Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Request board

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 98.204.240.135 (talk) at 21:04, 22 March 2012 (→‎spanish civil war: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Click here to add a new request.

Edgardo Mortara

Sorry, I didn't know exactly how to do this. I think the article is excellent, well written and very balanced. I'd like to have an opinion about that. The article deserves recognition. Djathinkimacowboy 21:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Archive list long

This affects the navigation archive box at WP:UNDELETE when the template max is exceeded. Searches are unaffected. --Trevj (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Workaround to avoid using {{Archive list long}} now in place at WP:UNDELETE - see Template talk:Archive list long. --Trevj (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Bible Articles

Could we create a dynamic paraphrase Bible? The article on Second Timothy has a section titled, "Content," but it is opinions and descriptions of the text in 2nd Timothy - not the actual text/content of that Bible book. I would like to start with the KJV text and then see what editors develop. The page would have notes dealing with the Hebrew/Greek for each verse. Would these violate any guidelines? Just checking. OpusScript (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they woould, because this would constitute original research and synthesis, something which has no place here. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Michael Jingozian biography

In June, a biography of a living person, Michael Jingozian, was tagged with the following three objections:

--“This biography of a living person needs additional references or sources for verification.” --“It is written like an advertisement and needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view.” --“It may have been edited by a contributor who has a close connection with its subject.”

I’ve relied on these objections to rewrite the biography of Mr. Jingozian. My goal is to ensure that the biography meets all of Wikipedia’s standards.

The rewritten biography was posted on Wikipedia in early August; however the same three objections are still listed.

The URL is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jingozian

Could you kindly let me know if the rewritten biography has been reviewed, and whether the biography requires further editing to satisfy any Wikipedia objections?

Thank you for your assistance.

Alan Lohner

50.53.73.223 (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tags have been removed by another editor.  Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Standardized conjugation chart

Could a standardized conjugation chart be agreed upon? Maybe not for all languages, but for at least language types (Romantic, Cyrillic, Asiatic, ect.)? 96.3.139.41 (talk) 23:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

valerie sinason

I would like comment on the Sinason biography with a view to deleting it entirely. Right now the bio treats Sinason as a crank.

The problem is Sinason's record of her treatment of people who report a history of satanic ritual abuse. Wikipedia has determined that SRA is a fringe view. As such Sinason's involvement in the issue means that she must be treated as a crank because to do otherwise might appear to validate SRA as not fringe. I don't think it is fair to use Sinason's bio to advance the Wikipedia judgement that SRA is fringe. The entry for SRA does a lengthy enough job of making the fringe argument. The Sinason bio should be deleted. As it stands it is a kind of witchhunt. 86.162.221.34 (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Chief Mechanical Engineer

Make an exception to the MoS capitalization guidelines for the job titles: Chief Mechanical Engineer and Locomotive Superintendent
Please comment on the talk page. Jojalozzo 15:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Comparison of orbital launch systems

Certain alleged facts in the Liev Schreiber biography

As Liev's father, I would like to improve some of the information that pertains to me and my relationship with my son and his mother. I would like the phrase "commune" stricken from the description of our home in Canada. We were a nuclear family on a privately owned ten acre property. There is a slimey reference to my lifestyle as corrupted by practices of "free love". Not the case, in fact. Without going into details which might cast aspersions on Liev's mother, we were as a family dealing with issues of serious fear and paranoia. Unfounded charges were made. I'm aware that the New Yorker article did little to explore or diminish the falseness of those charges. When, in flight from a custody case she initiated in Canada, she removed him to New York, I was denied all access to him until his older brother, six years later phoned from New York and offered to arrange a visit if I could get to New York on a weekend when Liev would be in his brother's care. I was desperate to see him; I sold a heifer calf I was raising to keep the meeting. I subsequently, on the salary of a common high school teacher, paid tuition for both of Liev's private school high school years, all three of his undergraduate college years, the year of his training at RADA, and his three years of graduate school at Yale. It would help the record to understand that, unlike any of Liev's New York relatives, I loved theater, was a busy and committed actor at Dartmouth, and later in my twenty wonderful Canadian years helped start a theater department at the local community college and worked to create an actor training program. Also that I was twenty-six at Liev's birth, not twenty-two. I don't believe Liev ever wrestled; I did.

We have managed a somewhat strained relationship since. I admire his talent deeply, love him as well as he allows, and I'm able. I've seen all but three of his New York stage shows. He just paid me a profoundly appreciated visit with Naomi and Sasha and Kai in honor of my seventieth birthday. I'm immensely proud of him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.180.222 (talk • contribs)

I have trimmed away some of the text you indicated was problematic. To my taste, the biography makes far too much of the chaos in Liev's childhood. Binksternet (talk) 10:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Menapace

Hello,

There seems to be little, or next to nothing, on the web concerning Julia Menapace who was in a relationship with Tsutomu Shimomura (REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsutomu_Shimomura) during and before the Kevin David Mitnick (computer hacker/fugitive) chase. She is mentioned in the book TAKEDOWN written by Tsutomu and co-authored by John Markoff.

I enjoy Wikipedia and applaud the multitudes of people who research and author the millions of articles and references. May I request that consideration be made to develop a Wiki-page about this person?

