Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

I'm new and being blocked ?

Answered

 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

:

I've tried to post this poem I have in my possession regarding the meaning of Rosebud in the Citizen Kane movie. It keeps getting removed, why ? it's as totally relevant as other opinions posted on the meaning of Rosebud .

"Rosebud" is a poem I found in my Mothers Bible, handwritten in her cursive on parchment paper. It is not signed though, Author unknown ?

[copyright material redacted] Yeshua777 (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Content for Wikipedia articles must have been published by reliable sources and it must represent the opinions and analysis of the the mainstream academics. A poem you found doesnt meet either criteria. (and it likely also violates WP:COPYRIGHT.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

and yes, repeatedly inserting inappropriate content into articles is being disruptive and can lead to you being blocked. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing to suggest that the poem has anything to do with Citizen Kane. It is off-topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, you're not being blocked just yet, but because other editors have disagreed with your edits, you need to stop repeatedly reverting them on Citizen Kane right now. You can discuss them on Talk:Citizen Kane, but if your edits aren't cited to reliable sources ie: given prominent mention in places such as books published by well known firms or major national broadsheet newspapers, then it's unlikely that they'll be accepted. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Just some quick googling shows it likely has nothing to do with Citizen Kane. From what I can gather, the poem is attributed to a missionary, though I don't know who exactly, or when it was written. It's all over the Christian blogosphere, though. The fact that Google Books doesn't seem to show it in any works older than a few years old is at least suggestive that it's of fairly recent authorship, and thus likely subject to copyright, at least in English. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

What can be done about editors who write patent nonsense?

Answered

 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

:

• L (Death Note) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Batman194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've been trying to work with an editor for some months who appears to have some difficulty with English. I've discussed this with him at length[1], but have met with limited success; when asked about his poor English, he explained that he was American and denied being ESL. Most recently, he insisted that eccentricity always implies genius[2], was reverted[3], and then reverted in turn[4]. He incorrectly cited Eccentricity (behavior) to support his point.[5]

As I hope the links show, his use of English is often extremely idiosyncratic and difficult to understand, and I have not been able to convince him that there's a problem with his editing. Dealing with him is extremely tiring and unproductive, and correcting his edits frequently involves a great deal of effort and failure to communicate with him. I'm not sure how to proceed. Vashti (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

That's certainly the most unique form of American English I've ever seen in all my years of being an American and being a linguist. Anyway, here's my issue with your wording in the L article: is there a source for calling the character a genius? I know that's not what Batman's objecting to, but I think if you can actually quote one of the LNs as using your preferred construction, it kind of sidesteps any complaint Batman could voice (and I see you may be able to do that). As to dealing with Batman... I don't think he's completely out of his mind here. His argument, properly articulated, is that "eccentric genius" sounds redundant to him, and is therefore editorially poor. While he's wrong, that doesn't make him disruptive. Believe me... as frustrating as your interactions with him may seem, this is not considered a serious WP:COMPETENCE situation. And honestly, for me, worst case, I don't mind budging on an issue of verbiage even though the motivation behind it is wrong. Is it going to make the article somehow bad or incorrect to not describe L as a genius exactly there? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes. He is a genius. He is recognised as one in-universe and out. It is repeatedly sourced. It is one of the most defining features of his character, as the battle between supergeniuses is one of the most defining aspects of the Death Note plot. It would seriously compromise his character summary not to mention it; it's like not describing James Kirk as a starship captain. I've been through this before with Batman and cited the manga writer's description of him, and it made no difference to him at all, just as my citing the Google dictionary definition of eccentricity did not budge him. He just says "let's agree to disagree", and meanwhile, his edits stand because I try to discuss and he does not.

