Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:06, 23 February 2010

nload

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 24 days may be automatically archived by .

Regional Power by States

Request unclear

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The regional power should include newly rising countries instead of relying soly on their very old documents. People want to see what is going on in the present, but not what just happened 10 or 20 years ago. I would like to add Vietnam to the list as a regional power of ASEAN, since it had great influence in Burma, Cambodia, Laos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.184.204.40 (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't clear what article on Wikipedia that you are talking about. If you have suggestions, it would be best to make them on the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abundance of Price is Right pricing game articles

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Between 12 November and 18 November 2009, the following debates all resulted in delete and merge into List of The Price Is Right pricing games:

However, on 16 November 2009, a similar debate, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Check Game, resulted in keep all articles listed with proposed mergers into List of The Price Is Right pricing games.

List of The Price Is Right pricing games already contains a great deal of information about each of these individual pricing games. At what point can/should the articles listed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Check Game be relisted for delete or merely deleted and redirected? Based on the comments included in the Check Game proposed deletion, I'm concerned that this will result in a possible edit war if someone just edits the articles to redirect to the appropriate sections in the List of The Price Is Right pricing games, but as you can see the destination article contains core information about each pricing game and removes a lot of the minute detail that could be considered fancruft.

Any advice is greatly appreciated–Thanks! Sottolacqua (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poke. Do any administrators have any comments at all? Sottolacqua (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would be inclined to delete and merge the ones that haave had separate AfDs wiith that result. The fact that the summary of another AfD mentioned them in the keep conclusion was simply that there was clearly no consensus for a mass deletion. PS, I am not an admin, just an assitsnat here. Some admins do drop in but we are all assistants here, advising and pointing in directions. What actions you take are your responsibility. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improper/ unlawful use of D.B.A- (damien steele vs. damian steele)

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Tim Fisher, who wrestled for a decade under the servicemark/ D.B.A. "Damien Steele" During a 2 year absence from wrestling. unknowingly, a man used the name... and was contacted by my legal representation, and subsequentially changed his name to "Damian"... replacing the "e" for an "a" to avoid leagal repercussions. The top header of his page, has a note to re-navigate.. if you want to see the "real deal"... Damien Steele... and connects to a page under my legal name, "Tim Fischer" (wrestler) ...(Fisher is spelled wrong) My page should be entered under the anme "Damien Steele".. and the other as "Damian Steele"

Other issues may be handled through editing.. but the issue of the entrance of a legally service marked name, is not only important... It was not availlable to edit.. by me.. the actual owner of the brand.."damien Steele".. and "The Real Deal Damien Steele"..

If you were to examine the pages.. you will see the timeline that shows I was in ownership of the name BEFORE the debut of the other party.

Thank you for your time Tim Fisher Damien Steele Buddywest (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PLease disuss at the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

where is this stuff about South County? thanks.

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm running around in wikipedia correcting a systemic error that says Washington County is RI is referred to locally as South County. In fact, South County refers to the combination of Washington and Kent Counties.

There are two places where this error still exists, and I can't figure out how to get to them to edit them:

1. In the disambiguation when you ask for South County, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_County it says South County, the vernacular name for Washington County, Rhode Island.

2. (later note - I found and fixed this one) and in the Rhode Island article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhode_island down at the bottom something is causing a block of info to appear that starts State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations and contains Regions which contains Counties: Bristol | Kent | Newport | Providence | Washington (South County)

Thanks.

Trudyjh (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article talk pages are the place to discuss this. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie and Clyde

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article refers to a letter to Ford Motor Company from "Clyde Champion Barrow" (footnote 62) where it is indicated that his middle name is actually "Chestnut" - however I found in "FOIA FBI FILES - BONNIE AND CLYDE" (footnote 2) which is a PDF file that in this file on page 20 is a mugshot of Barrow with the id no "DALLAS 6048" and on page 21 (which is apparantly the typed identification on the back of the mugshots) he is identified as "CLYDE CHAMPION BARROW". Perhaps someone with expertise in research could examine these items and perhaps add to the main article. There could be some substance to the accuracy of the Ford letter and then maybe not. This could also stir up some controversy but this is not my intent. I was just browsing around drinking my last cup of coffee and picked this article to read. Good Luck to you all. Daddybill (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss at the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Bumper" Tormohlen

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The title of your article on Gene Tormohlen, a former AAU, ABL and NBA basketball reads, for some reason, as "Bumper Tormohlen." "Bumper," was, in fact, a nickname given to him by Bill Bridges, his teammate with the Kansas City Steers of the ABL and St. Louis Hawks of the NBA, but he never used it in place of "Gene." He always went by "Gene Tormohlen," as a player, coach and now scout for the Los Angeles Lakers. This error, apparently, stems from the website Basketball-reference.com. Everywhere else on the web he's properly listed as "Gene Tormohlen," which is the name he's used since he was an infant. So, the title of his Wikipedia article needs to be corrected. But that's not something I can do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.125.124 (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this at the article talk page first. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Economy of South Korea revert help

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to maintain and clean up this article. It is heavily biased and the introduction reads poorly. There is also an excessive amount of irrelevant pictures (image stacks) in many sections. Currently another user continues to revert my edits. I admit that I revert the user's reverts. I've tried to start a discussion on the discussion page to assess my edits, but the user in question refuses to do so. The user also accuses me of vandalism for "blanking" (his words) parts of the page and removing sourced information, when I am attempting to replace excess information with balanced referenced information. If someone could provide some assistance or a third opinion I would appreciate it. Anawrahta (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your points have been answered on the article talk page - please do not remove sourced information and accept that your perception of bias may not be the only point of view. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

assistance required for the Literary sources for the origin of the Romanians

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I ask for other editor assistance on Literary sources for the origin of the Romanians.

In my view, the current version of the article pushes for the following POV : "After the withdrawal of the Roman Empire from Dacia, there is no trace of a Romance populace or language in the territories north of Danube until after the Hungarians arrival."
The article is structured to present the appearance of the Vlachs (historic name for Eastern Romance people) as a "Descent from the territories south of Danube", and as "Historical Sources distinguished between Vlachs south of Danube and Vlachs north of the Danube".
While the article is supposed to present Literary sources regarding Romanians, a multitude of Literary sources about the Hungarians, Bulgars, Slavs, Franks, Varangians, etc. are filling the article, as if to emphasize how there was no trace in history of an Eastern Romance population or language north of Danube until after the Hungarian arrival.
The Literary sources that do talk about the Romanians and are present in the article, are arbitrarily grouped in such POV sections as "The Descent of the Romanians" and "The Roman withdrawal from Dacia" and "The Vlachs South of Danube" or "The territory of present-day Romania in the Migration Period"; other sources are grouped in "Sources by century".

Instead of the POV :"Romans retreat from Dacia > A lot of migrations > A lot of Hungarians Slavs Bulgars Franks etc. north of Danube > Vlachs descent from south of Danube", I have grouped the Literary sources by Century, and removed any source that deal not with the ROmanian people or language.
I consider that grouping Literary Sources by century forces no opinion on the reader, does not support a theory or another about where and how did Romance people and language become predominant in what is today Romania.

At this point, 2 Hungarian editors of whom 1 appears to praise the other (the "creator" of the POV version) for his edits, in the connected article Origin of the Romanians, simply revert my edits. Altho i have stated my reasons on the Article's Talk Page, their action is revert. Altho i have reported a 3RR, an admin considered there is no clear history of 3RR, and recommended me Dispute Resolution. Criztu (talk) 12:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Criztu, please take also into account the following remarks:

The article follows the following logical sequence: (1) Primary sources of the origin of the Romanians (without any geographical distinction) - considering the fact that the origin of the Romanian people is a highly debated subject it is interesting what the first (Byzantine, Flemish, Hungarian, Russian and Romanian) sources suggest on this subject (for further details, I can refer, for example, to Victor Spinei (2009:47-176), Vlad Georgescu (1991:13-15); (2) The Roman occupation of Dacia - as (at least) one of the (at least) four theories of the origin of the Romanians claims that the Roman conquest of Dacia is one of the crucial moments of the ethnogenesis of the Romanians, these primary sources cannot be ignored (for further details, I can refer, for example, to Ioan Aurel Pop (1999:20); (3) The Roman withdrawal from Dacia - as (at least) one of the (at least) four theories of the origin of the Romanians suggests that the Romanians descended from the Romanized population which stayed behind after the Aurelian withdrawal, these primary sources cannot be ignored (for further details, I refer to Ioan Aurel Pop (1999:28-34), Vlad Georgescu (1991:8-11). (4) The territory of present day Romania in the migration period - as (at least) one of the (at least) four theories of the origin of the Romanians suggests that a Romanized population have been continuously inhabiting the territory of present-day Romania, primary sources describing it in the migration period cannot be ignored (for further details, I can refer, for example, to Victor Spinei (2009:47-176). (5) The Vlachs and the "Wallachias" / "Vlachias" south of the Danube - as (at least) one of the (at least) four theories of the origin of the Romanians suggests that the ancestors of the Romanians migrated from the territories to the south of the Danube to the territory of present-day Romania, sources describing those territory cannot be ignored (for further details, I can refer, for example, to Gábor Vékony (2000:180-204). Please also note that the different interpretations of the sources is also added, exclusively based on reliable (mostly academic) sources. Please also note that the article refers to the fact that based on solely literary sources nobody can conclude where the ethnogenesis of the Romanian people occured, other disciplines also have to be taken into account.
The claim that the edit you made resulted solely in the reorganization of the article seems to contradict to the facts. Whole parts of the well-sourced GA were deleted without explanation.
The claim that non-relevant sources were exclusively deleted seems to contradict to the facts. For example, the part from Nestor's chronicle which refers to Vlachs living in the vicinity of English people and Franks may have relevance to the interpretation of the part of this chronicle which describes the occupation of the Carpathian Basin by the Hungarians (for further details, I refer to Gyula Kristó (2003:31-32).
You think that the sources referred to in the article challange the Daco-Romanian continuity theory, but interestingly many excellent Romanian historians' view differs from this approach. They (e.g., Ioan Aurel Pop, Victor Spinei, Vlad Georgescu) still maintain the continuity theory, and their argumentation is presented in the article.

So I would like to suggest that we all should follow the example of the excellent Romanian historians who do not conceal facts or abuse the name of other historians, but provide arguments in order to strengthen the theory they follow. I think, for all of us, the primary goal to provide a full picture of specific areas of human knowledge - destroying well-sourced articles would obviously contradict to this approach. Borsoka (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't achieve consensus on the talk page then you could open an WP:RfC Jezhotwells (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Church of Christ

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is simple. The information is from a critic and not just a factual view of the organization. It has references that are from another denominational view and is very biased. When I went into the site to remove some of these views it would not allow for editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrogersicoc (talk • contribs) 15:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kai_Tak_Airport Article Video Links

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Madchester made edits removing links to YouTube videos and designated them as self-promoting. Unresolved discussion quoted below. Requesting input as directed by him.

=WP:COI Kai Tak and YouTube=

So, I need an explanation for some of your edits. You specifically deleted links to YouTube (not a personal site) but left up links to personal web pages on the same page. The YouTube links are the only existing public videos off the airport and do not reside on my personal homepage, I realize that the :user page on YouTube is mine, but how else could I upload videos to be publicly available?

If I were linking to a personal page, I might understand, but YouTube is for everyone. It would be the same as if I had uploaded it to Archive.org and lent a CC license to it and then linked it. It would still be on a third party website.

It is well within the EL guidlines "Linking to user-submitted video sites: There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (see Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided). Many videos hosted on :YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations. Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care :on a case-by-case basis. Links to online videos should also identify the software necessary for readers to view the content. For example, all links to YouTube videos should, if applicable, indicate that Flash video software or a web browser supporting H.264 is necessary to see the content."

Additionally, you left links to airliners.net which is a third party website with user generated content, like YouTube. I think you've taken the admin editing a little far. I had links to 2 videos out of the 75 that I have for Kai Tak. Hardly, personal promotion. They were of the two things people associate :specifically with the Hong Kong Kai Tak airport, the checkerboard approach and the low planes over Kowloon.

Where do you suggest that videos of a now closed airport should go? I either specifically filmed the video (origin of copyright) or have a collection of open source and Creative Commons Share Alike aviation videos. Again, YouTube is a third party website.

Excerpt showing the links you left and the two you deleted.

An account by a Kai Tak Air Traffic Controller - Phil Parker
Pictures from Kai Tak: Airliners.net - Jetphotos.net
Cockpit video of landing at Kai Tak on YouTube
Video of planes landing at Kai Tak on YouTube

Please explain, thanks.

airboyd (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While YouTube is not a personal website... you've continually added external links to personal YT page/videos. That's to be avoided per WP:SPAMMER's provisions for self-promotion. If you feel your videos are worthwhile additions to articles, you should be bringing up discussion on a talk page to :see what if other editors A)think it's a valuable addition and B)if it's not deemed to be self-promotion for your own videos. Thanks.

N.B... and don't get me started on the potential Wikipedia:ELNEVER issues...because we never link to any (YouTube) videos that are not hosted by the original rights holder.... --Madchester (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will follow your instructions for the talk page. I was hoping you'd provide general answers to the questions I asked prior to escalating the discussion to the next step. Maybe I don't have the dispute resolution guidelines down well?