Thank you in advance for allowing me a voice to input a request.

Shy 22:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShyWriter (talk • contribs) — ShyWriter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hmmmm... Do these requests actually get read by a human and given and thumbs up or down on implementation? Shy — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShyWriter (talk • contribs) — ShyWriter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Unless this person is actually notable in her own right, there would be no reason to write about her. See WP:NOTINHERITED. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC) (actual human)[reply]

Paragraph of Complete Induction

Can anyone check if there is a mistake in the following paragraph quoted from the Complete Induction part of the article.

"This generalization, complete induction, can be derived from the ordinary mathematical induction described above. Suppose P(n) is the statement that we intend to prove by complete induction. Let Q(n) mean P(m) holds for all m such that 0 ≤ m ≤ n. Apply mathematical induction to Q(n). Since Q(0) is just P(0), we have the base case. Now suppose Q(n) is given and we wish to show Q(n+1). Notice that Q(n) is the same as P(0) and P(1) and ... and P(n). The hypothesis of complete induction tells us that this implies P(n+1). If we add P(n+1) to Q(n), we get P(0) and P(1) and ... and P(n) and P(n+1), which is just Q(n+1). So using mathematical induction, we get that Q(n) holds for all natural numbers n. But Q(n) implies P(n), so we have the conclusion of strong induction, namely that P(n) holds for all natural numbers n."

From what I read, I believe that it is the converse that has been shown:If statement P(n) can be proved for all n ≥ n0 by complete induction, it can be proved by ordinary induction.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddanndt (talk • contribs)

In the future, please state which article you're refering to. I can only guess that you're talking about the article Mathematical induction because that's the only other place you've editted. Wikipedia is supposed to go off of sources, not original research. Right now, neither your position nor the current article has a source saying anything either way. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then remove it if then if it's veracity can't be confirmed??? Ddanndt (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, it would be better to find a reliable source which clarifies which is the case. A college text book or Google books may have something. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BRAVISSIMO Škola italijanskog jezika

BRAVISSIMO Škola italijanskog jezika u Pančevu. U školi „Bravissimo“ primenjuju se dinamični metodi rada koji podstiču aktivno učešće svih polaznika u grupi u svim aspektima kursa. Najveći značaj pridaje se podučavanju gramatičkih i sintaksičkih struktura jezika, odnosno njihova primena u konverzaciji. Polaznici se motivišu da učestvuju kroz komunikativni pristup učenju u vidu jezičkih radionica, igrica, mini predstava, čime se povećava motivacija i pospešuje pamćenje gradiva. „Bravissimo“ od samog osnivanja teži da koristi najsavremenije udžbenike koji se dopunjavaju dodatnim didaktičkim materijalom (od tabela za lakše pamćenje gramatike, dodatnih vežbica za rad kod kuće, preko popunjavanja upitnika pretraživanjem sajtova na italijanskom, korišćenja italijanskih pesama za obogaćivanje vokabulara pa, konačno, do čitanja i tumačenja književnih tekstova).

Cross of the Dutchman (game)

I really need some help with this page. It is not very well written or may not be entirely neutral and I really require the help of some more expierenced user(s). Thanks a lot! Mythic Writerlord (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shine family

In the early to mid 20th century there was a number of Shine Theatres and Inns around the Country. I remember meeting one of the family, David I think, who was also an avid flyer. Does any of that family still exist and whatever became of the properties?

Thanks W J Andrews.

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6.8 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. --Orangemike (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

War is a racket

I'd like to comment on "War is A Racket". Sure, it might be a racket to some, but some wars, like WWII were fought to save people from being enslaved by Hitler and Tojo, or dictatorships. Granted, companies might have profited immense3ly from the war, but the main purpose was to keep people free from oppression. If free people did not go to war against Hitler and Tojo, the world would be enslaved today, without freedom of speech, religion, assembly, etc. and a whole host of other freedoms. It would be a dark, dark, sad, sad world indeed, with millions more killed and enslaved. As the world knows, the atrocities committed by these two dirt bags were too horrible to mention in some polite circles. They had no qualms about killing babies and children, which the writer of the book in question fails to mention as a reason for going to war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAG44Kata (talk • contribs) 09:17, 7 October 2011

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6.8 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. --Orangemike (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are current published weights for dinosaurs realistic?

When linear dimensions are doubled the cross section increases four fold and the weight increases eight fold.(The square and cube of the increase ratio.) The legs of elephants are columnar of necessity to carry its’ weight of around 6/7 tonnes. The legs of elephants scale at about one seventh of their shoulder height. So a dinosaur of the same weight would not be able to supports itself on two legs especially of the style of Tyrannosaurus Rex.