What's disruptive is that this happens with him *over and over*. He'll make some edit based on a misunderstanding or misuse of language, and it becomes impossible to talk to him because of his unique English. I was hoping I could get him mentored or something, because I really am at breaking point. Vashti (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Further edits since last night.[6] I provided evidence for the standard definition of eccentric, asked Batman to back up his definition, and he would not or could not do so, so I reverted the L article.[7] I feel like I beat him down, and he clearly thinks the same, but at the same time I'm disquieted by the idea that Wikipedia's core policies (e.g. WP:V) are to be ignored so that people's feelings don't get hurt. I actually had already let an edit of Batman's pass earlier in the week, which I thought made the page less descriptive, since L's eccentricity was already extensively discussed.[8] Aren't we meant to be producing correct, verifiable English at the very least? Vashti (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, if your preferred wording was the status quo, you should invoke the WP:BRD standard, which tends to really frustrate the efforts of determinedly CLUE-deficient editors. As to discussing things, well, going through the DR process is of course the right step once it's clear it's not working, and you've definitely done that by coming here. And you don't have to continue discussing ad nauseam when it's clear further discussion will just go in circles or is being hampered by a failure to comprehend basic logic (e.g., insisting that because eccentricity can be associated with genius that it implies genius); he doesn't get consensus by being the last man standing. No consensus means no change. I'm glossing over a few important aspects of the process here, but I think you've been around long enough to understand my point.

To be fair though, and forgive me for being blunt, but you're being overly picky if you feel a single word makes or breaks the article. All I'm suggesting is that with editors like these, sometimes giving a little is not a big deal. Your point about letting WP:V slip in favor of collegiality is valid, but it misses the important point that maintaining a collegial environment is at the heart of one of Wikipedia's Five Pillars. The problem is your argument that WP:V suffers because of this edit is simply incorrect: not including content that happens to be verifiable doesn't violate WP:V (it can violate WP:NPOV, but that's not happening here either).

All that said, I was actually planning on stepping in and reverting Batman myself when I sat down to write this response since I do agree with you on the facts of this case. My arguments, however, are more directed at trying to point you to ways in which you could better personally handle such disputes in the future. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not the absence of content that I thought was violating WP:V, but Batman's insistence that his unverifiable gut instinct trumped the standard, verifiable meaning of the word "eccentric". I understand what you're saying, I appreciate your input, and I do try to work with other editors; I know that though the pages I tend to focus on are quiet, I do not own them. I have, in the past, agreed with Batman over contentious edits once he managed to explain himself, as here. However, what worries me is the precedent it sets for future editing if arguments like "what Wikipedia should contain is what I feel is correct" are allowed to stand. Vashti (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, hang in there. Like I suggested, in the future you should probably make more use of WP:BRD to hold the status quo in place pending discussion. That will hold most "This is wrong because I say so" arguments at bay indefinitely. And should a consensus actually spring up from that, you should consider the possibility that you're incorrect (and if it's as I describe, that should almost never happen). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding BLP and Personal Attacks

Answered

 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

:

