Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Gak Jonze

Answered

 – Danger (talk) 10:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi there,

I'm search of help with editing the page for Gak Jonze. He is a recording artist from the United Kingdom with a really big background in music and Television. I'm having problems with what information I'm allowed to include and whats deemed valid. Trouble is a few quotes have changed recently, e.g. "Gorezone magazine" have just dissolved, Gak Jonze along with his band City Boy Soul, Rex Big Brother and others did a celebrity ghost hunt which was featured on LAVATv and the Gorezone website (which no longer exist's). Same issue with "The Best Man's Speech" Tv show, once again I saw it with my own eyes but can't find it in the channels archives or a strong writeup on the net.

Any help with this would be very much appreciated.

Thanks

Casey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.141.243 (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

There isn't much there to establish notability. Some of the references don't mention the article subject, several forums are used which are not reliable sources. If you want more input, try WP:FEEDBACK. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Huyton College alumni

Answered

 – Danger (talk) 10:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I have spent a fair bit of time looking up Huyton College alumni in public life and adding them to the entry about this school - we are talking Dames of the British Empire, one of the first female members of the Privy Council, patrons of national charities, published authors interviewed on national radio and so on. We're talking big stuff here. Only another editor keeps removing them on the grounds that these people are 'not notable enough'. Am I doing something wrong??? Is there some sort of definition I am missing? What should I do about it?

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

SandyShlg2 (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

If the people in question are notable, then there should he articles about them. I will note that not all authors are notable, nor are patrons of societies. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to 1/3 disagree with Orangemike, but agree with where they ended up. With respect to notability, the standard for a stand-alone article is a higher bar than for inclusion in an article. So the real standards here are wp:undue, and what is really worth putting in there. IMHO a list of alumni would probably fail that test. A particularly noteworthy few alumni, with a sentence establishing each, IMHO yes. North8000 (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

My approach,because I don't like lists filled with red links) is to start stubs of the naaames of folks that I think are notable and then let the chips fall where they may. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It's been pretty much established that alumni lists such as this should only include persons notable enough that there either already is, or clearly should be, an article about them.--Orange Mike | Talk 17:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

OM, I think that we are saying the same thing. No red links and new bllue links have to meet notability standards. Which can usually be done in a stub. Carptrash (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

RTInation

Answered

 – Danger (talk) 10:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Please help me figure out why this article Rtination (RTI nation) is subject to speedy deletion? Regards Dropnote (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It was deleted due to criterion A7 for speedy deletion. This means there was no assertion of notability for the subject. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Editor changing others' talk page comments

Frietjes (talk · contribs) has made large number of recent edits to Talk pages, changing comments made by other editors. He seems to be changing templates like {{Usertc|Example}} to {{User|Example}} Possibly because there is an AfD on Usertc; regardless it's annoying (as it pops up on my watch list) and unnecessary. Barsoomian (talk) 04:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

{{Usertc}} etc. is apparently redundant with {{User}}. I suppose he shouldn't do it, but he's probably just trying to be helpful. Have you tried asking him to stop? Herostratus (talk) 05:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I notified him stop changing my comments, but I noticed he was doing it en masse, to many other editors' comments. If the template is deleted it can be fixed then, and hopefully in a less intrusive way. Barsoomian (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

A. Misharin: controversies

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

At Alexander_Misharin#Controversies, I (initially) translated the Controversies section from the Russian version of the article. That led to a clash with User:Ssr, who is working for the subject of the article. In turn, that led to a COI dispute:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Alexander_Misharin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Russia#WP:COI_on_Alexander_Misharin

At the moment, I did my best to rewrite everything in neutral tone and to back up facts with references to press/publications. User:Ssr keeps blanking the section. User:Phearson suggested WP:EAR.

Disclaimer: contrary to claims of User:Ssr, I do not feel like I am a member of some conspiracy, but I am quite close to being persuaded that I am. Gritzko (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

What exactly would you like us to do here? Danger (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I personally welcome any feedback on the "Controversies" section. Gritzko (talk) 04:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Need help with Emotional Freedom Technique (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In spite of recent improvements to the intro, this page is remarkably poor.