It seems to me that the conclusion that birds developed from dinosaurs raises the question why did light bone structure develop it makes sense that it was to cope with size. If we take birds as the comparison and look at the proportions of the swan, it has a body weight of 13.5kg and a shoulder height of around 0.6M. The dinosaur of comparative shape to the swan is Tyranosaurus Rex. Shoulder height 3.5M . 5.8 times the height of a swan, so if it was the same structure the weight would be 5.8³ = 195 times the weight ( 195 * 13.5kg = 2.6 tonne)lighter than the currently accepted 7.2 tonnes. The swans leg is around 2cm diameter. Using the same logic the Tyrannosaurus leg diameter would be √195 = 14 times that. This would make the T Rex leg to be 28cm diameter. Which makes the ratio of height to leg diameter = 12.5. ( This appears about right.) Dbeck20ntlworld (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6.8 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. --Orangemike (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

data transfer from talk pages ,c/o User:Driftchambers & Cullen328 + Volcanoguy, ,Muchness,Bermicourt

mountain sites navigation

(Looking through the mountain category then -titles with country-... a person from a Category:Sacred Mountains search,) Omitting -titles with country- complicates navigation (other than the obvious few chinese language names)as Mount Garibaldi sounds Italian (Giuseppe Garibaldi) ,Black Virgin Mountain is infact within Vietnam, Mount Shasta is infact a Russian name (located California),etc . the solution for this specific problem is to attach the locations from the Category :Sacred Mountains link that shows therefore the locations only from this link, otherwise omitting the locations as viewed from any other web location.

Otherwise since classified geographical locations, would prefer these to have the countries attached, since is a principle of an encyclopedia to be informative whether a wikipedia protocol states otherwise,and no harm is done to the articles to have the country added.plus already eight pages have this type of title, so the Sacred mountain category is left unresolved(i.e. some with countries some without)Drift chambers (talk) 9:05 am, Today (UTC+1)


Your recent pagemoves

Regarding your recent page moves: parenthetical tags are generally added to article titles only for the purposes of disambiguation; i.e., to distinguish between two or more articles with the same name. The current convention regarding geographical features (WP:NCGN) is to use the widely accepted name, and only add additional text if needed to distinguish between multiple articles that share the same name. If you want to change this convention to use parenthetical phrases for category navigation, can you propose the new convention at WT:NCGN, rather than make pagemoves that move certain articles out of step with established naming conventions? --Muchness (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC) I do find the page move of Mount Garibaldi, Mount Cayley and Black Tusk inappropiate because all of these names most commonly refer to the mountains the articles cover. Volcanoguy 00:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I strongly oppose changing the name of the article about the California mountain as it is clear that this mountain is by far the primary topic people are looking for when searching. As a result of a flurry of edits by others following your change, the main Mount Shasta article is now inaccessible and leads to a redirect loop. Please help clean up this mess. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, I just looked at your contributions list and see that you are renaming lots of mountain articles. This is not necessary and not useful except in the rare case that two well-known mountains share a name. Please stop and discuss your reasoning. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC) Please stop your renaming of mountain articles to include a region, country or province. It breaks two of the five principal naming criteria at WP:TITLE, namely conciseness and consistency (as Wikipedia generally does not do this except where disambiguation is required). The moves should be reverted. If you wish to challenge the naming policy you need to discuss it first with the community e.g. at the Village Pump or the Talk Page of WP:TITLE. --Bermicourt(talk) 08:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

mountain sites navigation

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Category:Sacred_mountains

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cullen328


https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User_talk:Drift_chambers > >sacred mountains >goto http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9re1vfFh04sC&pg=PA315&lpg=PA315&dq=%22If+the+mountain+won't+come+to+Muhammad,+Muhammad+must+go+to+the+mountain.%22&source=bl&ots=JHTFszboXr&sig=xdXTda6zmVg-ltgbOWkl1jwVUV0&hl=en&ei=eJqaTqOLLs628QPN__3ZBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&sqi=2&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22If%20the%20mountain%20won't%20come%20to%20Muhammad%2C%20Muhammad%20must%20go%20to%20the%20mountain.%22&f=false

the above fromDrift chambers (talk) 08:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least six editors now have told you that these page moves are ill-advised, and have explained why. No one else has spoken in favor. I see no chance that consensus on this will change. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:St. Paul's Cathedral, Dunedin

"The Beatles" Wikipedia article

I might be just another paranoid Beatleskeptic who believes that the Beatles have been foisted on the public as the pinnacle of popular culture by continuing, unrelenting and unquestioning media hype for the past 48 years -- specifically since August 1963, when Sir Joseph Lockwood, then chairman of EMI, summoned Capitol Records heads to London for a "Please explain" meeting. They were supposed to explain why the Beatles' first four singles released in North America that year had flopped after more than the usual publicity and advertising had been afforded the group. Public apathy to the Beatles was no excuse to Sir Joseph and he ordered Capitol execs to embark on a $50,000 promotional campaign on the Beatles -- precisely 10 times what the previously most expensive artist "launch" had cost the label.

The Beatles article in Wikipedia has many unverifiable and over-the-top praises and superlatives for the group -- which are now not able to be questioned. I can find no facility for editing this article -- i.e. editing links to click on, that apparently all other articles have. Is it official Wikipedia policy that the Beatles' reputation -- which they themselves didn't subscribe to -- is inviolate? Not allowed to even be questioned?

