Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

What should be done with dead/recycled links?

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

I noticed a Reference that has been "recylced" in the Nortel article - it no longer contains the information it apparently once did. What is the practice at Wikipedia in this respect? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean the URL no longer has the same content? What you can do is check the website and see if you can't find the new location for the old content. Another strategy would be to look up the old URL on the Internet Archive and provide an archiveurl for the reference template, trying to use a version from around the accessdate in the template. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes exactly. There are several such references in the Nortel article. One in particular is of concern right now since there are several contributors claiming that information is not sourced as criticism in the article. However, an old reference originally titled by its publisher "Bailout billion - Taxpayers to prop up mega-loser Nortel" has been removed: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nortel&diff=prev&oldid=330746694 Ottawahitech (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that's gonna be a tough one. Looks like canoe.ca is a blocked site for the Internet Archive. Searching for the reference title on Google reveals nothing. Last suggestion I might have for that particular reference is to try LexisNexis, though you might have to go to a university library to get that. Remember: references don't have to be available online, they just have to be verifiable. Since there's no retraction or anything, it seems more likely that the article has just been archived and is unsearchable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Is using the "deadlink" template a good solution to this problem? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

{{deadlink}} isn't solution at all. It's just a flag to try and alert other, interested users that a replacement reference may be needed. If you're an interested user and capable of researching a replacement reference, then please do so. If not, then {{deadlink}} plus a talk page note is probably the best you can do. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping this section alive. In regards to the comment about references not having to be online, just verifiable - how does this work? I have excerpts of the article in question in my email box - obviously this is not verifiable for Wikipedia purposes? Does it require someone with access to university computers?- my own time is rather limited. This is becomnmg a sore point with the public who wants access to what really happened with Nortel, not the whitewashed Wikipedia version supported by only a couple of Wikipedians. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Basically, a verifiable reference has to be something that can be reasonably or readily researched. If what you have is in a published book somewhere, from a real newspaper, or in an academic journal, that's just fine. You just need to provide enough information for someone to find the source. For books, that's usually author, title, year and page numbers. Newspapers and periodicals: author, article title, publication title, volume/issue, date of publication and page numbers. ISBN/ISSN are also helpful.

If what you have, however, is some information you've compiled yourself through, say, interviews or reading blogs and forums, then that's not acceptable. Please take a look at WP:V and WP:RS for some additional hints. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I seem to have misread your last reply a little. You say you personally have the text, or at least parts of the text, of the article whose link has gone dead. The main question of using the article as a source has to do with its verifiability by people in general. All you need is to give enough information in the citation for readers to go out, find and read the relevant reference themselves. With newspapers, this is frequently going to be through a service like LexisNexis, since many newspaper websites take down articles after several weeks or months. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for your continued help. I have re-entered and added information at Nortel. One of the references I provided was the newspaper deadlink which another Wikipedian replaced months ago, with no explanation, by a link to a page at the company's own website. This same Wikipedian then proceeded to claim that there was no evidence of critical language in outside sources - and that criticism was "original research" on my part. The deadlink reference I re-introduced comes complete with source of article, date of publication and article heading. I hope this time my edits will "stick". Ottawahitech (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the current disagreement stems from whether the content belongs in a criticism section. I think that editor is technically correct that it isn't criticism, though it may be a notable historical event. Certainly it ought to be discussed at Talk:Nortel.

By the way, is this the article you're trying to use? It seems to have a slightly different title, but the same date. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

Lucin, Utah#Lucin today currently reads:

"Lucin is currently a ghost town. It consists of a pond fed from a four-inch pipe that brings water from the nearby Pilot Range, a group of trees in an otherwise barren desert, two cylindrically-shaped cast concrete phone booths with wooden shelves and wiring, a rusty ice box, and several community root cellars equipped with electric wiring. Scavengers can find metal pins, nails, spikes, hinges, and small pieces of laminated marble. There are no remaining buildings. The original grading of the railroad can be found heading northeast toward Promontory, Utah and the Golden Spike National Historic Site."

This site says:

"Today Lucin is somewhat of an "oasis in the desert". Approaching the area from highway 30 to the north one can see a clump of lush green trees about 3 miles to the south/southwest. A small (4 inch) pipe originating in the Pilot Mountain Range to the southwest, supplies water to the area. Originally the ponds served as reservoirs for the trains water needs.

Other than the pond and clump of trees one can see two cement-cast telephone booths complete with wooden shelves and wiring, an old rusty ice box, and several community root celars also equiped with electrical wiring. Other items to be found include various metal pins, nails, spikes, hinges, even some small pieces of laminated marble, etc. No building structures remain at the site."

The article never provides a link to the site above, yet it closely paraphrases the site without providing credit. Should I take this to Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems, or should it be taken elsewhere? Thanks, The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 23:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Well the first step, as always, is to start a thread about this on the article talk page. You could also place a suitable template, such as {{Close paraphrase}} in the section. If no one responds then rewriting the section comprehensively would be a good idea. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for your help. I was hesitant on leaving a note on the talk page because it's not very active. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 23:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Asking at the copyright problems page wouldn't hurt either if you're concerned about not getting a quick response. The folks there are pretty knowledgeable and should be able to give you a clear idea of what to do. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Tree structure

Hello, I need a tree structure to write an article, who can I do it?

Example

+ 1

 +1.1
   1.1.1
 +1.2
    etc..

Bosqueniebla (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have that kind of structuarl possibility, which is found in MS Word and Open Office. Perhaps you should try the Wikipedia:Article wizard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jezhotwells (talk • contribs) 10:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You could do something like that with indents, but frankly, looking at what you're trying to do in article space, I think you might be misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Stack Exchange

The Stack_Exchange entry had some criticism but was erased twice by User:Qwfp who has already tried to place links to tex.stackexchange.com in several wikipedia articles.

Tried to discuss it with him, but he keeps erasing it without discussing removal.

The sources cited are reliable, expert blog entries and threads on serious sites, but User:Qwfp keeps deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.170.90.111 (talk) 09:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you take your sources to the reliable sources noticeboard for some expert input. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

References and template

Jack Tarpley Camp Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I added a template that various sections in the article needed references here. The sections noted have no inline references. Another editor removed the template here, explaining that there is an article in the Sources section that supports the information in those sections. My view is that having what amounts to a See also is not the same thing as sourcing each assertion in the article. First, the reader would first have to know to look at that source as it wouldn't be obvious from the body of the article. Second, for me as an editor to know if each assertion is sourced, I'd have to check each against that one source. Now, I know I could improve the article by going through each section myself and pointing to that one piece (assuming the assertion and the piece match), but I'd like an answer to the more narrow question about whether, given the current state of the article, the template belongs or doesn't.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Citing sources, inline citations are needed for any material likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The unreferenced sections in this article don't seem to be controversial, but they do contain quotations. So perhaps {{More footnotes}} at the top - the wording of this template exactly matches your concern - a {{Citation needed}} after each unsourced quotation, and a note on the talk page referring to Wikipedia:Citing sources. Or is that overkill? -- John of Reading (talk) 12:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestion, John, but I do think it's a bit much to do all those things. So, I added the template at the top and referred to WP:CITE in the edit summary. If someone else doesn't do it first, I'll insert inline citations appropriately when I have time (I'm already spending too much time on Wikipedia :-) ).--Bbb23 (talk) 12:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

RE HELP

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 10:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam, I cannot figure out how to insert refrences/endnotes. Can you provide an idiot's guide?

Kind regards

Hamish —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edufic (talk • contribs) 20:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources, and see if that helps. Tobyc75 (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous Vandalism? unexpected misalignment of text and hieroglyphs twice

Resolved

 – Use of advanced WikiHeiro syntax will likely prevent this from recurring. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Tahash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)I had returned to reviewing the article Tahash, shortly after adding an external link to an article about Hebrew word play in the Bible, and was surprised to see that the line of Egyptian hieroglyphs and the transliterated letters aligned with each one were suddenly misaligned. The transliteration "text" was now visibly longer than the line of hieroglyphs and no longer matched 'em the way I had set 'em up. They made no sense that way. The change made the illustrative example look confusing and stupid. I checked the "view history" of the edits but there was no entry for the change. So I thought it might be some kind of "anonymous vandalism". I spent about an hour trying to get them to line up again successfully, and thought I was done. But the next day when I was going over the article again (for a different reason) I saw the transliterations under the hieroglyphs were misaligned again, only this time the text of letters under the hieroglyphs was shorter than the line of hieroglyphs and no longer matched 'em the way I had set 'em up! I thought it might be a second vandalism, and I checked "view history" again. But again there was no record of an edit. When I had thought it over for a while and decided to experiment and "undo" what the record of "view history" says was my own edit, the text was restored to what it had been before I had found the first misalignment! Time reference 14:24, 22 Nov 2010 and 00:22, 23 Nov 2010. Even more mysterious, the comparison of previous edits in "view history" did not now show the original misalignment (when the line of letters was unexpectedly made longer than the line of hieroglyphs.) It's as if it never happened! All that remains now in "view history" is

• the original normal appearance, and no image of the first edit change to a longer misalignment,
• followed by a shorter misalignment that suddenly appeared the day after I had struggled to make the longer line look normal again, but it appears with my ID on it,
• followed by my own reversion of what (according to the record in "view history") appears to be my own edit (but wasn't, since I hadn't tried to make the line of letters shorter than the line of hieroglyphics),
• which returned the line to normal again.