Mastcell and bobrayner, possibly colluding, have immediately reverted any improvement I've made without explanation eg [[1]]

It seems to me that they revert any edit that reduces the overwhelming negativity of the article and try to bully new editors into going away.

Current edit war concerns a 2003 study which the above feel should be referenced in the intro. The study itself describes a process that deviates largely from EFT and as such is a barely credible source.

I asked in the discussion page what should be done (2nd entry). In spite of multiple references to it, it has not been addressed.

So my questions are twofold: 1. What is the appropriate way to deal with this study? I do not know of any published rebuttal beyond that of Gary Craig who removed all content from his website. 2. What can I do about two editors who are seemingly determined to maintain an overwhelmingly negative article on EFT as long as possible? --Mindjuicer (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, looks like they've done a solid job on this article, and in dealing with your efforts to make it less impartial and more credulous. Please re-read WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. We are under no obligation to go out of our way to pretend that scientifically-unsupported "therapies" work just because their advocates are, well, advocating them. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks to both of you for your replies.

You think the article is actually good? Is it anything like as informative as it could be? Does it eg say how many people use EFT? Does it say how long it takes to learn and how much it costs to learn? Does it say anything about EFT therapists? Does it say anything about Gary Craig taking down the emofree.com site?

The issue is not whether EFT works (in spite of repeated wrong assumptions that my edits are designed to promote such a view). The question is whether the article should strongly imply it doesn't work when the early scientific research is tending more towards it having some small benefit beyond placebo - if we take the 2011 study being the only credible one.

Currently, there are zero psychotherapies proven to have a large benefit beyond placebo. The following success rates are pretty standard.

Let's forget EFT for the moment. Assuming homeopathy is a placebo, imagine it works ~40% of the time for some diagnosis. Imagine CBT has the best efficacy, working 50% of the time. Homeopathy may be worth considering as a 2nd treatment option if CBT doesn't work for a patient.

Lastly, I don't believe my question of how to deal with a peer-reviewed study that any reasonable person can easily conclude is highly-flawed has been dealt with. --Mindjuicer (talk) 08:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources calling into question the 2003 study. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." WP:V The "issue" here, such that there is one, is that you don't want to include one of the few reliable sources we have here. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Orange Mike here. This is a fringe topic for a theory that makes extraordinary therapeutic claims, without extraordinary evidence to back it up. Personally, I'd apply WP:MEDRS here and label the pseudo-scientific claims as such. A mishmash of various fringe theories (EMDR, Thought Field Therapy, Energy medicine, etc.) immediately has me thinking "nonsense on stilts". The lack of a theoretical basis pushes me into the realm of "there's no reason this should work, is there any evidence it does?" Failing that, I'm strongly inclined to question all attempts to soften evidence concluding it's bunk. If it ducks like a quack... In any case, the edits you seem to be concerned with are best explained in Wikipedia:Fringe#Pseudoscience_and_other_fringe_theories. This article, IMO, reads as "Generally considered pseudoscience". - SummerPhD (talk) 01:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read my reply to Orange Mike first.

Thinking it's "nonsense on stilts" may be a reasonable conclusion to draw given that you don't have the resources to investigate all weird therapies. But ultimately it's a conclusion based on almost no evidence.

What if you're wrong? What if, as the 2011 study indicates, it does actually work to some degree? Do WP editors have the right to authoritatively claim that it's nonsense thereby depriving suffering readers of a potentially valid treatment option?

How can the balance of the article be anything other than 'Placebo has been shown to be responsible for nearly all of the effectiveness of 'proven' psychotherapies. While EFT may simply induce a placebo response, a 2011 study shows it may have some small benefit above placebo'?

