Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 102

Use of HH Ratings in place of/in addition to Total Viewership for a TV Show

Answered

 – Danger (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

List of Eureka episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I would like to add the HH Ratings to episodes listed on this page, as prior to 2008 HH Ratings were all that Nielsen Media collected. Statistics for a show are valuable to anyone doing objective research. My edits are being reverted. When asked why we must use Total Viewers, the reply was, "Because that's the one one we list, not every ratings type in existence." My edits had the HH Rating properly labeled as "HH Rating" and were properly cited. Capricatimes (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

We are trying to be consistent here; so we chose by consensus to use that one statistic consistently. This is a global project; HH Ratings are not used globally. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

May I politely ask what is to be done with ratings prior to 2008? Are they to remain absentee? I think it's disappointing that a measurement can't be provided for the users of Wikipedia. Capricatimes (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Capricatimes, I'm not really sure what HH ratings are since television isn't my thing. However, if you ask at Wikiproject Television, editors there will be able to discuss the situation with ratings in more detail. I suggest that you approach the situation with an open mind and be ready to explain your position calmly. --Danger (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Review request for Template:NCES School ID

Answered

 – Danger (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:NCES School ID (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am working on this template to help produce inline references for statistical data about schools in the US. Would someone be kind enough to take a look at the Template and Talk page and give opinions as to ways to improve this? I frankly envision this template eventually being used in hundreds if not thousands of articles and would like to at least get the parameters nailed fairly soon before there are lots of links to it. For a sample of how I see the use, see the article Hommocks Middle School. Many thanks in advance for your time!--Arg342 (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Please put this request at the school project talk page or contact the school template specialist User talk:Kanguole direct. He is currently working on redrafts of school infobox code.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Both of the above have been done (request copied to WT:WPSCH and user Kanguole notified). If any editor here has experience with templates, I would still invite a review. Thanks! --Arg342 (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Refah Tragedy

Answered

 – Well done John. Danger (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I have expanded the aricle Refah Tragedy 5-fold and nominated it for DYK entry. However, it was claimed in the review at the related Talk page that copyediting is necessary. Can someone spare time to do it for me?. Thanks a lot in advance. CeeGee (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done (but there's always room for further improvement) -- John of Reading (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal of my link from ZuluTrade Article

Answered

 – Danger (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ZuluTrade&action=history

The following user has repeatedly removed my link. It appears the user is a representative of the ZuluTrade company. But I think companies don't own articles on Wikipedia.

The user is: Goreg

This is the last edit he made to remove my link again: (cur | prev) 13:48, 19 May 2011 Goreg (talk | contribs) (6,954 bytes) (→External links) (undo)

This can be seen on the Revision history of ZuluTrade page at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ZuluTrade&action=history

The link line he removed is the following: "* Website & Blog of a ZuluTrade Signal Provider"

Can somebody please help and/or provide advise what I can do to not let this user keep removing my edits ? It appears the company does not want any other links but which belong to the ZuluTrade company. This is not the idea of open source, would a 3rd party editor agree on this ?

Looking forward to valuable input and ideas on how to resolve this.

Best Regards,

87.150.166.61 (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

That link has no place in the article, per our policy on external links. It is merely a website and blog, with no encyclopedic value. Please don't try to re-insert your spamlinks into the article, as they will continue to be removed. Goreg is doing us a valuable service by blocking such insertions. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

compte desactiver

Resolved

 – Requester astray, but je ne parle pas français. Danger (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

--67.68.146.35 (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)je ne comprend pas pourquoi mon face book a ete desactiver et je ne comprend pas pourquoi mon nom a ete changer pourrier vous maider a reactiver mon facebook

This page is for asking for help with Wikipedia. We cannot help with Facebook. Sorry.  Chzz  ►  23:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I want help and collaboration fixing violation of Wikipedia's summary and article size policies

Answered

 – Danger (talk) 02:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyone looking over History of the Ming Dynasty and Ming Dynasty to improve and add citations (as I was yesterday) should be disturbed; often sections are identical. Instead of the Ming article containing a briefer summary of History of the Ming Dynasty, it is copied verbatim in direct contradiction of Wikipedia's policies (please see WP:Summary_style and WP:Article_size}. Yes, it's a Featured Article, and maybe that is why I am getting no response on the relevant talk pages, but a policy violation is a policy violation; Ming Dynasty is largely a cut and paste from History of the Ming Dynasty!! I have a ton of secondary sources on the Ming, and want to add facts and citations but feel I can't until this fundamental, underlying problem is addressed. Can any of you collaborate and help me improve Ming content and rectify this problem that is a stain on Wikipedia's usually excellent coverage of China's important history? --NickDupree (talk) NickDupree (talk) 01:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

If you haven't already done so, you should also ask on the talk page of the Chinese History Wikiproject. – ukexpat (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Just did. NickDupree (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You may also wish to talk to Pericles of Athens, who is largely responsible for the article's featured status and may have a great deal more insight into how it and its subsidiary articles were created than any of us here. For what it's worth, I'm almost positive that the copy went the other way; when the Ming Dynasty article was being pared down for featured status, text from it was used to form the starts of sub-articles. Please consider toning down your rhetoric, especially if you contact Pericles. I can think of numerous situations that would in fact be stains on Wikipedia; this is not one of them. Regards, Danger (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

