science or SCiP, but recognize them for their contribution to the field. Wreid (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think we would all be better off if we assumed wp:good faith, why might Prof. Halavais have removed the links? what is the best explanation available? is that a better explanation than your assumptions above? likely so. I suspect the links were deleted because there is a difference between web science as imagined by tbl and internet studies. To me at least there seems to be a clean distinction. --Buridan (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buridan's comment resolves to differences of opinion that should be considered to maintain neutrality WP:NPOV. Please note that --Buridan is Jeremy Hunsinger and is also a member of AOIR. Wreid (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the editors, that have weighed in on the edits to this page, Alex Halavais, Buridan, and ElKevbo are AOIR members, I suggest the following study be considered. Emigh and Herring argue that "a few active users, when acting in concert with established norms within an open editing system, can achieve ultimate control over the content produced within the system, literally erasing diversity, controversy, and inconsistency, and homogenizing contributors' voices." ^[1]Wreid (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

constructive vs. unconstructive

Answered

– directed to the talk page of the article. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm asking about constructive vs. unconstructive edits. I'd originally edited the page about actor Matt Doyle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Doyle) describing how he'd come out in a photo essay on Broadway.com. It was reverted, and then I re-edited it with a link to the photo essay for proof, as I thought that was the problem. Now I've gotten a message that says it was reverted again for being an unconstructive edit and I don't quite understand what that means. Can you help explain? Thanks!

DiabloGuapo (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to talk about your proposed change in the talk page of the article. See BOLD, revert, discuss, which is the usual sequence. However, your inclusion will almost certainly never get into the article, because of the Biography of Living Persons guideline. Regardless, you must talk with other editors on the talk page of the article.

The message you received is a standard information template used in wikipedia. It was placed on the talk page of the IP address you have been using, at User talk:24.242.250.123. Basically, an unconstructive edit is one that does not conform to guidelines. There was probably a better information template that could have been provided for you; but regardless, more will be explained when you talk about it at the article discussion page. Good luck! —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History page not updating?

Resolved

– Problem disappeared Jezhotwells (talk) 10:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of World of Warcraft (updated at 00:52, 10 November 2009) is not appearing on the history page there. It is, however, showing up on my contrib page. Is this a problem with my browser (cookies or something)? Or is it a known issue that occurs under certain circumstances?
-K10wnsta (talk) 01:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. The history page seems to have simply taken 45 minutes to update.
-K10wnsta (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tourettes Guy?

Request unclear

– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How come no one ever did a wikipedia article on the tourettes guy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.162.230 (talk) 04:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of people with tourettes. You'll have to be more specific. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm intrigued. Who are you referring to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by K10wnsta (talk • contribs) 07:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually have a request or are you just randomly dropping comments on talk pages?

Georges Gilles de la Tourette has an article already, as does the syndrome he described. SpinningSpark 21:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Larner Johnson Valves

I have up dated the information a couple of times without any problems. I have recently tried to add a link to our company web site, as we still manufacture the Larner Johnson Valves in The United Kingdom, and there is additional information on the site about the valves, which may be of interest to people interested in Larner Johnson Valves. The link uploaded ok and I saved the changes, I then tried the link via the page and it worked ok. But not long after the link was removed. Did I do something wrong linking to our company web site. We also have a massive back catalogue of old pictures of Larner Johnsons when they were manufactured by Blakeborough Valves in the UK. How do I set up a link to these.