You might want to note that EMDR has gained a lot of scientific credibility. --Mindjuicer (talk) 08:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Only if and when it ever does gain any such credibility. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC) (not holding his breath)

What if I'm wrong? I give up: What if I'm wrong? The sources that meet WP:MEDRS indicate no effectiveness. The uncontrolled 2011 study produced results below those of another fringe "therapy" (EMDR). If it "does work to some degree", we'll see that in reliable sources. Until then, we can only report that the only controlled study available to us found that "EFT was no more effective than either a placebo or modeling control procedure." The claim that EMDR "has gained a lot of scientific credibility" is moot. If it turned out that EMDR was the greatest thing since sliced bread, a treatment based in part on it can still be nonsense on stilts: evolution is the basis of both much of modern biology and the pseudoscience of eugenics. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say is true. When one solid study says it's nonsense on stilts and an uncontrolled preliminary study says it needs to be studied further, THAT'S WHAT WE REPORT. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree if there was a solid controlled study. But there isn't. My comments from the Discussion Page:

"The 2003 study is so seriously flawed that I don't think you can even claim it's testing EFT. Probably the most important flaw is that the phrase used is backwards. The subjects affirmed 'solution' then 'problem', something any half-decent therapist would raise an eyebrow at. I recall from Craig's site that the researchers insisted that the breathing intervention wasn't made up, but Craig claimed it had never been part of the EFT protocol.

In my opinion, the study has zero credibility and should be removed entirely from the Intro, with only a passing note in the Research section. Does any published criticism still exist?"

The 2011 study seems to be the only reliable, independently-funded, peer-reviewed study in a major journal. As such, the article should reflect that. And I again ask, how should the unreliable 2003 study be handled? --Mindjuicer (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there a source that calls the 2003 study unreliable, or otherwise criticizes it? - MrOllie (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The 2011 study isn't available to the public. I'd love a copy if anyone could get hold of it.

I would be surprised if none of the newer studies (ie those funded by supports or published in alternative medicine journals) criticised the 2003 study. The only other source I know of was a rebuttal by Gary Craig on the site emofree.com before the site was partially archived and moved. --Mindjuicer (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Absent any specific sourced criticism (A self published rebuttal by EFT's founder is not sufficient) we have to leave the study and its conclusions in the article, even if we think they are wrong. Remember, the threshold here is verifiability, not truth. - MrOllie (talk) 19:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the 2003 study was published in a recognized, peer-reviewed journal and passes WP:MEDRS. In my opinion, your opinion of the study's protocol is your opinion and has no place in the article. The uncontrolled 2011 study produced results below those of another fringe "therapy" (EMDR) and the article should, of course, reflect the findings and the provisional nature of the findings. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You might overestimate the scientific rigour applied to published articles in recognised journals.

Can anyone else validate my criticism of the study? If you have any passing knowledge of EFT it will take you 2 mins. Otherwise you will need to compare with the EFT manual.

I never included my opinion of the study, except on the Discussion page. --Mindjuicer (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The standard here is WP:MEDRS, not your opinion of peer-reviewed journals. By repeatedly removing the only peer-reviewed, controlled study available based on your opinion of the study, you have (in effect) been including your opinion. In fact, the only criticisms we have of the study are yours and the guy who put forward the fringe idea the study found against. (A single researcher saying most researchers are wrong is ... wow ... words fail. It's like the mother going to see her son in his first parade and beaming, "Look! Everyone's out of step except for my Johnny!") Long story short, the study is a reliable source. To remove it, you need to show otherwise. You must demonstrate that it is not reliable. Proving it is "wrong" is pointless: Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You are arguing for inaccurate information to be included provided that it's been published in a reasonably respectable journal that pays anonymous people to 'review' it. As such I don't think it's worth my time answering your other points. --Mindjuicer (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." The 2003 study passes WP:MEDRS. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick alt text request

Hello all, I just need help writing alt text for an image I really, really cannot describe. Any suggestions? _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 22:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

"Complex, heavily eroded dark grey limestone rock formation of the kind known to geologists as a 'karst formation'"? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

That would be sufficient, thanks. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

someone shadowing my edits, with intent of vandalism

September_15#Births (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I was editing September 15 births, had the page open for an extended period of time, and was previewing my edits before saving. Someone, obviously as a prank, added a crude and obscene entry, which I assume would have been saved under my name if I hadn't noticed the vandalism. I deleted the offensive line (something about a twat tickler with one testicle), and saved my changes.