After an unrelated question I had at Commons, I began wondering whether userspace infoboxes violated personal attack policies. For example, this search reveals a number of impassioned attacks on living U.S. presidents. "This user thinks John Q. Nobody is a Neo-Fascist." I don't want to go wiping people's userspaces without asking for a second opinion--especially because userspaces are given a little more latitude than articles (see WP:BLPTALK). Thanks. -- Veggies (talk) 07:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks as if these userboxen could be an infringement of the WP:POLEMIC guideline or even the Wikipedia:Libel policy. I'm not sure it's within our remit here at EAR to deal with this. It's probably something more for a discussion by admins. Best to bring it up at WP:AN (not to be confused with WP:ANI). But i'll let others comment here first. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the "Neo-Fascist" and belonging "to the trash bin of history" ones are pretty silly, but describing someone as a "traitorous piece of scum" is fairly offensive. It's ... god ... I'm reasonably certain this isn't libel if only because it's not asserted as truth, but as the opinion of the editor. I also think this goes outside WP:BLP, again, because it's a clear statement of opinion and is not likely to be confused as an assertion of fact. Whether it's polemic... I'm not quite sure; I'm really on the fence. Nor am I sure whether the rule is that any polemical material is subject to removal, or if it is subject to removal only if it rises to the level of being excessive material unrelated to encyclopedia building. From a pure policy perspective, I think that to interpret WP:POLEMIC such as to require the removal of certain political statements would be extremely difficult to apply in a fair manner; factually messy tests requiring an "I know it when I see it" type determination are notoriously difficult to justify. Anyhow, I think this is an issue for discussion at WP:AN as Kudpung suggests or perhaps WP:VP, if simply because it's an issue with broad implications for userpages. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I could be wrong on the defamation count. It's kind of hard to put a finger on what exactly defamation is, at least within the United States. While my understanding was that at least on Wikipedia we tended to care about the law where Wikipedia's servers were located, or where WMF was headquartered (iirc this was classically Florida and California, respectively), it also seems that in some situations it's possible that the controlling law would be that of the state where the injury occurred rather than where the publication occurred. But then again, there are First Amendment limitations that would probably protect WMF since we're talking about public figures. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). I am probably wrong above where I talk about it being clearly the user's opinion rather than a statement of fact. Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990). There is a requirement that the statement be provably false, and that is probably what extends to protecting hyperbole. See Id. Based in part on that analysis and in part on gut feeling, I really think we don't reach libel from a legal perspective. However, I think you could argue that, on a precautionary principle, we should probably avoid statements like these. But from a policy perspective, I'm concerned as to where exactly we draw the line. WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:SOAP weigh pretty heavily on one end of the scale, but the long-standing leniency the community has granted userboxes weighs pretty heavily on the other end. And while Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech, it makes for extremely poor community relations to not allow some significant form of self-expression within the provided user space, and that necessarily has to extend to making comments on politicians. And as I said before, where do we draw the line? Stepping on what can be claimed as a strong political statement can cause a lot of bad blood and drive away people who would otherwise be great members of the community. Yeah, this needs to be kicked up higher and hashed out I think, because I really think there are rather sweeping policy implications that would stem from this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Under English Common Law (the root of most American judicial doctrine) the essence of libel was knowing publication of an untrue statement defaming someone; truth was an absolute defense. In the 1920s there was a case in California where Curtis Publishing exposed someone's sordid past, and claimed truth as a defense. My vague recollection is that this is what led to the concept of "private facts", such as are true, but constitute an injury (tort) if published. Complicating this is vastly different treatment of strictly private individuals, and "public figures". All in all, I say let the WMF lawyers worry about this kind of stuff. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I agree on that point, that if our concern is applying WP:BLP to possibly defamatory content, we may wish to have the Foundation chime in. As to WP:POLEMIC, I ran this search of the noticeboard archives to see if there have been similar situations in the past. After reviewing several of these, it seems like you would probably succeed in challenging the userboxes at polemical. Similar cases include a userbox supporting armed action by Hezbollah, one arguing that abortion ends lives, one making a joke in poor taste that domestic violence can be appropriate in some circumstances, and one supporting Campfire USA over the BSA. I'm sure there's one about politicians if you looked through the hits. So... that should give you an idea of what the community understands unacceptable userboxes to be. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for chiming in. After reading the comments about law from people who know more about these things than I do, I concur that this should be taken up by the Foundation's legal department, especially as it could be a cross-Wiki issue if other WikiMedia sites use userboxen and have the same problems with them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Is major change justified?

Answered

 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

:

I am considering a major change to Sierra Madre Mountains (California) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and do not want to get into a hassle about it. The change would be to replace all references to "Sierra Madre Mountains" with just "Sierra Madre." This is justified by the fact that the definition of "Sierra" is "noun: 1(especially in Spanish-speaking countries or the western US) a long jagged mountain chain" (see http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sierra?q=sierra). Referring to them as the Sierra Madre Mountains is equivalent to talking about a "PIN Number" or an "ATM Machine."

Alweiss (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

While what you say makes logical sense, it would appear that the official name of this range, as redundant as it may be, is "Sierra Madre Mountains" per the U.S. Geographic Names Information Center listing. The fact that "Mountains" is part of the name, not just a descriptive word, can be seen by contrasting the listing for the Sierra Madre range of Wyoming which gives the name as just "Sierra Madre". To change it merely because it is linguistically redundant would be prohibited original research, I'm afraid. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Sam Walton's biography

Resolved

 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

:

Hey,

Sam Walton's summary appears to be clearly wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Walton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.122.253.226 (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism. Now fixed. SpinningSpark 01:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Title change

Answered

 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

:

Hello my page "Jack dean" English footballer born 28 November title needs editing to "Jack Dean (English footballer) so it is not to be confused with another article. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidfelix34 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

You rename pages by moving them to a new title. Click on the "Move" tab at the top of the page you want to move. The Wikimedia software does not normally permit new editors to do this, but I have just confirmed your account so it should work ok. Let me know if you have any problems. SpinningSpark 13:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Bentham Science Publishers edited text

Answered

 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

:

Dear Joel,

Thank you for working on the content related to Bentham Science Publishers on wikipedia.