So what's going on? Is it possible for someone to vandalize an article and leave no trace? --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm sure any vandalism would show up in the history. The exact spacing of the various characters may well be browser-dependent; I'm looking at it now with Windows 7 and Firefox, and the hieroglyphs are about 10% wider than the text. Were you using different browsers or machines for these different edits? Is there any chance that you might have used a "zoom" or "text scaling" feature in your browser at any stage?

Moving forward, I looked at the examples at Help:WikiHiero syntax and noticed that they used some clever tabular markup to align hieroglyphics with text. Have a look at what I've done at Talk:Tahash -- John of Reading (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

While it doesn't look like it's the situation here, when vandalism (or a good faith edit that breaks formatting) occurs on a template transcluded into an article (or into a template that is in turn transcluded into an article), there is no record of an edit in the article. Furthermore, once the edit is reverted, the page cache may need to be purged before it will change back.

In this case, I'm inclined to agree with John's thought that you may have had some quirk in your local browser settings, such as text size (holding shift and scrolling the mousewheel can do this, I think). Using the tabular markup suggested above will probably keep that from happening again as it will force alignment of the columns.

As an aside, there are a number of serious problems with this article. I've tagged it and left commentary on the talk page. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

MOTHER MARIE ELIZABETH HESSELBLAD

MAY I SUGGEST YOU ADD THIS GREAT SPIRITUAL LEADER TO YOUR LIST OF SWEDISH AMERICAN --- RELIGIOUS PERSONALITIES —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.241.118.140 (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

We have a department for that at Wikipedia:Requested articles, you can list it there. Alternatively, if you sign up for an account, you are most welcome to have a go at writing the page yourself.--Kudpung (talk) 05:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the actual request is to add Hesselblad to List of Swedish Americans#Religious personalities. This individual seems to be in List of blesseds, List of people who converted to Catholicism, Chronological list of saints and blesseds in the 20th century, and possibly List of Righteous among the Nations by country. The proper place to ask would probably be Talk:List of Swedish Americans. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hidden Feedback Category

Discussion moved

 – See User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro#Article Feedback Category; may be resolved. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

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

There is a hidden category called Article Feedback Pilot created by a workgroup and "used to determine which articles use the Article Feedback Tool during a pilot deployment beginning 22 September 2010." The category was supposed to be initially added only to articles "that are part of WikiProject United States Public Policy and are tagged with the WikiProject banner on their talk page." Then, a "small number" of additional pages were included.

Recently, an editor added the hidden category to the Nathan Fillion article. I reverted the addition because I didn't see any direction by the workgroup to insert it in the article. He reverted my reversion here. Following instructions, I inserted a question in a pre-existing section here. Perhaps I should have created a new section but the existing section was precisely on point. So far, no one has responded to my question (or removed the hidden category from the Fillion article).

What next or am I missing something here?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd try to talk to Spadaro about it either at his user talk or at Talk:Nathan Fillion (probably the former since it's possible Spadaro is adding it to multiple articles). You can't really get much across in edit summaries, especially when reverts are involved, due to the necessary conciseness of those summaries. Spadaro may just be mistaken about the purpose of the category.

My understanding is that the purpose of the AFP category is to track articles being followed by the Article Feedback Tool, not to assign articles to be tracked. Since Fillion isn't one of the selected articles, to place him in the category would be a clear miscategorization. As this situation has something to do with an important study, I've gone ahead and removed the category and put a note on the talk page. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. Your suspicion that Spadaro was adding the category to multiple articles is correct, so I've put a comment on Spadoro's Talk page pointing him to this discussion and to your comment on the Fillion Talk page. I've asked him to remove his own edits to other articles. I'll watch the situation.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

new address

Resolved

 – List of jazz institutions updated. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Vernon Jazz Society listed in your list of jazz societies in North America

Our new web address is <www.vernonjazzclub.ca>. How do I effect that change?

We have hosted over 225 concerts in the past 11 years every other week from September through May in our wonderfully funky venue on the second floor of a heritage building in Vernon, British Columbia, Canada

Sue Kershaw Vernon Jazz Society -- Bookings c/o (Redacted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.98.219.56 (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the list (although you could spare us the self-promotion and solicitation). The new website is actually a club run by the Society, but it seems to come closest to a website for the Society. The old link is definitely dead. If others disagree that it should be listed, feel free to comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do not include contact details in your questions. We are unable to provide answers by any off-wiki medium and this page is highly visible across the internet. The details have been removed, but if you want them to be permanently removed from the page history, please email this address. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Seeking Dispute Resolution

Resolved

 – At least as much as it is going to be; editor blocked indef following abuse of e-mail function following an ARBPIA block. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

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

I believe there is a great deal of biased editing going on in this article. In a section of the article on Accusations of Misconduct by the IDF I made an edit to existing information showing that what was identified as charges had become in the last week a conviction and sentencing. Editors pushing a pro-Israeli viewpoint then repeatedly deleted not only the additional information but the original information as well. The exact same material has been removed by both Jijitsuguy and Cptnono and both have coordinated their slant of this article. This information is on topic, well sourced and relevant:

Information prior to Jijitsuguy edit and deletion of well sourced information [1] Original copy before any edits and my first edit :[2]

Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 13:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid that there are many disputes on articles about Palestine and Israel. You may be best off enlisting help from appropriate project pages. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I have tried that but it 9is my believe that until there is some action by the community at large these incidents will just keep on going. I suppose I will go back to the dispute page and see what the next step is. Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Well probably an WP:RfC is the next step. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Article on Color Blindness Not Correct

Hi,

I have noticed some inaccuracies in the article on color blindness:

Extended content

1. On one of the 2 Sundays before Martin Luther King Junior Day in 2003 there was an article in the Sunday Cleveland, Ohio Plain Dealer about the very high rate of color blindness in negroes. Turns out that 33% of black men and 90% of African male apes have the gene for Protanopia. This is consistent with an article a few years ago in Scientific American about the evolution of color vision. Shortly after this, I was working as an electrician at International Exposition Center and had to check the equipment grounds in a bunch of 480 volt extension cords. This was because International Exposition Center had accidentally hired the colorblind electrician who is running around Cleveland, Ohio. What he did was to swap hot ( red ) and equipment ground ( green ) in some 480 volt extension cords. This led to some nasty surprises even though nobody was hurt. When I applied for an electrical contractor license from Ohio Construction Industry Licensing Board I voluntarily supplied certification of perfect color vision from my ophthamologist. This was partly because there is not one licensing board in the entire world that checks to see if electricians have color vision impairments. I had my ophthamologist check my color vision using both a 16 plate color vision test and a 25 pair telephone cable. It is theoretically possible for a color vision impaired electrician to get a license - one of my buddies had a white electrician ( as an employee ) for 6 or 7 years until this white electrician accidentally swapped a black hot wire and a green equipment ground and nearly killed himself and several other people. He probably had Deuteranomaly. NAACP has also threatened to sue any employer or licensing board that tries to test people for color blindness. This is because the gene for Protanopia proves that blacks are the least evolved from apes. This is the wrong attitude. Some blacks are actually embarassed by the Blackest Supremacist attitude of NAACP. The response of a lot of companies is to artifically hyperinflate and overspecify work experience requirements in the hope that mass quantities of experience will prove that an electrician has color vision. Some companies will only hire electricians who have at least 10 years of ,military training on the basis that the US military does not train colorblind electricians. There are some very valid reasons why this error in your article has arisen: 1.a. Prior tob the Civil Rights Act of 1964 blacks were flat-as-a-dead-snake barred from professions that require accureate color vision. Once the electrical business was forced to accept blacks it was noticed that about 33% of black men and 11% of black women have color vision difficulties. 1.b. Prior to 1964 white school teachers had almost no contact with black children. Black schools were so starved for resources that the last priority of black teachers was to teach the names of colors to black children. Any medical article that relies of data that is older than 1964 is going to give an inaccurate picture of the rate of color vision problems in blacks. 1.c. A lot of Protanopes ( and dogs ) have Cheat Vision which under indoor lighting conditions allows them to evade the less sopistocated color blindness tests. Cheat Vision is the ability to use daytime retina and nighttime retina at the same time under indoor lighting condtions to achieve an approximation of color vision. It was not until the more sopistocated Ishihara and Waggoner tests became prevalent that this could be detected. The perfunctory color vision tests that the Bureau of Motor Vehicles uses to test candidates for commercial driver's licenses will not detect this. Essentially, a lot of colorblind blacks are not aware that they are colorblind, they just think that colors are hard to distinguish. For that matter, grandmother and I had a female dog back in the 1980s that had rather grainy color vision under indoor lighting condtions. Under indoor lighting conditions Penny could see her orange ball against a green carpet but against the red carpets her orange ball was completely invisible to her. Outdoor during the daytime she could not see her orange ball gainst green grass - as soon as it hit the ground her ball would "disappear". 1.d. Once it was discovered that blacks have by far the highest rate of color blindness protein tests were run on cadaver retinas that proved that the rate of Protanopia is rather high in blacks. Also, reliable genetic testing was either nonexistent or very expensive and time consuming at one time. 2. You also need to investigate the rate of color vision defects in Portuguese. If you look up the search term Harmonised Colours you will find out that Portugal only allows 6 wiring colors which are green with yellow strip ( equipment ground ), blue ( neutral ), black, black with brown stripe, brown, and brown with black stripe. There are only 2.5 explanations for this. They either had so many wiring standards in use ( like in the Slovak Republic which used both European and American wire colors ) that all other colors had to be banned for new work. The other is that Portuguese electricians have a very high rate of color vision defects most likely Deuteranomaly. It could also be that their unions are resisting color vision testing not that electrical engineering has been a political science for at least 110 years.