My intent here is not to besmirch the years of hard work of other editors, but to find ways to use my large cache of really solid cite-able Ming and Qing dynasty secondary sources (books and articles from various college classes and libraries) to improve Wikipedia, and I want to collaborate and consult before making big changes. I seek collaboration, not confrontation. I have good things to contribute, so please lend a hand. While far from a newbie, I feel outside looking in at the clique of the creators here. NickDupree (talk) 01:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course. I apologize for being harsh. To find collaborators, you have several options. You can edit the articles and respective talk pages directly, which is standard procedure. You risk, however, that no one is watching. You can additionally propose collaborations on WikiProject talk pages and regional noticeboards. For a list of WikiProjects, see here. You can also find a list of the most prolific contributors to an article by using the "Contributors" link on the article's history page and contact them directly.

This is a rather large project that you propose. You can come to us with specific problems and concerns, but it's unlikely that any of us here at the editor assistance desk will be able to collaborate with you on actually building the content. Was this helpful? Danger (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You're right that this is quite an undertaking, implementing WP:Summary_style will involve a major scale-down of the Ming Dynasty article so that it's not identical and verbatim with History of the Ming Dynasty. No matter which direction the copy went, History of the Ming Dynasty should be a more in-depth treatment of Ming history, not exactly identical to the treatment given in Ming Dynasty. The risk I take is that other editors will not peer review my effort to condense and summarize Ming Dynasty, or, worse, perceive me as a nutcase taking a hacksaw to a featured article. No one on the relevant talk pages or Chinese History Wikiproject are interested in this work so far. You're sure you won't lend a hand? At least weigh in to prevent a revert war? NickDupree (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that you contact Pericles (if only because he has a great deal of experience with summary articles and Chinese history is his area of expertise) and also post your request on the WikiProject China and WikiProject History pages. If you receive no response in a few days (and do wait the days; this is an international project and the world does take some time to spin), I suggest that you begin editing. Consider making a few changes and waiting a day or so in between. I would start by cutting over-detailed sentences out of Ming Dynasty, not doing anything to History of the Ming Dynasty. Danger (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi-Jacking of Seattle Mayor Wikiepedia Page

Stale

 – Danger (talk) 02:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Good Afternoon,

Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn's page has been hi-jacked by an opponent of the Mayor who uses the name "TomPointTwo".

Numerous complaints have be raised as to the article's neutrality, and the general consensus is that the page has been seized by opponents of the Mayor.

While opposition is good and healthy, it is not appropriate within the context of a Wikipedia entry which aims to be factual and encyclopedic.

At the very least, the offending material should be removed until it is hashed out in talk.

Please help us resolve this issue, and thank you for your time.

The article in question is here:

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

Thank you very much for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thugdog Nasty (talk • contribs) 19:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Injunction article

Stale

 – Danger (talk) 02:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

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

The super injunctions section in this article is seeing a lot of activity, and I'm fighting a lonely battle against overwhelming the article with current events about super injunctions in Britain. There's already an article on this issue, 2011 British super-injunction controversy, and there's a see also in the Injunction article section pointing to that article. Yet, editors insist on adding more information that, in my view, properly belongs in the Controversy article, not in the Injunction article itself. I've opened up a discussion on the Talk page here. I've asked the WikiLaw Project folk to contribute here. But I'm getting very little discussion of the issue.

As I explain on the Injunction Talk page, the Injunction article is not supposed to be about controversy. It's just supposed to be a relatively dry exposition of legal terms. However, that argument hasn't met with much success, and I find myself reverting more often than I'd like, and at some point I'll have to stop. In my opinion, the article is being degraded by this stuff, but I need some other editors to contribute their views. Maybe I'll end up being in a minority, don't know, but more people need to weigh in.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

(As an aside, the 2011 British super-injunction controversy article, which I haven't gotten involved in at all and don't really want to, states this in the lead (emphasis added by me): "Following this in April 2011, users of the websites Twitter and Wikipedia began posting allegations connecting certain British celebrities with super-injunctions relating to a variety potentially scandalous activities.". Without any source. Talk about weird circularity and boot-strapping. Next thing you know, editors will put assertions about internal discussions at Wikipedia in articles. Maybe this one.)--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Content dangerous to all of humanity

Answered

 – Danger (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone posted the recipe to make VX (the deadly nerve gas) here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VX_%28nerve_agent%29#Synthesis . I found this to be at the very least negligent and at the most possibly mass murderous. Everyone doesn't need to know such a thing, and if they do, they should be left to work it out on their own. I hope the portion that I deleted is determined to stay deleted for the good of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.152.3 (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That approach may conflict with WP:NOTCENSORED, and the fact that true defence organisations use such material to study how to counter it. HiLo48 (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose posting a recipe for a chemical weapon on WP. This isn't a recipe, however. Yopienso (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It isn't a recipe. But come to that, it isn't sourced, which possibly is grounds for deletion. Frankly though, the idea that anyone would look up 'how to make nerve gas' on Wikipedia seems unlikely - you'd need a great deal of expertise, and expensive facilities, to make VX without kiling yourself in the process. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Automatic archiving for user talk page