1. Why leave a link to a personal Geocities (defunct) site, but take down other links you identify as personal?

2. What is your criterion for deciding what personal page is adding (Geocites site with personal photos and anecdotes) and that which is detracting (2 YouTube videos)?

3. How would one add pertinent valuable video while maintaining copyright flow, if not through a "neutral" third-party video site?

4. How are personal photos on Airliners.net any different than personal videos on YouTube?

I agreed with you previously, that my YT page was a personal page (as opposed to airboyd.com, which is a personal page), but it would have to be somewhat personal in nature to satisfy the copyright demands that you, quite rightly, state have to be met. The links were to specific videos and not to :my personal "channel." I have contributed 700+ , mostly open source and CC-BY-SA, videos on YouTube, I have less than 5 linked from the entire Wikipedia. I'd call self-promtion or spam-linking a bit of a stretch?

Checking my stats, Wikipedia is responsible for 000.03% of the 3,000,000+ combined views on the specific videos linked to the article out of more than 36,000,000 total views of all of my videos. What would I have to gain from less than 1500 clicks from here? Where is the self-promotion? Where is my :gain? I have been a contributor here as long as you have and turned down an admin request to help with the aviation pages. I have no need to be the most popular YouTuber, but was providing pertinent and specific video to the Kai Tak page. In regards to "worthwhile additions to articles," this is video :that no one else has online anywhere and specifically shows, visually, what the article talks about and I can verify the copyright source. I actually worked at the airport during 1997-1998. An example of this is the IGS Checkerboard Approach. I linked an actual video of it. It's very difficult to visualize :using the included text "...Upon reaching a small hill marked with a checkerboard in red and white, used as a visual reference point on the final approach, the pilot needed to make a 47° visual right turn to line up with the runway and complete the final leg..." unless you had actually been there and :seen it yourself.

It seems to me that having a video showing what the actual text from the article is describing is exactly what an internet encyclopedia should do. No?

Thanks for your time,

airboyd (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion ended there with no further response. Appreciate any input. Thanks. - airboyd (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally Youtube is not considered to be a reliable source. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP articles - meaning of "contentious" and "verified" / "verifiable"?

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate comments about whether basic factual information about controversies in a person's life is *required* to be verified in an article when these basic facts are common public knowledge and not open to either dispute or interpretation. My reading of the BLP and verifiability policies does not clearly indicate to me that such information *must* be verified - only that it must be "verifiable" - whereas "contentious" material must be always be "verified" or else removed. Are basic facts which are not really in question - such as information about a well-known person having being arrested or charged with any offence - always considered "contentious" and must such information always be immediately "verified" in an article or only "verifiable" if challenged? I agree that such information should be verified - but is it actually required. Thanks in advance. Anglicanus (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The default assumption should be "when in doubt, bring a source." This precise issue is currently undergoing a major debate, and the way this question is handled might change and be clarified in the (very) near future. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people and subpages if you are interested in following these developments. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I read this discussion but I could not find any definition of what is actually meant by "contentious". My understanding of the word is that it indicates information about which the "factuality" is open to debate or interpretation - not that it is only "controversial" or refers to "controversies". Anglicanus (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is really no clear cut definition, but the term contentious often refers to poorly sourced negative information about the subject. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hair design for Michael Jackson tour needs correction for credit - Karen Faye and Clyde Haygood

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Faye Heinze – hair and make-up this also needs to include Clyde Haygood for hair design - its also listed in the movie credit As you can imagine, proper credit is extremely important for both Ms Heinze and Mr Haygood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peggyfindit (talk • contribs) 14:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably it is best to post this on the article talk page and see if other editors agree. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Allison

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of paragaphs from a page I created a while ago (with the above name) have twice been deleted by different users. I have also mentioned this on the talk place, but as Allison is not someone very many peopl outside the London Fringe would have heard of, I doubt the talk page would ever be noticed. Could someone please explain why these paragraphs have been deleted -they refer to an adaptation of A Christmas Carol Allison directed- or, if there is no reason, perhaps they could be semi protected?--TimothyJacobson (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should ask the editors why they removed the cited material. If you get no response consider using warning templates which may be found at WP:Template messages/User talk namespace. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--TimothyJacobson (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill Museum and Cabinet War Rooms

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like someone to add the following new resource for anyone investigating the history of the Cabinet War Rooms

Richard Holmes. Italic textChurchill's Bunker: The Secret Headquarters in Wartime London (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2010)

Thank you, Ed Goedeken —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goedeken (talk • contribs) 17:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should suggest it at the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Need Help So That The Templates Work

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me fix these templates:

[1]

[2]!174.3.98.236 (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The template itself is fine, but is was not designed to handle tables. Looking at the template syntax, I do not see why it would be used for a table. Intelligentsium 00:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the talk page. I am trying to make the table on the wp:wtut to show up as a table, but changed the way the template means to change.174.3.98.236 (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to display the raw code of the table, and not the actual table? You first have to surround the wikicode with <nowiki> tags to prevent its being interpreted by the software as a actual call for a table. Intelligentsium 00:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From this change, which I presume you made, it appears you are not trying to format the table's code, but rather the table itself. What final appearance are you pursuing? Do you wish the table's borders be coloured as well, or only the text? Intelligentsium 00:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just the text. Would 2 shades of red be appropriate? One shade for the background, the other shade for the text? The reason I don't want any red for any borders is because there are no borders.174.3.98.236 (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would probably be fine, but the background would have to be more of a rose colour so that the text could be seen. If you are not sure, however, you could ask on the talk page. For future reference, one would use {{lt}} to provide template links, not {{la}}. Cheers, Intelligentsium 23:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And how would I do that?174.3.98.236 (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly recommend that you do not. Please start a discussion before making any major changes—it seems your somewhat overzealous edits to that guideline have led to page protection due to a content dispute, which must be resolved before you can edit the page. To make a change, achieve a consensus on the talk page of the guideline, then use {{editprotected}} to request the changes be made. Intelligentsium 02:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, I won't. It should be perfectly possible to fix the templates so it fixes tables.174.3.98.236 (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Showing A Table But Only Some Rows And Collapsing The Rest

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyway to have a table such as in 1903_Tour_de_France#General_classification, but showing "ranks 1-10", and then collapsing the rest? I am trying to bring the two tables together, then collapsing the lower rows. How do I define how many rows to collapse?

see me.174.3.98.236 (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Help desk is the best place to ask. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

/* Kiril Peychinovich */

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia Editor-Assistance-Team,

I am a doctorate student on the Thomas Institute for Medieval Philosophy on the University of Cologne (Germany) and a demonstrator on the Faculty of Theology in Skopje (Macedonia). Today I tried to edit the article abut the Christian Theologian Fr. Kiril Peychinovich (18-19 Century). Few times my comments were deleted, as I could notice, from a moderator of one of the local Wikipedia sites.

When asking what is the reason for that - he answered only that he deleted my posts because I was quoting myself. First, I quoted my original published works, based on my researches in the period between 2005 and 2010. Second, these quotes were only a part of the sources I quoted - and all was deleted!

The comments were written from a neutral point of view and scientifically and politically correct. There was a debate on the same topic on the question are the works of Fr. Kiril Peychinovich written on macedonian or on bulgarian (in that time both of this languages didn't exist as official and standardized languages, so I find the question in general "a little bit unusual"). I tried to present a scientific point of view about the problem, different from the nationalistic and the ideological one, after what my comments were erased and I was warned not to post texts any more.

I posted also two minor corrections (in italic below), that were deleted as well: 1) a serbian transcription of the name of Fr. Kiril (he used this transcription himself in his original publications) and 2) correction in the existing text, that one quotation reflects only a position of a group of Bulgarian researchers (and not of all researchers of Fr. Kiril's life and work).

In addition I paste the erased texts:

Kiril Peychinovich or Kiril Pejčinoviḱ ((Macedonian: Кирил Пејчиновиќ, Bulgarian: Кирил Пейчинович, [Кирил Пеjчиновић] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help))) (c. 1770 — 7 March 1865) was a cleric, writer and enlightener. According to the bulgarian researchers he is considered as one of the first supporters of literature in modern Bulgarian (as opposed to Church Slavonic) and one of the early figures of the Bulgarian National Revival.^[1]^[2]^[3] (...)

However, his life-mission overcomes in all aspects the contemporary national debates generated around his person and his work. His model of enlightenment was based on the hagioretic Eucharistic movement, which was fighting for a liturgical and not a national revival. He used the regional dialects in the writing, and the terminology of his time. ^[4] ^[5] According to this terminology the Bulgarian language was his own, as much as the Serbian ruler Milos Obrenovic and the Kingdom of Serbia were his own ruler and kingdom. In this context, he writes about "the spiritual love towards the Serbian ruler, and towards his Serbian fatherland" ^[6]. From one different scientific perspektive (not the theological one) Blaze Koneski concludes that in Kiril Peychinovich's time in Macedonia there wasn't any strictly defined sense for national identity. ^[7] In other words, the national Ideas and tendencies which were already present in other parts of the Balkans, were still very weak in the world, in which Kiril Peychinovich, the great orthodox-christian enlighter and preacher, lived and worked.

PS. Only on few places I see I could make some changes, generally in the formulations, but not in the content (for example, I would remove "the great orthodox-christian enlighter and preacher" from the last sentence, or I would insert "according to (...source quote...) seems to contradict" instead of "overcomes" in the first sentence of the second paragraph). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.195.2 (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you may have a conflict of interest when adding references to your own works, it is probably best to discuss propsed changes on the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute between User:R-41 and User:Caremerger

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am requesting assistance regarding a dispute between me R-41 and another user, Caremerger. We have engaged in discussions and bitter arguments over content in the article about Corporatism. He has repeatedly engaged in ad hominem attacks against me, accusing me of being "authoritarian", of deliberately trying to distort the article, and for the material I have contributed as being "absurd". It is my belief that he wants to make the article an attack page to disparage the topic of the article, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Furthermore, he appears to be using original research by using U.S. Supreme Court cases and material related to Adam Smith to make arguments about corporatism when I do not think these sources say anything about corporatism. I have informed him about this and he does not seem to understand. Lastly, I admit that I have been very frustrated and at times aggressive with this user, which is not acceptable: I will accept any reasonable reprimand on me for behaving poorly to the user. He is right to claim that in the earlier phases of our discussions I was very frustrated and angry with some of the claims he made that I did not deem to be legitimate, but I have tried to ameliorate it through negotiation, the frustration remains with me however. But I must stress that I cannot seem to be able solve this dispute on my own, as he seems to be highly reluctant to cooperate with me. I REALLY need assistance here and am requesting mediation.--R-41 (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have been answered at your talk page, if you wish to take if further consider taking it to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CCSVI - LIive Topic

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CCSVI and external links require closer scrutiny. I edited the title of one before registering here. I placed a links to multiplesclerosissurgery.com. If people feel it is not relevant, fine. The findings of CCSVI is significant whether it is connected to MS or not, this is the fact that must be highlighted. It has already benefit people, bracketed as having MS related symptoms. Coincidence? Possibly, but there is no doubt CCSVI needs urgent attention.

I was wanting to remove the 4th (last) external link but figured, if you review it, you will see for yourself why. Misleading propaganda is what's delaying action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MremMac (talk • contribs) 18:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest that you discuss things on the article talk page. I have placed some useful links on your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevada State College

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like some advice about an ongoing editing dispute over the Nevada State College article. I am new to wikipedia. I updated the article with publicly available information (2010 tuition rates, financial aid lenders, lists of available majors, all with references), just basic data much like I've seen on other college's websites. I didn't add any "boosterish" marketing-type information that I thought would be non-neutral, just updating what appeared to be mostly 2008 data.

I noticed that my edits were immediately reverted by LuxNevada; looking at the history and talk pages I see that this editor has apparently reverted pretty much all edits of the NSC page for a couple of years, other than some minor section rearrangements suggested by another person.

Is updated tuition information not considered neutral? I feel like my changes were very uncontroversial, publicly-available data (for instance, the lenders are clearly listed on the NSC financial aid page). Also, several of the existing reference links are broken, so there's no way to look at them as sources.

It would be helpful to hear from a more experienced person if I'm misunderstanding what is appropriate to post.

Oklvnv (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think its best you bring this up on the talk page for the article first Talk:Nevada State College ..Buzzzsherman (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

21st Lancers

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning to you.

I recently aquired an old picture of my grandfather (EP Smith) which shows him standing in full dress uniform with Lances, when he was a in the British 21st Lancers Regiment.

The photo dates from the early 1900's and I think that it would look great on your Wikpedia information page (21st Lancers) as you currently only show the Regimental cap badge.

Thing is, I am not a techno-buff when it comes to computers so I do not know how to attach it to the page.

I have the scanned photo which I could forward to you as an attachment, I would really like to honour his memory so if you could use the photo I would be most grateful.

Regards

Mark Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.247.169.147 (talk) 07:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for your question. The best thing to do would be to register an account at commons, and follow the instructions on how to upload a file there. However, one thing you have to be careful about is copyright issues. In the UK copyright exists for 70 years after the death of the author. For a picture taken in the first world war it could well be that whoever took the photo died less than 70 years ago, and so the picture would not be freely available for publication. (One confusing thing is that owning the picture does not necessarily mean you own the copyright to it). I'm not that up to speed with the exact requirements, so I suggest posting here for further guidance.