I am hoping that my feedback has been helpful. My US cellular telephone is <phone number redacted>. You can also send to <email redacted>. Michael Cole—Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolcatcoleelectrical (talk • contribs) 19:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You might want to try checking out Talk:Color blindness. That's the talk page for the article color blindness. Also, you will probably want to check out our guidlines on citing reliable sources in a neutral fashion. By the way, the word "negroes" is considered archaic at best. Why exactly do you want to point out a supposed correlation between color blindness and race? Considering your statement "This is because the gene for Protanopia proves that blacks are the least evolved from apes," I think you may want to see our guidelines against tendentious editting. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the OP's contact details as per the notice at the top of this page. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Neither this page nor this website is the place for conspiracy theories on racism. Collapsed for good measure. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible Wikipedia Policy Violation

Chino Hills High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Does the linked article violate Wikipedia:NOTDIR? Saiarcot895 (talk) 05:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Not directly, no. It's tone is a tad promotional but we generally regard all secondary schools that go to grade 12 as de facto notable. Thanks for pointing it out. The article has already been earmarked to be edited for encyclopedic content by a member of the WP:WPSCHOOLS project, but if you are familiar with Wikipedia policies, and those regarding schools, please feel free to make any changes you feel appropriate.--Kudpung (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

So will it be appropriate if I do a similar page on the Ruben S. Ayala High School page even though I'm not officially a member of the WP:WPSCHOOLS project? I just want to clarify on this since some time back, some content was deleted, with the reason being Wikipedia:NOTDIR. Saiarcot895 (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you could join the project if you are intersted in that area, but you don't have to be a member to edit or create schools' articles. You may find useful pointers to layout, structure and content at the Schools Project pages. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)You don't have to be a member of anything to be able to make any edits that your logged on tools will allow. We naturally welcome all constructive edits. if you would like to take on some of the more general housekeeping tasks associated with the schools project, please don't hesitate to visit the project page, read all about it and join ;) --Kudpung (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The specific edit to which Saiarcot895 is referring is this one from January. I would tend to agree with Drmies' assessment in removing the content per WP:NOTDIR. Primary and secondary school articles seem to have a great difficulty avoiding running afoul of this policy. A lot of it comes from all the options the infoboxes give (street addresses and phone numbers generally don't belong in WP articles), and this has come up several times in the past but never quite got settled.

As to what does belong in a school article, while it's good to look to other school articles and to any guidelines put out by the school project, the best way to see what belongs in a quality school article is to look to these ones: Category:FA-Class school articles. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

CEO Notability and Redirects

Resolved

 – Article redirected. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

David P. Steiner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article was just created. Steiner's only claims to fame (in the article) are his position at Waste Management, Inc. and his membership on Fedex's board. Clearly, the fact that he graduated from UCLA Law School doesn't make him notable. In my view, being a CEO, even of a large company, doesn't make you notable unless there is something else. However, I don't think the community's view is clear. See, for example, here. The Shell article was eventually changed into a redirect to the company with which he's associated. I would support such a redirect for Steiner (to Waste Management), but I don't see anywhere on Wikipedia to propose changing an article from an article to a redirect (it's probably somewhere, but I gave up after poking around for 10 minutes among the confusing array of policies, etc.). Maybe I'm just supposed to edit the article and do it myself? However, in the interest of not doing the wrong thing, how should I proceed? Comments about the article are also welcome.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I have prodded it. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed, is that supposed to be an implicit answer to my question? I've added a prod2 with a comment supporting a redirect.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto

Rabbi Pinto just need fresh eyes. Anyone who bothers to review the info will see:

A $30 Million building referenced in NYT is relevant A death curse cited by numerous newspapers in a mysterious death is relevant The users editing against the creator of the page are all new users who participate only for editing Pinto info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 01:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Please note that this request or something very similar has been posted here three times in the last couple of weeks. If you have serious founded concerns, please take them to the biographies of living persons noticeboard where they will get attention. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Time window between article submission and viewing.

Greetings! I have just "saved"/submitted my first article to Wikipedia. Would you please tell me how long it will be before it appears in the general Wikipedia articles base for viewing?

Title of Article: Mattthew Skenandore Changed/Submitted: November 29, 2010 Username: Curlyharpy1 email: (redacted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curlyharpy1 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't post your email, sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Everything is pretty much real time once it's saved, unless there's a server lag (doesn't appear to be on my end).

Ah, now I see what the problem is, you didn't create the article in general article space, you created it in your userspace, twice. You're going to want to check out the reliable sourcing guidelines. Blogspot does not count as a reliable source. You're also going to want to check out the notability guidelines, which requires an article's subject have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, ... to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." So far, neither article you've created has those (the three Seattle newspaper articles come close, but they emphasize he is a local artist, you really need at least something from a neighboring state, if not national or international), and if you move them into general article space, they will be deleted. Also, don't say he's innovative, it's not Wikipedia's job to show off for other people. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ambati Rayudu's Wikipedia

There is a conflicting information regarding Ambati Rayudu in wiki. It is stated that he has played one ODI {One day International} against Sri Lanka and got out to Lasitha Malinga for 4 of 12 balls.

Ref: "Amabti Rayudu was selected for the national cricket team for the first time after his heroic performance in the Ranji season.He first played against the Sri Lankans and had the opportunity to play only a single match where he scored 4 runs in 12 balls.He got out to the yorker from Lasith Malinga".

This information is incorrect, Ambati Rayudu has never played cricket for Indian national team, he is currently playing for Baroda and in past he has played for Hyderabad, Hyderabad Heroes, ICL India X1 and Mumbai Indians. Ref: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/player/33141.html

Extended content

Full name Ambati Thirupathi Rayudu Born September 23, 1985, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh Current age 25 years 67 days Major teams Hyderabad (India), Hyderabad Heroes, ICL India XI, Mumbai Indians Batting style Right-hand bat Bowling style Right-arm offbreak Fielding position Occasional wicketkeeper Ambati Thirupathi Rayudu Batting and fielding averages Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave BF SR 100 50 4s 6s Ct St First-class 58 93 9 3584 210 42.66 9 18 42 0 List A 45 42 1 1335 117 32.56 1 11 19 0 Twenty20 28 28 2 643 75* 24.73 498 129.11 0 4 55 19 17 1 Bowling averages Mat Inns Balls Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 4w 5w 10 First-class 58 642 422 9 4/43 46.88 3.94 71.3 1 0 0 List A 45 216 202 8 4/45 4/45 25.25 5.61 27.0 1 0 0 Twenty20 28 - - - - - - - - - - - - Career statistics First-class debut 2001/02 Last First-class Baroda v Punjab at Vadodara, Nov 24-27, 2010 scorecard List A debut 2001/02 Last List A Hyderabad (India) v Karnataka at Chennai, Feb 16, 2010 scorecard Twenty20 debut Goa v Hyderabad (India) at Visakhapatnam, Apr 3, 2007 scorecard Last Twenty20 Baroda v Maharashtra at Vadodara, Oct 25, 2010 scorecard

Kindly correct the information posted on wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.84.123 (talk) 09:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You need to post this information on the talk page of the relevant article, with of course some reliable sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Who won the toss

Resolved

 – Text adapted to be non-controversial. Kudpung (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Reddington_Hewlett, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hewlett-Packard

The first article says Hewlett won the coin flip. The second article says Packard won the coin flip. Can you please clarify who won the coin flip? Venom6189 (talk) 12:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

We handle queries about editing here - we don't have better sources than you do. Probably the best thing to do would be to look for new, more accurate reliable sources that conform with our policy at WP:RS and correct the article(s) as appropriate.--Kudpung (talk) 12:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hewlett Packard themselves don't say -- John of Reading (talk) 12:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Well John, the regular contributors to the article will have to either find other sources that do say, or delete the mention. Either way, we can't have inaccuracies in the encyclopedia :) --Kudpung (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The articles are now consistent Diff -- John of Reading (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Smart thinking :) - Why didn't I think of that?--Kudpung (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Teamwork! -- John of Reading (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Abusive User/IP -- 208.120.254.41

