Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Previous requests & responses

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by .

review of notability and sources notice

Resolved

– Danger ^{High voltage!} 22:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I wrote an article about the artist Marina DeBris. At the early stages, someone posted notices about 'needs additional citations for verification' and 'establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic.' Since those were posted, I revised the entry and added a lot of new references. I asked a couple of other places for someone to review, but no results yet. Could someone please review this entry and let me know whether those notices can be removed? Just to mention, I used a lot of non traditional sources, because the artist, Marina DeBris, is a non traditional artist. I hope that will be considered. I also added bunch of references to Tomoko Takahashi. Could someone review that page too?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialresearch (talk • contribs)

Thanks to one person for removing the 'verification' notice. Further question, though. The notability message is still there. I'm really not yet clear on this. I did some research on some other artists and added citations, so now their notability messages were removed, but not for Marina DeBris. Some examples of other artist pages I contributed to were Rodney McMillian and Joe Rush. Notability messages were removed from these pages. By the way, I also added a few references to Guillaume Bijl and Tomoko Takahashi. Could someone take a look at those pages and let me know if that is sufficient? Socialresearch (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the citation notice, as there were definitely enough citations for the material there. I was not confident enough to remove the notability notice at the time because a google search for "Marina DeBris" doesn't exactly work that well... But, I reexamined the sources, and have determined that, at least as far as I'm concerned, Marina passes the GNG.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 13:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Discussion moved

– Discussion occurring (as is proper) on the article talk page. Danger ^{High voltage!} 22:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Israeli–Palestinian conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) contains the following sentence, "Many Palestinians nowadays believe that Israel is not committed to reaching an arrangement, but rather interested in continuing to control the entire territory from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River". I have commented in the Talk page that this is unverified as well as being factually false as Israel does not control "the entire territory from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River", as the West Bank is under the political jurisdiction of the Palestinian National Authority and Gaza is governed by the Hamas government. I am reluctant to remove this line as it would leave the paragraph unbalanced with a POV. How should I proceed?

I would say that both sides probably feel the same on each other. Many Israelis feel that the Palestinians do not want to come to an agreement that will see Israel as the Jewish country. But both claims are not verified unless you can find official credible surveys to quote. Without it just remove this sentence as it is really irrelevant and is adding nothing of substance on the conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.246.137 (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About Ohnoitsjamie

To whom it may concern:

I included more than once the matrilineal genealogies of Queen Beatrix and Queen Margrethe; I do this, because the paternal and maternal line of any individual is of historical/genealogical/genetic importance. I am also doing research on maternal lines and mitochondrial DNA. The mitochondrial DNA is the part of genetic material that is passed from mother to daughter and can be use for genetic research.

This person "Ohnoitsjamie" makes is appoint to delete the information, without giving a reason. The information I provide is taken from Wikipedia ancestry of these Queens and the Wikipedia links found there.

I am trying to gather information and provide information for women studies and genetic studies. I consider the actions of "Ohnoitsjamie" harassment from a bully who has no intelligence and very little education.

There is nothing wrong with my contributions. How can I stop this mindless harassment?

John Freeman Wikipedia account: john ralph free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.23.40 (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have reliable sources for your changes, ie third party sources, not other Wikipedia articles? – ukexpat (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MIDLAND VALLEY RAILROAD - OKLAHOMA/ARKANSAS

Would appreciate anyone making the corrections to the Midland Valley history. What is posted is only partially correct and to who owned who, non-existent track-age rights, and the actual routes - The Midland Valley also owned the Oklahoma City and Atoka RR, the Kansas, Oklahoma, and Gulf (KO&G)

Not going into great detail except I and two partners attempted to purchase the RR in the mid 1960's from McAlester Fuel, the owners, but was outbid or outmaneuvered by the Missouri Pacific who violated the ICC agreement in not maintaining the "RR" but was never enforced.

The Midland Valley owned extensive mineral rights in both Arkansas and Oklahoma which was the primary reason two partners wanted to purchase - mine was to end up with the actual operating system minus the mineral right.The scheme of the Missouri Pacific was to get their hands on the KOG, not bother with the rest of the property/system, and of course abide by the agreement they had with the ICC.