Thanks again for wanting to contribute this material. It would be great to have it! Quantpole (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article by Saniyasnain Khan

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article by Saniyasnain Khan has been subject to vandalism. I would like it to be protected from this. Also there is a box with comments appearing before the article. I would like this to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.249.254 (talk) 10:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, and welcome to the Wiki. About page protection of Saniyasnain Khan, it can be requested at WP:RFPP if it has enough vandalisim. About the comments, they are there to help inform editors what needs to be done with that article to make it better. (Sorry if I begin to sound a bit bratty) If you want it removed, then you can follow the guidelines in that box to improve it.

Regards,

Buggie111 (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problematic sections of the article were removed in April 2009. Most of the tags were added before that date, and refer to the removed sections. I took out all but the "orphan" tag. The article is now very short, and doesn't tell much about the person. If some of the deleted content could be re-inserted in a neutral way at some future time, that would be an improvement. We should especially include info that is in the infobox. (An infobox should summarize an article, and not contain anything not found in the body of the article.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklist

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me why my site is blacklisted? 71.220.202.78 (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Herman Krieger, www.efn.org/~hkrieger[reply]

It appears to be blacklisted on Meta - the request is in this archive from 2007. I don't see a reasoning there; best to ask at the talk page there. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning is the listed contributions links at meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007-09#Herman Kreiger links. They show extensive addition of links to this site at Wikipedia's in multiple languages, by users with no other activity. At the English Wikipedia: Special:Contributions/Hkrieger, Special:Contributions/63.224.200.79, Special:Contributions/71.32.127.109, Special:Contributions/71.34.247.189. See Wikipedia:External links. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What inclusion criteria does a college ranking have to have to appear on a college's page?

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am a relatively new user here and this is my first experience with this kind of thing. Also I have COI and work for GetEducated.com.

Some user deleted a part of Northcentral University's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northcentral_University) page under the Ranking section, where someone else (not me--I just replaced what was I believe erroneously deleted) had originally put a link to their ranking on GetEducated.com's Best Buy rankings list with the reason given "(→Rankings: get educated is nothing more than an advertsing for various schools. a agregator of sorts for getting information. It's ranking means nothing in the ed industry.) (undo) "

I don't know who this guy is to say that about GetEducated.com and delete the ranking off Northcentral's page. Check our Wiki page--the company has been around for 20 years and is very meaningful to the education industry, although we only deal with online education. If he has some reference for his claim from a reputable source he should go ahead and put it on the GetEducated.com Wikipedia page. Many other colleges on Wikipedia list their Best Buy Awards from GetEducated.com.

Anyway, I re-entered their ranking on the page and the citation, and discussed it on the talk page. But then I did more reading and realized I am in an edit war, which is the first I have heard of such a thing, and would like to avoid that and go by Wikipedia rules and standards. Should I revert my own addition?

-- Immaletufinish (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off, welcome, and thank you for your contributions. Unfortunately, the COI you have self-identified makes it likely that you should not be the one adding links to your employer's site. Furthermore, looking at the site, I'm not certain that it is suitable for use as a reference source in the other articles it has been added to. Could you please provide details as to the standards used and the criteria for inclusion? --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just realized the inclusion and ranking criteria is at the bottom of each Best Buy List: http://www.geteducated.com/online-college-ratings-and-rankings/. Basically, they are the total cost of every accredited online degree program in the US ranked from lowest cost to highest. The Best Buy list in this case is the Regionally Accredited MBA's, and that is: "Note: Online Degree Rankings are based on GetEducated.com's National Survey of Online MBAs with tuition and fees based on publicly posted Fall 2007 rates for 390+ MBAs offered from 168 accredited distance-learning business schools in the U.S."

Just so you know, I have not and don't plan on ever adding any links to any college's Wiki article. I just would like to defend us against deletes and statements like in this situation, where people have the wrong idea about the site.

-- Immaletufinish (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder--you said "Many other colleges on Wikipedia list their Best Buy Awards from GetEducated.com." I did say elsewhere that because folks without a COI had added info from your company's website to some articles, the company might be notable. However, per WP:OTHERSTUFF, you can't really judge any article by what is included in any other article, because Wikipedia is run by volunteers so articles get varying degrees of oversight. In each article you have to go with the overall Wikipedia guidelines and consensus. Just wanted to let you know. Katr67 (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. When you reply to someone's post, ident it by using a colon (:). Using more than one colon indents the paragraph further. You can see what I mean by looking at this post in edit mode. Cheers, Katr67 (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know that Katr67--that does explain a lot. So can you tell me how a judgement would be made on this in the article in question?

I think that adding the standards and criteria information Ckatz asked for above to our Wikipedia article in the section about our Best Buy lists would be a good idea for the future.

-- Immaletufinish (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that this issue centers around wether GetEducated.com is a reliable source (or RS). Frankly, whether or not a source is a RS is subjective and often a matter of debate. There are three points to make here.

1) If a debate arises around whether or not something is RS, you should try to work it out by achieving WP:CONSENSUS

2) After a quick review of the website, I would lean towards saying that this website is not RS.

3) As mentioned earlier, you have a conflict of interest, and probably shouldn't argue with an editor who tells you the source is unreliable.

Hope this helps. NickCT (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1)I haven't read about Consensus yet, I will have to do that.

2)What about that the fact that GetEducated.com has been featured in Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, Forbes, Fortune, US News & World Report, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, and CBS News, among others. Doesn't that count for anything as far as reliability? Also we have been around as a consumer advocate for 20 years. I am not sure what a source would have to do to be judged reliable on Wikipedia that this company has not done.

3)There are rules you can follow and still contribute to Wikipedia if you have COS, which I have been carefully following. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Immaletufinish (talk • contribs) 23:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serious Revision needed for "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Lobby" article

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy

Why are two-thirds of this article criticism??

Not to mention that the one single paragraph that constitutes as the "praise" section is pretty much criticism as well. The way this article is written as of now is completely biast and ridiculous. And why is there a specific section dedicated to "Endorsement by Osama Bin Laden"? I think it´s safe to say the only thing objective about this article is the summary of the book-which, what this article is supposed to be about, is in itself only one paragraph. It seems to me that this article is in serious need of revision/editing for the current state it´s in is absolutely unacceptable ---escota —Preceding unsigned comment added by Escota (talk • contribs) 20:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please raise your concerns on the article's talk page - that's the place to begin a discussion about content. – ukexpat (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as the last comment was posted over 5 months ago do you really see that as a viable means of restoring the validity of said article? ~escota 17:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC-03) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Escota (talk • contribs)

Yes, that's where you start, that's what the talk page is for. – ukexpat (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New articles ??

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am an professor and have defined two new terms. Both terms have never been defined before and are not presently listed in Wikipedia or any other dictionary. I have presented a paper on these terms at a national academic conference. I am also RE DEFINING two additional terms that presently have different meanings. How do I enter new definitions for these terms.

I find the navigation of Wikipedia extremely confusing and unclear. I would really appreciate clear step by step instructions on how to do this.

Joel Moffett —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.86.36 (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pls do not add personal contact info!!

Hello there and welcome to Wikipedia...first thing you can search here, and the how to pages are listed here --->Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia ...pls make sure to see -->Help:Contents/Policies and guidelines hope this helps a bit!!.. However pls read here also -->Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.........Buzzzsherman (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also please note that verifiable and ~~reliable third party sources~~ reliable third party sources are needed for Wikipedia articles. Such sources would be peer reviewed academic papers or high quality news sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me or is the recent change to the WP:RS redirect a real PIA? – ukexpat (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't just you. I don't know why that change was made, seems pointless and confusing to me. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing dispute (WP: New Guinea Singing Dog)

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for a third party review the edit history of the New Guinea Singing Dog page. New Guinea Singing Dog Particularly from 12/30/09 thru 1/31/10. A new editor appears to have first tested the waters under ip's and then made speedy deletes of information showing extreme bias. You will see changes made without posting warnings or citation requests done just minutes apart and under both an ip and a user name. Also please review exchanges in talk pages as other contributors to this page have asked this editor to use proper procedure and to show some good faith or etiquette. Requests to undo the speedy deletion of information has fallen on deaf ears. tomcue2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomcue2 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article's talk page is the place to review this. I don't see the discussion you refer to; there is one about removal of text "copied from another website" (where the editor who removed it opened the discussion), and another about merging the article into another, with no admonishment about etiquette that I can see. You should avoid the term "speedy delete", as that refers to deletion of an entire article. There are no rules about wait times for undoing changes, and no need for removed content to be restored immediately; that can take place after a discussion about whether or not it should be included. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 10:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danuta Hubner

User:Wiktoryn and User:Leinad are removing information on Hubner background from her article. It's normal to mention similar information, look Madonna_(entertainer)#1958.E2.80.931981:_Early_life_and_beginnings or Julia_Roberts#Early_life. Slijk (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that nobody, including you, has used the article's talk page at all. That is the place to discuss edits where there is controversy. I see you have been using edit summaries, and have presumably seen the edit summary replies from editors who reverted your changes, but that is a poor method of discussion. You may find that when discussion begins, problems get resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Give it a try at Talk:Danuta Hübner. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at talk page, they don't want to talk! Slijk (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the discussion has shown that the deletions were of trivia and unsourced information. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced. And if this is trivia, why its used in any articles? Slijk (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MIght I suggest that you read WP:RS and understand why those sources are not reliable for Wikipedia artciles. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Randle (born December 12, 1967 in Hearne, Texas) played defensive tackle for the Minnesota Vikings and the Seattle Seahawks of the NFL. On February 6, 2010 he was voted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Born in Hearne, Texas, Randle was raised poor, and worked odd jobs when he was young.

Mr. Randle was actually from Mumford TX. Hearne was the nearest town but I think Mumford should be cited in the above paragraph somehow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.83.128 (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have reliable sourced information please post it at the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure where the talk page is, here are 3 sources, 1st source is the end of the 2nd paragraph:

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/84278602.html?page=2&c=y

2nd source is here:

http://www.kbtx.com/nationalsports/headlines/83676837.html

3rd source is paragraphs 6 and 7

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1006027/index.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.83.128 (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are looking at the article the talk page is marked with a tab at the top which says discussion if you are not logged in. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied your post to the talk page but none of those sources say he was born in Mumford, just that he was raised there. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Davison MI

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the Wikipedia page for Davison MI I revised the Notable residents to include the 50th House District Jim Slezak that lives there owns a business there and is the State Representative for that area. An anonymous person removed this noting to "Check Wikipedia's rules on notability". I even linked the entry to the Reps state web site. Please stop further vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.40.8.80 (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slezak meets the notability requirements, I have left notes on the article talk page and the other editor's talk page, which is the usual procedure in cases such as this. BTW, please do not blank article talk pages, this could well be considered as vandalism. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you could start a list page, " notable people from Davison" LOL. At some point you could edit for promience , this isn't like "notable people from NYC". Not sure what the big deal is about this single entry however. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Davison mi State Rep edit

I have added the state rep for the city of Davison and the local area to the Davison Wikipedia page and for some reason it keeps getting removed. I have even provided a footnote with the entry for further info on the Rep Jim Slezak and also show the relevance of the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.95.12 (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I moved this into the original thread. Why don't you try discussing this with the reverting editor who seems to have valid reasons for their reversions. Use the article talk (discussion) page, that is what it is there for. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My article on Surendrapuri

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

My article on Surendrapuri has not been moved to article space yet. I made the request more than a month back. Any reason for the delay ?

Thanks, Prasad Ganti —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprasad ganti (talk • contribs) 19:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well your article at User:Sprasad ganti/Surendrapuri has no references to reliable third party sources. I suggest that you find some and then let me know and I will take another look. I have left some useful hints and tips on your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Well we are all volunteers so it can take a while for articles to be reviewed, especially if you do not ask for it to be reviewed (WP:FEED is the best place). I took a quick look at your draft and the main issue is notability - the draft does not have any references to reliable sources to demonstrate how or why the subject meets Wikipedia's principal inclusion criterion. The tone is also a little unencyclopedic. Hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Information

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I was reading the section about the Beach Quintuplets and there is a typo. The last line of the section says that Timothy Beach, one of the quints died from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome at the age of 4. This is not correct he died when he was 5 MONTHS Old. I am the younger sister of the beach quintuplets and that is how I know this is incorrect.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.145.132 (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have [[WP:RS|reliable sourcing for this then you could post it on the artcile discussion or talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will make the change (clearly 4 yr olds don't die of SIDS), but do you have a source - newspaper or similar - that can be cited if it is challenged? I am afraid that personal knowledge is not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes as it is not verifiable. – ukexpat (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible privacy issue?

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been in what appears to be an edit war over at Versailles_(Japanese_band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) concerning the name of the deceased musician, Jasmine You. His birth name was never published in any article, including the ones concerning his death (he was referred to by his stage name) yet a user continues to edit a name in there that cannot be sourced and proven to be his true birth name. Real or not, I think it's really disrespectful to post it since he never publicly stated his birth name. 58.85.178.223 (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you revert, it is a good idea to put a note on the other IP's talk page to discourage them from adding the material. If the additions from the same IP get out of hand report them at WP:3RR. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been doing what you are saying (I signed up for an account at last, by the way) but it's still not stopping people from adding his name, and now they are adding "supposed, not confirmed" after it. That's what unknown means, isn't it? Argh. I can't tell if it's the same people doing it over and over, so I'm not sure if it's even appropriate to report whoever it is. Gekkakou (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poor lead section of Ignatius of Loyola

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Ignatius of Loyola (...) was a Spanish knight, who became a hermit and priest, founding the Society of Jesus and becoming its first Superior General.[2] Ignatius and the Jesuits became major figures in the Counter-Reformation, where the Catholic Church worked to reform itself from within and countered the theology of Protestantism. After his death he was beatified and then on March 12, 1622, was canonized.

with

Saint Ignatius of Loyola (...) was a Spanish knight, a hermit and priest, who founded the Society of Jesus and became its first Superior General.[2] Ignatius and the Jesuits were a Catholic arm in the Counter-Reformation as the Church worked to reform itself from within to counter the theology of Protestantism. After the beatification in 1609, Pope Gregory XV canonized him on March 12, 1622.