The IP Address 208.120.254.41 has gone to several generic wikipedia pages (messenger bag, ovens, etc) and added an external link to a commercial website selling the item in question. I suspect it would be best if his IP were blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.91.30 (talk • contribs)

I have warned them and removed some of their links. This is something any user can do. Spamming is vandalism, and once enough warnings accumulate, spammers can be reported as vandals at WP:AIV, and may then be blocked by an administrator (which I am not). Thanks for helping out. --CliffC (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just like yourself (please sign your posts), an IP address is probably being used by many different people on a network. Blocking the IP would prevent others using it. Consider for example the publicly available computers in a public library or a school, or even a company. A vanadal or disruptive editor could be one editor among many who are providing serious contributions. You can place warnings on the IP talk page at each of the severity levels. An administrator will decide if blocking is necessary if the problem persists.--Kudpung (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I have checked it over too. The amount of recent activity does not warrant a block at this time, in my opinion. Thank you for reporting this. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal or solution needed

At least few editors that are informed about WP:ARBMAC, and contemporary Kosovo status, are highly needed at Talk:Kosovo#Kosovo article split. Thanks. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 00:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

What is you precise question? It appears that the items you mention are the subject of an WP:ARBCOM intervention. We generally only make suggestions and give advice on editing articles here.--Kudpung (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

There's really nothing extra the folks here are going to be able to do. There's already a RfC listed. Discussion will either happen or not, a solution will either emerge or it won't, and the problem will either resolve or it won't. If it doesn't, then continuing with the dispute resolution cycle is your best bet. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

But nevertheless, you are welcome to help us with neutral advices! Read the threat, and post your opinion! We need your help! Read, and post! We need more uninvolved advices regarding proposition. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 11:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion A7

I created the following page,

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

but it was quickly deleted with the reason given as A7. I would sincerely appreciate some guidance in what I need to do to fix this problem.

Thanks

Dblaser (talk) 17:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you see the notice on you talk page? If that doesn't explain it sufficiently please let us know. – ukexpat (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):The full explanation that includes:
because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant
is given on your talk page. It was probably because there were too few sources that prove that the article is about a notable subject. You can ask the deleting admin to restore the article to your user space if you think that you will be able to find all the references that conform to acceptable reliable sources, in order to assert notability.Kudpung (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

1972 Canad/Russia Series in Moscow

Hi: I have found 3 reels of super 8 video of this series taken in Russia. Is CTV interested in this type of information. My contact e-mail is <removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.59.236 (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do not include contact details in your questions. We are unable to provide answers by any off-wiki medium and this page is highly visible across the internet. The details have been removed, but if you want them to be permanently removed from the page history, please email this address.

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6.8 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That'll be Canada Russia '72. Anthony (talk) 05:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Trying to move Valeri "Tiger" Lilov

I was going to move Valeri "Tiger" Lilov to Valeri Lilov, but it says that the page is blocked from being created. There must be some reason for that. If there is, perhaps the page Valeri "Tiger" Lilov should be deleted? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the page was deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valeri Lilov (2nd nomination), so can an administrator remove the new page? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I was just reading about the salt tag and speedy deletion. Someone hads done that - thanks. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Valeri "Tiger" Lilov is now deleted. Not sure what else can be done here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Requesting Editorial Help

I created the following page for Kellyco Metal Detectors:

User:Kellycodetectors/Kellyco Metal Detectors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would appreciate any help in making this article more notable. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Detma (talk • contribs) 15:38, 1 December 2010

Notability isn't the problem, it's nothing more than an advertisement masquerading as a (draft) article and has been tagged for deletion as such. Please read WP:SPAM, WP:CORP and WP:CORPNAME. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well to make the company more notable in Wikipedia terms would mean getting national, if not world wide attention in the quality press. A wholesaler generally doesn't meet the notability guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Also, you username appers to be promotional and thus not in accordance with our policies. You need to change that fast, read our policies on editing articles when you have a conflict of interest. I shall leave a note on your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Changed nickname in the preferences, and thank you for the advice concerning world wide attention. Many of the buyers from this company are international - however it is hard to find credible press sources linking back to Kellyco Metal Detectors. Again, I appreciate the help!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellycodetectors (talk • contribs)

Changing your signature in user preferences is not sufficient. You will have to create a new account that complies with the user name policy. But before you do that, if your sole purpose here is to create an article about your company, please read WP:COI. You are strongly discouraged from creating an article where you have a conflict of interest. If the company is notable or becomes notable in the future, someone will write an article about it eventually - there is no deadline. For present purposes WikiCompany may be more useful to you. – ukexpat (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Copy-editing of Everclear (alcohol)

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

Please look into the dispute between myself and User:Emerson7 concerning this article. Necessary information can be found in the history of the article, in Talk:Everclear (alcohol)#Recent edits by Emerson7, in User talk:Wahrmund, and in User talk:Emerson7#Everclear.

Emerson7 last reverted my edits on 26 November; I have not reverted them back since, as it appears he intends to continue reverting indefintely.Wahrmund (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You have already started a dialogue on the article talk page which is the right way to go, but please try to keep it civil - I don't like some of the tones being used - making a rumpus of anything is the quickest way to invite intransigence. If it's copyediting you want, then you can consider placing a copy edit tag on the article, or making a request at the Guild of Copyeditors department.--Kudpung (talk) 07:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Can any experienced person help me put my new article into sections... I feel pretty overwhelmed right now - being a new contributor and all

TimeTesterGalaxy (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You are referring to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rev. Dr. Eugene Callender? See WP:SECTIONS. You should also take a look at WP:SPAM, the draft looks very promotional in tone. – ukexpat (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed up the first few paragraphs in some simple formatting with wiki-links as an example. However, as noted above, the contents will need considerable work to tone down the overt promotional language. Also, as noted on your talk page, much of the material appears to be directly copied from other web-sites which is copyright violation and is unacceptable on Wikipedia.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow! That looks really beautiful. Thank you so much.

I'm afraid I don't know what part is too promotional? Does somebody else want to edit any objectional part out?

I was thinking it was just the facts of his life - but I guess not?

Thank you for your help. I really appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimeTesterGalaxy (talk • contribs) 00:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I have edited the draft article for encyclopedic tone and style to be as neutral as possible without sacrificing too much content, but there is still much to be done to completely remove the evangelising style, the yelling in capitals, and/or the bold sub titles. Compare the diffs to see the changes, and count how many time 'the first...' is still being used. There is no doubt that the subject is notable, but for an article of this kind, a huge number of really reliable sources are going to be needed. See WP:RS, WP:V. Hope it helps. --Kudpung (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I see the changes you made.... and will go through the article and complete those changes you have started - later tonight. Thank you for taking the time to show me how to fix the article to be of WP standards. I appreciate it.

(I hope it will be within the 24 hour time limit... I have a very busy day today ....) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimeTesterGalaxy (talk • contribs) 15:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Dispute regarding quotations from the Australian politican Adam Bandt

This dispute is described on the talk page of the Adam Bandt article. Adam_Bandt

At issue is the inclusion of a single sentence with both a clear, unambiguous primary reference and a secondary reference.

The sentence is that:

He also declared that "It is futile to try and resurrect some kind of social democratic project" and that he was advocating "Towards an anti-capitalist, anti-social democratic, internationalist movement" .

There is an entry on the talk page regarding the dispute.

Surely this is both notable and well referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sien (talk • contribs) 22:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble making any sense of this. Are we talking about the section headed "15 year old email"? If so, it's an unhelpful title. If not, then what? And when we have people posting under IP addresses it's very hard to tell who said what. That little discussion on the Talk page is hardly a dispute yet. I recommend... Everyone register please and try to sign posts properly. Find a better section title. Explain the issue more clearly, please. HiLo48 (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This does regard the unhelpfully titled section in the discussion page about the email. This is regarding the removal of quotes made by Adam Bandt as an adult. The differences are between the edit made at 11:33, 1 December 2010 & 14:54, 1 December 2010 . The quote was first removed because it came from a primary source. However, the insertion of the quote conforms to the use of primary sources. In order to further substantiate the quote a secondary source confirming the quote was then found but also objected to despite being from a magazine that has been used as a reference elsewhere in wikipedia. I request that the quote be returned to the article with the 2 references cited. Sien (talk) 03:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Sien

Please see the latest comments on the article talk page by OrangeMike, an experienced Wikipedia editor and administrator.--Kudpung (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

How do I move a page from my workbox to production?