Thank You,

David Richmond Blackhall Engineering Ltd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.97.170 (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should ask the reverting editor and perhaps start a discussion on the articlle talk page. With regards to the pictures you would need to upload them to Wikimedia Commons and if you are the copyright holder, give them an appropriate license. Of course you won't be able to do this until five days after you have created an account for yourself. I have placed some useful links on your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C above 2: This topic just came up a few days ago. Generally there is probably a bias against overt commercial citations unless they are very specific to the topic or there are no academic sources. I pointed out that since getting free integrated circuit data books in high school, that often commercial sources do provide free access to the best information on a more general topic than their immediate product ( application notes on RF or high speed digital products often give tutorials in more fudnamental electornics ) and academic sources still have sponsors and advocates and non-free access. So, if you can make the case maybe that you provide unique quality free information you may be ok AFAIK. But note this is not a directory and if many vendors have more or less the same thing I'm not sure anyone will put 50 links to each vendor in the article. Even if your product has some unique features, you would still need an independent source to notice it before that product would get special attention in the article. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The company has the worldwide rights to the valve. I've added a link to the specific page about the valve on Blackhall Engineering's website,[11] which gives tech specs. I think it's a useful link. Fences&Windows 21:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil behavior by an editor and dealing with it

Hi,

I am new to contributing to Wikipedia and posted some things and they were removed. When I asked why, most editors were polite except one. He was uncivil, rude and heavy handed.

Here are some examples of the exchange with rsrikanth05

1) "I hear one more squeak, better be warned" 2) "Your book sucks then" 3) I only wrote to your email because it was on your talk page and you replied with all capitals 4) Saying "GET LOST" to me. Is this how Wikipedia editors are supposed to behave? Is this being civil? Your behavior is heavy handed, and is not really being civil in my mind. I believe I am allowed to ask questions and required a civil response, and consistent answer. Not angry threats without proper explanations.

I expect this editor to be removed or reprimanded immediately.

Rbala99 (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)rbala99[reply]

I agree he could have been more civil; but looking at the whole exchange I think you are much better to let it go, and take it as a learning experience. Forget it and move on. The editor was evidently a bit frustrated at you continuing to demand reasons from him. You were too quick to accuse him of harassing you with his edits, and going to email was a bad idea. If you try to throw weight around with heavy handed reprimands and so on, it will only backfire and make things worse. Trust me on this one. The best response for the time being is to walk away. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 17:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the #2 statement was likely out of line, it's difficult to judge without context. Regardless, it's important to remember that there's really no one person who has the means to reprimand or remove another editor. Everything is done by consensus. In theory, everyone at wikipedia (even the admins) is on equal footing with regard to handling disciplinary actions (the admins just have the power to carry out communal edict). I would take Duae Quartunciae's advice and simply refrain from further interaction with that editor.
-K10wnsta (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is easier in a volunteer project like this but wikipedia seems more concerned with the product than the interpersonal/political issues. If you want a wall of shame naming and picturing bad editors I'm not sure that will produce better articles or encourage more people to contribute useful stuff. Generally actions are things like page protections or temporary blocks on users or IP addresses and it doesn't get much beyond that. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube as Source

Hello Wikipedia from Bookgirrl in Toronto. My question: Do you accept Youtube as a legitimate source? My first thought is NO, since clips can be manipulated. On the other hand, you can find a lot of good stuff on Youtube based on live footage, interviews, etc. Thank you, Madeleine/Bookgirrl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookgirrl (talk • contribs) 19:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See our guideline at WP:YOUTUBE. It can sometimes be linked to, but generally it wouldn't be a reliable source. There's also issues of copyright violation with a lot of YouTube videos. If the YouTube channel is run by a recognised authority, it might be OK to use as a source, in the same way that blogs can occasionally be used as a source. See the policy on self-published sources. Fences&Windows 21:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General notable guidline in P. Misra article.

Prabhakar Misra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) In the article in question, it has been noted that "This article may not meet the general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic." However, many secondary references have been added. There are other pages with less information that do not have any sort of sources that do not have this notice. I am rather new at this so I am not sure, what information would needs to be added in order for this notice to be removed?