Someone likely can re-edit or expand on the whole history - there's a lot to be added for historical purposes - seems they also had a short branch to Greenwood, AR but no pictures etc. appear to exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.211.123 (talk) 10:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you post at Talk:Midland Valley Railroad. It would be very helpful if you can point to newspaper reports or other reliable sources giving the history - title, date, page numbers, authors and such like. Your personal account cannot be added to the article, because Wikipedia requires that readers should be able to check what they read for themselves. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute about removed bio page

I notice that my "bio" page (Jesse Liberty) has been taken down, as have all references to me on other pages. I can't find the page to dispute this decision but I note that (a) the majority opinion was 'keep' and (b) other similar authors are listed. What is the right process to dispute this decision? Jesse Liberty 21:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jliberty (talk • contribs)

The place to have a review of the AFD is at Deletion review. GB fan 21:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But be mindful that these discussions are not votes, but policy discussions; so a mere "majority" of !votes is meaningless. Also: "look at these other articles" is not an argument for retention of a non-complying article, although it may be a clue that there are other articles that should have been deleted for the same reasons. Also: it was never your bio page: it was a bio page about you -- a vital philosophical distinction. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for assistance and supreme judgment on the legacy of the concept of "Big Bang Theory""

Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia that shamelessly plugs in "fads" or isn't it, or should it be one that promotes higher concepts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_Theory_%28disambiguation%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.9.143 (talk) 04:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this counts as a 'request for assistance' as such. And while I can sympathise with your point (if I actually understand it correctly - you haven't been particularly explicit), it may well be the case that more people looking for a BBT article on Wikipedia are after the TV show than the cosmological theory. As always in such cases, this is an editorial decision, and probably never going to be answered to everyone's satisfaction. Of course, the cosmological theory might turn out in the long term to be a fad too... Meanwhile, we try to meet the contradictory needs of our readers - or at least, I hope that is what we are trying to do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And we also try to discuss viewpoints at the pages involved, as I've invited 70.27.9.143 to do at Talk:Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) and Talk:Big Bang Theory (where the prior discussions have taken place) -- when editing this page, it even urges "PLEASE consider discussing the issue on the article's talk page if not already done so." (which 70.27.9.143 hasn't done). But to answer the question: Wikipedia doesn't promote concepts -- it's a reference tool for readers, not a promoter. Still, Big Bang and Big Bang theory both "promote" the science concept (as do more redirects, while Big Bang Theory and The Big Bang Theory (and others) "promote" the pop culture concept. Neither is prima facie wrong, although either might change (as the capital-T change took place late last year). -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being a bully hiding behind your editorial privileges, where are the statistics that support your so claimed consensus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.9.143 (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the personal attacks and start assuming good faith. See WP:NPA, WP:AGF, Talk:Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) and Talk:Big Bang Theory, and if needed, engage in the discussions there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I had good faith, which is why I edited that page, you are the one making personal attacks because your behavior indicates that you were the one doing personal attacks. You have not produced an iota of evidence supporting your self-proclaimed consensus! Where are the statistics and unbiased analyses of those from all relevant pages over all "wikipedia-time"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.89.12 (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you just did a little bit more research as I assume you are supposed to do, the person who squatter-ed (sic) the page The Big Bang Theory is heavily biased on tv shows, how does your claim of not a promoter stand up now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.89.12 (talk) 04:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prove your so-claimed neutrality, if wikipedia is to be a true reference tool, as you so claimed in your own words, then wikipedia should therefore strive to be accurate! support and execute the move! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Big_Bang_Theory#Requested_move_to_promote_clarity.2C_minimize_confusion.2C_and_make_wikipedia_a_better.2C_accurate.2C_and_precise_research_tool.21

Rationale: 1) Precedents: e.g. Glee_(TV_series), Once_Upon_a_Time_(TV_series), Lost_(TV_series) 2) Speaking of precedents, the show owes its name to its namesake, not to mention that the cosmological model should have historical precedence. This is at the very least, I think, because I am sure there are still skeptics out there, and as a great wise man said, only one convincing experiment is sufficient to prove a theory wrong. 3) It is quite a shame that variations of big bang, big bang theory, the big bang theory redirect to the tv series without giving users a warning, or at the very least a true unbiased choice. 4) Request for page move to promote clarity. 5) Request for page move to minimize confusion.