On November 24th I entered a new page into my workspace (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Hgoldste/Enter_your_new_article_name_here&action=edit). I understood after 7 days it would get moved into production. Is that the case> Hgoldste (talk) 01:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. It's up to you when you want your article moved to main space. However, before you do that you may wish to check out policies for notability and referencing first and enter some additional reliable sources. The currently cited sources appear to only prove the existence of the club, but do not seem to assert any particular notability of the kind that is required for an encyclopedic entry. Please click these links to refer to the various policies and guidelines. They should be perfectly self-explanatory although there is quite a lot to read, but please do not hesitate to ask again if there is anything that is not quite clear: WP:RS, WP:V, WP:ORG, WP:GNG. --Kudpung (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Can someone fix the Gwyneth Paltrow article?

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 12:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a very minor thing, I tried to edit the "recent projects" section by adding the fact that she aslo sang the song "Nowadays" from "Chicago" when she guest starred on Glee, as that particular song was missing... apparantly there is no lea michelle article, and the chicago internal link leads to the article for the city when I meant for it to lead to the musical.

I never edit things, and this is why, sorry for messing it up.

64.39.88.38 (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. [3] Anthony (talk) 05:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Translated pages

Anna Chromy, the European artist, has carved a fifteen foot sculpture called the Cloak of Conscience from a 250 tonne block of white marble. It has global significance and I am trying to translate her English wiki page into 16 other languages. We have succeeded with some, but others are being edited immediately after publishing with much of the content being stripped out.

These are the languages we are trying to translate to: Spanish, French, German, Portuguese, Indonesian, Arabic, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Italian, Greek, Korean, Hebrew, Dutch, Czech, Hindi.

Is there a way of doing this which prevents such action from happening, so that the resulting pages have as much information as the English version and are without warning messages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surrealist lover (talk • contribs) 11:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If you have problems on other language wikis, you need to find the equivalent page to this and post there. Each language wiki is a seperate entity. You will need to be familiar with policies on the various other wikis as they are not neccessarily the same as those on english Wikipedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

What's more, you should expect other language Wikipedia articles to be edited in the same way that you should expect your contributions to English Wikipedia to be edited. English Wikipedia is not an authoritative text to impose content on other language Wikipedias. Finally, the current English article on Chromý probably doesn't even meet our policies and guidelines (unfree images that wouldn't meet fair use guidelines, excessive number of images interrupting the article flow, complete dependence on the subject's website for sourcing). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

broken/vandalised main link on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pohick2/List_of_Nike_Locations

hi, i'm not experienced enough to solve this issue, a "broken main link" on this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pohick2/List_of_Nike_Locations

it does come up (correctly) first on google when searching "Thomas Benjamin composer", and that's what the article is about ..

a user link in the article says User:Pohick2 This account is a suspected sock puppet of TRATTOOO and has been blocked indefinitely.

thanks for fixing it, kind regards,

88.153.20.54 (talk) 11:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well that artcile is a user draft article in WP:User space. Why don't you leave a note on the draft article talk page, pointing out the precise error. Being suspected of being a sockpuppet is irrelevant. Read the user talk page, they have been unblocked. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Pohick2 has been blocked indef for copyvio problems since July, and has not been unblocked as far as I can see. I see that 88 has already dropped a message at Moonriddengirl's talk page (the blocking admin). I'm not sure what else can be done here, though it's worth seeing whether this userspace draft needs to be deleted in relation to the copyvio problems. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Frankenstein

I have noticed a major change to the article on Mary Shelly's FRANKENSTEIN. In the previous form the article cited my book FRANKENSTEIN, THE MAN AND THE MONSTER as a discenting opinion of the received analysis of Mary Shelly's intentions. That citaation is now missing from the Frankenstein article. How can I return the citation to the article?

Arthur Belefant. [email removed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by A.belefant (talk • contribs) 22:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The whole analysis section was removed in [4] with a brief discussion at Talk:Frankenstein#Removed Analysis section. You can post suggestions there. Per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest you shouldn't edit the article directly. If there is no analysis then it doesn't make much sense to quote a discenting opinion. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Please Update This Page With The Truth, Not Your Opinion.