Thanks for your time, Rgarcia3826 (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The citations should be about Dr Misra, and in independent reliable sources, not articles by him or web pages. The specific guideline to follow for whether he is notable by the standards of Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Notability (academics). If you can provide evidence that he meets any of the criteria listed there, the article is fine. Problems with the article are the use of peacock terms, i.e. words that puff up the important of the subject without imparting real information, and the article structure needs improving, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style. At the moment it bears more resemblance to a resume than an encyclopedia article. Fences&Windows 01:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1986 NLCS

hello. my username is Whatever Jones and i have been editing the page for the 1986 NLCS over the past few months. the page had been tagged due to its previously informal nature and i feel that my revisions have alleviated that problem. please take a look at my work and remove the tag if you feel that it's appropriate at this time. also, this is the first time i have ever sent an inquiry like this and if i have sent it to the wrong place i ask that you please tell me the right place to send this message.

thank you for your time and courtesy —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhateverJones (talk • contribs) 00:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the work on the article. I think it still suffers from sounding like it's written from the viewpoint of a fan. Words like 'thrilling', 'outstanding', 'nail biting', 'whopping', 'cruised to first place' don't really fit the tone of an encyclopedia. They're what's called peacock terms. Needs a little more polishing. Fences&Windows 02:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

State Guard Association of the United States

There is an edit war going on at State Guard Association of the United States. The SGAUS is an organization that seeks to represent the various military SDF units. However, it has had a past of representing unofficial militias that wanted to become military. Two users have tried editing this out of the article. I have tried negotiating that the present can be depicted in the article, but the past stance of the SGAUS needs to be included. Much of the SGAUS website has been taken down, but is still accessible via archive.org. They also are not happy with using references from archive.org to show what the SGAUS has stood for. In addition, one has deleted my posts from the discussion page. Todd Gallagher (talk) 01:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:Dispute resolution or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Restore your post on the talk page, noting Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Fences&Windows 04:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, the citations you are using to support the new section are not to reliable sources, and the section may be an example of original research and improper synthesis. A search that might yield some better sources is here. Fences&Windows 04:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SpySheriff Article

Hi, I saw this article a few weeks ago, and have been trying to correct/update it as it contains a lot of uncited information which does not appear elsewhere on the internet and is quite poorly written.

Unfortunately, another user Vrabu keeps reverting my edits/citation needed markings so I can't improve the article. Please can you have a look at the article and see if my changes are alright? I was going to remove the uncited information as there is no evidence for it at all. SmackEater (talk) 10:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to discuss this at the article talk page first. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the dude to join the discussion on the talk page here, last week: article talk, and asked him on his page as well. He responded, but then just reverted my edits when I left the article for a few days SmackEater (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that the material is unverifiable? Raise the problems on the talk page of the article, and explain what you want to remove and why so other editors can contribute. I'd suggest seeking opinions from Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer Security too. Fences&Windows 21:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Submarine cables

Submarine communications cable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international submarine communications cables (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A user has repeatedly re-inserted external links [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] to a presentation by a consultancy company which were removed by myself and others. They have put up a spirited defence for inclusion of these links on their talk page, so before deleting them again, I would like to request some more eyes on this. Thanks, SpinningSpark 18:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