Can two people be editing the page at the same time? Would the second editor's edits be shown in the differences page under my edits? Should I assume my account has been compromised?

Turtlens (talk) 02:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)-

Yes, two people can edit the same page at the same time, and the software does its best to sort out the mess - see Help:Edit conflict. The vandal's edits show up separately in the recent history of the page. There's nothing here that indicates anyone is shadowing your edits or that your account is compromised.

I suggest that when you work on a "current" page like September 15, you try to save your edits more frequently. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Error in the page

Hi

Im Srikumar from India , Im a devotee who visited Tirupati ( World's Richest temple ) recently,I wanted to know about the temple history in detail so I went thru Wikipedia page link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tirumala_Venkateswara_Temple .

here there is information which is contradictory :

Ancient history : "........the Chola Dynasty (300 BC–1279) vastly improved the temple and gave rich endowments"

Data on the Right hand side : below the map shown ( Date built: Earliest records date to 300 AD (probable) )

So the Point need to be made clear weather it is 300BC or AD.

request you to edit the date to AD or BC as per your Knowledge and experience.

Im a regular user of Wikipedia and really appreciate the level of service and information shared in the site.

It is very help ful.....

Thanks Srikumar.S Email : Cell : — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.111.12.122 (talk) 06:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Tirumala Venkateswara Temple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think the Ancient history section of the article is saying that the Chola dynasty started to rule in 300BC, not that the template was built in 300BC. (I have removed your contact details to protect your privacy). -- John of Reading (talk) 07:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

THe best place to post about errors or comments on the article is at bthe article talkpage where those interestede in the article will see it. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Gippsland Soccer League

I couldn't find any thing in wikpedia regarding Gippsland Soccer League Inc. or GSL as it is abbreviated too.

Its previous name was Latrobe Valley Soccer League — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.118.238 (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

doubtt that this league meets our notability guidelines. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Green Book

I don't see a way to edit the disambiguation section of the disambiguation page for The Green Book. This section should include a pointer to Ayatollah Khomeini's collection of fatwas, http://prophetofdoom.net/The_Little_Green_Book.Islam and/or others. Ferren (talk) 08:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I have added it. – ukexpat (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

List of tribute bands Invader -Tribute to Iron Maiden not listed?

You have a list of tribute bands and Invader -Tribute to Iron Maiden is not listed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Tribute_bands

Here is Information on the band:

Invader Tribute to Iron Maiden is based out of Modesto, CA and formed in 2009 with the goal of recreating the sights and sounds of an Iron Maiden live show. The band focuses on performing songs from the 1980-1988 era, some rarely played live. Along with a themed stage set and of course Eddie, each member was selected with the intention of not only recreating the sound but also portraying Bruce, Steve, Dave, Adrian and Nicko in appearance and performance in a live setting.

Invader makes the effort in using the same musical equipment as Iron Maiden whenever possible. All of these details are a big part of recreating the Iron Maiden live show experience. Without a doubt the most Authentic Tribute to Iron Maiden there is period.

The band is currently celebrating and paying tribute to Iron Maiden's successful Somewhere Back in Time Tour 2008-09, while keeping it fresh by including favorites not played on that tour.

The Band: Jeremy Crothers/Bruce Dickinson Mike Garcia/Nicko McBrain Stephen Jester/Dave Murray Dan Orth/Adrian Smith Damian Rincon/Steve Harris

Here are links to Invader -Tribute to Iron Maiden including news articles

Website: http://www.invadermaidentribute.com/

http://www.myspace.com/invadertributetomaiden

http://www.tribute-band.com/band/invader

http://www.tributecity.com/band.php?rsn=4724

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Invader-Iron-Maiden-Tribute-Official/130716056944862

Videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi5Z79X4BL8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2zUevQj6Tg