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

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, retrieved Sept. 12, 2010

The Starchild Skull is an abnormal human skull …

collapse long rambling post

This statement is wrong because its reference is a poorly researched, badly out-of-date article written for the New England Skeptical Society in 1999, reporting the results of a nuclear DNA test done on the Starchild Skull’s bone at the BOLD forensic teaching laboratory in Vancouver, B.C., which concluded that the Starchild was a human male (Novella, 1999). [Note: A detailed discussion of this article is available HERE.] However, in 2003 the BOLD results were invalidated by Trace Genetics, a well-regarded ancient DNA lab in California that concluded the nuclear DNA could not possibly have been recovered using even the most sophisticated technology available to BOLD, and therefore their result must have been a contamination (Eshleman & Malhi, 2003). The 2003 test also indicated the Starchild Skull’s paternal DNA was unlike normal human DNA (Eshleman & Malhi, 2003). As these are the only two DNA tests referenced by the Wikipedia article, and since human nuclear DNA was not recovered by either test, it is impossible for the article to state whether the skull is or is not human. In 2010 new DNA tests were conducted on Starchild bone using improved technology, and it was found that a significant portion of the nuclear DNA recovered does not correlate to any DNA yet found on Earth. Thus, there is simply no way to legitimately call the Starchild Skull a “human.” In his 2004 report, Dr. Ted Robinson referred to the Starchild Skull more appropriately as “a highly unusual human-like skull,” which is far more accurate than Wikipedia calling it “an abnormal human skull.” ...allegedly found in Mexico. The story of how the Starchild Skull was found is technically hearsay because it depends entirely on the testimony of a person now dead who cannot be cross-examined. However, mitochondrial DNA analysis confirms the Starchild’s maternal haplogroup type as a typical Mesoamerican, and inorganic chemistry analysis produced a profile consistent with a person living in a high-altitude subtropical environment, similar to the Copper Canyon region of Mexico (Pye, K., 2005). [Note: Dr. Kenneth Pye is a native of England and is no relation to Lloyd Pye. They coincidentally share the same last name.] It (the Starchild Skull) is primarily notable due to claims by paranormal researchers that it is evidence of extraterrestrial contact. Merriam-Webster defines paranormal as “not scientifically explainable” (2010). Thus, the word “paranormal” does not apply to the Starchild Skull because two dozen Ph.D.s in various branches of science have provided written analysis of their opinions about it. In addition, several other Ph.D.s have given opinions they will not sign for fear of retaliation by vindictive peers who “police” the rigid status-quo belief system of mainstream science. Using those signed and unsigned data and opinions, Lloyd Pye has crafted two books filled with scientifically supported arguments. The printed book The Starchild Skull (2007), and the eBook Starchild Skull Essentials (2010). As of this writing, ongoing research has provided proof that the Starchild Skull possesses physical characteristics (Robinson et al. 2004), biochemical attributes (Pye, K. 2005), fibers and residue inside the bone (Pye, L. 2007), and DNA that have never before been found on Earth (The Starchild Project, 2010). We propose that this array of facts counts as valid evidence supporting the theory that the skull is at least partially of extraterrestrial origin. Mitochondrial DNA recovered from the skull establishes it as human.[1] Although Trace Genetics did recover human mitochondrial DNA from the Starchild Skull in 2003, this statement is inaccurate because it is possible to have the mitochondrial DNA (passed down through mothers) of one species and the nuclear DNA (passed down through both parents) of another species (Perdy, 2003). Therefore, human mitochondrial DNA alone does not establish the human species (Meadows, 2010). Examples of this phenomenon include the zebra/donkey hybrid “Zedonk” (BBC, 2010), the lion/tiger hybrid “Liger” (CBS, 2010), and the horse/donkey hybrid “Mule” (Perdy, 2003). In 2003, Trace Genetics determined that nuclear DNA was impossible to recover using techniques developed up to that point in time. Therefore, it was impossible for them to establish if the Starchild Skull was entirely human or not. The citation here is the same outdated Novella article from 1999 (and its equally outdated 2006 reprint). Specifically, he references quotes from Lloyd Pye and Mark Bean regarding mitochondrial DNA, yet Mark Bean ceased working with the Starchild Project in 2000, and mitochondrial DNA was not recovered from the Starchild Skull until 2003, proving that this quote is inaccurate. Discovery The Starchild Skull came into the possession of Ray and Melanie Young[2] of El Paso, Texas, who entrusted it to Lloyd Pye in February 1999.[3] This is correct, although it references sources from 2001. Pye is a writer and lecturer in what he describes as the field of alternative knowledge. Pye is indeed a writer and lecturer, although he did not coin the term “alternative knowledge.” Alternative researchers like him have always been labeled by terms that describe independence of thought and action that conflicts with established dogma. Alternative knowledge, alternative science, frontier science….these are all terms by which non-mainstream research is known. In their own time, Darwin and Einstein were considered “alternative” researchers until they forced their way into their mainstream. Thus, this statement’s phrasing seems designed to trivialize Pye’s work, which is in direct conflict with Wikipedia’s rule of maintaining neutrality in tone (Wikipedia, 2010c). According to Pye, the skull was found around 1930 in a mine tunnel about 100 miles (160 km) southwest of Chihuahua, Mexico, buried alongside a normal human skeleton that was exposed and lying supine on the surface of the tunnel.[4] This references an article from 1999, when the report of how the skull was found had no scientific evidence to support it. Since then, analysis of the staining on the skulls (Pye, L. 2007, p. 21) and inorganic chemistry (Pye, K. 2005) have combined with the synchronistic Carbon-14 dates (Pye, L. 2007, pp. 206-7 and p. 218) to indicate that the provenance story is very likely true. Analysis The skull is abnormal in several respects. This is a considerable understatement. Dr. Kaburda concluded that the skull presents 10 standard deviations from the norm (as cited in Robinson, 2004), is comprised of bone uniformly half as thick and weighing half as much as normal human bone (Robinson 2004), but is significantly more durable (Pye, L. 2007, pp. 171-172). [Note: A comprehensive list of physical and biochemical abnormalities in the Starchild Skull is available HERE.] A dentist determined, based on examination of the upper right maxilla found with the skull, that it was a child's skull, 4.5 to 5 years in age.[5] This is only partly accurate. Several dentists have stated they believe the Starchild Skull to be a child in this age range (Robinson, 2004; Dr. David Sweet as cited in Pye, L. 2007, p. 148). However, other specialists unwilling to be named (Pye, L. 2007) felt that extensive wear on the crowns of the teeth (p. 126) and the extensive size of the roots indicate the skull belonged to an adult (p. 156). However, the volume of the interior of the Starchild Skull is 1,600 cubic centimeters, which is 200 cm³ larger than the average adult's brain, and 400 cm³ larger than an adult of the same approximate size. The orbits are oval and shallow, with the optic nerve canal situated at the bottom of the orbit instead of at the back. There are no frontal sinuses.[4] These statements are all essentially true. However, the optic foramen (what they call the “optic nerve canal”) is positioned closer to the bottom of the orbit than in a normal human skull, not actually “at the bottom” as stated in the quote above (Dr. Mausolf as cited in Pye, 2007, pp. 100-105). The back of the skull is flattened. This statement is also true, although it neglects to mention that the flattening of the rear of the skull is natural, and not the result of artificial deformation, such as cradle-boarding (Robinson, 2004), nor of deformity such as premature suture fusion (Dr. D. Hodges as cited in Robinson, 2004). The skull consists of calcium hydroxyapatite, the normal material of mammalian bone.[6] This is fundamentally correct. More sophisticated analyses done later in 2004 by Dr. Ken Pye (no relation to Lloyd Pye) indicated that the bone of the Starchild Skull has abnormally high levels of collagen, the substance that gives tooth enamel its hardness and durability (Pye, K. as cited in Pye, L. 2007). Dating Carbon 14 dating was performed twice, the first on the normal human skull at the University of California at Riverside in 1999, and on the Starchild Skull in 2004 at Beta Analytic in Miami, the largest radiocarbon dating laboratory in the world. Both tests provided results of 900 years ± 40 years since death.[citation needed] This is correct, and the missing citation is: (Pye, L. 2007, pp. 206-7 and p. 218). Hutchison-Gilford progeria, a disease which has no known treatment, produces similar skull deformations to hydrocephaly. In a vague sense of the word “similar” this is true, but the differences between both of these conditions and the Starchild Skull are so substantial as to rule them out completely (The Starchild Project, 2010b). In progeria patients, the cell nucleus has dramatically aberrant morphology (bottom, right) rather than the uniform shape typically found in healthy individuals (top, right). This is true, but totally irrelevant to the Starchild Skull. DNA testing DNA testing in 1999 at BOLD, a forensic DNA lab in Vancouver, British Columbia found standard X and Y chromosomes in two samples taken from the skull, "conclusive evidence that the child was not only human (and male), but both of his parents must have been human as well, for each must have contributed one of the human sex chromosomes".[1] This quote comes from the 2006 re-dating of the 1999 Novella article, which was based on the invalid DNA test results from the BOLD lab in Canada. In 1999 the BOLD lab was a forensic teaching lab where students performed the majority of the work being done in it. The lab was not equipped in the many special ways necessary for handling samples more than 50 years old (the Starchild Skull is 900 years old). After the lab’s student technicians contaminated its first two attempts (Pye, L. pp. 153-162), they claimed to recover nuclear DNA from a “Y” chromosome (not the “X”). However, this was only 200 picograms of material, 1/5th of the minimum amount of genetic material normally required for a valid result. This small and dubious recovery was shown to be another contamination in 2003 by Trace Genetics, a DNA lab capable of recovering ancient DNA (over 50 years old), and whose founders (Dr. Jason Eshleman and Dr. Ripan Mahli) had previously worked on the high-profile Kennewick Man skeleton (Eshleman & Mahli, 2003). Dr. Mahli and Dr. Eschleman (2003) state: “[t]he inability to analyze nuclear DNA indicates that such DNA is either not present or present in sufficiently low copy number to prevent PCR analysis using methods available at the present time.” That statement means it was impossible to recover nuclear DNA from the Starchild Skull using the technology available in 2003, which made it equally impossible to do so four years earlier in 1999, thereby invalidating the BOLD result as yet another contamination. Further DNA testing at Trace Genetics, which specializes in extracting DNA from ancient samples, in 2003 recovered mitochondrial DNA from both skulls. The child belongs to haplogroup C, while the adult female belongs to haplogroup A. Both haplotypes are characteristic Native American haplogroups, but the different haplogroup for each skull indicates that the adult female was not the child's mother. This is correct and here is the missing reference: (Eshleman & Malhi, 2003). Trace Genetics was not able to recover useful lengths of nuclear DNA or Y-chromosomal DNA for further testing.[7] This is true up to a point. It fails to mention the critical fact that Trace Genetics was easily able to recover both mitochondrial and nuclear DNA on the first attempt from the adult human female skull reportedly found with the Starchild Skull (Eshleman & Malhi, 2003). That skull had the same general time of death as the Starchild Skull (Pye, L. 2007, p. 212), and was exposed to similar conditions post mortem (Pye, L. 2007, p. 21). Therefore, the Trace Genetics team expected the Starchild’s nuclear DNA to be similarly easy to recover, and indeed the Mitochondrial DNA did recover easily. However, in 6 full attempts no nuclear DNA could be recovered from the Starchild Skull (Pye, L. 2007, pp. 177-183). Explanations Potential explanations for the skull's unusual features include the use of cradle boarding on a hydrocephalic child,[8] brachycephaly, Crouzon syndrome,[9] congenital hydrocephalus, or potentially progeria.[citation needed] All of these deformities and many others have been investigated as possible explanations for the Starchild Skull, and none of them match the attributes of the skull (The Starchild Project, 2010b). Cradleboarding and all other artificial deformation techniques leave evidence on the surface of the skull bone, and no such evidence is present on the surface of the Starchild Skull. Thus, Dr. Robinson (2004) concluded that “the extreme flattening of the skull was caused by its natural growth pattern and is not artificial.” Hydrocephaly (also called “congenital hydrocephalus”) is a condition where excess cerebrospinal fluid in the cranium causes internal pressure that pushes outward against the skull, expanding any unfused sutures to give the skull an "inflated" shape (MedicineNet, 2010). According to Dr. Bachynsky and Dr. Robinson (cited in Robinson, 2004) the sutures in the Starchild Skull were unfused and healthy at the time of death, with no expansion present at the suture lines. Thus, the Starchild’s unusual shape could not have been caused by internal pressure or the sutures would be expanded. Dr. Bachynsky specifically ruled out hydrocephaly in his examination of the skull (Robinson, 2004). Brachycephaly simply means a skull that is abnormally wide, and is a possible symptom of multiple illnesses, deformities, and disorders. Therefore, it isn’t any kind of explanation for morphology; it is only an observation of a physical trait (Kelly, 2010). Crouzon Syndrome is a condition where symptoms include the complete premature fusion (obliteration) of two or more cranial sutures (Matusiak & Szybejko-Machaj, 2010). In 2003 Dr. Bachynsky, a radiological expert, concluded unequivocally that there was no abnormal or premature fusion of any of the Starchild Skull’s sutures (as cited in Robinson, 2004). Therefore, Crouzon Syndrome is impossible as an explanation. Progeria (also called Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome) is a fatal condition that causes the appearance of premature aging in children (Progeria Research Foundation, 2010). In Progeria, bones can become thinner and weaker, and premature fusion of sutures can cause abnormal skull shape, which in turn gives the lower face and eyes an unusual appearance (Medline Plus, 2010). One of the primary symptoms of Progeria is open fontanelles on the top of the head, the “soft spot” on a baby’s head (UM Medical, 2010). This condition is not present in the Starchild Skull (Robinson, 2003). The Starchild Skull’s bone is thinner than normal, but instead of being more brittle, as is caused by Progeria, it is observed to be much stronger than normal human bone (Pye, L. 2007, p. 176). Progeria does not remove the inion, change the location of the optic foramens, change the shape of the hardest sections of bone while leaving the weak sutures untouched, or increase the collagen content of bone (UM Medical, 2010), all features of the Starchild Skull (Pye 2010b). The only symptom that Progeria has in common with the Starchild Skull is “micrognathia,” an abnormally small jaw (UM Medical, 2010), leaving all of the other unusual features of the Starchild unexplained, and making Progeria a thoroughly incorrect diagnosis. Paranormal interest The skull has been of significant interest with those interested in ufology and extraterrestrial visitation. This is true, and that fact has often hampered efforts to have the skull evaluated by mainstream researchers. Nonetheless, perseverance has allowed the Starchild Project to gather a respected team of highly credentialed experts who have gone on record with their findings (Pye, L. 2007, pp. 111-112). Some contend that it is the skull of an alien or a human-alien hybrid as the shape of the skull bears similarities to the common representation of aliens known as "Greys".[citation needed] The Starchild Project no longer suggests the Starchild Skull might have belonged to a pure alien. The DNA test of 2003 found it has human maternal lineage, which confirmed that it cannot be a pure alien (Eschleman & Mahli 2003; Pye, L. 2007, pp. 125, 134, 155). However, a strong possibility remains that it will be proved to be a human-alien hybrid. Proponents of a paranormal explanation for the skull's origin reject plausible scientific hypotheses involving non-paranormal causes. This is flatly untrue. We consistently and continuously search for any provable explanation for the Starchild Skull, and we do so with complete disregard of whether the cause is “normal” or “paranormal.” Many mainstream scientists dismiss the work of the Starchild Project as “unscientific” because we allow for the possibility that the skull may be a human-alien hybrid. To those people we say, “Check your history books.” Most of what is known as “science” today started as a theory that was then proven, or has not yet been disproven and so is treated as fact by those whose interests are served by the assumption. These unproved but near universally accepted theories include cosmology’s Big Bang, biology’s evolution-by-mutation, and much of the work of Pythagoras, Einstein, and Stephen Hawking. We believe it would be irresponsible for us to close any avenue of exploration until hard evidence exists to justify doing so. We carry an obligation to continue to theorize that the Starchild Skull may be the result of alien interference, and to continue trying to prove ourselves wrong at every turn. That is how the truest scientific method is utilized.