This is not the place to make arguments. We will help users here, but not so far as deciding the outcome of content disputes. Instead, maybe you should imagine a Wikipedia in which articles got changed every time a single editor demanded as much. And what would happen if two such editors disagreed! No one is telling you you're wrong or even that your argument is bad. We'd just rather you follow the appropriate paths (dispute resolution, for example), so we don't all kill each other. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Someguy1221, I actually got to this page from the dispute resolution page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.89.12 (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biography question

Hi there!

Currently there is only one Chris Marsden and he is a footballer.....I on the othetr hand am I successful radio and TV voiceover artist and broadcaster!

How does one get my info placed upon the World of Wiki?

I am mentioned on the Famous people of Worksop page, but then it directs people to the footballer? I don't want to edit his page, but to add my own!

Prey tell, as it looks all a bit too much for me?

Cheers

Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Marsden (talk • contribs) 20:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After you've read the conflict of interest page, you can consider the creation of Chris Marsden (broadcaster) or use some other qualifier, and put a {{for}} hatnote on Chris Marsden pointing to the new article. You could also request a move of the existing article to Chris Marsden (footballer) so that a disambiguation page could be created at the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:TWODABS, a disambiguation page is not required in these circumstances. – ukexpat (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a common misreading. If there is ambiguity and no article is the primary topic, a disambiguation page is needed, even for only two articles. It's only when there is a primary topic that a disambiguation page can be skipped, replaced by a hatnote on the primary topic. There would have to be consensus for the current arrangement (the footballer as primary) to be changed, however. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the conflict-of-interest page, please read Wikipedia:Autobiography. If you think can satisfy that, the main question is: has somebody else written about you? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ice sculpture

Can someone please add this to their watchlist, it keeps getting spammed. 86.7.36.50 (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already have over 600 pages on my watchlist... It'd probably get lost in there. But I encourage you to create an account, so you can monitor the changes yourself.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 13:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If its a long-term problem, you could file a request for page protection. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Film US

I've been looking for the appropriate forum, and this is the closest I can find. What is the reasonable time to wait for an available editor to address an {{editprotected}} request? I haven't been able to find any guideline or policy regarding this.

I've requested an edit to a protected template almost 48 hours ago, which isn't really that long. However, I'm really reviving a request from 2010 that was never addressed by an editor, either thumbs up or thumbs down. The consensus on the talk page in 2010 was to remove an automated feature that runs counter to Wikipedia's guidelines for categorization. The protected template affects the category American film, which currently contains 24, 191 articles, not counting those articles in the subcategories. Please advise. Cheers. Encycloshave (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, your edit request isn't yet ready for an admin to make the edit; instead it needs more discussion involving bot owners, script writers and WikiProject Film members. To get more eyes on the discussion at the template talk page you could post a notification at WikiProject Film and/or Village Pump (technical). -- John of Reading (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

commonname policy

Issue:

1st comment about article content not about article titles:

Phrase should be translated properly as alternate phrase

Responder agrees that alternate phrase is correct but

your comment that phrase should be translated as alternate phrase runs against WP:COMMONNAME for what we think should be the term is always secondary to WP:COMMONNAME,

My reading of the policy is that it only appplies to article titles. Who is right? Eschoir (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without more context, I have no idea. The policy WP:COMMONNAME only refers to article titles. However, novel translations are WP:OR (original research), especially when another translation is in wide use in the literature of the topic. (Example: I personally think "suffering" is a very poor translation of dukkha, but Wikipedia must use the translation in wide use.) Danger ^{High voltage!} 22:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer O'Neill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) threats to user Taninao0126 and insertions of false factual info in Jennifer O'Neill bio by user MikeWaznowski

I (Taninao0126) have already discussed these issues on my talk page of Taninao0126, and also the talk page of MikeWaznowski (but he deleted them on his. It would appear that user MikeWaznowski either is very close to engaging in an "edit war" with me without any justifiable basis. He keeps tagging the article as having "multiple issues" when several cites just needed to be updated or corrected.

If you go to his user page of MikeWaznowski, you can see that other users have similar complaints about him in that he engages in a persistent pattern of deletion, tagging, and editing even after users (like myself) have done further editing in order to address the points he brings up.