News Articles:

http://www.ironmaidencommentary.com/?url=tributelinks&lang=eng&link=links

http://events.news10.net/Invader_Tribute_to_Iron_Maiden/219298121.html

This is being submitted by Stephen Jester (e-mail (Redacted)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.161.30 (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Stephen. The problem here is that the "list" you mention is not technically a list of tribute bands, but a list of tribute bands with articles on Wikipedia (a category, see Wikipedia:Categorization). This means that the band has earned enough notability to pass our guidelines on music notability without inheriting it from the band they are a tribute of. Wikipedia does not (at present) have an article on "List of tribute bands" - so the band you mention would have to show notability through (usually) significant coverage from reliable sources - something I am not seeing from the sources you have provided, but that is not to say such sources don't exist. Also worth mentioning, is that is seems you have a conflict of interest here, so I would not recommend creating such an article yourself. As a principle, someone will, in time, create an article for a band if it is indeed notable. Eventually. Яehevkor ✉ 19:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

My text submission about tiltplanes

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jlawren3&diff=cur

I realize now that what I submitted (about tiltplanes) is too much a one-sided advocacy for my new concept. I want to try again. I expect that it will be more of a total re-write than light editing, so please free to delete what is presently there now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlawren3 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on published WP:RS reliable sources, not on 'new concepts' proposed by editors. Unless and until your ideas are published in mainstream sources, no article about the concept will be permissible here. Frankly, though, the idea isn't 'new' anyway - see the Heinkel Lerche concept, the Lockheed XFV and the Convair XFY. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

ARTCLE DELETION

Hi,

I write in reference to the deletion of the Crown-Berger Kenya wiki page. I request that you explain what i did wrong so that i may not repeat the same errors while re-doing the article.

Regards, Freakiwiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakiwiki (talk • contribs) 07:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I presume you are talking about User:Freakiwiki/Crown Berger Kenya Ltd. I can't see any record of any page under that name being created and / or deleted in main space. The draft in your user space does not do anything to demonstrate the notability of this company. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The article at Crown-Berger Kenya‎ was deleted under section G11 - Unambiguous advertising or promotion. It was a clear case of promotion of a non notable company. Articles about companies must meet our criteria at WP:ORG and be supported by reliable sources. Please follow the blue links for further information, and if there is anything you do not understand, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Austex/Donald G. Martin (Austin, Texas)

Would appreciate a review of this WP:COI and WP:BLPSELF for notability. The case for notability is laid out in a temporary "Summary of Career" section that would be removed prior to moving to article space. I have worked hard at maintaining a neutral point of view and included four profile citations (that are specifically about the BLP, per Wikipedia guidelines) to strenthen the case for notability. See discussion page for more detail. You might also Google "Don Martin Austin" re further evidence of notability, as there are about 5 pages of entries for Don Martin. Your opinions and suggestions are most welcome. Please leave comments on the article's Discussion page. Thank you!!! Austex • Austex • Talk 14:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:FEEDBACK is the venue for this. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

This was the site the adminstrator suggested when I did a {adminhelp}. But I will post it there as well.'Austex • Talk 19:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I would have suggested feedback, but no-one ever responds there unless it takes MarcusBritish's fancy. I have my doubts about this chap's notability, and I was hoping for a couple of other opinions on that. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I looked. Non-notable estate agent with political ambitions. Probably wouldn't last a week in main space. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, you didn't look very closely. I am not and never have been a real estate agent and am not selling anything. I did develop one of the largest New Urbanism projects ($400 million) in the five-county Austin metro area as part of a varied career. Nor do I have political ambitions -- rather I ran some of the most major political campaigns in the Austin area including for Nolan Ryan and for a new International Austin airport. I don't see how you get two completely false assumptions out of what you read. If so, I must have done an extremely poor job of writing. Austex • Talk 22:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, property developer, businessman, whatever; in my opinion this does not meet WP:BIO. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on notability says "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I have provided four such secondary reliable sources which are probably worth reading.Austex • Talk 22:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

In WP:BIO, which you cite above, the number one criteria says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, and independent of each other." So it's not so much what you personally think of the biography of the person or what they do as it is wheter it meets Wikipedia WP:BIO criteria. Personal biases and presumptions are not part of the criteria. Austex • Talk 23:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Commented there. Danger (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Danger.The most appropriate place to make comments is the one you used, at the original BLP Discussion Page, HERE. Jezhotwells comments have been copied there as well.