They contend that it has other abnormalities such as the thickness, density, and strength of the bone that support their beliefs.[citation needed] This is true, but it is far from complete as a list of the characteristics that have led to the theory that the Starchild Skull may be something other than entirely human. It should be noted that the author of this “Wackypedia” article fails to use a neutral unbiased tone, calling our theories “beliefs” and their theories “plausible scientific hypotheses,” a clear violation of Wikipedia’s guidelines (2010c). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.69.68 (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Please post a concise and neutral description of your request. If you have issues with the facts in an article then post them concisely on the article talk page so that editors may examine them. please provide verifiable and reliable sources for your opinion. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

17th Test Squadron page error

The unit patch on the 17th Test Squadron page is incorrect. I have the correct image. What is the process for making this correction?

Assistance is appreciated. The commander would like this corrected. Thank you

Naomiruth (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Upload is where to start. You need to check that copyright status is OK. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed via OTRS. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Island of stability page has some link issues that need attending to

Resolved

 – fixed by bot Jezhotwells (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

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

There are some issues at the bottom of the page: # ^ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named predictions; see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text # ^ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named longlived; see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text # ^ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named nuclear; see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text Just figured posting here would get someone's attention who could do something about it, not sure where to flag this sort of thing:

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.91.81.114 (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC) 

That has been fixed by AnomieBOT.

apparent vandalism at Tahash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have withdrawn from contributing to this article for reasons that should be clear from the last several edits made there and the comments on the talk page. Please look at the sources and the statements made in previous versions of the article prior to November 30 this year. I know that anyone can edit. But for the sake of this encyclopedia, can something be done about what seems to me to clearly be an agenda of sabotage of content? My sincere appreciation for what you administrators are seeking to achieve. 20:03, 2 December 2010 User:Michael Paul Heart

Firstly, this page is served by assistants who are violunteers, some are admins, some are not. There is a note from User:Joe407 at Talk:Tahash, posted at 05:20 3 December which I suggest you read, as they are offering to help you combat the degradation of the page. It would seem that User:Pontificalibus wants to work with you as well. Mensaliv, who also contributes here, has made some useful suggestions. I don't see any particular vandalism in the article. It would also appear that you need to familiarise yourself with WP:Citing sources and WP:verifiability. Citing the "fact" that information is not available in sources is not evidence of anything. If you cannot directly support a statement then leave it out. In short, engage with other editors, assume good faith. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I should add after reading the talk page that you would be well advised to read Wikipedia:Multiple accounts#Sharing accounts as well. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Repeated problems with Prius article

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

User at IP address 173.206.234.126 appears to do little else but vandalize the page on the Prius with a (self-referencing?) section on EMP radiation that is contradicted by the cites it provides as support. When the page is altered to correct or at least address some of them problems with this, user simply reverts the section. (See history, multiple instances) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.195.102.82 (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is definitely edit warring going on. Both User:173.206.234.126 and yourself appear to have removed cited statements on separate occasions. Neither of you appears to have contributed to discussion on the talk page. Communicating via edit summaries is not a good way of carrying on. Instigate discussion on the talk page, I recommend that you get an account. And please don't forget to sign your posts, using four (~)s. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I really don't have the time or interest to deal with his repeated and obvious vandalizing of the Prius page. So I suppose there it shall remain, until some other hapless soul dares remove it. 66.195.102.82 (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Moving over a redirect

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

I would like to move this page to a more appropriate name as per the article talk page, the creator agrees. However the destination, Transport for Greater Manchester, is already a redirect and to a different article (specifically, the old organisation). I've read up on the moving process and was confused over whether the move could actually be done by myself or had to be submitted to requested moves? I've moved pages before but not yet over an existing article so thought I'd ask for future reference. ChiZeroOne (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you move TfGME to Transport for Greater Manchester Executive? Then you can put links, disambiguation links and redirects in place as necessary. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Because it isn't the subject's common name, [5], [6], [7] etc by any stretch. I think the creator only called it TfGME in the first place because the correct name was taken. The article references both the executive and committee components which I noted on the talk page, so "Transport for Greater Manchester Executive" is incorrect. I realise the above would be quickest but I'd rather it was done right and was consistent with its closest relation TfL. So do you know whether moving over the Transport for Greater Manchester page would be acceptable without having to make a request? It's not a great problem if I do have to request, I just wanted to know, thanks. ChiZeroOne (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the move has been made by Orangemike. It might be best to discuss what you want to do with him as he is an admin. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

this ip user is changing images

this user [8] seems to only be changing images on page to less correct images. mostly they seem to be changing covers of books from the original version to a more recent version, but they are leaving the text as 'original cover'. does anyone want to do anything about this? i dont want to get in another fight. if not, ok. Aisha9152 (talk) 07:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Would seem to be related to Shadow Resurrection (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Just at a glance, you can tell something's wrong by the inordinately high resolution of this user's non-free image uploads. These should probably be reverted and tagged for deletion; however, I don't have the time to go through these at the moment. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Using wikipedia for advertisement

Drugwipe test (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Black cocaine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article about "drugwipes" is being undone by same person whenever the products problems with reliability compared to blood test are added to it. Whats more the same person is using article about "Black cocaine" for blatant advertisement: "For more information on Drugwipe, visit http://www.affiniton.com (formerly Securetec USA)." I woud guess the guy is connected to the manufacturer some way. Anythng that can be done about it? Talitintti (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is a mess. It cites no sources. It reads, at least in part, like an advertisement for the company that manufactures the product, at the same time criticizing the value of the product. It's almost a complete orphan. You and the other editor are edit-warring to no purpose. There's been no discussion on the Talk page.

