Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

San Diego County Portal uses City of San Diego seal

Stale

 – No response at WikiProject talk. Danger (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The 'portal for San Diego County (on the right) uses the city of San Diego seal. The portal button is shown in El Cajon, California, for instance as well as a number of other places. I would think that should be rectified. I am not sure how to change it. Would someone please change it? File:Seal Of San Diego, California.svg File:San Diego County Seal.png Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking n into this, but as a matter of interest did you read the edit notice at the top of this page before posting this? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

As there is a portal, San Diego also has its own Wikipedia project. It should probably be discussed first and the right place to discuss this issue is there at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject San Diego. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I did read the edit notice. I presume by your modification to my message that you were referring to the "posting of large amounts of text"? If so, maybe "and images" should be added? I will post my message on talk:WikiProject San Diego. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 06:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

2nd set of eyes, please

Stale

 – The images still don't look right to me. C'est la wiki? Danger (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at these two images, File:Tourism.JPG and File:Company logo.jpg... It may just be a caching issue on my end, but the image I uploaded should be the same as File:Picture.jpg - but I'm seeing old versions in the main section and the new/correct versions in the thumbnail/history section. I'm trying to 'salt' these generic image names, and want to confirm tat the right image is visible to the public. Skier Dude (talk) 06:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I'm only seeing the "Please don't upload" image, both in the main section and in the history section. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much- it's a problem at my end :( Skier Dude (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm having the same problem as you Skier Dude, but I have no idea what's going on. Browser? (I use Firefox). --Danger (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

There are server issues as well - see this VPT thread and parts of this one. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Machines

Stale

 – The tempest rages on at Talk:Machine. I tried; maybe you will have more success. Danger (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I am new to Wikipedia, but I have found that my students use it to find basic information regarding machines. For this reason, I have been examining the articles on machines and machine elements. I have attempted to correct vague and misleading statements and have run headlong into an editor Derek fam who has a perspective driven my his view of computers as machines. This conflict seems unresolvable and suggests to me that a new topic is needed that allows Derek fam the opportunity to expound on his view, say Computing Machines. In order to advance this article on machines, his grip must be relaxed in some way.Prof McCarthy (talk) 06:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The article is under-sourced. You did not include an RS in your edit here. See WP:RS for policy. The article is clearly a very generalized one. Excessive focus on one area of "machine" is undue (WP:Undue) so all sections should be written proportional to their importance. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Modern scribes

Stale

 – Dispute isn't active, but since it's been slowly burning since March, intervention would still be helpful. Danger (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Scribe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I am having a dispute with another editor/editors over whether this article should mention Scribe (ER), computer operators who work with physicians. Reliable sources the disputed text cites call these operators "scribes", and to me there are similarities between modern and ancient/medieval scribes; both are adept in a technology (whether computers or literacy) and use their knowledge to act as go-betweens for others who aren't. Ylee (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I've posted a detailed explanation of why User:Ylee keeps being reverted at Talk:Scribe#Modern scribes. --Hadal (talk) 07:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

'To-do list' at Talk:Amway

Resolved

 – The arguing has moved on from the to-do list. Danger (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

For those that aren't aware, Amway is a somewhat controversial direct marketing company. Amongst the templates at the top of the talk page is this 'to-do' list (see WP:TODO:

Here are some tasks you can do:

Describe the business model more fully, with sources. Include info on average incomes. Subsection on major Amway "support" groups

Do a section on RS and V 3rd party commentary on Amway, eg various awards and recognitions

Do a section on corporate sponsorships

Subsections on top 5 Amway markets - Amway China, Amway Japan, Amway South Korea, Amway North America, #5?

Include some copyright free images for the article

Clean up "politics & culture" section, perhaps including any notable issues inline at relevant section.

Add historical corporate sales data

I consider this list to be a clear breach of WP:NPOV - we should not be giving editors instructions on how they should present Amway, Particularly ones that are clearly intended to present it in a more positive light. As WP:TODO indicates, a to-do list is not a place to express a point of view. I am however unclear as to what the policy is, and would like some guidance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I've asked bother ATG and another editor (with whom I have a long, alas adversorial history) what their actual concerns are with the items, neither of them have responded and simply keep deleting the list, which has been in place for well over a year and to which other editors have referred. I updated the list to reflect more recent discussions (for example on subsidiaries), it has again been deleted without discussion. --Icerat (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I have never deleted the list. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The tag to the to do list has been repeatedly deleted by Rhode Island Red, not yourself. Apologies for any confusion. --Icerat (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This does not appear to be a breach of NPOV, unless there's are general conventions that, say, describing business models is a violation of neutrality or that articles about companies should not include financial data or whatever. (None of which, of course, actually exist.) Merely having a list of aspects where the article may need work is not a violation of NPOV. I clearly must be missing something, because on face, this seems a totally frivolous argument. If the article is not deficient in a particular area, then remove the item from the list. If it is deficient in another, add an item. Danger (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for assistance from a more experienced editor