--71.247.231.74 (talk) 01:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not particluarly helpful to describe other editors as your "opponents". You need to try to work with others to improve articles. I am not going to make a judgement on which text is "better" but the diffrences are extremely minor. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood the request. It is not about your help with editing, but to stop reverting my edits. If the changes are minor then my edits are acceptable. Hence, the reverting is unjustified. Please, help to stop unjustified reverting. --71.247.231.74 (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well on re-reading the talk page and looking at your suggestions, I have to agree with the other editors taht you proposed additions were ungrammatical and not helping improve the artcile. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness...and you consider yourself to be an English grammar authority judging by the phrase you have written just above: "taht you proposed additions were ungrammatical"?--71.247.231.74 (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I made some typos whilst typing. Please read and consider WP:CIVIL. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, maybe you also misread my last suggestion considering your initial opinion stated above that "diffrences are extremely minor" or maybe you cannot see the differences (correct speling) at all, so now you conveniently agree with my opponents... please?--71.247.231.74 (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SEQUEN

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SEQUENQUEEN/Sequen&oldid=342849082

How do I get help editing a page?

I have posted some links on your talk page, but please note that your username appears to be against wikipedia policy and you will need to change it. Information about this has been left on your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fredrick william iv of prussia

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there is a rumor,that fredrick william iv of prussia and his queen,had children.(it would be strange at the time for them not too,somehow)it has been told that his brother william(who succeeded him)possibly killed, disowned or even controlled elisabeth ludovika of bavaria(fredrich william's queen)and her family friends in sweden/finland or even her twin sister queen amalia of saxony(who had 9 children)saved fredrick william's children and they were erased from history,possibly for royal politics or religious ones,at that time.could there be any truth to this???????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.46.90 (talk) 08:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - this page is for asking for assistance in editing Wikipedia. You enquiry is probably better directed to WP:Reference desk/Humanities. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The Help contents template

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question that is more general than a specific editor request, and I thought it should go on the Village pump. I was curious why the help contents template above does not have a link to the pump. I know I can search for it, but IMHO I think it should be an option. What can I do to affect this? Auntie E. (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that it is not linked because its more for editors with experience. Although all are welcome to comment i see it more as a place to discuss user friendly changes that can only really be talked about by editors with knowledge off wiki ways....just my opinion have no clue really y..just noone answered you for some time here...Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are links to the Pump on the main page. Also, if you have several favourite pages you check regularly, you can put them on your user page. My user page has a copy of a box of discussion page links called template:editabuselinks, which includes this page, and a box of links to the various village pump pages, which I copied from the main page. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Article: Korea Environment Institute

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recently wrote a page for the Korea Environment Institute, a scientific institute funded by the Korean government that performs research on water quality, climate change, and greenhouse gas reduction etc, and with about 100 or so Ph.Ds in various disciplines. (Full disclosure- I work there, but I am NOT a publicity officer, and my employer did not ask me to write a page here)

The page was deleted by Tnxman307 for being "advertising," "conflict of interest," "shared account" etc. I attempted to discuss it with him largely to no avail (discussion here). I believe that the page was written in good faith and that the deletion was unwarranted, and I would like to restore the page in a manner that reasonably satisfies Wikipedia's guidelines.

Thank you

Korenvit (talk) 02:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you for coming here for help. I'm glad that you discussed this with tnxman307. "I would suggest writing it in a sandbox first and asking another editor to review the article before moving it to the mainspace". This seems like a good suggestion to me. Have you considered it? If you need help using your sandbox I can help. Remember, however, that the article is probably going to be ignored/deleted for being not notable and a conflict of interest. If you didn't save the content of the article, you can sometimes ask an administrator to restore content to your sandbox. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 02:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying so quickly. As I have said, it employs 100 or so Ph.Ds, has staff exchanges with international organizations like the OECD etc.; participates in international projects to contain global warming, and accordingly, IMO, and within a specialized field and region, meets notability criteria. I think "conflict of interest," again is a moot point, as the page was written in good faith on an uncontroversial issue, there is no campaigning or POV pushing on my part, and no attempt has been made to attain commercial gain. Whether the article is ignored by the vast majority of non-specialist people is also not really an issue to me either, I just do not believe that there is any good reason to delete an article about a reasonably sized research institution that performs internationally published scientific research. Korenvit (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia policies on the notability of organisations and honestly ask yourself whether you can find sufficent reliable third party sources that can verify the notability. On the face of it you should be able to do so. Create the article in your user space, usually as a subpage, e.g. User:Korenvit/Korean Environment Institute. Please consider whether your username might be considered in violation of our user name policy, as it appears to be an abbreviation or acronym of the organisation. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

....Ahhhhhh---at last (HELP HELP HELP re 'Disambiguation-entry')......

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

....Gads, I went "so around-and-around" to just find this, that I won't be able to make 'the entry' myself, but feel that such, in "clarifying 'some misunderstanding'", really SHOULD BE MADE. In any event, I ran across something once in 'WIsconsin' that I come-to-realize is "a Europeanism": this is that 'the word Jew' is sometimes employed to mean "Banker", which role in Europe, most because of 'Church-strictures' re 'usury' restricted 'that trade' thereto. In any event, listing of such [as] 'Disambiguation' would, I think, clarify both "'Wilhelm II's' post-WWI employ of the term" (but, of course, 'the Rothschilds' [but for 'a lass' who married 'a [VERY-distant] Relative'], WERE 'Jewish'), as too "a relative of 'my Grandmothers family' who was 'a [German Democratic Party] Reichstadt-member'". Could someone make such addition for me, as, though an engineer' I can't really "understand how to do that myself". Thank you...... <email redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.244.22 (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this is a an encyclopaedia where articles are backed up by reliable third party sources, it is not a place for posting contentious racist materila. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hooverball

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do I flag an editor experienced in sports articles that the Hooverball entry is in need of attention? There is already some sort of notice on the top of the page .Is there something more that can be done? Is there a list somewhere? Or is this page that list? Thanks.

Mineralgift (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the {{expert-subject|Games}} tag and will post a request for review at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Games. – ukexpat (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article on "aliyah" is propaganda, rather than objective truth.

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout, the article on "aliyah" speaks of "Jews returning to Israel." However, the author is referring to persons who had never previously been in Israel. Their parents had not been in Israel, nor their grandparents or even their great grandparents. This phraseology, "returning to Israel" is intended to convey an unproven assertion or point of view, i.e. that all Europeans who claim Jewish ethnicity are biological descendants of ancient Jews, specifically the Jews referred to in the Hebrew Bible, and thus that any Russian Jew lured into Israel by offers of free land is simply "going home." Until this assertion is proven in accordance with normal standards of proof, Wikipedia should not allow itself to be made a tool of what is actually Zionist propaganda.

What is known by the whole world to be true is that large numbers of Europeans claiming to be Jews entered Palestine following WWII, led by men who had received military training from members of the British military forces who were still in Europe following WWII and with guns provided by the US military forces. These Europeans carried out a plan, formulated in advance, to force Palestinian families to abandon homes which they owned and to which they had deeds and to kill those who refused. Entire villages and towns who resisted were murdered by these armed invaders. I am referring to families who had lived in their homes and on their lands in Palestine for centuries, many for 1,000 years of more. I am referring to families that included elderly persons who died on this forced exit, as well as pregnant young women who miscarried during the forced exit. (Note that I am using the name that the ancient Romans gave to the land, which modern Israel was built on during the 20th century. For thousands of years the land has been and still is Palestine.) [For scholarly support of my position, see the book, "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine," by the Israeli historian, Ilan Pappe, which is available from Amazon.com.]

Claims to be descendants of the Jews named in the Bible do not authenticate facts worthy of acceptance by humankind. Suppose I publicize a portable library of documents that I describe as ancient religious literature stating that God gave the land now referred to by the public at large as northwest USA to my ancestor and his descendants to possess forever and stating further that the person I name as my ancestor and his colleagues were instructed by God to eat crops that they had not planted and, in general, to take ownership of anything on this land that may be of value. Suppose my portable religious library provides numerous stories of a people, descended from my alleged ancestor who lived on the land, after slaughtering those already living there, including "every man, woman, and child" (to borrow language from the Bible). Suppose I, in the 21st century, invade the headquarters of Microsoft Corporation and the home of its founder. Suppose I and a large number of my kinsmen enter northwest USA with very advanced weapons and take possession of much of it and declare it to be our new nation. Suppose I am successful in persuading the United Nations to accept my claims and grant me 50% of the land in four states in northwest USA, but then I and my kinsmen drive out the international observers, accuse them of racist prejudice against us, and seize all of the land in these states. I submit this would be a reasonably accurate analogy with the history of Israel.

No less an author that Arthur Koestler, the Jewish European journalist and novelist who wrote that powerful anti-soviet novel, "Darkness at Noon," also wrote an essay stating that the Jews of Europe were descendants, not from Biblical Jews, but from a warlike European people called the Kozars, who were converted to Judaism during the ninth century. One need not be an "anti-semite" to object to the creation of modern Israel in the name of God. [I am using quotation marks because the term, once meaningful in the context of traditional Europe where Jews were the only Semites, has become a propaganda term. The real Semites were ancient peoples of the fertile crescent, including Arabs, Hebrews, Phoenicians, and others. Surely it is time to stop using such propaganda language as "Arab anti-semitism."]

Now, should the managers of an online user-generated encyclopedia permit me to publish articles, in the name of history, regarding those of my people who are now "returning" to our sacred land? Think about this: even it should be true, by some twist of fate, that I and my kinsmen are descendants, from, among others, an ancient people who lived in what is now northwest USA and that my portable religious literature describes a promise by God to my ancestors, should this sacred literature accepted as proof of my land claim? The correct answer is obviously no, because every human being has the right to his/her own conception of God and of God's intentions.

In Anglo-American law, ownership of land is proven by deeds, going back to documented land grants from European kings, or bills of sale agreed to by Native American leaders (or, in some cases, stolen from the Native Americans), not by the religious literature basing ownership on gifts from God. The Bible is everything except objective evidence that God gave Palestine to the ancient Hebrews and their descendants. The Zionist Jews can hardly be accepted as objective experts as to the question of to whom Palestine belongs. Have you noticed the Bible's presentation of Abraham (who was apparently the progenitor of many nations) as owning no land at all, stating explicitly that, when he decided that he should have a burial plot, he bought land for his plot, having none of his own. How can we believe, then, that God gave Abraham land, and how, then can the Jewish people have inherited lands from him?

The Europeans who created concentration camps with gas ovens for killing Jews should have been punished by confiscation of European lands to be offered as a home for European Jews. To say that Lord Balfour or the United Nations made them owners of lands that actually belonged to Middle Easterners is a mere fantasy. A gift by me of something that is not mine does not convey ownership. Nor do Germany's guilt-ridden gifts of money to the lands that Germany seized from Jews. Every piece of land is legally unique. The USA should have permitted the ship, St. Louis, and other ships bringing Jews to our shores, to land in our ports instead of turning them away, to be killed by the Nazi regime in Europe.

European Jews have been very good citizens of the United States, from the Jews who helped the USA get started by lending money to the Continental Congress down to and including such wonderful human beings as Albert Einstein. However, I no longer believe the Jews to be "God's chosen people," even though the Bible, which was written by Jews, claims that they are. Such a belief is very dangerous because it can be used to justify conduct that would be condemned if others engaged in it. A belief that one specific people have a divine pedigree is an exceedingly dangerous idea. The traditional Japanese religion, Shinto, teaches that the Japanese people are descended from a goddess. During WWII, the rulers of the Japanese Empire used that religious heritage to persuade the Japanese people that killing other peoples in order to get their land was a totally justifiable idea. This is eerily familiar.