Answered

 – Danger (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me how to set up auto-archiving for my talk page please? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

See User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo. I use something similar to "Example 2" on that page. Remember to change "User:Example" to "User:Anthonyhcole". -- John of Reading (talk) 07:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you John of Reading. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Graphene article

Answered

 – Danger (talk) 02:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

recently i added an important in my view information about the newest discovery by Polish scientists how to grow the biggest and best quality so far pieces of graphene in a mass production method. Even tho i added references from the media around the world about importance of this achievement user Jalidan is constantly removing my posts and acusing of sharing spam. I would like to add that in the same section there are information about American and Korean scientists achievements in the field of graphene production. Please help to resolve that dispute.Link to the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.209.226 (talk) 12:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You should raise your concern on the Talk page of the article before coming here. At this point, the only "dispute" is in edits and edit summaries - there has been no discussion of the material you want to add.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I would note that the sources appear poor and/or redundant...multiple links to same wire-service story or multiple blog/news-digest links to same actual article are not the same as "multiple sources". There may be viable content and the sources may support it and have reliability, but the claimed level of sourcing is bogus. DMacks (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that, too, and many of the repeat sources were more blurbs than anything else. As I recall, there was one decent source with an actual full-blown report on the issue that I could follow and made sense. Of course, the amount I know about graphene you could put on the head of a very small pin, but I can read stuff I don't understand with the best of 'em.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Which stub?

Answered

 – Danger (talk) 02:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I added a stub (US bio) to the Martha Kanter article. I looked for a more specific one but couldn't find anything. Is there a better one?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

{{politician-stub}} (based on her major stated notability)? DMacks (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought about that, but I don't think an appointed government official is a politician. Her background is education and academics-oriented.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

{{Edu-bio-stub}} and perhaps {{US-poli-stub}}. I was unable to find a category specific to holders of offices in the Cabinet. --Danger (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. I'm going to leave the general stub as I don't think the more specific ones fit.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

My Prerogative

Answered

 – Danger (talk) 02:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I've done significant work on the article My Prerogative for more than a year and brought it to GA status. The article covers mostly Brown's original version, which was a big hit in the United States, as well as Britney Spears's cover, which flopped in the US but was a worldwide hit. User 121.219.24.16 keeps removing these charting facts as well as other neutral information referring to her cover from the lead section, claiming it is "unsubstantiated POV NONSENSE". I've asked the editor to take this to the talk page so it can be discussed but he keeps reverting it. It should also be noted that the same edits [1] have been made by the user Encise in January, who had already made negative comments in May 2007 about the cover and proposed removing completely any mention of Spears. Xwomanizerx (talk) 04:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. It looks like what that particular section needs is a reference, which backs up the claim of success and popularity in other countries apart from the US. That should put the issue to rest. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Time

Answered

 – Danger (talk) 02:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Once Upon a Time and Charlie's Angels:

Broadcast Networks require that hour long TV series and half-hour shows be approximately shown as 60 mins. or 30 mins. No less. Such as some editors write.--Ethanbauer24 (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

This may be true when television shows are broadcast. However, the run-time of an episode is less than 30 or 60 minutes. Since different shows have different runtimes (especially those from different eras or network types), we use the actual runtime of the program without commercials. --Danger (talk) 04:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

and stations have done things like NBCs "supersize" episodes where the broadcast times are 45 minutes. Active Banana (^bananaphone 11:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

AFD Help

Resolved

 – Nomination page created. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

SAS Rapid Data Warehouse Methodology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I don't have an account but noticed this page which should probably be removed, it reads like a tech whitepaper or similar. I tried to make a deletion page but was prompted to log in. Thanks 68.34.91.167 (talk) 05:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I created the nomination page for you. For the future, it would be more convenient if you post your reason on the article's talk page, as most editor look there for a reason. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

(La: Jan David Winitz)

Resolved

 – Cleaned up by the valiant Chzz. Danger (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I am attempting to submit an article that has verifiable references, the Wall Street Journal and the San Francisco Chronicle among them. However, I keep being told that they are not verifiable. Please advise. Thomasdakota (talk) 00:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The proposed article is here. It is still being reviewed, although there were probably earlier drafts that were rejected.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal of notability tag

Answered

 – Danger (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I have been trying for awhile now to get an answer to have the Notability Tag removed for a page I wrote on Mark Pretorius. I have contacted the person that initially placed it there, and I have left a request on my talk page. No-one has come back to me? I have sourced and made substantial changes to it, and I believe it now meets notability, i.e. criterion 4. Could someone please help me here?

Thanks in advance,

Infrasupra (talk) 04:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I have recast several sentences for more encyclopedic neutrality. The subject is notable and I have removed the notability tag. However, as more third party articles about him are needed, I have placed a BLPrefimprove tag on it. If you are able to find such reliable sources according to the requirements for biographies of living persons, you may remove the tag yourself. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, it is appreciated.