Answered

 – Danger (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

In the article Nick Clegg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the user Matt Downey is continually removing sourced content from the page. He has also posted warning templates on my talkpage, claiming that I am removing sourced content (which I haven't done - I've only been reverting his removal of the sourced content and asking him not to do it). Thanks Avaya1 (talk) 12:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You can ignore that warning. I've warned Matt about 3RR and will follow up with a further note about inappropriate warnings and edit summaries. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Cyperuspapyrus

Answered

 – Danger (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Cyperuspapyrus (talk · contribs)
• Respect Gym (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• SuperKombat World Grand Prix I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, I tagged the above two articles (I believe correctly) for issues of sourcing and notability. The creator removed them without, in my opinion, addressing the issues or explaining why satisfactorily, so I restored them with this rationale, and left a standard message on their user talkpage about it. They took umbrage at this and angrily re-removed the tags; usually I would follow up with further dialogue but given that they don't seem to hold my opinions in high esteem, I think it would be better if a hitherto uninvolved third party could take the issue on and explain to them what our verification and notability policies ask of their articles, and how to go about meeting these standards. Thanks in advance, Skomorokh 15:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the tags on SuperKombat and warned Cyperuspapyrus about personal attacks on editors. I plan to nominate Respect Gym for speedy deletion as it has no references other than itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Redirects

Answered

 – Danger (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is the link to the article as an example of what I am talking about

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I_beleive_in_miracles&redirect=no

I do mostly spelling checks and corrections for the Typo Team. I cannot figure out how to correct redirects with incorrect spelling; such as the example above. When I go to edit the redirect, it will not allow me to correct the title of the redirect. Any help? Or are these to be reported to another area to be dealt with? Any help is appreciated. Anlome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anlome (talk • contribs) 15:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

That's because there is already a redirect at I believe in miracles! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the point of providing a misspelled redirect is to help users who misspell the word get straight to where they want to go. No correction of such redirects is needed or desirable, as they make the encyclopedia more usable. Cheers, CliffC (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC) That assumes, of course, that the misspelling is a plausible one. ---CliffC (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps there would be some general improvement in spelling if it actually mattered. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I was happily

Answered

 – Danger (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

editing Brenda Putnam and even found a picture of one of her works at Harriet Beecher Stowe. However I was not happy with how the picture looked, so copied it and photoshoped it and want post it at Brenda Putnam but an not sure how to do that . Credit for the shot needs to still go to the original poster (who has not edited in a year or so) and I tend to get soooo confused in all the picture uploading hoop-la. Any ideas? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 04:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you ask at WP:MCQ since no one has answered here. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the license allows you to upload a new version of the file, explaining the changes you've made and why. From there you can include it in the Brenda Putnam article. Give me a shout if that doesn't make sense... Worm^TT · (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Actress Bobbie Phillips page...

Can an editor please assist me? I have been attempting to update actress Bobbie Phillips page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobbie_phillips but someone keeps undoing my work. I am providing verifications of the info and don't fully know how to post everything on here. I used to work for Bobbie Phillips and still even have a copy of her passport showing her birthdate of January 29, 1972. It was correct on IMDB and then someone changed it on there for some reason. I know she retired and doesn't have anyone updating her acting sites. I would love to provide better verified info and even have newer photos but I can't seem to figure out how to put them on here. A link to her acting headshot on Flickr is [[1]]. But, I personally have others. Any help is appreciated. Especially that of keeping my updates on the page. Again, I am not adding any unverifiable info. Thank you for helping! Aaron Carter [removed email] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.127.213.35 (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Aaron. I've removed your email, as it's not a good idea to include them on pages like this. I've had a look at what you've been doing on the article, and I can't say I agree with everything you've done, you'll need a few more sources. For example, is there a source that she stopped work in 2010, or is that just by your calculation? First female to play a crow on screen? Possible spin offs of Talon? These are all things that should be sourced.

Unfortunately we cannot accept a copy of her passport or your word for information like her birthdate, as we require a published source, which any interested reader could look up. Also, due to copyright rules, we are unable to use headshots in general - they are not public domain. If you have others that you've taken, perhaps you could upload them. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you WORM! I will work on compiling the appropriate verifications and adding them to each item. Regarding Ms. Phillips stopping work in 2010. It says credited years from and to. Bobbie Phillips appeared on a television show titled Divine Design in 2010 which is verified on IMDB which also shows her credited years until 2010. Prior to that, she retired in 2003(some places say 2004 but it was 2003) which has been verified on IMDB as well as in a book she wrote and many other sources. I will try to add the reference on that info. There are news articles relating to all of my posts. I will do my best to find the appropriate ones online and cite the reference. I do have photos that are not copyrighted, which I will try to figure out how to upload. Thanks again for your assistance. AC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.127.213.35 (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