You may go to the wiki article on actress Jennifer O'Neill, and see the revision history there. In fact I have also consulted with user WikiDan61 (an editor who has 100,000 yes one hundred thousand edits) as you can see from the revision history, and he does not seem to have any problem with my editing at all. And you can see from the comments of another user GoingBattyTalk, he has said:

"Hi Taninao - the article looks much better than the last time I saw it. I made a few minor changes. If you have titles and authors for the People and New York Times articles, that would be good information to add. It would also be helpful to add another sentence or two in the lede (the first paragraph) to summarize why O'Neill is notable. Keep up the good work! GoingBatty (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)".

So you can go to the Jennifer O'Neill revision history, and talk pages of Taninao0126 and MikeWaznowski to further full specifics.

What do I want ? For ANOTHER third party to tell MikeWaznowski to just take a deep breath, slow down, and just "cool things down".

Thank you for your time. Taninao0126 (talk) 05:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user has constantly removed maintenance templates from this article without actually addressing the issues - I gave her a final warning tonight for removing to tags relating to peacock language, primary and self-published sources. As you can see from this comparison, all this editor did was add one reference (which was a duplicate of one already in the article), but did nothing else. The issues were not addressed. This has been her pattern to date on the article - see [1], [2] for further examples. This editor has been a WP:SPA in regards to this article, adding overblown and promotional language backed up by questionable references, many either from the subject or written by the subject. I tried explaining this to her yesterday, but she just went in and removed the templates again. MikeWazowski (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tanina -- Mike's problem with the article is that much of it relies on O'Neill's own autobiography and personal websites, which are considered primary sources, and hence not reliable. Citing such material from independent sources is preferred. With regard to the published autobiography, I take some issue with this policy, since a published autobiography such as O'Neill's has certainly been through an editorial review policy, so one can presume that facts in the book have been vetted, but this is an argument for a different forum. Simply removing the templates without addressing the issue that the template raises is considered bad form. At the very least, the matter should be discussed on the article's talk page to reach a consensus about the validity of the maintenance templates.

Mike -- Tanina is a relatively new editor. You might consider being a bit less bitey. (This coming from a person who has been accused of this once or twice myself!) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pole Fitness article deletion

Why was the article on Pole Fitness deleted? It has been a growing fitness regimen for several years. It is not "Pole Dance" it is "Pole Fitness". I remember that there once was a very informative article about it and now it is gone. Replaced by three articles concerning the IPDFA, Polenastics Ltd & Pole Dance (the only non-promotional article). Indeed, it seems your "editors" have been kept busy deleting the subject - once in August of 2006 and again in January 2011. Pole Fitness is an exercise/sport NOUN as surely as Zumba, Jazzercize, Pilates or Yoga! You need only Google it or search YouTube for Pole Fitness to find that it is much more than nasty dancing! Pole Fitness has a long history (since the 70's) and deserves to be available to the public. Also, there have been many more contributors to the sport than the IPDFA & Polenastics - why not have an impartial forum/article on the subject? Please undelete the previous wiki and if needed remove what you feel is self-serving or promotional - or send it to me and I'll fix it. Thank You. John Keltner ^{[details removed]} --99.44.33.184 (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the article in question is Pole fitness. According to the deletion log, it was deleted on 14 January 2011 by NawlinWiki under G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). The appropriate forum for this is Deletion review.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 14:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tlonca