Infrasupra (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Morris Brown College

Answered

 – ANSWERED. Danger (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

List of unaccredited institutions of higher education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

MORRIS BROWN COLLEGE SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE LIST OF UNACCREDITED COLLEGES IT IS NOW IN CANDACY FOR ACCREDITATION THROUGH THE TRANSITIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES AND SCHOOLS (TRACS) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.3.240 (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

If it's only a candidate for accreditation, why should it be removed from the list? Also, if you respond, please don't type in capital letters.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Please take out all the pictures

Answered

 – Perhaps we ought to make a template for this stock answer. Danger (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Editor,

Please take out all the pictures of Prophet Mohammad.

Your website is doing wonderful job keeping authentic information.

So, publishing of pics on your site might end up in disarray.

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

Thanks and regards,

Mohammad Sameer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.242.228.194 (talk) 12:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Rehevkor ✉ 12:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

NPOV for article

Resolved

 – Thanks ukexpat. Danger (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi All. As a new editor I'm facing the problem of objective writing and NPOV. A page I edited (Maurizio Rossi) was recently tagged as a possible advertisement. After confronting with the user that tagged it, I have rewritten it, mainly removing peacock terms and adding references. Now we both agree that a second opinion would be a good idea. Is someone willing to give me an opinion on this article? Thanks in advance. Jeremyjoshua (talk) 07:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I have cleaned it up a little more and removed the tag. – ukexpat (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much Ukexpat! Jeremyjoshua (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Article about a book

Answered

 – The infant article is The Primordial Emotions: The Dawning of Consciousness. Danger (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'd like to create an article about a book. Can someone point me to pages that describe how to, please? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all take a look at the notability guidelines for books. Then take a look at the following standard message about creating articles. I would strongly suggest creating a draft first, in your userspace.

A Wizard is available to walk you through these steps. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines with which all articles should comply. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Your first article. You might also look at Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. An Article Wizard is also available to walk you through creating an article. – ukexpat (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Books has some guideline pages that might be somewhat useful as well. --Danger (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Danger! I've made a start - sorting through the sources now. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Answered

 – Danger (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

I made an edit to this article to include details of a well-known blog that the subject writes. It was removed (and then restored by me) I suspect because the subject does not like the fact that it was included. The passage was entitled Inside Croydon and backed up by several references.

It is fair and accurate and there is no reason for it not to be included. Could you advise please?

Aristottie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristottie123 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The content was not sourced except to that and other blogs, which are generally not reliable sources. If this matter has not been covered in reliable third-party sources, it has no place in the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

In wiki article Rewa,_India unjustified reverts by Crusoe8181 and replying in uncultured tone

Answered

 – Danger (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Editor,

I have raised my concern in response to 10:07, 25 May 2011 Crusoe8181 (talk | contribs) (17,878 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 121.242.29.160 (talk); So for the rest of your life you will dedicate yourself to keeping tht timetable up-to-date and telling us why the train was late?? maybe) (undo)

every time Crusoe8181 removes or reverts important information from wiki article Rewa,_India like transport facilties provided by the government like railway

I don't think Crusoe is the sole owner of wikipedia . we are not doing any vandal act,there is no harm in informing the guys of government transport facilities available for any place.

Rather than giving justified answer Crusoe8181 is giving useless uncultured comments like "for the rest of your life you will dedicate yourself to keeping tht timetable up-to-date and telling us why the train was late??"

I can also reply and talk in the same tone

Regards

RK Singh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rksinghrewa (talk • contribs)

As a matter of fact, we have a very firm rule here that such information as railway timetables is not to be included in articles, as it is not encyclopedic content. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Deleted Category, 8,585 talk pages still in the category

Resolved

 – All talk pages removed. Guy Macon (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

"Category:Mathematics articles with no comments" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mathematics_articles_with_no_comments )was recently deleted, but there are still 8,585 talk pages in the category, all with redlinks to it at the bottom of each talk page. It appears that a bot has removed all the articles from the category but missed the talkpages. Is there some automated way to fix this without hand-editing all 8,585 talk pages? (example: Talk:(g,K)-module) Guy Macon (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It's my understanding that it is the talk pages that are listed in the category, so no action has been taken yet, but that a bot will remove the pages from the deleted category shortly. Danger (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Just an update: category was deleted three days ago, no bot has removed the pages from the deleted category yet. I am going to give it a week or two before asking for further assistance. Guy Macon (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

All 8,585 pages have been removed from the category. I marked this as resolved. Thanks! Guy Macon (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Marshall Strabala

Stale

 – The dispute seems to have either cooled off or escalated... it's unclear with limited recent activity at the talk page. At any rate, the requester has stated their intent to seek mediation. Danger (talk) 12:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Your help would be much appreciated on resolving a few differences of opinion on the Marshall Strabala page that I have had with editor NovaSeminary. I will number these issues for clarification: 1. Under the heading “Professional Positions,” it states that “In 2010, Strabala left Gensler under circumstances still in dispute as of December 2010.[7] “And sources this information to “Urbanatomy,” a Shanghai China-based online site with no regular printed edition by that name. See source at:

http://old.urbanatomy.com/index.php/i-ahearts-shanghai/features/4474-the-master-builder    