The Palestinian Arabs of the Middle East did not carry out the Holocaust, but the Holocaust and the need to avoid further Holocausts are often cited to defend crimes committed against the Palestinians. In Israel today, advocacy is frequently heard for a final solution against the Palestinians, i.e. total exclusion or death, even those most of the land is really theirs. In reality, the Palestinians are forced to live under an illegal Israeli military occupation, or confined in a tiny strip of land and denied the right to engage in international trade or even to receive internationally donated relief supplies of food or building materials, without the approval of the Israeli military. Israel claims to be "the only democracy in the Middle East," but democracies do arrest thousands without charge and hold them for years without access to legal counsel or even to see their families. However, the European Jews who drove Palestinians off their lands committed ethnic cleansing, a crime against humanity, and are not the true owners of the land on which Israel was subsequently created. (C.F. Ilan Pappe.) Wikipedia should eliminate the articles referring to Jews who had never previously been in Israel "returning" to Israel. Those who believe in the teaching of Zionism certainly have the right to publish their own literature. For such teachings to be done in the name of objective truth is merely an attempt to cover up the real history of modern Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.32.29 (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this request noticeboard really isn't the place to post your own point of view on this somewhat emotive issue. Wikipedia is about editors working together to produce good artciles. If you feel an article is unbalanced or biased please discuss on the article talk (discussion) page, but please don't just assert your own point of view without reliable sourcing. Thanks. I have posted some useful links about Wikipedia on your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary School Entry

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rosehill Secondary College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) link added --antilived^{T | C | G} 00:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Re page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosehill_Secondary_College[reply]

I recently requested to be given access rights to edit our schools wiki entry. When i first tried access to editing was bloced. I was granted access to edit and made several minor factual changes. I appears that someone else (i assume) has requested and been given editing rights. This user added a derogetory comment at the bottom of the page after the name of our assistant principal. I have subsequently removed the offending text. My question is: How can we a)block unauthorised editing for our schools entry on wikipedia and

possibly b) find out who edited the page and block them?

regards Dccoppin (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)David Copping Dccoppin (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)dccoppin[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. One does not need special permission to edit pages, as anonymous addition and collaboration is the foundation of Wikipedia. With such freedom comes people who abuse its use; these are called vandalisms. You were blocked from editing at first probably because you were editing from your school's IP, which was blocked due to previous vandalisms. When vandalism happens, a simple undo is all that it takes to remove it. Unless it is a persistent vandal we do not usually block people for small acts of vandalism such as this. If it does get out of control though you should warn the user on his/her talk page and notify one of the admins at WP:AIV. One thing to be aware of though, is that you do not own your school's entry; other users are free to add contents that you may not like but are nonetheless compliant with our policies. --antilived^{T | C | G} 00:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting Vandalism

Resolved

– vandalism reverted, pointers given Jezhotwells (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know much about wiki but I wanted to report vandalism of the following article link.

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

Specifically this paragraph is a useless story that pertains nothing to the article.

The Opening of the Underworld

Over the summer of 2009, a group of people were walking through the tunnel at a time relatively close to 7 PM. They were walzting along and singing Miley Cyrus songs. Or Hannah Montana songs. It is unsure which persona of the child star it was. The reached the middle of the tunnel and the earth began to shake. Immediately, they began to run to the nearest exit, because, as they assumed, a train was coming. Suddenly, the floor opened up and the fattest friend fell through. The person fell into another tunnel which led to the North Pole. It is rumored that the North Pole is the reason why it is cold in the tunnel. Also, once arriving at the North Pole, the person turned into a bird and that is why there are birds on the earth.

I need to do more reading into wiki how I could of handled this matter by myself. Such as; if I can just delete it totally.

Rek4385 (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)rek4385[reply]

Thanks for reporting it - I have reverted the vandalism in this edit. Take a look at WP:REVERT, that should explain the process. – ukexpat (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grays Harbor AfD review

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting a review and outside consultation of the AfD for the Miss Grays Harbor entry due to disputes over neutrality. The article was meant as a source of information for historical reference and is being questioned for notability. Our argument is that due to the social impact of the Miss America system and the evidence provided it should be deemed acceptable after editing to suit Wikipedia standards. Please view this AfD and provide unbiased input on whether or not this entry provides adequate information to be published on Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Miss_Grays_Harbor

AlistairBooya (talk) 06:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is there someone who could do a better job than me at explaining the WP:NOTE policy to this new Wikipedian? I readily admit I've done a bad job but I'm at the point where I'm so frustrated that any further intervention from me will hinder rather than help this discussion. I think AlistairBooya deserves someone setting out the reasons for inclusion/non inclusion of articles in full so he understands it for the future... but as I said I'm getting nowhere. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 06:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the article, the AfD discussion, web pages linked from that discussion, etc, and I shall make a response to this at ~~User talk:PageantUpdater~~ User talk:AlistairBooya. (Sorry: wrong link copied and pasted.) 79.123.75.8 (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now made the promised response, and I hope it is of help to AlistairBooya. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cexycy adding material against guidelines, despite much discussion

Referred here as per [3]

Rapido (talk) 09:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a long message concerning this at Talk:Living Next Door to Alice. Whether it will help remains to be seen. Also relevant is this edit to Cexycy's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cexycy has been around [4], but hasn't addressed his edits to this article. Therefore I reverted his edits, except I left in the spelling of "neighbour" (I disputed this on the basis of retaining the existing variety, however I see your point). Cexycy does appear to change other articles to British spelling, even when there is no basis to (e.g. [5] is an American rapper, spelling changed to British; [6] is a Polish radio station, and comes under retaining the existing variety). Rapido (talk) 09:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Editors may sometimes change spelling to/from American without realizing it's one of those words spelled different ways in various countries. In their own country, the spelling used elsewhere is regarded as a "common mistake" and they may just think they are doing a correction. One of the changes you complained about is fall vs. autumn; I'm not aware of either being incorrect in any English speaking country, so I'm not sure this change falls under the same category. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Autumn" is more common in British English, and "fall" is more common in American English, but they are both perfectly correct in either variety. Cexycy changes from "fall" to "autumn" on the basis that it's a more internationally understood word, however the original editor that started the article and included the word "fall" is Polish [7]. Rapido (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any Brits (in the UK) would refer to Autumn as "Fall", whereas the two terms do seem to be used in the US, with Fall much more common... – ukexpat (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "fall" is probably restricted to poetic literature in the UK, and use of it in ordinary speech would be old fashioned. Regardless, I would be surprised if any English speakers around the world did not understand the term. Rapido (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I always liked Season of mists and mellow fruitfulness... – ukexpat (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For Deletion

Resolved

– Sent to Afd. – ukexpat (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Docherty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Docherty

I found this article which appears to be blatant self-serving political advertising. Could somebody take a look at it please.

Thanks

--Happy Angus 11:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benhtims (talk • contribs)

Thanks for that - I have nominated it for deletion at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Glenn Docherty (2nd nomination). Jezhotwells (talk) 12:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radio station

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do we take control and put a password/block on others editing the page?

We are a radio station, whose page is constantly being edited, with incorrect information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imnotthere07 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly you cannot password protect an article or block others from editing the page. However, there are other things you can do. Can you provide a little more context? Which radio station? Which article? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)::The simple answer is that you can't. Biographies of living people may be protected so that only established editors can edit them, but only if there isevidence of vandalism or libellous postings. This is Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. If unsourced information is added then the editor who adds it should be asked (via the talk pages) to provide reliable third party sources that verify the information. If they don't respond within a reasonable time, then the material should be removed. If the information is correctly sourced and you don't like it, then that is just how it is. If you have information to add, then you will need to provde verifiable relaible sourcing - it is just not good enough to say I know the truth. Also please read our conflict of interest policy. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you cannot "take control" of an article. You do not own the article, and any Wikipedia editor can contribute to it. In fact if you are owners or employees of the radio station then you are strongly discouraged from editing the article under Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline. However, if you can indicate which article it is, and what is wrong with the editing which you object to, then we can consider whether there is any basis for taking any action to stop the changes. Without that information there is nothing we can do. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Man's Shoes

The review of this film gives everything away. It is ridiculous and will ruin the film for any viewer: no surprises are left. Is there a rule you can set for film (and book) reviews that stops people putting in so much detail? I have seen the film but I would NEVER recommend someone reads about a film on this website before going to the cinema as the reviewers would ruin the experience. Jashx (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we don't do spoiler warnings. – ukexpat (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reference work, not a compilation of reviews. You are complaining about an article in an encyclopedia, not a "review of this film". Like any critical publication or other reference work, we do not have "spoiler alerts" or anything like it. Indeed, it has been argued that this is one of the important differences between actual criticism and mere reviewing: that the readers are presumed to have already encountered the work for themselves, and need not be "protected" from spoiling the surprises of which they should already be aware. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC) P.S.: it was his childhood sled; the doctor did it himself; "she" is actually a pre-operative TG; her husband actually hated his previous wife and loves the narrator[reply]

You forgot to mention: It's People! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amadeus IT Group

Amadeus IT Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) An edit war is going on this article. Arguably, this article is not the cutest Wikipedia has, and at one point in time deserved unquestionably the "advert" tag, being the copy paste of some marketing material. I've tried repeatedly to remove any track of bias, and offered to discuss NPOV on the discussion page. Unfortunately, a dispute is ongoing, and I am facing a user not willing to respond to the discussion invitation, initially reinserting the "ad" tag without justification and more recently making drastic changes to the article without accepting to enter a debate. The discussion page and the edit history are quite clear. Sadly, I am afraid assistance is now required. Vincent Lextrait (talk) 06:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article does read like an advert and completely lacks any reliable third party references, so I agree with the tag and have added an unreferenced tag. It needs cutting down in size and rewriting in an encyclopaedic style. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey, you got that right! From the very first sentence: specialises in travel technology solutions - that's Marketing 101 language right there. Maybe reducing it to a stub would be the place to start. – ukexpat (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Sotomayor

I have been having an edit war with some contributors who have been removing a valid external link to the Internet Movie Database that accounts for Judge Sotomayor's media appearances. I have added IMDB links for many politicians for many American and foreign politicians, and no one has ever complained, and actually thanked me for it. I am an editor for both sites and take pride for my work. Many of the editors removing the link have a long history of right wing article edits. As both a Latino and Puerto Rican male, I feel that Judge Sotomayor's media appearances as listed on the IMDB have a valid reason to be included in the article. Archive footage of many politicians are used in films throughout history. They are listed on IMDB. Some have made appearances on talk shows (e.g. Gov. Schwarzenager on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno; President Bill Clinton on the "Arsenio Hall Show"; President George W. Bush on "Oprah"). All of these mentions have IMDb links in their articles. The removal of the link fron Judge Sotomayor's article can be labeled as sexist, racist, and biased (due to her liberal leaning). Why are they targeting Judge Sotomayor? Please respond and assist.--XLR8TION (talk) 08:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes that is a dispute alright. I suggest 3rd opinion or WP:RfC. Good luck. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

touch pads

Answered

– User referred to Refdesk. – ukexpat (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why do touch pads work well with fingers and not any other round headed object? is there any logic behind the skin or what? please i request you to help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.108.254.83 (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing is the place to ask. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The capacitance of the skin would be my uneducated guess. – ukexpat (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Marie - disambiguation

Searching wikipedia on the name "Donna Marie" reveals only a porn star, albeit one who has a couple of awards and has appeared in 106 films.

There is also the British Reggae artist "Donna Marie" - who has been in the business since the 1980s. I don't know very much about her, other than that she was big in "lovers rock" and specialized in reggae cover versions of country and western songs. If you read http://www.reggaerunnins.com/donna_marie.htm she claims to have 13 CDs - which would get her past the notability hurdle. She is/was hugely popular amongst the west indian community in the UK with her main exposure on pirate/community stations in urban areas. Interest in her in the mainstream music media has been next to non-existant... a pity.

I have a suspicion that half of this article is about someone else: -http://www.last.fm/music/Donna+Marie/+wiki?ver=5

http://www.radicalsound.nl/html/donna_marie_-_marvelous.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.6.162 (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that having 13 CDs gets one past the "notability hurdle"; self-publishing (for example) does not make one notable, even self-publishing in quantity. See Wikipedia:Notability (music) for the guideline. Be that as it may, if she was popular in the West Indian community in the UK, I'll bet she has been reviewed in some publications, even if they aren't mainstream. Since you seem to know a few things about her, you may be able to find references to establish notability. They don't need to be accessed online. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 03:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I agree entirely that 13CDs self published doesn't count. But this woman was published by Pama-Jetstar and Londisc, commercial reggae labels - and with the intention that they made money from selling the records. They presumably did so. I think she is notable following the guideline. I'm inclined to start by putting a disambiguation page with a link to the pornstar and to a stub for the reggae singer, then work from there as and if I find more detail. But I'm unsure how I build the disambiguation page. help on doing this would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.5.7 (talk) 10:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed some useful hints and tips on yoru current talk page. You won't be able to create a new page until you register for an account. I recommend that you get an account and build the disambiguation page in your user space and then ask here for someone to look it over. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sexist Post: Comparison to other female rulers should be deleted

Comparing Hatshepsut to other female rulers has no relevance. If this section was applied to any other group of people it would be revered as very offensive. Why should she be compared to other rulers on the sole reason that she has ovaries?Fizzstorm (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)fizzstorm[reply]

~~Hello there..Not sure what article your talking about ...could you be more specific!! And~~ Opps i see its Hatshepsut... have you talk about this on the articles talk page yet???..Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A little help with a vandal, please

Resolved

– – ukexpat (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for an admin who can undo some wholesale vandalism - User:12.164.63.4 has apparently taken the broad list of articles I've worked on from my user page and done an undo against each (40 or so), with edit summary 'conflict of interest'. Thanks, CliffC (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to Jac16888 who has blocked and undone the work of a vandal apparently staying at the Cleveland Marriot. I haven't ever been in Cleveland, so it must be something I did here. Thanks again, CliffC (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dea fix

Resolved

– reverted. – ukexpat (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please edit the first paragraph for wikis "dea" definition. IM sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.105.236 (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been reverted and please don't vandalise again. – ukexpat (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon hoofprint

please help me to bring attention to the methane generated carbon created by the practice of industrail livestock farming, there are many good articals out about this practice that creates more carbon emissions than cars furthering global warming and depleating the earths ozone layer but no one is taking a serious look at this problem. everyone seems to have been exposed to "carbon footprint" while "carbon hoofprint" remains to be somewhat obscure, but in many ways just as relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.148.123 (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. I have placed some links on your talk page about how to get an account and a guide to editing. The best thing is to register an account and work on articles in your user space. Then you can ask other editors to review them and se if they are suitable for the the encyclopaedia. There are already lots of articles that you may be interested in such as Carbon footprint. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for page move of Lake_worth_monster to Lake_Worth_Monster

Resolved

– page move effected Jezhotwells (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Can someone move Lake_worth_monster to Lake_Worth_Monster? I see that the other "Monsters" in the "Similar alleged creatures in North America" section of the Bigfoot page all have a capital "Monster" and of course the Loch Ness Monster has a capital Monster.