G. A. De Forest author "Beach Boys vs Beatlemania: Rediscovering Sixties Music" (Booklocker.com, 2007)

At most, your view is a tiny fraction of the views about The Beatles. Take a look at the guideline WP:FRINGE to get a sense of how a very minor viewpoint will be treated in the article. Minor viewpoints can and do get described in Wikipedia, probably given more credence here than in the outside world, but they cannot take the place of mainstream views. Wikipedia is not the place for you to change the world. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For a description of Wikipedia's semi-protection policy, read WP:SEMI. It says you will be able to edit The Beatles' article if you register a username and make ten edits over four days. You will also want to read WP:SELFCITE to see how best to incorporate findings from your book. Binksternet (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFC : PROD - dont allow creator to remove?

Should the PROD template be changed so that the creator of the page cannot contest the PROD. We do not allow the creator to contest CSD, and AFD cannot be removed until the process is concluded. Allowing the creator to contest PROD just forces lots of pages which fail notability etc, but do not meet CSD:A7 to be forced to go through AFD, clogging up that system. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in principle but in practice it would be near impossible for us to know whether an IP address removing the PROD was also the article creator. Binksternet (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Same is true of CSD? I'm just saying change the "good faith" criteria. If people are gonna be sneaky, there is nothing you can do. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the creator should be allowed to contest a PROD, he's entitled to his day in court if he thinks he can make a case for the article Herostratus (talk) 03:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Prod is specified to be for completely uncontentious deletions. If the article creator disputes it, the deletion is not completely uncontentious. You can always proceed to AfD if the prod is contested. LadyofShalott 03:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phrases Meaning

Faith and Begorrah, what is the meaning and origin?

Are there categories for works of art in specific institutions?

I may be missing something, but I have not found any categories for works of art in specific institutions - for example, Works of art in the Louvre, Works of art in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, etc. It seems to me these would be very useful given all of the content about specific works that are housed in museums. I for one would love to be able to find a list of articles about art in a museum that I am about to visit. Lexaxis7 (talk) 05:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both a category and a list article would be viable, but they do not necessarily exist yet. A category has the downside that it could only contain links to articles about works of art that are independently and individually notable. A list article, could contain information about even non-notable works. If you are actually looking for the information for an upcoming trip, I would say going to the museum website or a book are better in the short term, but if you want to create lists/categories, then good luck! Gaijin42 (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of WP:BLP WP:WELLKNOWN WP:RECENT

Several ongoing debates Herman Cain (mostly resolved as include), Justin Bieber (ongoing edit war). Unproven allegations made. Widely reported. Either unproven allegations which are notable about wellknown people are wiki-able, or they are not. The policy should be consistent. Ongoing debate in BLP noticeboard on Bieber (in bad faith imo). refusing any mention of ongoing scandal "until it is resolved". Could be years. If you have input on specific debate, do it on the BLP noticeboard to avoid forum shopping. But am looking for general clarification of the policies here in the RFC. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biased removal of submitted comment!

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

I submitted the following text as an edit to the above article and it was deleted in a matter of seconds:

Masks of the face of Guy Fawkes are available to protest movements that pursue social revolution. Wearing the mask is in itself an act of public revolt.
This protest movement and a brief movie representation of the death of Guy Fawkes was presented in the movie "V for vendetta" internal link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_for_Vendetta_(film). From the end of the movie thousands of people, all wearing the mask of Guy Fawkes and his costume, descend on the British parliament building to watch as it is blow up in an act of social revolution from neoconservative fascism, which had become the dominant social force in the film.
This fictional social protest tactic has recently been copied by dozens, or even hundreds of people from the recent occupy Wall Street movement; who have been seen wearing the 'mask of Guy Fawkes' as a public disguise to avoid persecution by the authorities. Recent media attention to this movement has intensified this reaction. (reference: http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/)

I believe this deletion was a direct act to sabatoge wikipedia,that was taken to stifle an alternative point of view that the deletor disagreed with. As such, I believe this deletion is biased and should be reviewed by a third party, to ensure neutrality. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Repent (talk • contribs) 6 November 2011

Well, your first place to go is the article talk page rather than here. The editor reverting your contribution indicated in his edit summary that material from blogspot.com isn't reliable (which it isn't, see WP:RS) and that it's just somebody's opinion. I suppose some mention of Guy Fawkes masks in the article might be called for, but it needs to be based on reliable sources and be presented in an encyclopedic manner. Also, constructions such as "direct act to sabatoge wikipedia" are not helpful. That is a fairly serious charge, you know. We don't talk like that here. Herostratus (talk) 05:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, though, you are wanting to contribute in good faith. When you're new, it can be a little bit rocky as you learn the ropes, and the best advice is to remain cool. I now see that there is already an exposition on the masks, but rather than in Guy Fawkes it is in the Gunpowder Plot in popular culture article, here: Guy Fawkes mask. As you can see, the material is restrained and descriptive, and well-referenced with multiple references to reliable sources such as the Guardian and the beeb. This is the sort of effect we are trying for, here. It takes time to get in the swing of things. Under your inspiration I did add a sentence re the masks to the Guy Fawkes article, and thank you for the inspiration. Cheers, Herostratus (talk) 05:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lists of Russians

Should {{Lists of Russians}}, which is a list of lists, be used selectively in biographies, or limited to list articles? Discussion is underway at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 November 14#Template:Lists of Russians. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am new here