It sounds like the debate is over neutrality and integration into the article. That is, the links may not be neutral on this controversial (LOL) issue but they may be candidates for inline citations to source specific POV points that would need to be integrated with due weight. It seems "neutral" came up sporadically in the one discussion link as did mention of inline citations. Do these links source specific points that would be integrated even if representing one of a few prominent view points? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, my reasoning for removal is that I believe the link is only there, as is so often the case, to provide a gateway to some business or other, not because it adds anything to the article. The claim that some of the article was sourced to this site seems to me to be groping at straws and is not borne out by the editor's history and in any case is an entirely separate issue from external links. This editor has shown no inclination to work on improving the article with inline citations (which if that claim is true, is the thing that should be done) and is only interested in maintaining the link to Terabit Consulting. SpinningSpark 21:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The links look educational to me; not all links to company sites are unacceptable. Keep discussing it and don't edit war. If you need more opinions, try the Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. Fences&Windows 21:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Educational" is not one of the criteria for inclusion in the external links guideline. I'm not particularly inclined to go forum shopping elsewhere, but if someone here wants to move the entire thread WP:ELN that would be fine with me. SpinningSpark 22:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Motive": while we all have to consider motive or SPA or conflicts, if possible it seems you want to address where the link may fit into the article or consider better alternatives that make a similar point. If the link doesn't just present a uniquely useful insight into a prominent view on the subject, but rather substantiates an important but controversial point, maybe it could be considered as an inline citation, especially if it is a source which has been cited by others. Is this source well known among the cable folks as evidenced by other citations or have they compiled a power point presentation that amounts to another encyclopedia entry? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's entirely the wrong way round, editor's should provide inline cites to where they actually got the information, not go looking for a fact to which you might dubiously attach a link that some consultancy is really keen to have in the article. In any case, there have been no such facts identified, it is entirely a red herring. Whether or not it can be used as a source, is of no relevance whatsoever to its suitability for inclusion as an external link. SpinningSpark 23:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - what is under discussion is the suitability of ELs which one editor wishes to add. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting contorting the article to accomodate or exclude the source under discussion, just pointing out it could be a candidate for substantiating a particular point- while largely ignoring motives due to my mind reading skills being lacking, I'll assume there is one ed who wants to include it for whatever reason. You don't just need a yes/no on the specific question but may in fact resolve a false dichotomy by getting back to what makes the best article. A research report or white paper could be hard to distinguish from a self-published work I guess but if it has some internal review process and is cited by others it may be a candidate for some inclusion. If it is merely a PR blurb or adds nothing then sure it probably has no place here.Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than continuing our reasoned debate, which I believe was making real progress, I'm disappointed that Spinningspark has chosen to reset the discussion in another forum which has yet to appreciate the primary points of our discussion. He or she has done this, it seems, in order to focus on wholly inaccurate ancillary theories about commercial interests, self-promotion, my past contributions or lack thereof (the first two issues are new theories on his or her part, while I addressed the third issue in our discussion), together with inaccurate assertions about my willingness to improve the article. For the record, of course, Spinningspark's efforts to personalize the discussion are inappropriate, inaccurate, and, particularly with respect to his or her final point, irrelevant.

Spinningspark has conveniently chosen to ignore the real issue at hand: should the links be included under our external link guidelines?

As stated in the last post of our debate, which Spinningspark has chosen to ignore, I would propose that the links be included because (as stated in the external links guidelines), they "contain further research that is accurate and on-topic," which is "information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail." There are a total of about 60 or 70 slides' worth of information between the two presentations. Spinningspark is right that in some readers' opinion, some of the slides may qualify as, in his or her words, "management ppt" slides that can be "saved for the marketing department pep talk." But only a few. The majority of slides, the numbers of which I have listed in our discussion, provide a lot of detailed, on-topic information that would be too detailed to integrate into the article. For example, how would Spinningspark propose integrating into the article the total annual investment in submarine cables over the last 20 years? This, together with an explanation of the market's investment cycles, is valuable, on-topic information which is of use to readers but would be too unwieldy to integrate into the article without violating copyright.

Because the two links conform with the external links guidelines, and because they provide valuable, on-topic information, I cannot see how deleting them, as Spinningspark has done repeatedly because "ppt presentations are generally useless" and because the external links section is, in his or her opinion, "bloated," would be in any way productive.

It has been disappointing to watch Spinningspark's concerns shift from an aversion to Powerpoint presentations, to a concern that the External Links section was "bloated" with its (gasp!) nine links (some of which are CLEAR examples of advertising), to his or her theory that more people are interested in retired coaxial and telegraph cables than fiber optic cables (by the way, Spinningspark, in fact there were 15,000 hits to the submarine communications cable page, not 2,000), to today's theory that the links are advertising. Spinningspark has made a number of invaluable contributions concerning technologies suited to coaxial cables, and evidently would like to ensure that the page remain focused on such cables, even though in the world's oceans, they have long been replaced by fiber optic cables. I, on the other hand, would like to see the page improved to reflect the role of submarine fiber optic cables. However, published information on this topic is very limited and these two external links seem to provide reliable data on the subject. Given that the information in the presentations is indeed "educational" as Fences and windows has accurately asserted (this goes to the "accurate and on-topic" clause of the External Link Guidelines) the information contained therein certainly belongs on the page; however I don't believe that the presentations' data can be integrated into the article without violating copyright.