I wrote twice to make some changes to the original text, once on 31 Oct 2013 which was reverted and you gave me the reasons for doing so. I understood your point of view, complied with your reasons and made a revised version which I submitted on 5 Nov 2013. I dropped the promotional tone and did not touch the controversies' section. However, the second one was reverted too.

I would like to ask for your guidance as to how I should go about it, for I want to give it a shot again. I am not trying to shy away from the controversies related to the publisher, but only want to add something on their product line. I mean there is more to Bentham than just the controversies.

Kindly guide me.

Thanks! HiraAzam (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Wrong venue for your message. Please repost it either on the article's talk page or Joel's talk page. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Individual art events articles

Answered

 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

:

Hi. I noticed that while we have an article on the Venice Biennale, articles on the individual Biennale editions are all missing. I noticed the same apparently holds for other convention events like ComicCon. An event like a Biennale edition is usually massively notable and very well capable of meeting WP:NEVENT, so I was wondering: do the articles not exist because of some other notability guideline I am unaware of, or simply because nobody ever bothered writing the individual articles? Thanks. (Note: I also asked this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts). --cyclopia^speak! 11:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no objection in principle, the Cannes Film Festival for instance has articles for individual years. It depends on what sources you can bring to bear. I know nothing about the Venice Biennale but I doubt that it is written about anywhere near as heavily as Cannes. Do individual years continue to be discussed in reliable sources years after the event is over? If you can find suitable sources, then by all means go ahead and write articles. SpinningSpark 23:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Studley, Inc. and related subjects

Hello,

I would like to request the removal of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), Wikipedia:Notability_(people) and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest templates from the following pages: Studley, Inc., Michael D. Colacino and Mitchell S. Steir. I am unable to do this myself because of a COI and have held multiple discussion on each article's Talk page before posting here.

A third party editor has re-written articles for the Steir & Colacino but did not remove the templates. I've reached out to this author about removing the templates but have not received a response in several days. I believe the COI template is unnecessary because the article was re-written by a third party, independent editor. As for notability, both subjects as far as I can tell meet Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Notability_(people) guidelines as they both have been covered significantly by reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject and have made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.

For Studley, Inc. I would like to request the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) template be removed. The page was subject to an AfD discussion which was quickly withdrawn because there are in fact an overwhelming amount of secondary sources about the subject, the same sources the template questions[9]. However, the template still remains. In addition to having the template removed, I would be delighted if somebody would like to add content to this article. I've supplied multiple links and what I feel should be added on Talk:Studley,_Inc. if anybody would oblige me. Thank you.RyLaughlin (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

If you ae sure that the issues have been addressed you can remove the templates yourself; otherwise start discussions on the articles' talk pages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The OP cannot remove templates themself without risking a COI accusation. SpinningSpark 01:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

This biographical article needs additional citations for verification.

Resolved

 – Maintenance box removed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Gerald Barry (composer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I don't think this request applies any longer. The article has been carefully referenced.--Julius Eugen (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed. Looks good to me. In the future, you can generally remove such templates yourself if you actually have fixed the issue. I know sometimes this can lead to a dispute, but this is pretty clearly fixed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot.--Julius Eugen (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

This article needs additional citations for verification.