I am new here

Talk:Taliban#RFC

Inter Services Intelligence (Pakistan's intelligence agency) is included in the infobox as an ally of Taliban (and opponent of USA) while Pakistan and USA call each other allies (though strained). Further more, the article tone and some instances imply the same. On which side should ISI be listed as an ally (Taliban or USA) in infobox and how to go about making the article tone and mentioned allegations/refutations neutral? Refer to transcluded discussion (on talk) and the talk page discussion in the main section for more details pointed out by involved editors. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I've added an {{rfc|pol}} tag but the bot doesn't seem to be adding it to the list, so I am listing here as well. Please add (already discussed on talkpage and NPOV notice board with dispute stuck, so calling for an rfc). --lTopGunl (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Senkaku Islands

For some reason, RFC bot did not transclude the RFC listed at Talk:Senkaku Islands#Request for comment: Article naming. This may have to do with some administrative problems (a previous RfC was first posted by another user, then removed and replaced by another admin). Could this be added to the History and Geography list, please? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bot just got it now. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Improving article on Sow-Hsin Chen

Greetings. I am a new contributor to Wikipedia, so thank you in advance for your consideration and tolerance.

I submitted an article on Sow-Hsin Chen which was accepted and tagged with this box:

This article may contain wording that merely promotes the subject without imparting verifiable information. Please remove or replace such wording, unless you can cite independent sources that support the characterization. (November 2011)

Can you please advise me on how I can edit the article so that the tag can be removed? I've made efforts to remove puffery, and would greatly appreciate some guidance and feedback on this, in addition to feedback on what I can do to advance the article to a GA.

Many thanks, Rubinm (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Eyerishiam (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heading text

Is the interaction of lobbyists and legislators a conflict of interest?

I would like to pose a question that has no easy answer.Why is it legal for lobbyists to engage Congressmen & Representatives??Isn't this practice a conflict of interest? Legislators DO NOT vote with the best interest of the people who elected them, at heart.Although,not EVERY elected representative falls into the catagory of greedy and serving their own best interests,the sad fact is that most legislators are looking out for themselves.I believe that the American voters deserve better representation,actually I ask myself WHY DON'T the voters eliminate the Legislative Branch altogether?No more House of "Representatives?"No more U.S.Senate.Let registered voters advocate for themselves!I fully understand that I am over-simplifying the problem/solution,but we as voters,can't do any worse than those who are "supposedly" working on our behalf. For the time being,let us draw up a bill to outlaw lobbyists,through binding legislation,which(if approved)would take effect immediately.This type of action is completely within our rights as citizens,and would be an action whose results would be both money saving and a catalyst for renewed interest in the politics of OUR nation.Registered voters in control of a government which has ignored the will of the people for far too long.A novel idea or a dream?Eyerishiam (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St.Ambrose

Three times I've changed the page to correct the genealogy of St. Ambrose and three times it's been changed back. WHY?

I've left references - I've even checked some of the page writer's references so why have the changes not been accepted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.112.136.10 (talk) 10:10, 4 December 2011‎

Jack the ripper(band)

http://m.last.fm/music/Jack+The+Ripper?fallback=1

Long-tern effects of the1953 Iranian coup

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Adding_subsection_about_.22Long-term_effects.22

Should we add a subsection about the "Long-term effects" of the coup. Most historians and scholars who discuss the coup, also debate the long-term effects of the coup on Iranian civil life, Shah's militarization and radicalization of the Iranian society which led to the 1979 revolution, Shah's human rights abuses, the long-term effects on Iran's push for democracy, as well as the unintended consequences for America in the region. This video discusses these effects. Kurdo777 (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your youtube link does not help the article at all, however, your wish to have long-term effects of the coup described in the article is a fine wish, as long as the previous proposal is honored; the one in which the Shah's backers are described along with their motivations. Binksternet (talk) 06:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone like coupons?

This page will be launched shortly and I'd like some feed back on how many people use sites like this and if you have any suggestions on the design so far. It won't load completely because it's not finished. Just looking for some feedback! Tahnks!Daniellemeyer7 (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What page is that? Jojalozzo 01:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

against SOPA : if needed, let's strike ! :-)

Even though I/we would really miss English Wiki for a short or longer period, I fully agree with a possible strike against SOPA.

  • oppose The impact of removing wikipedia would be disparate upon people who have no say in SOPA. Your only hope would be to piss off millions of people, and hope they figure out why and complain. Not to mention the millions of people who arent even in the US. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Gundred, Countess of Surrey

Clearly, the parentage of Gundred, Countess of Surrey is a subject of debate. However, Inumerous citations to support the position that Gundred is the daughter of William the Conqueror and Matilda of Flanders have been provided on this page, and yet the references were removed by User:Ealdgyth, and I fear this will result in an editing war. I have added these sources while still stating that the parentage is debated. I believe this to be the most neutral viewpoint. Clearly, the most neutral stance would be to offer both viewpoints and allow the reader to pick a side by viewing the evidence presented. 71.100.1.129 (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When the "sides" are: a) All mainstream academic historians, and b) a bunch of obscure amateur? genealogical societies and writers, all apparently American, that is not the way to do it. The view that she is William's daughter has been WP:FRINGE (or failure to keep up with scholarship) for well over a century now. I have mentioned the "dispute" more prominently, but that is at least as much as it deserves, maybe more. If you want anything more prominent, find a reputable academic historian from the last few decades who supports the view. Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Filipa_Moniz_Perestrelo

Requesting an uninvolved editor to review the additions to this page and possibly rewrite or redo the article. The editor who keeps reverting the article seems to be unwilling to add any new information to this article.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

China's article

Within the past month or so the People's Republic of China article has changed the name to China. While this doesn't appear to be much of an issue it does affect the Republic of China (Taiwan) and neutrality of Wikipedia.