IMDb is not a reliable source; nothing is verified by appearing there. Also: given her age, there is probably no such thing as photos of her that are not copyrighted. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

TL Forsberg

Answered

 – Danger (talk)

Could some kind sole review my handling of the WP:BLPPROD process with this article (TL Forsberg) please? I ask as the creator (who has been around since 2007) has already removed a BLP tag from the page after I reviewed it as a new article and has expressed some unhappiness on the talk page. Unfortunately I forgot who WP:PROD at the time and have gone back and done so as no source is cited and a quick search didn't find anything that I am aware of being WP:RS. I'm little concerned that they may also get upset about the WP:PROD. Many thanks in advance. --wintonian ^talk edits 13:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I've weighed in over there, sorting out a couple of problems. I think he has enough information to move past BLPPROD (though he hasn't actually done it yet), but I don't think the article would pass Afd. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm not a big fan of their attitude (or is that just me?) I have added some advice about the IMDB not being a reliable source and included WP:CITE to help them reference properly. --wintonian ^talk edits 14:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

At under 1000 edits, I'd consider him a new user, still learning. He's talking on the talk page, I've seen a lot worse attitudes. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks for keeping an eye on it, BTW they reverted your removal of the Facebook link so I took it out again and linked to WP:FACEBOOK in the summary. They seem to just want to put the page up how they want and without being terribly interested in the way Wikipedia works. Yep there still fairly inexperienced, as I am with a few more edits that --wintonian ^talk 15:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Atlantic (period) / Holocene climatic optimum

Answered

 – Danger (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, someone around, who can take a look at the two articles and decide whether they should be merged or edited to distinguish better between them? Because I can't find any source for the claim that the Atlantic period as such or the term Atlantic is limited to (Northern) Europe and therefore assume, that both articles essentially cover the same issue, with slightly different angles and wonder if two articles are warranted. TIA --h-stt !? 15:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The articles seem too specific to be merged. Perhaps both need polishing and more sources? I suggest you follow the procedures for proposals to merge (WP:PM) and contact the editors involved in the articles. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

External links at .300 WSM and elswhere

Answered

 – Whish, whish, whish, whack. Danger (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

This morning a user "Berean Hunter" decided to remove any external links I had added. A couple examples are...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.300_WSM#External_links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_SR-556

He managed to single out my contributions, that were on-topic and specific to the Wikipedia pages they were posted to. He did manage to ignore other references on the pages that were links to commercial services, so I'm not sure why he is singling me out. The links I added are on-topic, not commercial, and meant to supplement the information already on the page.

Markm84 (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Our guidelines about external links can be found here: WP:EL. Wikipedia is not a link farm so the general approach is that there should be a significant reason to include the link even if it is not specifically one of the "links to be avoided". Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Markm84 is a single purpose account whose contribs are explicitly spamming links for realguns.com and they are commercial.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I just reported them to AIV, continued after final warning. GB fan (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Debate has turned personal & offensive

Resolved

 – Kept as "no consensus". Danger (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I recently became a Wikipedia article editor and am working my way through a few articles that I noticed needed work, citations, idependent neutral sources, etc. Because the first article I worked on was nominated for deletion by another editor due to lack of citations or importance of the subject, some users have accused me of vandalizing, questioned my motives as far as the editing of the article, and also claimed I am on a personal "vendetta" against the subject of the article. Just today, there is a new user who has joined in the accusations. I believe the tone has turned too personal and borderline abusive and has shifted the discussion from finding outside sources proving the importance and notability of the subject into attacks on everything from my nationality to my motives. I would appreciate a neutral editor weighing in on the issue as there appear to be too many new or one time voters trying to change the direction of the issue at hand. I have tried to remain civil and talk about my reasons for the edits but it has not stopped the attacks. The discussion can be found at:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marisol Deluna (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marisol Deluna|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a copy of the original article I came across and started editing so you may judge for yourselves the amount of editing that was needed. Attention on the dead links and references:

http://www.enotes.com/topic/Marisol_Deluna

I would also like to note that most of the editing of the article was done by other regular contributors and the "conspiracy theories" arose due to the unfortunate fact that I was the first person to notice the article needed work. For the record, I just recently signed up for an account and name as opposed to just having an IP address to identify me and my edits. Thank you for your time.Aa1232011 (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Nicola Horlick

Answered

 – Danger (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Please can someone contact me about the reference to Madoff on this page. It is inaccurate and defamatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhorlick (talk • contribs) 08:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nicola, I can't see a reference to Madoff on this page, please do let me know where it is so I can investigate. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the poster means Nicola Horlick#Bernard Madoff scandal -- John of Reading (talk) 09:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

If the information reported in the press is inaccurate, one recommendation is to contact Wikipedia at info-en-q@wikipedia.org per WP:LIBEL. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I feel as though I am being unnecessarily harassed. Need some help/advice.