Thanks, 99.150.255.75 (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this proposed move and the rationale for conformity with other articles in Category:Hominid cryptids and have moved the page. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Software to teach math group theory offered to Wiki

Please advise. I am an amateur mathematician who has written a computer program, plus comprehensive user notes, by which university-level students and amateurs can teach themselves mathematical group theory. It is currently hosted on my personal web site, but I think it could be made available to a wider audience through Wikipedia. How should I go about this, please? e.g. place reference to my web site on the Group Theory page of WikiP? or upload the programs plus notes to a maths project which WikiP controls? JMC 81.99.43.188 (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above, I am sorry. Wikipedia is not a promotional tool, it is an encyclopaedia. When your program has become sufficiently notable, through mentions in reliable sources I expect someone will cerate an article about it. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appropedia assistance

Hey, I was wondering whether any wikipedians are interested in joining Appropedia; we currently need someone with experience in the wiki-software; see http://www.appropedia.org/User_talk:Chriswaterguy#Members More precisely, we need to add some extensions/semantic updates to automate a few things (ie member listing, ...). Let me/us know if you're intrested or if you know someone that might be intrested. User talk:KVDP 10:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute assistance request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I feel that I am being harassed and bullied by some editors, mainly Flowanda. Accusing me falsely and carrying on a campaign of tagging my articles with “conflict of interest” notes. I have had issues with other editors, such as Largo Plazo and Mijotoba, but I believe we were able to solve the issues in a civilized, well discussed and somewhat cordial manner. With Flowanda I have extensively tried to reason, discuss and negotiate, to no avail. Her last posting, today at 7:25, on my User talk:Grancafé, I find it to be inappropriate, uncalled for and a clear sign of provocation. I have avoided any arguments or confrontations, but she simply won’t let go. Thus, I feel that I must initiate a Dispute Resolution Request, to have a third neutral party look into this matter. I must request a revision of all the deletions that she has made to my articles, and more specifically, I need to get her of my back. Her constant harassment makes me feel very uncomfortable. I thank you in advance for you valuable help, prompt assistance and kind advice. --Grancafé (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick look at your talk page, it appears that you have been engaged with very civil discussions with other users who are trying to resolve conflicts between several people on several articles. In other words, it looks like you are all doing fine so far! But it also appears you have been receiving admonishments and advice about your edits, and (without looking at the actual edits) you are probably being given advice you should seriously consider. Taking all this into account, it is understandable that many of your edits would be tagged. I don't think the talk page comment you refer to [8] is terribly uncivil or out of line, though I haven't seen the discussion which led to it, which is presumably on another page. Considering the history of the situation, I don't think a massive revert of another editor's changes to yours, is appropriate. Such things are almost never done, except in the case of vandalism, which is not what's happening here. I think you just need to continue discussing your changes, possibly BEFORE you make them, to get consensus first, if these changes are controversial. As I said, you seem to be doing okay up to now. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your prompt and insightful response. As you correctly have noticed, I try to be very polite and civilized. I am a “novice” wikipedian editor, which means that I am new to Wikipedia. But it seems that Flowanda is going to pick up an issue with this, and I do not appreciate her belligerent attitude and tone. Going one step further on my complaint, how could I get this issue of “conflict of interest” resolved? I don’t appreciate this false accusation and I take serious offense, as it is an attack on my character, integrity and ethical behavior. Kindly please advice. --Grancafé (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have made 1500 edits and demonstrated an ability to understand the basics of Wikipedia. I don't consider you a novice. Assuming that Flowanda is saying you should not use "novice status" as an excuse, because you aren't one, you should probably take it as a compliment. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further reasoning and argument

In furtherance to my defense, I would like to quote the following COI guidelines:

"A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, Which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor."

As a member of the Ospina family and business, I can provide references which are compatible with the notable and verifiable guidelines that others may not be aware of. I want to make sure that the articles I work on meet and exceed all Wikipedia guidelines, and I welcome the different views of others to make my contributions more encyclopedic.

I have met this requirement of the COI guidelines:

"Editors with COIS are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty. "

I ask that all editors:

Remember: an editor with a self-evident interest in the matter turning up on the talk page is an indication that they are playing it straight. Even if the changes they advocate are hopelessly biased, treat them with respect and courtesy, refer to policy and sources, and be fair.

All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to rules covering criteria for articles (what Wikipedia is not); encyclopedic quality (verifiability and original research); editorial approach (neutral point of view), as well as the Wikipedia copyright policy.

Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are Closely adhered to. The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles. However, an apparent conflict of interest is a good reason for close review by the community to identify any subtle bias.

Wikipedia: Vested interest states: "This does not mean such editors' arguments should be dismissed as ARISING from a Wikipedia: Conflict of interest."

I think I have complied to the best of my ability to be fair, neutral and objective. I want to continue to work with editors and make these articles as encyclopedic as possible. I appreciate the continued "close review by the community to identify any subtle bias". That said, please remember what it was like to be a new editor, and have patience with me. Thanks again, --Grancafé (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS. According to Wikipedia’s own definition of conflict of interest ,(COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. My aims and goals are, by no means, in opposition to Wikipedia's nature, principles, rules or procedures. I have reiterated my alliance to these rules and principles. Thus, I do not see how a “conflict of interest” accusation could be substantiated against me. Thank you. --Grancafé (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to stop regarding mention of your possible conflict of interest as an "accustation". It is merely a fact. I reproduce part of the lead from WP:COI:

COI editing is strongly discouraged. When editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view, what Wikipedia is not, and copyright compliance, accounts may be blocked. COI editing also risks causing public embarrassment outside of Wikipedia for the individuals and groups being promoted.[1]
Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia.
When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to reveal the identity of other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline on conflict of interest. An editor's conflict of interest is often revealed when that editor discloses a relationship to the subject of the article to which the editor is contributing. Where an editor does not disclose an existing affiliation or other conflict of interest, carefully following Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy may help counteract biased editing.
Even though most COI editing is discouraged, in limited cases some edits from COI editors may still be welcome. See the non-controversial edits section below.

That seems pretty clear cut to me. Read and understand. There really isn't any more to be said. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A conflict of interest (COI) occurs when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in the other.

A conflict of interest can only exist if a person or testimony is entrusted with some impartiality; a modicum of trust is necessary to create it. The presence of a conflict of interest is independent from the execution of impropriety. Therefore, a conflict of interest can be discovered and voluntarily defused before any corruption occurs. --Grancafé (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I haven't looked at your contributions, but COI is not just about association with an organization, it is also about displaying passion or zeal toward or against topics that you edit. This can happen without your realizing it. Under the circumstances, I recommend you and the other editors view your work as a collaborative effort, rather than individuals working separately and in conflict. When considering changes that might be controversial, discuss your proposals and reasons for them on talk pages, and get agreement before making the changes in the articles. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, thank you. I appreciate your comment on COI. My understanding is that an editor may have a vested interest, but as long as he or she can yield to and abide by fundamental principles of Wikipedia, there is no conflict of interest. I might be wrong in my interpretation of terms and I am not trying to change anything. Now, regarding on working with other editors on a collaborative effort, I think I have demonstrated so. I am willing to learn and be part of the team. What I do not appreciate is false accusations, misguided comments and belligerent interaction. I try to be very cordial, respectful and civilized. I am sure my track record of editing clearly reflects this. All I have asked these editors to do is to advice with cordiality and understanding, and to tone down their belligerent tone. Thanks, --Grancafé (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I am asking for is that you (A Knight Who Says Ni) or a high ranking administrator to settle this dispute about COI. If Wikipedia administrators want to call it a COI, then so be it. I have tried to explain my reasoning and understanding of the matter, but if it is a “definition” issue, I am willing to accept it, drop the case and move on. Simple as that. Thanks, --Grancafé (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to draw the attention of anyone considering Grancafé's concerns to this part of his Talk page where I had been addressing these same comments before I fully realized that he is conducting the same discussion here. He has a habit of doing this, conducting the same discussion in multiple places, making it very difficult for one person to take into account everything that has been said in response to him. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grancafé appears to labouring under the misapprehension that admins settle disputes - they don't. Disputes are settled by consensus and if they cannot be so settled, there are escalating levels of dispute resolution. Admins just have a few extra tools available to them to keep the place running (somewhat) smoothly, they are not content referees. – ukexpat (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the clarification and advice. It is good to know. I am just trying to follow the proper procedure in the chain of command. Could you please tell me what is the next step of inquiry? Is it a request for comment, arbitration or dispute resolution? Thanks, --Grancafé (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, working with other editors to achieve consensus is the best course of action. Asking for a third opinion might be a useful step. Disagreements between editors are not always solved by RfCs and I don't think that arbitration is a useful option for you at this stage. I suggest that you listen to other editors and respect their opinions. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for your advice as well. You seem to be a more seasoned editor. I am not being disrespectful towards any editor. I am only requesting “clarification” as to the meaning and definition of COI in Wikipedia. To me, it seems ambiguous and inconclusive. This is why I am requesting clarification. Have you read all my arguments and reasoning? I am not seeking for an argument or confrontation. All I am asking for is a CLEAR and LOGICAL definition. As I stated above, if that is the accepted norm, interpretation and understanding, then there is no further discussion. End of story. My point is this: If an editor accepts and recognizes Wikipedia’s interest to be of utmost concern, where is the COI? Perhaps I don’t get it, and that is why I am asking for a simple and clear interpretation of its meaning and application. --Grancafé (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also asking for certain editors to show respect, courtesy and restrain. That’s all. --Grancafé (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote, above, "My aims and goals are, by no means, in opposition to Wikipedia's nature, principles, rules or procedures. I have reiterated my alliance to these rules and principles." In multiple cycles over a period of at least six weeks:

People edited text that you had written that was inconsistent with Wikipedia's guidelines. This included material that showed an abundance of COI problems, amounting to glorification of your family members, crowing over their achievements and how important they all were to the success of Colombia and its coffee industry, repeating characterizations of their accomplishments multiple times, and speaking in grand language.
You protested that your article had been "mutilated" (your word) and demanded an explanation. You complained bitterly and argued that you didn't understand what was wrong with the way you had written the article, and bemoan the fact that you were being prevented from telling stories about several people well beyond the bounds of what the article was about.
When given detailed explanations, you reacted in a polished, well-mannered way, the same demeanor you are showing here. You would thank the writer profusely for his experience and patience and vowed to learn the ways of Wikipedia and take them into consideration, swearing "alliance to these rules and principles".
Then you would turn around and do what you wanted, restoring material that had been deleted, creating the same problems all over again, and the cycle would go back to the beginning. In subsequent iterations, you would act shocked, as though no one had explained anything to you before, and you would be just as indignant as the previous time around..

Yet you stand here now and plead innocently that you can't imagine why anyone would think you had a conflict of interest, and claim to be perplexed that note of your obvious and repeatedly demonstrated COI is being made.

Your representation of the situation is false, and you are showing a complete unwillingness to listen to the guidance of those whom you have already thanked for their (our) guidance, because you don't like the outcome, and now you are shopping around to find someone with a different view.

I am including this commentary here because while we have certainly hashed it out before on your talk page, but you have deleted most of that discussion, and anyone considering your claim is entitled to the full background. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think we have the picture here. This is a case of forum shopping. Pointers and explanations have been given. Further discussion is pointless. WP:EAR is aimed at helping those who choose to listen. I shall archive this. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can you revert logged out edits?