I need to add history to explain why this is an issue. The Republic of China formed after the Xinhai Revolution which overthrew the Qing Dynasty in 1912. The People's Republic of China formed after the Communist Chinese Party gain victory against the Republic of China in the Chinese Civil War in 1949 which the Republic of China retreated to Taiwan. Today both Chinas claim to be the legitimate government of China and each claims the other's land as well. However the article China violates the neutrality of Wikipedia as 22 UN nations including the Vatican City recognize the Republic of China as the legitimate country of China and supporters of the Republic of China would feel this is an insult as they feel the People's Republic of China is a 'false' government and are not govern by the People's Republic of China. Note nations have to recognize one China either the People's Republic of China (China) or Republic of China (Taiwan) because of the One-China policy.

This is a politically and socially sensitive issue and attempts have been made to change Republic of China to Taiwan because of how people commonly refer to nations e.g. The Russian Federation commonly known as Russia. However, doing so would indirectly state Taiwan is a country which would state Wikipedia supports Taiwanese independence violating neutrality of Wikipedia even though it's indirect. Now the People's Republic of China hates anything that says 'Taiwan is a country' (they like the official name of Republic of China better than the Republic of Taiwan). I must state the People's Republic of China could implicate Wikipedia of recognizing Taiwanese independence, even though this was an attempt to help the English users, it has some very negative outcomes which could even affect Taiwan's political status. I beg you change China back to People's Republic of China and please do not allow any article that states 'Taiwan is a country' or change the Republic of China to Taiwan.71.184.217.18 (talk) 06:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The afterwards editing of discussions

What I find strange about Wikipedia discussions is that you can edit other people's input as if you were editing an article. If the system is as plain as it seems, I'm afraid it can be misused. In theory, you can track everything from the history but it would be better if it could not be misused at all.

So, the primary change I'm suggesting is that people only be allowed to edit their own comments afterwards, and even then there would appear a timestamped marking that it has been edited, preferably with the option to see how the article has been changed, to expose any misleading changes.

Then there may be inappropriate/"dirty" comments that deserve to be banned. For those, I suggest that there be some "Report Abuse" button: When a sufficient number of people press that button, the comment is replaced by a button saying something like "Comment reported as abuse by N people -- click to view". Or what would be best for those cases? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vesaaeo (talk • contribs) 14:56, December 25, 2011 UTC (UTC)

There is policy governing the modification of other editor's comments on talk pages. So far this appears to be successful at dealing with such talk page abuse. See WP:TPO. Jojalozzo 17:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Listing adaptations released prior to the original in the lead

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Visual novels#RfC: Listing adapations released prior to the original in the lead

Kobe Bryant sexual assault case

Should the article include the name of Kobe Bryant's accuser? Would WP:BLPNAME and WP:AVOIDVICTIM indicate that it should be omitted? Nightscream (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Business Ethics

Hi Can any one tell me the answers for these questions

1] ------------- ---------------- is an outcome of the company’s ideal policies ----------- & -------------------. 2] Business is commonly referred to as -------------- ---------- aimed at making a profit or to organizations formed to make a profit. 3] The 3 ideas, according to ecological view of business are -------------, --------------- & ----------------. 4] According to Peter Drucker, business enterprise has two basic functions that are & ----------------.

5] Law refers to set of---------------- established to govern the -------------- Behavior with ----------; this set of rules being---------------.

Neutral language in critical reception

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Neutral language in critical reception