I'm wondering if the article should be proposed for deletion.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace. Normally, you'd present them with one of the warnings there (already did one for you), and if they don't stop, go to WP:AIV and report them as advertising-only accounts. I'm gonna start keeping an eye on Purechi, since it looks like he is nothing but an advertising only account. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Didn't have to wait long. He did it again on both artickles, Drugwipe, and Black cocaine. The original additions of unreliability weren't added by me, but I read the same news articles about it. So what is the correct way to remove the advertisements and add the ombudsmans comments about the test? Talitintti (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Ian seems to be dealing with the editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I would beg to differ to the comments here. The article is simply sticking to the 'facts' about the test. Mr. Talitintti published some very negative comments on the page that could have a detrimental effect, so the page has been 'cleaned up'. There have since been several additional links to articles published about the test and how it has been used in the US for the page 15 years with great success. The negative viewpoint was not founded, so therefore removed. I'm not sure why after so much time has passed, someone would publish incorrect information in order to hurt something very useful in protecting against drug trafficking/use, then report me for 'cleaning it up'. Purechi (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)PureChi

It's hard to evaluate any of the information in the article because of lack of sources. As I noted on your Talk page, the sources you've added to the External links section are reports from the company that sells the product; therefore, they are of little utility as reliable sources. At a minimum, the article needs to be pared back severely and be backed up by third-party sources. Statements like "The Drug screening test is easy and can be used by federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, as well as schools, workplace health and safety and homes." in the lead read like an advertisement. The Operation section is unnecessary; the article doesn't need to be an instruction manual on how to use the product or have sentences like: "As well as the individual DrugWipe test kits, they are also available as: DrugWipe Twins for either "Cannabis and Amphetamine/methamphetamine" or "Opiate and Cocaine". DrugWipe5 is a single device that screens for the first 4 groups above giving individual read out. DrugWipe5+ is a single device with multiple read out but tuned specially for saliva screening."--Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I would call the line ""For more information on Drugwipe, visit http://www.affiniton.com (formerly Securetec USA)."" blatant advertisement in the Black cocaine article. You can hardly claim that sentence is sticking to the facts. Talitintti (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

A link on the page has been added to the DRUID study in Europe. This was a HUGE study on roadside testing with saliva and various test devices. In this study, Drugwipe outperformed every other saliva test in the study and was found to be very reliable and accurate. This was 'saliva' testing only. Drugwipe can also be used as a sweat test or a surface test. Drugwipe was tested by ONDCP (office of national drug control policy) in 1996 for surface studies. In that study, Drugwipe was 100% accurate with zero (0) false positives, 100% true negatives. A reference to this will be added soon, as well as the entire Scientific Reference List. Viewers can read and form opinions for themselves then. Just stating the 'FACTS' and the 15 years behind the product.Purechi (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)PureChi

Aux Deux Magots/Les Deux Magots cafe in Pais

A picture of Bernie Taupin and Elton John is on the net sitting in front of the 1987 version of Aux Deux Magots cafe, or is it Les Deux Magots cafe. After a careful viewing of the photo, it is unclear which picture is real, the current one being displayed or the one they are in. Which Deux Magots cafe is real?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.255.12 (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the right board for this question. Are you asking something about Wikipedia's article on Les Deux Magots, or a photo therein? If you're just looking for general information on the cafe, you might have better luck asking at the reference desk. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Can Wikipedians be paid by third parties?

I assume, as many others do, that Wikipedians are not allowed to be paid for contributions they make at Wikipedia. Just wanted to confirm that my understanding is correct. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's frowned upon by most, but it's proven difficult to legislate against it. Issues are generally in the realm of "How would one know/prove that an editor was being paid" or "Doesn't WP:COI cover this already?" If you haven't already read them, then you might find WP:Paid editing (policy) and the proposed WP:Paid editing (guideline) interesting. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I have encountered a handful of places on Wikipedia where it's obvious that good faith editing was undertaken by an employee or otherwise paid representative of an organisation, someone who know more than the rest of us here, and where that editing has been ethical, honest, and simply just plain helpful to making Wikipedia a better place. I wouldn't want to stop that happening. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia editors can be paid by third-parties and frequently are paid by third-parties either directly or indirectly as in the example given by Hilo48. So far as I am aware, there are no policies which state that paid editing is prohibited and although various admins -- including Jimbo, before he relinquished his ability to block users -- claim that they will block paid editors, I am not aware of this ever actually happening. If you read this recent WP:AN discussion, you will see that many editors have mixed feelings about paid editing and that discussion of this topic is generally unwelcome, which is perhaps why there is no consensus yet. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely no way of proving whether or not people are paid to write articles for the Wikipedia. Conflict of Interest is unfortunately one of the weakest policies because it is based almost solely on a user name, or an innocent use of the first person plural in deletion discussions. Spamming is now a regular profession, and the Wikipedia is one of many on the list of popular forums and collaborative web sites to be spammed. Companies argue that that they are doing the world a favour by being mentioned. Their SEO firms who do the spamming know perfectly well what they are doing. We have to insist strongly and firmly that Wikipedia is not a business directory. The editors here are all volunteers and there is no reason why they should use their time to provide free publicity to those who have a purely commercial interest. That said, I suggest we end this discussion here, because Wikipedia is not a forum either, and WP:EAR is for getting help with editing ;) Kudpung (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

At the moment I am more concerned with editors who are paid to keep information out of Wikipedia, than those who try to use Wikipedia as an advertising board. Since many volunteer editors do not have any particular axe to grind, they will quickly bow to (potential) threats and (alleged)intimidation by those experienced paid editors. I realize this issue is not the purpose of this page, however, this is a problem that Wikipedia will have to grapple with if it is to keep the public’s respect.

My $.02 of the day Ottawahitech (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should assume that any of these paid editors are more "experienced". In addition, editors face a certain amount of intimidation, sometimes express, sometimes implied, from other editors; I don't think we should assume that that intimidation comes particularly from paid editors. As for axes to grind, all of us have axes to grind, it's part of being human beings. The goal is to try to put one's axe aside when contributing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I treat the removal of properly-sourced negative information as vandalism, and fight it as I would any other vandalism. I don't care whether they are paid vandals or not. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The Northridge East Neighborhood Council is part of a citywide system guided by the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment (DONE).

The Northridge East Neighborhood Council is part of a citywide system guided by the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment (DONE).

As stated in our Bylaws, the purpose of this Council is:

To improve the quality of life and business climate for the Stakeholders within the Northridge community To facilitate and improve communication between the Stakeholders, other neighborhood councils and the City of Los Angeles in order to improve the quality of life To provide a forum for public discussion of issues and to advise the City of Los Angeles on issues concerning City governance, the needs of this neighborhood council, the delivery of City services and matters of citywide interest. A Stakeholder is defined as any individual who lives, owns or rents property, or works within the geographic area of this Neighborhood Council.

http://www.nenc-la.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48&Itemid=60 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.102.238 (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Erm... so what's your question exactly? --Kudpung (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Can a diagram/map be primary source

Hiya. Just wondering if anyone has any pointers on whether a diagram or map can be considered a primary source? This academic paper produces a world map and regional maps of climate classification, and while it doesn't annotate the maps with country or region names, it is mostly obvious from the maps which areas/countries/regions have which climate classification. Would the map itself be a usable source? Or do the regions/countries need to be listed by name within the paper? Is it original research or synthesis to extract the names from the diagram? Any ideas? Thanks in advance Fmph (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Note. In effect you are asking whether these edits ([9], [10], [11], [12]) are OK. I don't think they are, as is explained on Talk:Belgium#Climate. The main point is that the paper does not define Northwestern Europe. You assume it is the green area in Figure 8, but that assumption is questioned. DVdm (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

No I'm not. Please do not put words into my mouth. In fact, to the contrary, I'm asking if your assertion, that the words/terms used in the content must also be present in the source, is correct. I don't believe it is. If you want to ask a different question, then by all means do so. However this thread is my request. I'd appreciate if you wouldn't try to cloud the original question. Maybe you'd like to strike your Note: above. Fmph (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

In view of the recent edits you made and the talk page discussions, I think the note is a relevant clarification. You say it is not. Ok. Perhaps I should have worded the note as a question, and you just answered it. I'll leave it to those who respond here, to interpret it as such, and/or to ignore it if they wish to do so. DVdm (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Missing Discussion page

I was intrigued by the idea of attempting a clean up of Joseph_C._Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article which seems like a patchwork in places (especially of links to dueling opinion pieces). In visiting the page, I noticed that there is no Discussion page there (or at least not visible to me), and no explanation of why there is not. There is a link to an archive which is a year old. I sense some Wikipedia decision or policy unknown to me as a new user and would like some guidance. Thanks. By the way, I once found I was blocked from editing a Wikipedia entry, posted a comment to the Discussion page--then found that was all it took to give me immediate access to the main article. If in general there is any Discussion page "magic" it might be nice to place a link on each affected Discussion page to a document elaborating the rules. Appreciate any help; I am a newly-created Wikipedia obsessive and look forward to being more involved. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. There is a talk page at Talk:Joseph C. Wilson. The discussion up to November 2009 were archived by Athaenarain February 2010. How do I know this? I checked the article history which showed this information. You can start a new discussion on the talk page by clicking on the plus sign (+) to the right of the Edit tab. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I found the Talk page, but was startled there was no actual talk there. Given the movie just came out, and the intensity of discussion on the Valerie Plame Talk page, I thought the absence of content on the Joseph Wilson page might reflect a decision of the Powers That Be to shut it down. Hard to believe there's been no discussion on this page since November 2009? I didn't want to dive into the middle of editing a controversial topic without fully understanding any Wikipedia procedural issues. Anyway, will post my ideas for changes to the article on the Talk page and will take it from there. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

guggenheim fellows 1963 and 1964

please add the name of david m. heath to the years for 1963 and 1964, as i was a recipient each of those years as a photographer (humanities). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.152.245 (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Please post your information on the talk (discussion) page of the appropriate articles, together with supporting citations from reliable sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)