Obviously when the reader reads the word “dispute” it could be as if an alarm bell has gone off for the readers who are in effect encouraged by Wikipedia to visit Urbanatomy.com to learn more about it. This sentence fits the WP:REDFLAG rule: “Exceptional claims require exceptional sources.” If NovaSeminary believes this exceptional claim that comes out of nowhere in this Professional Positions section about a supposed (legal) dispute that Strabala had five months ago is appropriate then I believe he would need two exceptional, separate sources to support it. I do not believe that Urbanatomy, an unknown publication in Shanghai, China, and located in a country known for its lack of freedom of the press, would be qualified to be considered one exceptional source. I would like to specifically know what makes it exceptional. In my option, having been referenced a few times in WP, does not make Urbanatomy exceptional. National awards received by Urbanatomy and having award-winning staff writers might begin to equal exceptional, but I have found no proof of the same. I have asked editor NovaSeminary to consider deleting the sentence in addition because: a) It has been over five months since this story was published and it’s quite possible that such a dispute has been settled, so this would be old and meaningless information in that case. b)There are no details about the supposed dispute so the mention amounts to a negative and fluffy claim. It could be a dispute over Strabala’s final paycheck received from Gensler or something much more substantial. We do not know because there aren’t any details provided. c) It implies, by positioning a large global company like Gensler against one lone architect, that Strabala may have done something wrong, and does not provide Strabala an opportunity to give his side of this story. The author may have misunderstood what Strabala was saying or obtained his information from other unreliable sources. Isn’t that what Wikipedia is supposed to be about, being neutral and giving both sides of a situation? By now, I had hoped to talk about this inflammatory sentence with Marshall Strabala and his father Joseph L Strabala, to get their views, but they have been too busy traveling for me to chat. 2.Personal Information. For over two years, Strabala’s page has had this brief reference to where he lives: "As of September 2010, Strabala divides his time between homes in Shanghai, Houston, and Chicago." and sourced this to Houston Business Journal, Marshall Strabala gives new meaning to 'super-tall', Sept 27 2010, http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2010/09 This information has been approved on numerous occasions by multiple editors during this time. On May 13, 2011, NovaSeminary used the his own invented Wikipedia rule of “cruft,” to delete this sentence. Why is this information about the city(ies) where a person live not appropriate when the same information is welcomed and permitted on included on thousands of other personal pages for business executives on WP. Where Strabala lives is not implying anything, it is merely stating a fact that he lives in three different cities, and this fact has been cited in many media outlets besides Houston Business Journal. NovaSeminary stated that Strabala’s residences are not pertinent because Strabala is not known for his homes but rather for his Architecture work. Well, the same thing could be said for these business executive who are not known for their homes either: Apple Computer head Steve Jobs whose residence is mentioned, and he is known for computers. Todd Stitzer, a business executive whose two residences are mentioned and he is known for his business leadership. William Rondina, a fashion designer whose two residences are mentioned. Architect John C Harkness whose residence is mentioned and he is known for his architecture. Architect Campion Platt whose residence is mentioned, and he is known for architecture. French Architect Jean Nouvel whose residence in Paris is mentioned and he is known for his architecture. Business executive Bonnie Newman, whose residence is mentioned, and she is known for her educational positions held. Robert E Murray, a mining executive whose residence is mentioned. Vikram Pandit, CEO of Citigroup, whose NYC residence is mentioned. ..and I could go on and on. If this personal information is now not permitted on WP then that will be good for me to know. Because then I will be able to properly edit hundreds and possibly thousands of Wikipedia pages for business executives that likely require editing of this so-called “cruft.” And, if you decide that Strabala’s residences are not permitted, but these other executives are permitted to have their residences mentioned, I would like a clear and complete reason.

3. LEED Certification. Again for more than two years, Strabala’s page had included this copy: “A member of the American Institute of Architects, Strabala is LEED certified which recognizes that distinguishes building professionals with the knowledge and skills to successfully steward green building practices and principles. [3]” The publication Architecture Week was used as the source (see http://www.architectureweek.com/2008/1210/people_and_places.html) It would be more accurate for the words “LEED certified” to be changed to “LEED accredited.” Anyway, to continue.

In April, NovaSeminary deleted reference to the LEED certification, without any official WP reason, and for a time NovaSeminary had wanted to know the specific type of LEED certification (there are five I believe) that Strabala had. Well , that type of minutia is not sourced information, but his LEED certification has been sourced In Architecture Week and many other media that have covered him. For example, see EArchitectUK, http://www.e-architect.co.uk/architects/marshall_strabala.htm Houston Construction News: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:KjLBix6LrbIJ:constructionnews.net/pdf_download.lasso?file%3D200605_HO.pdf+marshall+strabala+leed+certification&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi1yB0pxxnldG3TfpJkTd1cADeikvrvcpRfDX9VjNPARwViyTH4vPpWnqxPIV8gDF2BiqTz9ulJPKLA5MvgGCtlgO_SLaaIR7rUGZvssU1_PLgO3T2l9RBkTEmJ4Rk-3jiP28b7&sig=AHIEtbSS10LRHMnx0WK18JByc99SF5H8lw&pli=1

This LEED accreditation is pertinent because it is a level of certification that relatively few architects have received. I would like to have that LEED reference put back in the story. Unfortunately, the USGBC that is the keeper of the LEED registry does not keep its online registry fully up to date, otherwise its website would be sourced. I look forward to your comments. Thank you for your assistance.