NathanielDawson (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*How about, "according to an industry source[], the total annual investment in submarine cables over the last 20 years is blah?" What exactly is wrong with this? If there is some specific point they make that is the basis for an inline citation. If they are not worthy of being cited for something like this ( known to be widely inaccurate ) I'm not sure how they would be useful as an EL. If they just have a bunch of slides, that essentially make a visual encyclopedia entry, this would be like "see also encylopedia britanica" etc. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 02:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most important thing about that particular slide is the year-by-year investment in fiber optic systems, showing how small and seemingly predictable it was for ten years when they were built by consortia of operators, and then how a couple of waves of privately-financed cables came along to inflate the market and then contribute to its downfall. At least, that's how I would explain it, but the chart in the presentation does a much better job of explaining/showing that, and the following pages do a much better job of explaining/showing the regional distribution of investment (which is equally important) than I could ever do through prose. Actually it is confusing enough trying to read my above explanation of what happened; anyone who'd like to explain it with an inline citation (myself included of course) is welcome to give it a try, but it seems as though it would be a lot more effective for the reader if we just left the links to the presentation, since they aren't advertising, and since they conform to external link guidelines. NathanielDawson (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the above discussion, I do not see consensus that the links belong in the external links section, and I agree with their removal for the reasons given above. I do see some degree of support to potentially use them as refs in an appropriate context - assuming a less commercial news source couldn't be found as an alternative for appropriate citing of text. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a more appropriate forum for this discussion would be WT:ELN (or even WP:EL, although ELN is better suited). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the above discussion I don't see consensus on anything, actually. There is one user who wants them taken down, for reasons that have demonstrated little consistency other a seeming desire to ensure that the page remains dedicated to coaxial technologies. The issue is whether the links conform to external link guidelines. Has anyone shown that they do not? I believe that we have shown that they do. In the meantime, it is peculiar how this topic generated so much interest among previously disinterested users this morning, and how the only user who really cared about their removal (Spinninspark) has fallen silent. NathanielDawson (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious as to what you are implying? I am also curious as to whom you mean by "we have shown".

For the record, I found the pages and discussions due to your posting to talk pages of users to whom I have on my watch list. I reviewed the discussion, and the links, and agreed that they are not appropriate. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, then you must have an informed opinion as to how we should include the data in that chart about submarine cable investment? That's definitely data that belongs on the page, as anyone who is interested in submarine cables would tell you. Can you explain how we should include it without violating copyright or including an unncessarily detailed amount of information? Or how about the distribution of cable investment by region (Just today, someone on the List of International Cables page said he or she was seeking this information).

My point is that there has been a rush to judgement on this issue by a number of newcomers crying "spam" when that is clearly not the issue. NathanielDawson (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we were to accept that the links meet with the external links guideline (note that I am not accepting that premise), in the absence of any consensus for inclusion they shouldn't be on the page. - MrOllie (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to bother defending the multitude of accusations being levelled against me by NathanielDawson, all of which are ludicrous, and in my opinion designed as a distraction from the real issue. The links are not suitable ELs, and do not meet the guidelines, the argument that they cannot be incorporated for copyright reasons is complete nonsense. We incorporate facts from books and papers all the time without breaching copyright. Facts, charts, maps and lists can all be included in Wikipedia articles and there are plenty of editors here with the necessary skills to create those things. This is a complete non-argument. I am not against powerpoint presentations per se, but this has clearly been written as media to assist delivering a lecture. There is no prose as such, it is all presentation sound bites, so it is completely unclear what the presentation is actually claiming most of the time. Doubtless if one was present at the lecture it would all be abundantly clear, but in isolation it is of little use to Wikipedia. There are maps, certainly, but the link to the interactive map by Tata Communication is much more extensive. Take for instance the "Carribean" section, slide 19 is a map of the ARCOS-1 cable for which a map already exists on commons; slide 20 is a map of "Global Carribean Network" but it is completely unclear from the slide whether this is an existing network, a network under construction, or a proposal by the presenter; slide 21, which completes this section has the following text;