Answered

 – Editor indicates that request is answered. Danger (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nipsonanomhmata&action=history A user who thinks that I have violated the 3RR rule posted a violation on my homepage (that same user has in the last couple of weeks violated the rule twice). My understanding is that they "cut and paste" the violation on my homepage without a good understanding of the rule.
I explained that I had not violated the rule and deleted the notice from my homepage because I realised that it did not mean anything (and obviously I would have been promptly blocked if I had violated the rule). The user has edit warred on my homepage to reinstate the violation notice six times. All recent edits. It's got to the point that it feels like a personal attack I would just like them to go away and leave me alone. What do you suggest/recommend?  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 16:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

HJi. Please provide a link to the article concerned. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nipsonanomhmata&action=history  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 16:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems that other editors are actively working to improve the references on the articles you've commented on. They perceive that your re-adding of the refimprove tag is not helpful. For example, at Hüseyin Özgürgün, where it looks like you re-added the tag three times. How about waiting a week before adding the tag again on any of these articles. You've already participated in the discussion at Talk:Mehmet Ali Talat, so you should be aware that other people are working on these reference issues. Please be aware that all these articles are under WP:DIGWUREN, which takes a dim view of nationalist editing. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Removing the tag before making an improvement isn't helpful either Ed (but that has nothing to do with the query that I have raised) and btw I re-added the tag twice (not three times). Nor have you resolved my query. Nor have you assumed good faith. In fact, worse than that, you have accused me of nationalist editing. Where did that come from? Did I make a nationalist or racist statement by adding a Refimprove tag to an article without any references that meet WP:RS? It's process-related. An editor adds a Refimprove tag and if an editor adds a reference that meets WP:RS to substantiate the content in the article then the tag is removed. Apparently, when I add a tag I must be a card-carrying nationalist. Thanks once again for your good faith Ed. I'm really looking forward to bumping in to you again.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 20:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Since I have received no advice on how to resolve this issue. I have politely asked the editor concerned to stay away from my homepage. Don't know what else to do. I sincerely hope that is the end of it.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 22:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You were sanctioned last year under WP:ARBMAC and now you're disputing at articles such as the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922). You've recently reverted at Derviş Eroğlu, İrsen Küçük and Rauf Denktaş. You were warned by an admin for nationalistic editing on a Turkey-related article at User talk:Nipsonanomhmata#TRNC Presidents. If you sincerely think your recent edits raise no questions of nationalistic editing, I invite others to say if they agree with your assessment of the situation. EdJohnston (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

And I showed you the previous violations of the nationalistic editing of the editor that set me up for that. And I remember that you blindly rode shotgun with them. An editor who was a rampaging nutcase who stalked me for months. You supported the stalker. Yes I remember. I'd rather somebody else addressed my query. You are not fit for purpose due to a conflict of interest. Furthermore, your assumptions are unfounded and poorly thought out. A fictitious "country" that is only recognised by the country which occupies the territory is not a country and neither is the leader of the puppet regime a "President". The content of these articles is misleading propaganda despite the occasional use of "de facto". Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopaedic, not an outlet that engenders the propaganda of a puppet-regime controlled by a country that is controlled by its military.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 12:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

My query has now been resolved. Thank you.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 14:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

International space station

International Space Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Does anyone like space ? the ISS is an international program, and I've been trying to improve the articles neutrality, and improve it overall, with varying success, some people will talk on the talk page, some just use the edit summary, after undoing everything. It's frustrating. I could use some help, OR if I'm the problem, feel free to say so ! Plenty of my edits are left as is, and polished up by editors, but fixing the opening paragraph is a challenge as it's the first thing some people come to, not the talk page, they see a difference and don't seem to give it a chance, and revert to factually incorrect and in my opinion, biased versions..This page is a featured article.Penyulap (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Oh, and I must warn you, I waffle on a lot on the talkpage. talk far too much I'm sure.(then again, a lot of the time, nobody uses the talk page at all, which is the problem)Penyulap (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You could try asking at WikiProject Spaceflight. Do realize that International Space Station is a featured article, so it's considered very high quality. You may want to contact the main writers of the article to ask their advice before making any radical changes. --Danger (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Quantum and Cosmological Issues

I am interested in following discussions concerning physics issues, such as: universe models; ie atomist fixed frames versus Leibnizian relational entangled particles. Entry into the physics portal hasn't solved finding an overview on what's active and what's dormant for now. Assistance in my search is appreciated. As a retired electrical engineer and a enthusiastic student of the above issues; I would like to contribute. Feel it wise however to discover what areas related to the above are being developed, and wish to make appropriate contributions. Cooperative enterprizes are a key to human survival, hence my support of Wikipedia. Idealist707 (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Try WikiProject Physics. The editors and pages there should provide some useful information. --Danger (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Edmund Ser, Malaysian Fashion Designer

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

Hello everyone! Could you please take some time off to check out this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Ser

It is about Edmund Ser, a Malaysian Fashion Designer whom have contributed to the Malaysian Fashion Scene most notably in the 80s-90s. This article is about his early life, how he achieved his success as well as his life.