This was already addressed on this board last week, and more importantly, on that article's talk page, Talk:Marshall Strabala#Suggested Page Edits. Discussion of these article issues belongs on the article talk page. Novaseminary (talk) 17:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I look forward to a response on these 3 matters from someone other than NovaSeminary, who I have already discussed these issues with on the article's talk page without any success. I would appreciate an open-minded Editor intervening rather than the editor directly involved in these issues.Mykjoseph (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

(In disclosure, I've butted heads with Novaseminary before.) After a quick look at this and another removal (at Skidmore, Owings and Merrill article) there are some questions about the impartiality of activities on the subject by both of the main parties involved. My suggestion is to try to find the middle ground; an accurate, informative interesting article. Keeping the policies plus Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy in mind, use the policies as a guide to that end. This should be neither a promo piece for the subject nor a quest for the opposite. If that is not successful, select a core question or two and do a RFC. I have only a few more minutes today and then will be off the grid for a week so sorry that I can't be of much further help here. Others should also please respond. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Did Mykjoseph read the edit notice instructions before posting his/her request here? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you had in mind? Especially keeping in mind that (I think) it is mostly new folks that come here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

In response to North, I have tried to reach middle ground with this editor. The article talk page shows where I have done so with Mykjoseph and the IP the editor (and maybe others?) has used. But, on this very board that editor made a legal threat recently (and the reference to Strabala's father above is probably another, or just very odd). And he failed to initially disclose that an "associate" of his represented a company whose article he just happened to create and edit and defend at AfD claiming no affiliation at first (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Drug Mart). So, I think it very important to make sure that this article for another client of his be monitored for neutrality.

And we only disagree on a phrase (sourced and neutral, I think) that he wants out, and two sentences that he wants in (one is irrelevant, at least on this sort of article and the other I want in, too, but can find no source to indicate which LEED accreditation Strabala has, and it apparently makes a difference). But as noted by Kudpung, this board is not the way to attempt to work out content disputes. Novaseminary (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much agree. Efforts to keep neutrality are good and appreciated, and situations where there is an advocate for the subject involved as an active editor are good places to focus. From my superficial knowledge (I'm sure I missed things etc.) about this (and maybe some bias or useful context from history :-) ) it seemed that you were going a bit beyond neutrality in removing material and his name. I could be wrong. If everyone would just head for the middle ground and move forward that would be a nice thing. North8000 (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

2011 Fuzhou bombings

Resolved

 – Discussion continues on the article talk page.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted deletions made by one editor at 2011 Fuzhou bombings multiple times now and have talked to him on the talk page. The section in question is one about the censorship of the event directly following the bombings. It is sourced and, in my opinion, directly linked to the subject. The other editor has very different feelings. I would appreciate another set of eyes over there to see if the section does belong or not. Thank you in advance.--Found5dollar (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Editors should not remove reliably-sourced material without consulting in the talk discussion. Truthdigger/MECHEMENG claims:

You didn't give the strong connection between a bombing and the censorship. And obviously, you can easily access to this incident both in English and Chinese.

But as you say the source directly links the bombing with a government crackdown on coverage and censorship. The only real issue is whether the thehindu.com is a reliable source. Assuming it is, the content should remain and further attempts at removal should be reported to administrator noticeboard. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not know of any administrator notice boards, as I am not an administrator, I have never had the need to look for one until now. Can you provide me with a link incase this escalates?--Found5dollar (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

link. Be sure to assume good faith. If the editor still doesn't appreciate the concept of reliable sources and no amount of cordial debate can stop him, then file a notice at the above link. I'd sit on it for a little awhile assuming he doesn't revert your edits. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Another editor has just appeared, deleted the section, put the whole article up for deletion, then blanked the page. I have posted about it at the notice board. i am at a loss as what to do next.--Found5dollar (talk) 05:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The article has now been protected move protected by an admin so that it can only be edited moved by admins. Requests for editsfrom non admins should be made on the talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the page was move protected. However, I have provided Google translations for the messages posted in Chinese by another user on the article talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

San Diego County Portal uses City of San Diego seal

Stale

 – No response at WikiProject talk. Danger (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The 'portal for San Diego County (on the right) uses the city of San Diego seal. The portal button is shown in El Cajon, California, for instance as well as a number of other places. I would think that should be rectified. I am not sure how to change it. Would someone please change it? File:Seal Of San Diego, California.svg File:San Diego County Seal.png Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking n into this, but as a matter of interest did you read the edit notice at the top of this page before posting this? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