Use of italics in ship name

Hi, I've made an error and tried to italicise the article title to "Spirit of the Dawn" (ship) by doing the standard formatting. It's not come out right and I can't find out how to fix it... Can anyone give me any clues? I want to get the name right before I go through and update other articles with the link to the new article... islandbaygardener (talk) 05:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Although that's the standard formatting for italic text within articles it doesn't work for article titles; see WP:ITALICTITLE. I have moved the page to Spirit of the Dawn (ship), without the quotes, and have added the {{Italic title}} template so that the software does some magic when displaying the name at the top of the page. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Wrong Information

Dear Wikipedia.com,

Hello, I am a student from a Korean school in the East Bay. I am doing a project with 2 other people on Jikji(jik-jee). Jikji is the oldest metal type press in the world made BEFORE the German Johannes Gutenburg. Jikji was made in 1377 by a Korean buddhist. On September 4th, 2001, Korea registered at UNESCO to give Jikji a Memory of the World Prize. They celebrated every 2 years. This years' celebration will take place in Australia on September 4th. For more information, you can visit digitaljikji.com. So, about the wrong information about Gutenburg, I suggest you change the information on the Printing Press/Wikipedia for the good of other people who are being educated right now. Also, I hope you can help spread the word about Jikji by telling your friends or other websites to let the entire world know that Gutenburg wasn't the first. I hope you can accept my offer.

Sincerely, Chloe H. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.197.113 (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, if you have some reliable sources for this then please post on the appropriate article discussion pages, such as Talk:Printing press and Talk:Johannes Gutenberg. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

merging or completing {{Databases}} and {{Database models}}

I was visiting Relational database and Object database, and I noticed they were using two different template boxes: {{Databases}} and {{Database models}}. And none of those two boxes has a link to both pages (relational and object). Not sure why; not sure what change should be made. Coeur (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you discuss this on the two articles' respective talk pages. --Danger (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Proper use of optional name field in external link templates

There is an on-going issue concerning the proper use of the optional name field when using Template:Hockeydb and other similar external link templates. Two editors from the ice hockey project have been actively changing this name parameter for ice hockey players to “correct” the name to their preferred spelling - most recently at Oscar Alsenfelt. It has always been my understanding that the name parameter is used when the page name contains disambiguation brackets, but also to show the name as it is used by the linked source (in this case, as used by Hockeydb.com) if different from the article title. What should be done to address this situation? Dolovis (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The templates were created by the hockey project. And more than just two users have told you this. Probably closer to 10 by this point. Some of the templates you have been battling about this on even say right in the instructions that they are just for removing bracketed disambiguators. Names/Spellings are supposed to remain consistent throughout an article. It is actually you who are arguing for your preferred spelling. Another case of WP:FORUMSHOPPING when you don't hear what you want to hear. -DJSasso (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

global warming

The main global warming article has a section on global warming controversy. A point previously made there is that there is that some scientific organizations have published consensus statements in favor of the view that global warming is man caused. I have added the other side, which is that many scientists, including Nobel Prize winners, have resigned from said science organizations in protest. I cite references. Science doesn't generally progress by issuing "position statements," or taking a position on the basis that "most scientists" agree on something. F=ma and e=mc2 not because of anyone's position statements, but because all experiments so far show them to be true. Someone keeps reverting the article without giving any real explanation. I mentioned this in the discussion section, but am not sure I put it in the right place. I can't figure out how to do this other than by placing my comment at the end of what's there. What is the right way?

If the wiki article on global warming is to contain any section at all titled "controversy" it should give both sides. You can read the whole article without learning that the Earth has often been both warmer and colder than now, generally warmer. During these past warm periods, co2 has often been high, and there is as much evidence that warming causes co2 to increase as the other way around.