Thank you so much. Asiareports (talk) 03:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

MARY KENDALL WIKIPEDIA PAGE

Dear Wikipedia, Some years ago, I googled your page on Mary Kendall (Westminster Abbey Mary Kendall). Your article was very interesting, and I was looking for it again, but it appears to have gone. Can you please help? Cheers, Anna Melbourne, Australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.213.183.67 (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Wikipedia has ever had a page on this person. There's a page at the Westminster Abbey website - is that any use? -- John of Reading (talk) 06:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

repeated deletion on discuss page, non polite edit summs, no discussion.

OPV_AIDS_hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I am trying to address the short comings of this article. But, with edit summs that seem to fail a politeness test, and no discussion entered into, my posts on the discussion page are being repeatedly deleted. I have offered to discuss and expressed a willingness to continue assuming good faith despite the edit summs. But with no positive result to date. 122.151.80.62 (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Complaint about deletion of article

Twice my article was deleted and both times there was no viable reason, only two users agreed that it should be deleted. Also This article was in for mediation before it was put up for deletion. I find that administrators or who ever these "Hackers" are have to much power and are abusing that privilege. What stops a "mob" of people that don't like something placed in Wikipedia to gather there friends to help delete an article by posting bogus discussions into the "article's talk page", just to show a consensus?

Djdubuque (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QSLogBook. Dougweller (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The article was actually created in April by Lngwth (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 12:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted it as it should not be recreated just after an AfD unless the problems that led to its deletion were resolved. Wikipedia:Deletion review is the way to appeal an AfD. Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Please - Need further opinions

An editor has removed a link to: [2] citing: "I've undone your edit. The Global Post article is sourced from (and apparently only from) SSP's own press release. (Every single link in the Global Post article is back to the Satellite Sentinel web page.)"

I disagree: When four experts issue statements in a press release, that is by definition a primary source document, no matter whose name is on it.

This editor, I feel, is being extremely unreasonable. --Jespah (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The (brief) discussion of this matter on the article's Talk page can be found here. For the broader context surrounding the immediate editing issue, interested editors may wish to review this COI Noticeboard discussion and this related subject Talk page, where persistent POV, WP:Advocacy and sourcing issues on edits by the OP in this subject area are discussed at length. JohnInDC (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I have replaced Global Post link above with http://www.voanews.com/english/news/africa/decapua-abyei-war-crimes-2jun11-123024863.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jespah (talk • contribs)

The OP has located a reliable and independent secondary source for this information and I have no objection to the revised content. JohnInDC (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina

I'm very disturbed about something that has happened on Wiki. One of the footnotes, a pdf from the Government, has been removed by someone. A few days ago.

History: A poster on a forum used a Wiki article to prove a false point about Katrina. On May 29 or so, I used that same article and cited one of the footnotes (which he'd overlooked and which disproved his argument), which was a pdf of the first letter written by Governor Blanco in which she HAD named definite counties she wanted help with "evacuation". That was the issue being discussed. To hold Blanco responsible, or not.

Blanco then wrote another letter the next day, but dated it to appear as if written the same day as the first letter. Anyone who followed the news around that time, including me, was fully aware of the two letters. Of course, the skuttlebutt was that it was to cover her youknowwhat. None of us thought it would work. But,since that time, that first letter has disappeared for the most part to enable the re-writing of history to favor Blanco for political reasons. With the second letter being used as evidence. I've seen both letters myself.

Wiki still had a copy of it. It had not been scrubbed. It is now gone and when I looked, the edit date was the same date as I had used it to prove a point on the forum

The problem: I've been trying to get evidence of the existence of these two letters into this Wiki article, but another editor, Escape Orbit, keeps erasing my changes saying that I can't remove "reliable" sources and substitute "unreliable" sources. [Conversely, someone HAS definitely removed a reliable source to skew this article (the Govt' pdf)] Along with putting in some very slanted remarks. One "footnote" didn't even have anything to do with the slanted remark I was checking, so I removed the footnote and put in one that was reliable that was completely opposite of the remark that had been posted.

Two concerns: A reliable source (Gov't pdf) has been erased, and an another editor is trying to keep any evidence to prove the point of the ""reliable source" from being put back in. Someone had to remove that pdf the last of May. What is going on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Donald (talk • contribs) 19:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC) Sam Donald (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Don

Please continue to discuss on the article's talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Doctor Who - The Doctor's Wife

Hello,

'TreasuryTag' has reverted my edits in violation of the three revert policy. He refuses to allow my content on the topic page and believes they are wrong. Please see the 'Corsair' argument in the talk page of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Doctor%27s_Wife_%28Doctor_Who%29.