Arcos-1 and GCN = two largest footprints
Important planned projects:

- Antilles Crossing expansion

- Calypso

- Cuba-Venezuela

- Seahorse-1

C&W, Digicel, France Telecom, America Movil, US operators = largest capacity customers

which shows fairly well that these slides could not possibly be used as sources for the article. Are those the largest customers of Arcos-1 and GCN? the expected customers? or the customers of the consultancy giving the presentation? The slide does not say, and nothing could be used in the article. This is aside from any question of the reliability of the source, which clearly has not been submitted to any kind of editorial review process, or its obvious conflict of interest. If NathanielDawson had spent half the time improving the article that he has spent trying to defend the links to his consultancy site the article would probably be twice as large by now. The truth is that he is only interested in maintaining those links, not in actually contributing to the article.

SpinningSpark 17:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Spinningspark. It is not a distraction from the issue to say that there is only one person who has raised any reasoned objection to these links (i.e. Spinningspark), and that the reasons for his or her objections have undergone a number of transformations. Anyway, even though more and more users have contributed to this discussion and I'm thankful for their comments, there seems to be a limited number of people willing to engage in an informed discussion of this topic, so it is good to finally hear back from Spinningspark.

The presentation is not "claiming" anything, it is presenting detailed facts and figures, most of which are self-explanatory. That is why the "sound bytes" that went along with it are not necessary. But you have cherry-picked some slides for analysis so let's take a look at the points you've made. (BTW I wish you would address the points I've made! It would be most generous of you!)

First of all, it is a REALLY BAD EXAMPLE to use the map from Tata Communications. It shouldn't even be listed in the external links section, because it shows only their network, and it is clearly advertising. That's why the maps provided by the presentations in the external links section are valuable.

With respect to slide 21: the Global Caribbean Network is listed as having a ready-for-service date of 2006-2007 on the bottom of the slide.

As you seem to be so quick to do, you conveniently neglected to mention the title of slide 22, which is "Caribbean Capacity Markets." I think a third-grader would then conclude that the "largest capacity customers" must be customers buying capacity in the Caribbean capacity markets. Next, "Important planned projects" in the Caribbean is indeed information that can easily be included in the article; why not? Could this be any more clear? These are projects that are planned to be constructed in the Caribbean. Spinningspark, you are clearly a very bright fellow so this feigned inability to understand simple English doesn't become you.

Would you please propose how we can integrate the chart of year-by-year investment, which is clearly self-explanatory? Also how can we include the data on region-by-region investment, which was an issue brought up by another user in the talk page earlier today? (I'm sure that the user asking the question would have found the external links useful if you hadn't deleted them.) I've asked these questions several times now, to no avail.

Also, we have already discussed the issue of whether or not I have contributed to the article; I say that I have, and you don't believe it to be true, but in any case this is irrelevant so could you please stick to the issue at hand? I do congratulate you for your many contributions on the technology of coaxial cables, even though this technology is obsolete. It is valuable but clearly there needs to be more information about fiber optic cables as well.