Tlonca has been reverting my removal of syndicated shows on various TV stations. This is irrevelent information. If they want to find what syndicated show is on a station, their answer is not wikipedia, they can just go to the TV network's website. I want you to take action on Tlonca. ACMEWikiNet (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to repeat what I told you on your talk page. Your opinion is not special. You have an opinion. Tlonca and neutralhomer have opinions. They are not the same. Deal with it. Start by asking them on their talk pages why they disagree with you, or invite them to a discussion on the talk page of one of the affected articles. There is no policy that editors are banned from Wikipedia because they disagree with ACMEWikiNet. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the side of Tlonca and NeutralHomer as an editor of WP:TVS; we have syndicated programs in articles because they make up what the station is. They aren't adding problems to the articles at all. They are easily sourced by the station's website. The last thing we want is for someone to come upon a station article and wonder why there's nothing about the syndication schedule in the body of the article; Wikipedia doesn't has a set page number limit. Compared to the cruft involving slogans and music cruft we've dealt with as of late, syndicated programming is way down the list of problems of "irrelevant information", and is in fact, relevant to the strength or weakness of a television station. Nate • (chatter) 06:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I can chime in on this: I've been here less than a year and I've been more of a quiet observer. But in my opinion, the syndicated programming mentions add very little to the articles because the programming is the same across the board. There is very little that is unique in this regard. If the reader whats to know about what programs a station airs then they should go to the station's website or check one of the online program guides (Titan TV or Zap 2 It). Adding info about current syndicated programs will only open the door for fan-crufty editors to include either full-blown schedules or nearly every syndicated program the station has aired. That's not encyclopedic, and that's my opinion. DreamMcQueen (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has also been brought to the dispute resolution noticeboard, but looks like it's going to get directed to WikiProject Television Stations because it hasn't been discussed on a talk page yet. So editors who are interested should watch out for the discussion there. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

youtube as a source

One article Black History Month uses youtube as a reference. Is that an acceptable source? By the way, for this particular reference, that youtube video, whatever it was, has now been deleted from youtube. One youtube video, here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvj509qB0qU&feature=youtu.be is a news station story about an artist. So it's youtube, but its a news station story. Is that a valid reference? Socialresearch (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC) This story also uses youtube as a reference Paper Planes Socialresearch (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it can't be used per WP:COPYLINK. Bidgee (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube is not the publisher in this case, just a repository for the information. You're free to cite the news story ({{Cite video}}) and just leave the the link out of it. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Entry about ME.. Tim R Newey...

12th February 2012

RE: Living Persons' Biographies

Dear Wiki,

I think you Should Have an Entry on myself... Tim R Newey

And perhaps your Living-People-Biography Teams could be "Notified"?!

It IS easy enough to reach me but you Will find enough contacts to complete the article?!

I can Cite, at Least, 10 Disciplines in which the Entry would fall "Nicely" Into?!

Yours hopefully,

Tim R Newey Wikipedia User

I shall wait a little longer; Patiently..

ALL Fondest Regards.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.247.188 (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books didn't find anything under "Tim R Newey". Can you point to a couple of reliable sources? Thanks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Houston never sang backup for Chaka Khan

Under the heading of 1977 - 1984 Early Life, it is reported that Whitney Houston sang backup for Chaka Khan on Ms. Khan's "I'm Every Woman". On 02/12/12, Ms. Khan was interviwed via phone by Lester Holt on The Today Show and the singing backup story was brought up. Ms. Khan corrected Mr. Holt by informing him, Whitney Houston never sang backup for her, she said, "That is a common misconception" Please do Ms. Houston the honor of correcting this error in your article.

Thank you,

Donita F. Palmore 02/12/2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.225.136.151 (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding the source. Could someone help me out there?--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 13:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.hulu.com/watch/328570/nbc-today-show-chaka-khan-whitney-like-a-daughter , a little past the 2m30s mark. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation note changed because current one is no longer valid

I recently changed a citation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_game#cite_note-2 Because the old external URL no longer points to where it is suppose to and redirects to a site that is not specific to the sentence that is cited. I updated it to reflect a site that fits exactly to what the article is talking about and the changes were reverted. Can anyone assist me in this or should I just leave it alone as useless as the reference is now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbryant03 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Nordell - Removing the Notability Flag - 2/13/2012

Hi. I wrote an article about the writer and poet Jessica Nordell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Nordell). At the early stages, someone posted notices about 'needs additional citations for verification' and 'establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic.' Since those were posted, I revised the entry and added a lot of new references. Could someone please review this entry and let me know whether those notices can be removed? This is my first entry but the research that I have conducted is thorough and accurate. Please let me know who the correct person to speak to about getting the Notability Flag removed from the page.

Thank you for your time.

Best, Erin Lee Carr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erinleecarr (talk • contribs) 19:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editor assistance needed for Noreen Renier entry

On January 15 I made a new entry on the Noreen Renier entry Noreen Renier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Subsequently it was removed by another editor. The history page indicates I cannot undo this deletion because of "conflicting intermediate edits." I would like to know who and why my entry was deleted and how to undo it without re-entering it manually. Thanks, WashTeh (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]