Thanks. 81.157.230.175 (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That's because it is wrong, and it was previously discussed on the article talk page.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

And that was only 2 reverts, so the 3RR policy doesn't apply. WP:BOOMERANG, on the other hand... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Deliberate vandalism is exempted from the 3RR, not that I think I actually did revert three times. Cut it out. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 21:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Krzysztof Zanussi

You have missed a very important Zanussi's film from 1979 "Wege in der Nacht" or "Ways in the Night". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.21.13.5 (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I have added it. This is the Encyclopedia that anyone can edit; if you are interested in a topic and see that an article needs expanding, then feel free to start editing. This tutorial may help. -- John of Reading (talk) 05:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Jamal Taslaq

Jamal Taslaq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hello, behind the picture File:jamal taslaq.jpg you can see in the article, there is an inscription that should not be there, but I don't succeed removing it. Any suggestion? Thank you very much. Aster dani (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I have corrected your article link; article names here are case-sensitive except for the initial letter. And I have fixed your problem. The proper syntax for that article's information box is described at {{Infobox fashion designer}}. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Listia neutrality

The "Features" section entry for Listia uses a non neutral voice, ie. "we", and the entire entry appears to be purely promotional in nature. I like Listia, but see no value in "promotional entries" in the wikipedia format.

JB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.101.237.33 (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like someone copied their FAQ and put it in the article - I'll undo that. --Six words (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

rooster saddle feathers

I know next to nothing about fashion and about fly fishing, but according to an article in Yahoo (http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/beauty/high-fashion-or-bait-fly-ties-now-hair-extensions-2492725/), the former is putting a crimp on the latter. When I went to Wik to get some background on it, I could not find the term cited above. It seems there might be a need for such an article in Wik.Kdammers (talk) 02:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Assistance understanding scientific vs. fringe claims and how to deal with them

Alchemy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm confused as to how the Wikipedia policy applies in this case Talk:Alchemy#Issues with Article, New Contributor (you have to read the whole section). I'm trying to provide academic peer-reviewed sources but am constantly contradicted by another user who supports a fringe theory, with older or non-academic sources, and I'm having to continuously object to bold edits making absolute statements (non-neutral) about how alchemy is spiritual. No one else seems to care, so I appear to be fighting this battle myself. Advice please. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 03:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I just skimmed through the talk page and the article, so I apologize in advance for not having fully learned and analyzed the situation. My first thought is that I can't understand your main statements in the context of the article. The topic of the article itself is unscientific and so you seem to be arguing that the coverage of an unscientific topic is unscientific? ! ? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Only the popular public view of alchemy is unscientific. The academic view is scientific to an extent, and largely historical. So does that mean that the academic view doesn't matter since the public consider it not serious? Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 23:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I went back and read that whole section of the talk page, but there's still more to it that I haven't read. Pretty big to try to wade into. Seems to me that Alchemy was defined by the eyes of the practicioners. So it's agreed that one group of them approached and defined it as a science. Was there another significant group that defined / approached it as mystical? If so, while the mystical viewpoint itself might be fringe, reporting that people had that view is not and should be in the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I never objected to such statements. I only objected to non-neutral statements made that alchemy is that, alchemy is that, etc. I am the editor who keeps changing the wording to say "proponents of this theory say this", instead of "alchemy is this". Actually this point is being discussed on fringe noticeboard now, so no need to discuss it here. My point of posting here is to ask for advice on regarding the reliability of statements in times where they contradict each other. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 02:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Cool. North8000 (talk) 11:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Linking

I generally have little success with this kind of question, but I'll try anyway. In the interest of full disclosure, one of my pet peeves in articles is overlinking. I often remove wikilinks for common words, cities, countries, etc. More often than not, those edits go off without a hitch, but every once in a while, I'm challenged. The latest challenge is a little more interesting, and it has to do with the Hugh Jackman article and where he was born. In both the infobox and the first non-lead section of the article, it sys he was born in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia - all wikilinked. I removed New South Wales completely (from both places), and I unlinked Sydney and Australia. An editor reverted here. The quote in the edit summary comes from the introduction to what should not be linked in the WP:OVERLINK guideline. Putting aside whether New South Wales needs to be in the article at all, if you carry this editor's interpretation of the guideline to its logical extreme, all birth places in biographical articles would be wikilinked, even in places as well-known as Sydney and Australia. I think it's silly and kind of turns the guideline on its head, but honestly, I don't really know how to apply the quoted qualifier from the guideline.

Now before I get an outpouring of responses (I'll probably get none), I should say that one editor/admin, in an unrelated wikilinking dispute I had with an IP, essentially told me to get a life (he did it nicely). But I've always felt that small things (let's not forget the many, wonderful wikignomes) are important, not just at Wikipedia, so it's kind of part of my temperament.