As there is a portal, San Diego also has its own Wikipedia project. It should probably be discussed first and the right place to discuss this issue is there at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject San Diego. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I did read the edit notice. I presume by your modification to my message that you were referring to the "posting of large amounts of text"? If so, maybe "and images" should be added? I will post my message on talk:WikiProject San Diego. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 06:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

2nd set of eyes, please

Stale

 – The images still don't look right to me. C'est la wiki? Danger (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at these two images, File:Tourism.JPG and File:Company logo.jpg... It may just be a caching issue on my end, but the image I uploaded should be the same as File:Picture.jpg - but I'm seeing old versions in the main section and the new/correct versions in the thumbnail/history section. I'm trying to 'salt' these generic image names, and want to confirm tat the right image is visible to the public. Skier Dude (talk) 06:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I'm only seeing the "Please don't upload" image, both in the main section and in the history section. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much- it's a problem at my end :( Skier Dude (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm having the same problem as you Skier Dude, but I have no idea what's going on. Browser? (I use Firefox). --Danger (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

There are server issues as well - see this VPT thread and parts of this one. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Machines

Stale

 – The tempest rages on at Talk:Machine. I tried; maybe you will have more success. Danger (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I am new to Wikipedia, but I have found that my students use it to find basic information regarding machines. For this reason, I have been examining the articles on machines and machine elements. I have attempted to correct vague and misleading statements and have run headlong into an editor Derek fam who has a perspective driven my his view of computers as machines. This conflict seems unresolvable and suggests to me that a new topic is needed that allows Derek fam the opportunity to expound on his view, say Computing Machines. In order to advance this article on machines, his grip must be relaxed in some way.Prof McCarthy (talk) 06:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The article is under-sourced. You did not include an RS in your edit here. See WP:RS for policy. The article is clearly a very generalized one. Excessive focus on one area of "machine" is undue (WP:Undue) so all sections should be written proportional to their importance. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Modern scribes

Stale

 – Dispute isn't active, but since it's been slowly burning since March, intervention would still be helpful. Danger (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Scribe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I am having a dispute with another editor/editors over whether this article should mention Scribe (ER), computer operators who work with physicians. Reliable sources the disputed text cites call these operators "scribes", and to me there are similarities between modern and ancient/medieval scribes; both are adept in a technology (whether computers or literacy) and use their knowledge to act as go-betweens for others who aren't. Ylee (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I've posted a detailed explanation of why User:Ylee keeps being reverted at Talk:Scribe#Modern scribes. --Hadal (talk) 07:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

'To-do list' at Talk:Amway

Resolved

 – The arguing has moved on from the to-do list. Danger (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

For those that aren't aware, Amway is a somewhat controversial direct marketing company. Amongst the templates at the top of the talk page is this 'to-do' list (see WP:TODO:

Here are some tasks you can do:

Describe the business model more fully, with sources. Include info on average incomes. Subsection on major Amway "support" groups

Do a section on RS and V 3rd party commentary on Amway, eg various awards and recognitions

Do a section on corporate sponsorships

Subsections on top 5 Amway markets - Amway China, Amway Japan, Amway South Korea, Amway North America, #5?

Include some copyright free images for the article

Clean up "politics & culture" section, perhaps including any notable issues inline at relevant section.

Add historical corporate sales data

I consider this list to be a clear breach of WP:NPOV - we should not be giving editors instructions on how they should present Amway, Particularly ones that are clearly intended to present it in a more positive light. As WP:TODO indicates, a to-do list is not a place to express a point of view. I am however unclear as to what the policy is, and would like some guidance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I've asked bother ATG and another editor (with whom I have a long, alas adversorial history) what their actual concerns are with the items, neither of them have responded and simply keep deleting the list, which has been in place for well over a year and to which other editors have referred. I updated the list to reflect more recent discussions (for example on subsidiaries), it has again been deleted without discussion. --Icerat (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I have never deleted the list. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The tag to the to do list has been repeatedly deleted by Rhode Island Red, not yourself. Apologies for any confusion. --Icerat (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This does not appear to be a breach of NPOV, unless there's are general conventions that, say, describing business models is a violation of neutrality or that articles about companies should not include financial data or whatever. (None of which, of course, actually exist.) Merely having a list of aspects where the article may need work is not a violation of NPOV. I clearly must be missing something, because on face, this seems a totally frivolous argument. If the article is not deficient in a particular area, then remove the item from the list. If it is deficient in another, add an item. Danger (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for assistance from a more experienced editor

Answered

 – Danger (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

In the article Nick Clegg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the user Matt Downey is continually removing sourced content from the page. He has also posted warning templates on my talkpage, claiming that I am removing sourced content (which I haven't done - I've only been reverting his removal of the sourced content and asking him not to do it). Thanks Avaya1 (talk) 12:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You can ignore that warning. I've warned Matt about 3RR and will follow up with a further note about inappropriate warnings and edit summaries. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Cyperuspapyrus