Alexander Bain (inventor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Have added the missing reference, but don't know how to delete the template.--Julius Eugen (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It's the {{refimprove}} template right at the top of the article. But what you have done so far will probably not be deemed sufficient to remove it. SpinningSpark 21:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. I thought that the template only referred to that longer quotation that was not referenced. --Julius Eugen (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You can only know that by asking the editor who put it there. Whatever the original motive, my point is that there are many editors who like to see little blue numbers on everything regardless of whether policy actually requires it. If one of those sort is watching the page they are liable to challenge uncited information, at which point policy requires an inline cite just because it has been challenged. SpinningSpark 00:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Quite. The person who wrote the article obviously listed the sources reliably in "Further Reading", but forgot to put in his share of little blue numbers. Thanks to Google Books you stand a chance to identify a few, but it's a thankless task for a rainy day.--Julius Eugen (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Glancing over the article I see a lot of information that I believe should be directly referenced, and as the article's been tagged for over six months I would understand if an invested editor took action regarding the material that isn't clearly referenced. For better or worse I'm not inclined to do so myself, though if it helps I'd likely move it to the Talk page rather than deleting it entirely. Just my two cents. DonIago (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You're right. Deleting wouldn't be fair as there is a lot of useful information here. I'll see what I can do with Google Books. If he stuck to the sources cited, it shouldn't be an impossible task.--Julius Eugen (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Copyright check on the list article I just started at List of Forbes Global 2000 companies

I'm 99.44% convinced that the article I just created at List of Forbes Global 2000 companies is acceptable within the U.S., because the U.S. does not have database copyright or "sweat of the brow" standards. The rank of each company on the list and its financial figures are data we freely cite in articles, and we have plenty of sports rankings, etc. that seem similar. Still, because of the size and amount of data, I'd like to hear some other opinions just to be positive. Wnt (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

This is probably a corner case right on the edge. It boils down to whether the list is objectively listing the largest companies or is Forbes opinion of who are the largest companies. For instance Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time is purely subjective and the list should not be reproduced in its entirety. Reproducing the whole list is completely different from stating that an individual company (or album) is on the list which is merely a statement of fact. SpinningSpark 10:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, it's within my technical capability to take the present list, strip off the numbers saying where the companies rank on it, and re-sort them according to country and name. Is that (a) necessary to comply with copyright and (b) sufficient to comply with copyright? Wnt (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think resorting makes any difference. The key question is would someone else constructing the list from scratch come up with exactly the same list? If they might not do then arguably there is some originality in the list and Forbes would be entitled to copyright. SpinningSpark 18:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? The purpose of the list is to measure the size of world's largest companies. If one person makes a list of the atomic weights of the isotopes, his version might be different, by various small choices, from another person's list of the atomic weights of the isotopes, yet thanks to a lack of database copyright we feel free to have our own list of nuclides. Now it is true that that relies on a few sources; perhaps if this article is adjusted to be a general list of the world's largest companies, open to data from any source, that would improve the situation? But one way or another the imprint of specific sources is bound to remain in any large list of data. Wnt (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

We already have List of largest companies by revenue to which World's largest companies redirects. SpinningSpark 02:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It's still all very mysterious to me. Suppose I edit that article. Can I add one, ten, a hundred, a thousand of the revenue figures from the Forbes article to expand that list? Or on a related theme, suppose I wrote up a bot and had it update company infoboxes from the Forbes info, citing the fact in each infobox. (I'm not saying I plan to do that, it's some effort to get that up and running) Could I do that for some, many, all of the items on the list? Wnt (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The revenue figures themselves are going to be mere facts not subject to copyright under Feist, much like a list of telephone numbers or addresses. The problem with a huge list of the Forbes rankings is that the ranking itself, as an arrangement, is probably creative enough to be copyrightable. It'd be as though the telephone company in Feist had come up with some new and creative arrangement of the phone numbers, and that was copied. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I've just noticed that we have an essay, Wikipedia:Copyright in lists, on this subject. It came up in the AFD discussion of List of Dewey Decimal classes. SpinningSpark 10:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, of course, Dewey is probably the perfect analogous case for this. Anyway, an important point raised in the essay is that we should exercise care even with lists comprising facts not subject to copyright insofar as we may run afoul of certain state laws. I'm not sure if that's a concern with any material from the Forbes list, but it's a good point. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Rewriting computer science articles for novice users

The computer science articles are too abstract and problematic for novice users. They should be given an overhaul. I would like to contribute from my end, albeit I am not much of an expert. I would like to know what the editors think. Thanks Nmondal (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)