Any thoughts?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

For starters, I think fine polishing of detail is good. Having the details right shows that folks are paying attention, and more likely to have gotten the big things right. At the same time, I also take exception to the trivial, pedantic linking of definitions of words, every instance of a place name, etc. But in this instance I am inclined to think the first-instance of a birthplace ought to be linked. A reader might want to check out someone's birthplace, and even if it is "well-known" why should that bar a link? That is the whole point of hypertext, that one can simply click on the term without having to enter it into a search box or such. Which is not to say that every instance of a place name should be linked, but I would generally go with the first instance. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps link Sydney but not New South Wales or Australia - since both of those are linked from the opening words of Sydney. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Two comments. First, using Jackman as an example, why would a reader want to get more information on Sydney or Australia just because Jackman was born there? Doesn't seem intuitive to me, particularly when one considers the kind of information Wikipedia has in place articles. Second, what about the guideline qualifier itself? That's a much broader issue and the basis for the editor wanting to keep the wikilinks in. I think the qualifier is problematic, not just in this instance, but in others as well, and don't quite understand how we apply it. Because I think it's ambiguous, I also think it's likely to cause disputes - like here. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

John's suggestion is a thoughtful compromise. I kinda like bright-line rules myself, but I acknowledge that compromises are often more palatable.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Altynay Sapargalieva

Hi,

Am new to posting at Wikipedia. How do I get the warnings at the top of the page (mentioned in the Subject line) removed from the page? Some references were added (and more will be), and there is a "Neutrality" notice as well.

Fisherking3k (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You don't unless the article meets the demands of the warnings. It looks like the article has no reliable sources to support it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

About quality of information concerning Patti LaBelle assault accusation incident

Patti_LaBelle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Looks like some guy from Houston (173.45.200.129) is giving a rather biased story about the incident. Too many quotes and claims of media are used. This is a controversial story and the information is quite misleading and subjective. In March 2011 Patti LaBelle and her entourage were reportedly involved in an assault and battery incident against a West Point college student at a Houston Airport. According to ABC News and the Houston Chronicle, [11] one of Labelle's bodyguards pushed the student, the student pushed back and the 3 bodyguards proceeded to beat him up in LaBelle's presence (some allege "at her direction"). Labelle's bodyguards claimed that King was standing too close to Labelle's luggage. Later LaBelle posed for a photo with fans only a few feet away from where King's blood was still visible on the ground. [12]. Richard King, the man who was attacked, is suing LaBelle, the bodyguards and the airport for damages. Zuri Edwards, LaBelle's son and limo driver reported that King attacked him and was verbally harassing LaBelle and her entourage. But the 3:42 minute video footage (without sound and taped by the airport), now on YouTube and local Houston news sites, shows that King had been on the cell phone during most of the time and immediately before the incident. In the YouTube video, a LaBelle bodyguard clearly initiates contact by pushing King; King brushes him back with his arm, and then three of Labelle's bodyguards rush to assault him and knock him against a pillar, causing a concussion. According to the Chronicle report, Dana King, a former airport operations security officer who was on duty at the airport -- and no relation to the victim, said he witnessed the incident. "This kid was not a threat to anyone... The guy was there with a cellphone to his ear. LaBelle's bunch was up there, standing at the rear of the limo," he said. "... Her window came down, and this guy comes over to elbow-shove him. His head hit that concrete, and after that he was basically a zombie." A police report that was filed after the incident stated the police officers could smell alcohol from King and believed he was intoxicated. King admitted on an interview that he had been consuming alcohol at the plane, but that he was not intoxicated. King also told an ABC interviewer that "I've never been in a fight in my life."

I am pointing this out because I believe his edits are more about claims and speculations rather than the the true facts about the incidents. I agree quotations should be used but not to the extent where the whole description sounds like a trashy gossip article.

Third party intervention reqested

Resolved

 – User blocked for a week. Sideshow is closed. Danger (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

50.80.139.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Could someone tell this guy he is having an edit war with a bot? [3] (My further direct interaction with him would probably just be POKEing the bear. Active Banana (^bananaphone 05:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Very funny! He seems to have worked it out. He left a complaint on the talk page of the bot owner. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 09:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised that IP hasn't won himself another block for the tenor of his arguments with humans. Kind of a short fuse there - JohnInDC (talk) 11:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Chris Vaughn article help!