Would it be possible to revert all the edits made by IP 174.96.140.72, such as [(06:00, 20 February 2010 174.96.140.72 (talk) (4,317 bytes) (→History: aesthetics) (undo)], to my user name Grancafé? Sometimes I forget to log in and sometimes my computer logs me out without I noticing it. Thanks, --Grancafé (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean attribute the IP's edits to your username? This is no longer possible. See Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit. If you want, you could mention on your userpage that the IP is yours. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 06:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did see your prompt response first thing this morning. I apologize for my belated reply. Thank you very much, --Grancafé (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JFK Assassination article restricted to U.S. government and supporting viewpoints but this is not obvious

I tried to add referenced material to the John F. Kennedy assassination (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, but it was removed because it challenged the official version of events as determined by some of the other editors. I moved the challenged material to the "Conspiracy" section of the article, because the other editors claimed it was conspiracy material, but it was removed again, and I was told "THE PAGE IS CHIEFLY THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AS PER THE OFFICIAL INVESTIGATIONS". Editors and readers are currently unaware of this restriction, and will assume it is a neutral, wide-ranging article that covers the topic broadly, based on the title of the article. This has been discussed extensively on the discussion page of the article. I suggested renaming the article to reflect this restriction, to "John F. Kennedy assassination U.S. government investigation findings" but that was rejected by the other editors. I just suggested placing a disclaimer at the top of the article so readers and editors will know about the editor-imposed limits, but I see now that disclaimers are against Wikipedia policy. I think the current title of the article is misleading. Please see the last three discussion sections "Carcano / Mauser rifle", "Rename article proposal" and "Proposal to add disclaimer at top of article". Thank you.Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edits are being discussed adequately on the talk page. As was said many times there, this particular article is one of many highly edited and reverted pages, and virtually all possible controversies have been discussed over and over in the past. Posting here is forum shopping, unless the talk page is getting neglected, or the discussion is taking a strange turn. Nothing along those lines is happening. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the parties involved all feel the discussion is going nowhere and that we are at an impasse. It also appears to me that the editors who oppose renaming the article are not being neutral, because it has been clearly stated that the article is limited in scope in a way that is not reflected by the title of the article. That is why I appealed for help. The message I am getting is that I should just give up, which is what I feel is the desired outcome, so that the article will continue to mislead the public to believe that there is only one, objective, government-approved version of events. This is not NPOV!Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a recent comment by one of the other editors: "Instead of continuing a dispute which has likely gone as far as it can - since we've had adequate discussion and ghost has received no consensus for his proposed changes - perhaps I can reiterate what I and others have suggested here. Ghost, why not focus on the conspiracy page and other relevant pages and help improve those pages?" The intent is to preserve the official story and channel all conflicting evidence into another article. The result is an article that gives the appearance of neutrality, but which is, behind the scenes, limited to the official government version of events.Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a good idea to post this dispute on the Neutrality Noticeboard. What do you think? Would I be accused, in an absence of good-faith, of "forum shopping" or do you think that would be the logical next step?Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can if you want to. But really, everyone has heard of the conpiracy theories, and it's unlikely that an article on the accepted version of events is going to be viewed as an attempt to mislead the public into thinking there are no other theories. The article's lede section says "polls conducted from 1966 on show as many as 80% of the American public have held beliefs contrary to these findiings" and the next sentence links to the conspiracies article, so there is no attempt to hide it. It is clearly presented as a related topic. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the article is not NPOV because it excludes not just "conspiracy theories" but anything that challenges the official investigation findings. But the readers and editors don't know that, because the title of the article is "JFK assassination" not "JFK assassination - U.S. government investigation findings". People assume the article includes a wide range of material about the assassination, but some of the editors have chosen to exclude anything that challenges the official story line. They say including different possible versions of events, conflicting witness testimony, conflicting evidence, and so on will make the article unwieldy and too large. I understand their point. But it's misleading to have the article titled the way it is now. I'm NOT saying they are covering up the existence of conspiracy theories, I'm saying they are manipulating the article to give one version of events, under the guise that there is one agreed upon version of events, which there is not. Their position is that anything that doesn't agree with THEIR INTERPRETATION of the government investigations is a conspiracy theory and thus not within the scope of the article. You can either have one article that includes many points of view, or you can have separate articles that give different points of view, but you can't call one article "The Truth" and another "Everything else that isn't the truth". If you call one article "U.S. government investigation findings" and the other "Cover-up and conspiracy theories" there will be less behind-the-scenes censorship going on to protect the "truth" and no implication that the other article is material that is "untruth".Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it more simply. Now we have article "A" (the Truth) and article "A - excluded (presumably false) points of view". Under my scheme we'd have article "A - government investigations" and article "A - other points of view".Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, it would all be in one article, but for some reason, presumably due to size, it has been split out into two articles.Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has all been discussed countless times on the article talk page. If you want to raise it again on that talk page, go ahead, but don't be surprised if you get shot down in flames. There is nothing that assistants here can do about changing the consensus at that page and why should we. If you want to start a wider discussion, try a request for comment. My advice would be to find something a little more productive to do. There are tens of thousands of articles that need improving. There are some good suggestions at the community portal. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the parties involved all feel the discussion is going nowhere and that we are at an impasse. The editors on the page - with the lone exception of the person posting this dispute to this page - are in accord with keeping the page as it is and have failed to see the bias or misleading text which supposedly suggests to the casual reader that only official conclusions are valid, a main deficiency that the poster here sees.

IOW, the only reason "the discussion is going nowhere" is because he can't accept the unanimous opinion from the editors in question (six disagreed with him, none agreed) that his arguments are invalid and that the consensus from the editors, and indeed the consensus which resulted in the page reaching the form it is in now, does not match the consensus he sought. Canada Jack (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the comment about "discussion is going nowhere" is limited to the one editor who requested assistance here. Consensus at the article talk page is clearly against that editor's wish to open the article up to alternate viewpoints. Binksternet (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not true! CanadaJack said, and this is quoted just a few lines above, "Instead of continuing a dispute which has likely gone as far as it can - since we've had adequate discussion and ghost has received no consensus for his proposed changes - perhaps I can reiterate what I and others have suggested here." I am going to suggest on the article discussion page that we submit this as a NPOV issue on the Neutrality Noticeboard.Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Posting here is forum shopping, unless the talk page is getting neglected, or the discussion is taking a strange turn. Nothing along those lines is happening. What the multi-headed knight said above applies to your actions here, ghost. Canada Jack (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

more eyes (need comments)

Not sure if i can put this here..maybe should be on admin page,. but never the less. I would like some more eyes to look at this debate/situation. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes/10th discussion.....Buzzzsherman (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented at the RfC. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

user ALR consistently removes info put on by me

User ALR refuses to allow information on to pages relating to miluitary bases such as my personal area of interst a place known as RAF Rudloe Manor.

I can update perfectly useful information and add further reading resources and links all of which are valid and useful. ALR will remove them again and again.

ALR has a bee in his bonnet about not liking UFO researchers of which I am one, and has called them "Nutters and Idiots" on WIKI pages.

When I am putting information which it factual and cited with references to documents which are available to view at the public records office (government) in Kew. These documents relate to the factual involvement of RAF Rudloe Manor in UFO investigations which even involved officers from said depts going out to interview witnesses at the homes.

When I represent this information ALR reduces it to "Conspiracy Theory". Its not a theory its a historical FACT.

User ALR is unreasonable and just doesnt like UFO researchers and treats the military pages he gloats over as if they his personal property and nobody can write anything without being edited down by him. I think this situation needs to be investigated and addressed as I am fed up of wasting my time trying to put things on WIKI only to have this person ruin the work.

ALR even arranged for me to be banned because I kept on putting the links back up. These were to books available on Amazon which discuss the RAF base in great detail. Why is he removing references to books for sale. They are not my books, they are nothing to do with me. Why redact this information... just because it comes from me. This man has a problem. Can you please sort this out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseekers666 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well looking at RAF Rudloe Manor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) the latest edit by ALR [9] merely re-worded a paragraph, possibly in a POV manner. As neither of you are adding inline citations to support edits it doesn't really help. Obviously there is a POV clash here, ALR is dismissive of they deem as conspiracy theorists, whilst Truthseekers666 is interested in UFO cover-ups. I recommend that both editors assume good faith, provide references and work together to achieve consensus. The image File:PROVOST.gif is not a good reference, the assertion that it is public domain is incorrect, the National Archives website asserts Crown copyright here. This image does not have a correct attribution. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NotedALR (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC

I agree the picture is Crown Copyright but is in the public domain of being freed for the 30 year rule and is 48 years old. Are you aware of any reason that it would not be allowed for use on WIKI given the National Records Office allowance for research purposes for non-profit organisations of which Wiki meets both criteria as it is a research tool and is non-profit. If you would prefer me to get clearance from National Archives to clear up this matter I am happy to do so but suggest that you make this known to me. I have never heard of anyone who publishes such materials being informed they were not allowed to do so. I suggest simple change of status of picture to crown Copyright - it is not clear how this is done to me. Can you advise. Truthseekers666 (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the copyright notice. You will have to apply to the image-library@nationalarchives.gov.uk to get permission to use this image on Wikipedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image quality is appaling and I'd question whether it would survive a deletion request based on that, it also doesn't actually tell us anything other than in one instance a policeman interviewed the individual who reported a potential criminal incident. fwiw Low flying events are disciplinary offences with the sanction threshold ranging from summary punishment to Court Martial.

The more useful of the two images that Mr Williams has provided is the partial letter to one of his colleagues referring to process. That identifies that low flying complaints that cannot be explained were then passed to MoD. That's now referred to in the article.

ALR (talk) 09:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably this doesn't reflect just prominence or wording but source reliability and merit. Reputation for fact checking relates to a community- if farmer joe is known to always check his facts before spouting off at the local diner in the morning, then if he says he saw a UFO he is probably reliable to at least the people who know him. However, this doesn't impress the person who knows UFO's can't exist and of course the event in question is not testable. You probably have to go more with prominence than merit and try to just state attributed facts rather than conclusions as facts. Having not looked at the specifics here, I'm not sure if that helps but I'm always interested in these issues. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 02:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you put up some diffs of the alledged behaviour please "Truthseeker". Ryan4314 (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan and Jezhowells: Although I have stated that the inlcusion of P&SS UFO investigation scan and the letter from MOD to C Fowler relating to P&SS UFO file handling of a more recent date are important as they are direct evidence which shows the working status of P&SS in the UFO debate which up until I gave these ref was classed as "Conspiracy Theory" by user ALR. Now that these scans are in place so user ALR can no longer make the claim that these things are "Theory" but are actually FACT, user ALR keeps removing the link to ref 2 scanned document saying that "This has been referred to enough." Where? We are talking about the media link on the end of the ref 2 being just the following two words "PHOTO HERE"... which ALR keeps removing. He says that the words are "cluttering up" the page. Two words! "Photo here" Cluttering? Yet again I am asking for this ALR and his motives to be looked at. I am very unhappy that I got banned from this page last year for much much less than ALR is up to now. I was banned from wiki by IP because I put the said same information on the page, by ALR. Now I am a user of some standing ALR cannot ban me. Now he is just choosing to keep removing this information. The words censorship and pride come to mind. I am just interested in accurate portrayal of facts which is what citing refs is all about. I am properly citing refs not only by saying them, by providing the actual documents to cite them with. ALR what is your excuse. Remove refs, remove evidence... alter facts! I am wishing this to be looked at again please, its like daily tennis, he removes, I put back up, he removes, i put back up... day after day!

I must state that to an outsidef the importance of the information in these two scans is not readily apparent. If one is trying to state factually that Rudloe Manor, which is home to P&SS dept, was investigating UFOs - doc one shows P&SS did engage in investigations as this is a investigation report itself. Ref 2 presents the information that P&SS at Rudloe, not P&SS Acton London, was dealing with these matters. Without the two refs the clear picture cannot be proved. He is happy for the first ref to remin which makes the reader think P&SS in Acton, which is incorrect. When user ALR claims this is clutter it is simply refs to what he seems to be happy to allow to stay in terms of P&SS now investigated UFOs as FACT... not theory as ALR previously claimed. I think this is petty jealousy by the user ALR and I request someone to look at this matter to ascertain is these refs are infact not cluttering and therefore user ALR is being petty on this matter. I would note whilst I have attempted to provde refs to back up my research, ALR does not. I do not wish to keep having the modify the page daily against ALRs edits. Truthseekers666 (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you post some diffs please, I haven't been able to find all the stuff you've mentioned. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not out of the question that he may be referring to this and this.

ALR (talk) 09:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ELs removed in the second edit were very dubious and correctly removed in my opinion. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links to a compromised site

Is there any standard action to do about links to a site which has become compromised so the browser warns you not to visit it? I guess quite a few sites become infected at some stage or other. Dmcq (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usually the best course of action is to remove the link with your reasoning in your edit summary. WP:ELNO point 3 applies here. Them From Space 19:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay have removed the various external links. They were nice but not a great loss. I think perhaps if it is a site that would be loss to an article I'll leave it in but just as text and with a warning and the date. Dmcq (talk) 13:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References and citiations

I am editing a living persons biography for the named person. A notice has been placed on the person's wikipedia page that some of the information needs to have inline citiations. I have tried several times to do this but the draft article keeps coming up with a citiations error. All reliable sources have been listed in the references and notes at the bottom of the page.

It seems Wikipedia has become more confusing to edit and add information, even if it is referenced in the notes of the page.

Please take a look at the named person site and advise.

Josephine Carter JC & Associates Talent Services Please email: <email redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephine Carter (talk • contribs) 20:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't post your email address here, this is a highly visible page and doing so may result in lots of spam mail. Requests made here will be responded to here. I note that your Wikipedia user name would seem to be against our WP:Username policy#Company/group names. I have placed a note about this on your talk page. With regard to the referencing, please note that other wikipedia pages are not reliable sources. The best way of referencing is using inline citations - following this link will explain how. However as you are the artiste's agent you have a serious conflict of interest and should be very careful about editing this artcile. It would be best to post information and reliable sources on the artcile talk page and let other neutral editiors decide how to use them. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding press photo to my wiki entry

Hi,

Ive just been looking at the wiki page about me (DJ Fresh), is there a way i can replace the rather shoddy old photo with a proper press picture? Not very fluent with Wiki, but ive discovered that ill not be able to upload a photo myself, but i cant work out who has admin privelledges that i could contact to upload something, would be great if someone could please contact me? Thanks

Dan Stein DJ Fresh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshbadco (talk • contribs) 00:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The information you want may be found at WP:Contact us/Photo submission. When you get an OTRS ticket let me or another editor know and the image can be uploaded. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thompson Ramo Woolridge Low-Maintenance Rifle -- don't know how to put in infobox

Thompson Ramo Woolridge Low-Maintenance Rifle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hello. I'm sorry to bother you. I have a lot of data and sources on this. I would be happy to provide them in an infobox, but no matter how hard I try, I can't understand how to create the necessary infobox. I understand about citations. I can provide them. I hope that you will not find it annoying, please understand that I have a nonverbal learning disability and my eyes don't track very well at all when I try to understand how to type in these templates, even after I look right at the relevant help page. It would be very kind if someone would start the box for me, then I will finish and fine-tune it. Also, I don't know wether tlines within infoboxes themselves can have bracketed citations on them. By the way, the article title should have said Wooldridge -- the d is missing. I am really sorry. I feel very frustrated.