Should we use "positive or negative", as opposed to "acclaim or panned" in order to describe the critical reception of films? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree A number of editors worked together on this wording to describe the concerns:
Due to frequent edit-warring, disagreements and time-consuming debates over editors' subjective terms in the first line of the Reception section ("favorable reviews" "highly favorable reviews" "universal acclaim" "mixed" "mixed-to-positive" etc.), it is proposed we dispense with editors' POV interpretation of film-critic aggregate figures and instead go straight to the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic figures and summations we already quote.
For example:
The film received an 85% approval rating based on 117 reviews listed at the film-critics aggregate site RottenTomatoes.com, which summarized them as 'A meandering script and uneven acting, but lush cinematography and a director to watch for.' [footnote] Metacritic calculated an average score of 82, based on 39 reviews, and said, "Accents go in and out but this jewel box of a film captures the eye and never lets it go.' [footnote] CinemaScore polls reported that audiences gave the film was "B" average on an A+ to F scale, and that audiences skewed slightly male and older. [footnote].
If the RT or Metacritic summary said "acclaimed" or a similar word, that would be an objective part of its summary quote, not a subjective interpretation by Wiki editors.
--Tenebrae (talk)
  • Agree (although technically we're advocating not even using positive/negative either) – It's the cleanest approach to just bypass that introductory sentence and jump straight into the scores and summaries themselves, and then cover the various aspects of the critical reception. These "critically acclaimed", "panned", and "mixed to negative" conclusions by editors are often completely unnecessary and are usually contentious. The two main issues are that i) the aggregators quantify, they don't qualify i.e. a film could get 90% rave reviews and another could receive 100% lukewarm reviews, and on RT that would see the film with generally weaker reviews classified as "fresher" ii) the aggregators don't speak for all the other reviews, they just interpret them, so it is still just one opinion at the end of the day. It's a small issue really, but as we've seen it's an open invitation to peacock langauge, and it does raise an important question over where interpretation ends, and original research starts. Betty Logan (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, that's the crux of the issue: People are using terms like "critically acclaimed" and "universally positive" and "slammed" when it's only their interpretation of the aggregate. Right now there are time-consuming reverts and arguments simply because nothing is in place that specifically disallows such interpretation, and fans of particular movies get extremely adamant even in the face of multiple editors saying otherwise. It's one edit-war after another, and going through mediation protocol for every one of these WP:SNOWBALL cases is exhausting. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

japanese edition of Wikipedia. False information

In Japanese language Wikipedia material about my views on Japanese foreign policies have been taken from a notorious rightwing source seeking to damage my reputation in Japan. How can I have this corrected?

Gregory Clark clarkinjapan@gmail.com

Tavi Gevinson

Do you agree to add a "See Also" section to Tavi's article. The See Also section would have 3 or 4 links to other articles about fashion stylists. Thanks. --★ Pikks ★ MsG 00:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Walker

Scott Walker has this blatant falsehood:

"Possible recall

After the contentious collective bargaining dispute, Walker's disapproval ratings have varied between 50-51% while his approval ratings have varied between 47-49% in 2011"

The sources cited DIRECTLY CONTRADICT THIS, as I explain on the talk page. It's been almost three weeks and no correction. Obviously, this is someone imposing a falsely positive spin due to POV.

Would someone please edit this article to make it conform with its sources on this point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.218.9.50 (talk) 04:17, 21 January 2012

Right to exist

I invite neutral commentary on this article, particularly this section on "Pakistan", which, I believe, has been deliberately skewed by Pakistani nationalist editors, User:TopGun [1],USer:Mar4d[2],and the sock of indefbanned user USer:Nangparbat ([3]) into promoting non-neutral anti-Indian sentiments. In particular these statements are reproduced from partisan Pakistani blogs and presented as fact:

"It is essential that Indians deeply and meaningfully recognize Pakistan’s right to exist as a nation independent from India. Indians cannot let their nostalgia for the past–which is, in fact, the national pain over the Partition in 1947 which led to the creation of Pakistan – blind them to the reality of Pakistan as a sovereign state." [4]

In addition, the remark "By refusing to accept the 1947 partition of the British Indian empire, India even challenged Pakistan's right to exist." is Original Research, since India officially only rejects the Two Nation Theory, not Pakistan's sovereignity as such. Furthermore, the cited source here indicates the opposite of what this article claims i.e. it is Pakistan that denies India's right to exist[5].

Furthermore, I was compelled to come to this board rather than use the rfc template because the Pakistani militant editors kept removing it from the article talk page[6].Underhumor (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evans Duck Decoy Co.

Can you find some info of this comany. Early 1900,s Thanks

Talk:History of As the World Turns

I have recently created an orphaned talk page of "History of As the World Turns" to discuss merger. The bot couldn't have counted orphaned pages. I need help. --George Ho (talk) 04:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate Tachyon into Tachyonic field and Tachyonic particle

One of the user has proposed that this article be split into Tachyonic field and Tachyonic particle. We are having a spirited disagreement over this matter. He/she claims is an expert on the subject however I am not. So, I am requesting expert opinion on this mater at the article talk page. We will appreciate your help. Thank you. Sumanch (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sell a CD set of your WEB pages for the dooms day people and make some money

Why not Sell a CD set of your WEB pages

bfor the dooms day people and make some money.

I would buy a set my internet is less than reliable.

66.226.56.242 (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to create category: Fiction

I would like to suggest how to improve on the current architecture of wikipedia. Unfortunatly(fortunatly) all articles on wikipedia are in one bag. But this makes it very difficult to distinguish fiction from fact ... especially about films,cartoons, tv series, etc.

I propose to add the Category "fiction", so that it will be visible in the adress bar.
Example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek
-should be-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/fiction/Star_Trek

Infoboxes for musicians

Greetings, I am a biographer of musicians on the Wikipedias. The infoboxes used for individuals include a list of present and former members. How can there be a "former member" for the biography of one person? Can we agree to remove that from the proffered template to use on musicians' articles? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 03:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

disputed image at Jewish Defense League

There is a dispute over the inclusion of a controversial image at Jewish Defense League. Please see [7].--Kalsermar (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endoscopy

Columbus,Ohio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.131.154 (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2012‎

Sarah Paulson's date of birth

Sarah Paulson's date of birth

On Wikipedia it shows: "Sarah Catharine Paulson (born December 17, 1975)[2] is an American actress." The source is: [8] which when clicked, says "File not found".