Article which was previously written from Chris Vaughn (Jerseyboy Hero, Stiletto Film, New Jersey Recording Artist) and correctly referenced was stolen by "another" unreferenced artist with the same name Chris Vaughn. The Previous artist already had published articles that had been "received" and I wasn't aware that that could even happen. Can the former article be restored? Do administrators have back up files? Do I have to start from scratch? Please help resolve! Thanks Creditcamp (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, let me see if I've got this right: there are two musicians named Chris Vaughn. One of them also calls himself Danger Silent (or has a solo project called Danger Silent, or whatever) and the other doesn't. And the article title Chris Vaughn was originally about the one who isn't Danger Silent, but was rewritten to be about the one who is Danger Silent. (Meanwhile, there is also an article Danger Silent, which is basically a bio of Chris Vaughn (the one who is Danger Silent, I assume and hope). Is this correct? So what we need to do is something like this:

• Restore Chris Vaughn to be about the one who isn't Danger Silent.
• Create a new article about the Chris Vaughn who is Danger Silent, taking material from the Danger Silent article and also the current configuration of Chris Vaughn.
• Rename Chris Vaughn, and title new article about the other Chris Vaughn, so that they have unique titles, using... I don't know, their birth years or whatever the rule is. So we will end up with two article named something like "Chris Vaughn (born 1985)" and "Chris Vaughn (born 1987)", or "Chris Vaughn (bass player)" and "Chris Vaughn (piano player)" or whatever (these are just examples, I don't actually know when they were born or what instruments they play).
• Make the article titled just plain "Chris Vaughn" into a disambiguation page.
• Deal withe Danger Silent article, probably by making it into a redirect (after its material has been merged in the appropriate article). We probably don't need an article about Danger Silent and a separate article about the Chris Vaughn who is Danger Silent, I wouldn't think.

I believe this is what needs to be done. Herostratus (talk) 06:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually what we need to do is determine if either actually meets the WP:N criteria. The sources in the "original" version were things like angelfire blogs. Active Banana (^bananaphone 06:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for contacting me. This is really not a complex issue. Herostratus set out the appropriate steps above. User:Tocastaway aka Chris Vaughn "Danger Silent" has a new album coming out and wanted to create an article about himself. He found that there was already an article by that name, so he absconded the article title, blanked the Chris Vaughn (New Jersey) content and replaced it with his own. This disruption is a separate issue from notability. After receiving a request for assistance, I addressed this issue by restoring the initial article and placed a 3rd level warning on the User:Tocastaway talk page following two other warnings placed by other editors.
  
  Now that the disruption has been addressed, we can address any concerns there may be about reliable sources and notability. This can be done directly on the article rather than in this review forum. If and/or when User:Tocastaway creates another article in the appropriate manner, reliability of sources and notability can be addressed there. At that time, we can also create a disambiguation page, Chris Vaughn (disambiguation) and list the two articles. Cind.amuse 07:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Mary Kendall - buried in Westminster Abbey

Dear Editor, Thank you for your previous response. There was a previous Wikipedia page on Mary Kendall (UK), specifically. I have seen the James/Mary Kendall page by The Abbey, but it wasn't that one. Has the Wikipedia Mary Kendall page been deleted? It was very good, I remember. Anna, Melbourne, Australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.213.215.141 (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I also can find no record of Wikipedia ever having had an article by that name; this includes the article having been deleted. --Danger (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Red Factions Origins

Help I want to know if i helped?

Alex 03:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilego (talk • contribs)

I'm unsure exactly what you need assistance with. Are you asking whether this edit was helpful? I've left a message with some (hopefully) useful introductory information about Wikipedia on your talk page. --Danger (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No What I want help with is I added the Unknown enemy's name and next time i check it ground zero remove's it and on the source thing on the bottom i think i am number 1 and it is in red so did i help with the name or no?

Alex 16:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Glenn Danzig page

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

Hello.

I have update the Glenn Danzig page to include the following:

- - Danzig appears as himself, though fictionalized, in Ted Neely's Henry and Glenn Forever, in which Danzig and Henry Rollins are imagined to be lovers, living next door to satanists Daryl (Hall) and John (Oates). Danzig expressed his displeasure at the comic , which Neely lampooned in a subsequent one-page splash tellingly entitled The Final Blow.

After posting it, it was removed (by Danzig666 I think). I undid the edit. It was deleted again.

I don't understand Wiki very much, or the process, or the talk page, etc; I haven't contributed much to Wiki. But this is silly. Ted Neely's comic is an important contribution to the comics field, and the entry I put up is complete and objective and factual. I suspect that Danzig666 is Glenn Danzig and he doesn't want the comic listed, for some unspecified reason.

Is there a way to stop this nonsense? Or is Wiki as arbitrary as people say it is?

Some guidance please.

Thank you. (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvintoronto (talk • contribs) 14:17, 6 June 2011

I believe your first step should be to go to the talk page and discuss your proposed changes. Just adding and undoing with or without edit summaries does not work. The process I have seen work best is BOLD, Revert, Discuss. The two of you haven't gotten past the revert point. You were bold and inserted new material into the article, DANZIG666 reverted your addition, now is the time to discuss the changes and maybe the two of you can agree on something. I have no prior involvement with the article or either of you, I will watch the page and if assistance is needed I will try to help. GB fan (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)