Regardless, Spinningspark, it's clear that you have an agenda to pursue at all costs; I wish that you would engage in a more coherent and logical debate of the issues but at this point it seems as though you are only concerned about removing the links rather than actually improving the page to include market data or information on fiber optic cables. I have responded to your concerns in a point-by-point fashion; if you are truly interested in reaching consensus, I would be most grateful if you could do the same for the points I’ve made above. NathanielDawson (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In an effort to create some consistency, I tried to delete the links in Submarine communications cable that were blatant advertising per external link guidelines and Spinningspark reverted my change. Spinningspark is clearly not concerned about adhering to guidelines but is only concerned about preventing the two links in question. Following external link guidelines is not "proving a point," Spinningspark. Anyway I now consider Spinningspark to be completely unreasonable. NathanielDawson (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of appearances, you should have brought up the other links in discussion and allowed someone else to remove them. As it stands, after having your links removed and failing to get consensus to have them restored, you then blank out all other links that you consider comparable - that gives the impression of retaliation, or simply being disruptive to make a point.

Had you brought them up for discussion, I would have reviewed each one more closely and quite possibly agreed and removed several of them myself - although I do agree with C.Fred that the news link is appropriate. You claimed it's advertising due to a small note in the lower left - I can't read any text in the lower left, even under magnification - so I consider that to be a non-issue. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was intending to reply to some of the points above, but since I have just blocked NathanielDawson for edit warring and disruption that would be unfair as he can no longer reply. If anyone here feels I am out of line taking admin action in a dispute I am involved with I am more than happy for you to ask another admin at WP:ANI to review and I will stand by any adjustment to the block that they care to make. SpinningSpark 19:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or review it yourself if you want, I have just realised there are other admins involved here. SpinningSpark 19:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not stick to the topic at hand? This is purely juvenile behavior on the part of Spinningspark. 83.170.113.97 (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems extraordinary to me that an admin should ever use admin powers on an editorial dispute in which they are involved. They should ask another univolved admin to impose bllocks or whatver. I suggest that User:Spinningspark immediately reverts any blocks they have imposed on others in this editorial dispute. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may not have been ideal for Spinningspark to hit the block button, but the edits the block was a response to are a clear cut case of 3RR violation. - MrOllie (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is unjustified. The user has gone way over 3RR and has been reverting multiple editors for days, to say nothing of the use of socks. I'm not going to revert, but as I say, I appreciate I am involved and will accept whatever another admin decides. SpinningSpark 20:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the block was appropriate - but still requested a block review from ANI so that uninvolved admins can also review. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, good move. Note 83.170.113.97 is also blocked for block evasion. By the way, I don't know if you noticed that this IP undid your restoral of the map links. I do not know if you just have not noticed or decided to let it stand. I am not going to revert it, it would be wrong of me to take the opportunity to undo the user's edits while blocked. SpinningSpark 20:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I restored one of the links the anon removed, as it was to a news site. The others I haven't reviewed closely as yet, and wouldn't object to a broader discussion about each of those. To me, the EL section could stand some pruning ... just need to reach consensus on which ones are good, and which ones are not appropriate or needed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable behavior all around: Efforts by NathanielDawson to integrate the contents of the External Links in question into the article have been subverted by MrOllie, who has substituted new sources for all of NathanielDawson's contributions. The personal vendetta has gone much too far. 83.170.113.99 (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe that the new links do not accurately provide citations for the text of the article? If not, what is the shortcoming of the new links? If they do adequately provide a reference, then the use of news and journal sources are considered more reliable that commercial links, so should be the preferred links. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No vendetta here. Just trying to make sure the additions to the article (which I think are good, thanks!) remain in by improving the sourcing. I would have assumed that anyone that was interested in the improving the article rather than in promotional linking would be happy about it. - MrOllie (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of exact terms in Sources, Original Research?

At the article Castle, a small dispute involving whether or not Chapultepec Castle is a "revival castle" has taken place. User:Nev1 deleted the mention of it entirely because the sources don't make a specific connection to it being "influenced by medeival castle architecture" or to it being called in exact terms, "a revival castle". He states that my inclusion of it is "Original Research", although it has been there for years. Sources that have been found mention its Neo-Gothic style and historical significance, but fall short of using the exact terms, "revival castle". Is it a technicality?