On the other hand, on IMDb page for Sarah Paulson says: "Born on December 17, 1974 in Tampa, Florida..."

I thought of making the change but thought to get a confirmation from the community first. So please discuss this and (confirm to) make appropriate changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.14.118 (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2012‎

Switzerland: biased information of science part.

The science part is full of bias and misleading in the way it is written. It also did claim (before my edit) that Einstein did write his "General Theory of Relativity (1916)" in Bern, while it was the "Special Relativity (1905)" he did write in Bern. In his early days in Berlin, Einstein postulated that the correct interpretation of the special theory of relativity must also furnish a theory of gravitation and in 1916 he published his paper on the general theory of relativity. In 1921 he received the Nobel Prize for his 1916 publication, while being a German citizen, researching, teaching and living in Germany. (see: www.Nobelprize.org - http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-bio.html).

The current source used in the article: "Einstein tops list of leading Swiss - swissinfo.ch", should be removed, as it is full of wrong & bias information. (Wrong theory, wrong date for Nobel Prize, wrong curriculum vitae & citizenship, etc.)--IIIraute (talk) 12:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the discussion page? I said your correction was ok, and the actual sentence is "world-famous physicist Albert Einstein in the field of physics who developed his Special relativity while working in Bern." mgeo talk 12:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence still says: "Many Nobel prizes were awarded to Swiss scientists, for example to the world-famous physicist Albert Einstein in the field of physics who developed his Special relativity while working in Bern.". You removed the "German-born", the citation from "www.nobelprize.org" and at the end of the sentence is still this biased "swissinfo.ch" reference.--IIIraute (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not remove anything, I only reverted your edit for the reasons explained on the talk page. mgeo talk 13:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And therefore you removed repeatedly well sourced information (3RR warning). The reference you inserted is simply wrong, revisionist and of no academical value. The source claims that he was of Swiss nationality when receiving the Nobel Price, that he received the price in 1922, as well as that he did develop his 1916 publication for which he received the price in Bern. All wrong!--IIIraute (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Einstein received his Nobel prize in 1922, he was Swiss since 1901. This can be verified in the wiki articles. mgeo talk 14:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weird though, that The Official Web Site of the Nobel Price [9] says 1921. Maybe it was given to him in 1922 - but he got the 1921 Nobel Price for Physics. He had left Switzerland for good and regained German citizenship - under German law in 1914 he therefore lost his Swiss citizenship (that he kept it is a myth). Wikipedia articles do NOT verify anything! Einstein developed and published his theory of gravitation in 1916, being the Director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Physical Institute and Professor in the University of Berlin - in German, in Germany, being a German citizen. In 1921 he received the Nobel Prize for his 1916 publication, as a German citizen, researching, teaching and living in Germany until he left for the United States.--IIIraute (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He received his nobel prize in 1922 although it was called the "1921 Nobel Prize". The official website nowhere says he lost his Swiss citizenship. mgeo talk 15:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ! This is a student from a sport and society class. I recently made a draft of edits I want to add to the page violence against women. (it can be found in my sandbox!) I am just nervous that I didn't follow wiki norms for citations. Is there any way you could take a quick look? I don't know how to use the same citation over and over. THANKS! Eec34 (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(this only a comment, not really information)

180.190.4.246 (talk) 09:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Hello my name is paolo. I just wanted to report that when i try to research an item on the computer there are search rrsults that usually appear about the item. but for the mobile site just before the wikipedia pages changed or have been formatted on march 20,2012 in philippine time, the other item i wanted to search for had no results. for example i wanted to find out about the name auldey. a few weeks ago when i researched it on the wikipedia mobile site the same 2 results ( first result [ blazing teens ]), ( second result [ mini 4wd ]). but today when i tried to search the same name there were no results about it. but when i checked the computer site, the same two results from a few weeks ago appeared again. please make the mobile sites better by letting the same old version from before march 20,2012 so the search results of the wikipedia will appear again so i can find what i am looking for. because if the item or article you are looking for does not have the key words or article name exactly the same nothing will appear. please fix the problem. I use your site all the time for research and for just reading when i have nothing to do. please fix the problem. I also recommend that you try it yourself on mobile devices like ipod touch, cellphones and other devices. please do not disregard or ignore this message. please fix the problem within the next few days. also i recommend you try it with other nonspecific words like when I typed SILVERLIT the search resulted in articles that mentioned the item i was looking for. now ,the same like the other, no results came up and it has always been like that since.[reply]

spanish civil war

In reading about your orginization, you admit to being left leaning. That's ok but atleast tell the truth.In your article about the Spanish Civil War, you stated that the loyalist side was a democratic govt.  Since when does a democratic govt. do away with freedom of speech,press and assembly. THEY Also closed the Catholic churches and schools.One of the factions in the loyalist coalition was the anarchist,known for their freedom loving principles.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Request_board&oldid=483426188"