SithiR (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the ibox and made a start filling it in. If you have more details about the weapon, please flesh out the article as well as the ibox. I also moved it to the correct title, with the "d", and added a stub template. Please do not hesitate to ask again here or on my talk page if you need further help. – ukexpat (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Office holders: Complex table with images

Someone invested a lot of time and effort into create the following Chilean Ministry articles, including a table of names and images. The lists are very outdated and the image gaps in between some of them disruptive. I was thinking of not only polishing the article content, but recreating these tables, limiting them to names, dates, and presidency; similar to Ministry of Education (Chile). IOW, removing all images. Please give me feedback on this.

Thank you, --Soy Rebelde (talk) 02:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the best place to discuss would be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chile. – ukexpat (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I can see where you are coming from, my concerns are in regards to formatting and readability. Thus, this section is really the most appropriate. I know there is a section on formatting that discourages using tables or lists that are too complex. I'm hoping someone who is "well-read" in the subject can advise. Not to mention, the activity in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chile is extremely low.

Again, I hope someone here can be encouraged to help with info regarding formatting and style (not the subject itself *sigh). --Soy Rebelde (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you discuss this with User:Melromero who seems to have had most input into the articles? For help with list and tables see Help:Table and Help:List. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jezhotwells (talk) 09:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Party USA article

Discussion moved

– to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mserard313 Jezhotwells (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User TIAYN has attempted to re-write the entire Socialist Party USA article with a highly inaccurate and personally written new one. The prior content of the article represented the long-standing and well-cited collaborative work of numerous Wikipedians. TIAYN has repeatedly ignored requests to raise whatever objections he may hold to the content and/or citations in the existing article and is attempting to force an edit war. Mserard313 (talk) 08:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)mserard313[reply]

Why are you lying, when have i ever said that. The old one is not well referenced, when article only use first-published (with the exception of one) it is not well-referenced. Just a note, the old one only uses references from the SPUSA homepage. It was classed as a stub and start-class. The new one, which Mserard is again, has been certified GA-class, i didn't write the article alone, i collaborated with other editors on the article. Mserard is reverting a community certified WP:GA-article, because he dislikes it. Please stop edit warring Mserard and discuss your edits.

I've been trying to stop the edit warring and discuss what he thinks is wrong with the article, he instead accusses me of being bias. It seems to me that Mserard does not want to follow WP guidelines, and therefor should be blocked. --TIAYN (talk) 09:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on both users' pages warning them about the three-revert rule, much less the ten-revert rule. Dayewalker (talk) 09:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for warning us, instead of blocking us. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --TIAYN (talk) 09:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

soundtrack info

is the version of ennio morricone's "the big gundown" la resa dei conti,used in some episodes of top gear,available to download? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.18.27 (talk) 10:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment is probably the best place to ask. Or you could just do a Google search. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is available from Amazon. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SC 820 EI 1model IC

Request unclear

– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

plz help me for the data sheet

Hi what do you need help with? Your question is unclear to me? Jezhotwells (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Einsiders.com

Dear Sir or Madam:

Yesterday it was brought to my attention that Einsiders.com is about to be (or has been) removed from Wikipedia.

Can an editor or administrator contact me and tell me what the heck is going on?

Thanks,

javascript:insertTags('Jonathan W. Hickman (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)',,) Jonathan W. Hickman Editor and President Einsiders.com, Inc.[reply]

Hi, I can't find any page named Einsiders or Einsiders.com, but maybe you are referring to external links to your website being removed. There is a discussion about the reliability of Einsiders here, which concludes that, in Wikipedia terms, it is not a reliable source. The standards are set quite high here and no evidence can be found that other reliable sources, e.g. major newspapers, journals, etc. cite Einsders as reliable and there is no information on the website as to editorial process. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is another discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I dislike that bit about being called unreliable. I've interviewed plenty of filmmakers and actors, many on video, over the years, are you saying that simple reporting of what is said by those people is not reliable? The whole Wikipedia thing is pretty intimidating to me. But I think that it is unfortunate that the conclusion was that einsiders was not reliable was reached without anyone ever emailing me about it. I've been writing about movies for over a decade, you know.Jonathan W. Hickman (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Jonathan W. Hickman[reply]

Please read our policies on reliable sources. Can you provide references in third party publications that verify that your web site is a reliable source?

I really hate this. I never cared whether I was in Wikipedia or not, but being called unreliable smarts. Einsiders has always been an independent voice for film criticism online. I suppose we've been quoted by others, certainly our reviews have appeared on posters and movie boxes. We were mentioned in Hollywood Reporter once about our Sundance coverage. Can't a Wiki editor recognize that the over a decade of covering movies makes us a reliable source for film criticism? I myself have written several thousand reviews and I'm a member of SEFCA, my films are listed on IMDB as well. Thanks for your attention on this.javascript:insertTags('Jonathan W. Hickman (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)',,)[reply]

mitchkoi

Could you please review the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mitchkoi/mitchkoi and give me advice on how to get it fit for publishing without retribution Thanks please reply on my talk page as I am a new Wikipedian and will struggle to find this page again! --Mitchkoi (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well your username appears to be against our username policy as a promotional name as per WP:Username policy#Company/group names. None of your references are to reliable sources. There is nothing to support the notability of your company, so as far as surviving in Wikipedia main space, I would expect that it will be deleted very quickly. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia so article subjects need to demonstrate their notability which can be established by verifiable reliable sources. I have placed a talk-back on your user page, along with some useful helps and tips about Wikipedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need some new eyes

I have had a problem with a section in the article Diploma Mills. The subsection is on Romania, and contains information about the university [Spiru Haret] I just received a message from someone saying I was going to be blocked from editing if I did anything else to the page. The whole issue steams from the question, is the school a mill or not. It is not! and it has full government accreditation to operate. It has had some problems in the past and they are being investigated. But by no means are they a mill. A mill would mean they lack accreditation, the school does not. I think the other editor getting a mod to kick me is a bit of a srong responce. I made my edit after posting in the talk page and waiting. I did not just do it. --Super (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Over several days you have repeatedly deleted that material, and repeatedly been reverted by several editors. That's edit warring. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know this, my question is why can't anyone talk about this. Should I allow this error to remain, is it fair? Its ok for people to change my edits but I can't change theirs? I have posted all the facts needed to back up my actions. I think you have a conflict of interest in this. I will show good faith. All I wanted to have were some fresh eyes to look it over, I never said your name or brought you up. --Super (talk) 04:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The error is in your removal of information referenced by two reliable sources about enquiries by the Romanian authorities into this university. If you carry on edit warring in this manner you will be blocked. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need help on Grue and Bleen

In Grue and Bleen (talk page) User:Kevanhashemi insists on keeping in a passage which by his own admission, is original research and which references a self-published paper by himself. I have no idea what to do about this short of edit warring. Someone please help me. Ken Arromdee (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello i have posted a message on his talk page...Very friendly told him that we need a better source. I think we should also look make sure theres no Conflict of interest --> [10] However, if it is him he is well known in the community ..he was the Electrical Engineer at Harvard University for some time. Buzzzsherman (talk) 07:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page is about philosophy, not electrical engineering. 67.218.38.62 (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much Ado about Removed "See also"

I removed a "See also" from Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission because neither the case nor the relevant issue was mentioned in the text and I figured it would be confusing for most people. An editor continues to object and harass me about it, saying I haven't told him why, when I've made a number of arguments for doing so. See talk discussion here. I have repeatedly suggested that if he thinks it's that important, all that is needed is one sentence with a WP:RS in the article to make the link relevant. But he'd rather keep hassling me. I don't feel like going to 3rd opinion or wiki-etiquette on this. Or should I?? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded at the talk page. Basically, I see nothing wrong with that article being linked in the see also. In fact if it was referred to in the main text of the artcile, that would be a reason for removal. I think you are mis-understanding the See Also guidlines. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Review...or something

Hey all, sorry if this is in the wrong place, but I'm having difficulty finding what I think I'm looking for. I remember reading ages ago about a way to have a more experienced editor go over your contributions in general (rather than to a specific article) and make suggestions. I'd be interested in that if that's a real thing, and not something I thought I read about but actually made up. The Fwanksta (talk) 06:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Editor review is what you are looking for. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ Йоаким Кърчовски и Кирил Пейчинович. Техните заслуги за развитието на печатната книга и за утвърждаването на простонародния език в литературата. “Люлка на старата и новата българска писменост. Aкадемик Емил Георгиев (Държавно издателство Народна просвета, София 1980)
^ Афанасий Селищев. „Полог и его болгарское население. Исторические, этнографические и диалектологические очерки северо-западной Македонии“, София, 1929.
^ Йорданъ Ивановъ. „Българитe въ Македония. Издирвания за тeхното потекло, езикъ и народностъ“, София, 1917.
^ Милан Ѓорѓевиќ, Агиоритското просветителство на преподобен Кирил Пејчиновиќ I (The Hagioretic Enlightenment of Venerable Kiril Pejcinovic), study, in: “Премин”, бр. 41-42, Скопје 2007
^ Милан Ѓорѓевиќ, Агиоритското просветителство на преподобен Кирил Пејчиновиќ II (The Hagioretic Enlightenment of Venerable Kiril Pejcinovic), study, in: “Премин”, бр. 43-44, Скопје 2007
^ Кирил Пејчиновиќ, Три писма до српскиот кнез Милош Обреновиќ, published in: Македонски јазик, година 7, книга 1: "Того ради дерзнух писати, ашче не соравнен вашего светлаго величества, обаче лјубве ради духовнија и нашеја србскија отечеств"
^ Јован Павловски, Манастирот најмалку е аргумент за "вистината" скроена според бугарските историчари, published in: Дневник, број 1641, 18. март 2006

[1] Йоаким Кърчовски и Кирил Пейчинович. Техните заслуги за развитието на печатната книга и за утвърждаването на простонародния език в литературата. “Люлка на старата и новата българска писменост. Aкадемик Емил Георгиев (Държавно издателство Народна просвета, София 1980)

[2] Афанасий Селищев. „Полог и его болгарское население. Исторические, этнографические и диалектологические очерки северо-западной Македонии“, София, 1929.

[3] Йорданъ Ивановъ. „Българитe въ Македония. Издирвания за тeхното потекло, езикъ и народностъ“, София, 1917.

[4] Милан Ѓорѓевиќ, Агиоритското просветителство на преподобен Кирил Пејчиновиќ I (The Hagioretic Enlightenment of Venerable Kiril Pejcinovic), study, in: “Премин”, бр. 41-42, Скопје 2007

[5] Милан Ѓорѓевиќ, Агиоритското просветителство на преподобен Кирил Пејчиновиќ II (The Hagioretic Enlightenment of Venerable Kiril Pejcinovic), study, in: “Премин”, бр. 43-44, Скопје 2007

[6] Кирил Пејчиновиќ, Три писма до српскиот кнез Милош Обреновиќ, published in: Македонски јазик, година 7, книга 1: "Того ради дерзнух писати, ашче не соравнен вашего светлаго величества, обаче лјубве ради духовнија и нашеја србскија отечеств"

[7] Јован Павловски, Манастирот најмалку е аргумент за "вистината" скроена според бугарските историчари, published in: Дневник, број 1641, 18. март 2006

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

@@ Line 1,073: / Line 1,073: @@
 Gosh, I dislike that bit about being called unreliable.  I've interviewed plenty of filmmakers and actors, many on video, over the years, are you saying that simple reporting of what is said by those people is not reliable?  The whole Wikipedia thing is pretty intimidating to me.  But I think that it is unfortunate that the conclusion was that einsiders was not reliable was reached without anyone ever emailing me about it.  I've been writing about movies for over a decade, you know.[[User:Jonathan W. Hickman|Jonathan W. Hickman]] ([[User talk:Jonathan W. Hickman|talk]]) 20:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Jonathan W. Hickman
 :::Please read our policies on [[WP:RS|reliable sources]].  Can you provide references in third party publications that [[WP:V|verify]] that your web site is a reliable source?
+I really hate this.  I never cared whether I was in Wikipedia or not, but being called unreliable smarts.  Einsiders has always been an independent voice for film criticism online.  I suppose we've been quoted by others, certainly our reviews have appeared on posters and movie boxes.  We were mentioned in Hollywood Reporter once about our Sundance coverage.  Can't a Wiki editor recognize that the over a decade of covering movies makes us a reliable source for film criticism?  I myself have written several thousand reviews and I'm a member of SEFCA, my films are listed on IMDB as well.  Thanks for your attention on this.javascript:insertTags('[[User:Jonathan W. Hickman|Jonathan W. Hickman]] ([[User talk:Jonathan W. Hickman|talk]]) 20:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)','','')
 == mitchkoi ==