The very sight of the castle and its features - as well as the time period in which it was built and re-modeled, it's reason for existence, and for whom it was built (Emperor Maximilian I of Mexico also built another revival castle in Italy called Miramare Castle.) - all of it leads to the conclusion that it is indeed a revival castle (What else could it be?), but without a written source, as of yet.

Can someone inform or help with this matter? Thank you so very much. C.Kent87 (talk) 03:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I can't agree with the reasoning given, I do agree with the removal. I fixed the inline links to be refs (though the images are probably not useful as references). In general, a good "next step" is to start or join a discussion on the help:talk page (talk:Castle in this case) when one is finding difficulty accomplishing what one wants in an article. I have started a discussion for the addition of this castle, but looking at the whole situation, at this time I would oppose adding the content. Hope that helps, and sorry I can't support your addition at this time. - Sinneed 04:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fethullah Gülen

I already stated my view on the titles "Scholar" and "Philosopher" for Fethullah Gülen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on the article on his name. Please refer to it in the Biography section of the discussion tab for my reasons. Those titles should be removed. It makes the article as a propaganda tool, not a source for information. I am not going to continue arguing about this. But it does not mean that I concede to the opposing view. Memetist (talk) 06:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So - you have a disagreement with another editor. You can ask for a WP:Third opinion or you could enlist the help of the WP:Mediation Cabal. Disagreements amongst editors are not uncommon on Wikipedia. It is often through such a process that artciles are improved when WP:concensus is achieved. Remember to keep discussions civil and try to understand other points of view. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the discussion, there is a lot of appeal to defintions. This is a good sign as my first thought was that this would be too ill defined of a question to argue logically. I also gave the prior question about "conspiracy theorist" label more thought as this is the same argument but with opposite connotation. Before more questions come up on "patriot", "good person", or even "philanthropist" etc, it may help to find more general concerns when trying to use subjective labels or adjectives. In the prior discussion, it came down to finding reliable sources- do relaiable sources call the subject a scholar or philosopher? In some cases, you may be able to source a catagory and its opposite, "consrvatives regard his as patriot[] but liberals consider him to be a traitor[]." It may be easier, where there is only marginal value attached to these terms to try to avoid them. A few sentences of a bio may make clear that he is philosopher or scholar etc. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Territories and crimes of the Russian Mafia

Resolved

– per comment from requester Jezhotwells (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article's infobox contains both an uncited 'Territory' list and an uncited and absurdly long 'Criminal activities' list. The Territory list is subject to random expansion by IP editors who take some sort of pride in adding their own nationality to the list. The 'Criminal activities' list is a menu-like offering that includes just about every crime that exists; this is also subject to random expansion as someone thinks up new crimes to add.

Some of the 'Notable Russian mafiosi' named in the article would seem to be still alive and thus subject to our BLP policies were they not gangsters and if crimes charged in the infobox are assumed to apply across the entire article. I'm not bothered by the BLP aspects, but since it is unlikely that either of these ever-changing lists can find support in reliable sources (and in part because the criminal activities list makes WP look rather silly), I've tried listing Territories as simply "Worldwide" and Criminal activities as simply "Various and sundry violent crimes, property crimes, public order crimes, political crimes". I keep getting reverted by IPs in Russia whose pride I assume I have wounded. Offending possibly dangerous people is above my pay grade here, so I'm requesting administrator involvement. Thanks. --CliffC (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, requests atWP:Editor assistance/Requests are answered by volunteers - some of whom are admins. Tou may get faster resolution if you look at Requests for administrator attention. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks, after poking around starting there it seemed that Wikipedia:Content noticeboard was the place to go. You can mark this one closed. Best, CliffC (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^ Emigh & Herring (2005) "Collaborative Authoring on the Web: A Genre Analysis of Online Encyclopedias", Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Hawai'i International Conference on System Sciences

[1] Emigh & Herring (2005) "Collaborative Authoring on the Web: A Genre Analysis of Online Encyclopedias", Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Hawai'i International Conference on System Sciences

[1]