Answered

 – Danger (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Cyperuspapyrus (talk · contribs)
• Respect Gym (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• SuperKombat World Grand Prix I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, I tagged the above two articles (I believe correctly) for issues of sourcing and notability. The creator removed them without, in my opinion, addressing the issues or explaining why satisfactorily, so I restored them with this rationale, and left a standard message on their user talkpage about it. They took umbrage at this and angrily re-removed the tags; usually I would follow up with further dialogue but given that they don't seem to hold my opinions in high esteem, I think it would be better if a hitherto uninvolved third party could take the issue on and explain to them what our verification and notability policies ask of their articles, and how to go about meeting these standards. Thanks in advance, Skomorokh 15:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the tags on SuperKombat and warned Cyperuspapyrus about personal attacks on editors. I plan to nominate Respect Gym for speedy deletion as it has no references other than itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Redirects

Answered

 – Danger (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is the link to the article as an example of what I am talking about

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I_beleive_in_miracles&redirect=no

I do mostly spelling checks and corrections for the Typo Team. I cannot figure out how to correct redirects with incorrect spelling; such as the example above. When I go to edit the redirect, it will not allow me to correct the title of the redirect. Any help? Or are these to be reported to another area to be dealt with? Any help is appreciated. Anlome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anlome (talk • contribs) 15:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

That's because there is already a redirect at I believe in miracles! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the point of providing a misspelled redirect is to help users who misspell the word get straight to where they want to go. No correction of such redirects is needed or desirable, as they make the encyclopedia more usable. Cheers, CliffC (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC) That assumes, of course, that the misspelling is a plausible one. ---CliffC (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps there would be some general improvement in spelling if it actually mattered. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I was happily

Answered

 – Danger (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

editing Brenda Putnam and even found a picture of one of her works at Harriet Beecher Stowe. However I was not happy with how the picture looked, so copied it and photoshoped it and want post it at Brenda Putnam but an not sure how to do that . Credit for the shot needs to still go to the original poster (who has not edited in a year or so) and I tend to get soooo confused in all the picture uploading hoop-la. Any ideas? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 04:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you ask at WP:MCQ since no one has answered here. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the license allows you to upload a new version of the file, explaining the changes you've made and why. From there you can include it in the Brenda Putnam article. Give me a shout if that doesn't make sense... Worm^TT · (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Actress Bobbie Phillips page...

Can an editor please assist me? I have been attempting to update actress Bobbie Phillips page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobbie_phillips but someone keeps undoing my work. I am providing verifications of the info and don't fully know how to post everything on here. I used to work for Bobbie Phillips and still even have a copy of her passport showing her birthdate of January 29, 1972. It was correct on IMDB and then someone changed it on there for some reason. I know she retired and doesn't have anyone updating her acting sites. I would love to provide better verified info and even have newer photos but I can't seem to figure out how to put them on here. A link to her acting headshot on Flickr is [[2]]. But, I personally have others. Any help is appreciated. Especially that of keeping my updates on the page. Again, I am not adding any unverifiable info. Thank you for helping! Aaron Carter [removed email] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.127.213.35 (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Aaron. I've removed your email, as it's not a good idea to include them on pages like this. I've had a look at what you've been doing on the article, and I can't say I agree with everything you've done, you'll need a few more sources. For example, is there a source that she stopped work in 2010, or is that just by your calculation? First female to play a crow on screen? Possible spin offs of Talon? These are all things that should be sourced.

Unfortunately we cannot accept a copy of her passport or your word for information like her birthdate, as we require a published source, which any interested reader could look up. Also, due to copyright rules, we are unable to use headshots in general - they are not public domain. If you have others that you've taken, perhaps you could upload them. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you WORM! I will work on compiling the appropriate verifications and adding them to each item. Regarding Ms. Phillips stopping work in 2010. It says credited years from and to. Bobbie Phillips appeared on a television show titled Divine Design in 2010 which is verified on IMDB which also shows her credited years until 2010. Prior to that, she retired in 2003(some places say 2004 but it was 2003) which has been verified on IMDB as well as in a book she wrote and many other sources. I will try to add the reference on that info. There are news articles relating to all of my posts. I will do my best to find the appropriate ones online and cite the reference. I do have photos that are not copyrighted, which I will try to figure out how to upload. Thanks again for your assistance. AC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.127.213.35 (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

IMDb is not a reliable source; nothing is verified by appearing there. Also: given her age, there is probably no such thing as photos of her that are not copyrighted. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

TL Forsberg

Answered

 – Danger (talk)

Could some kind sole review my handling of the WP:BLPPROD process with this article (TL Forsberg) please? I ask as the creator (who has been around since 2007) has already removed a BLP tag from the page after I reviewed it as a new article and has expressed some unhappiness on the talk page. Unfortunately I forgot who WP:PROD at the time and have gone back and done so as no source is cited and a quick search didn't find anything that I am aware of being WP:RS. I'm little concerned that they may also get upset about the WP:PROD. Many thanks in advance. --wintonian ^talk edits 13:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I've weighed in over there, sorting out a couple of problems. I think he has enough information to move past BLPPROD (though he hasn't actually done it yet), but I don't think the article would pass Afd. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm not a big fan of their attitude (or is that just me?) I have added some advice about the IMDB not being a reliable source and included WP:CITE to help them reference properly. --wintonian ^talk edits 14:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

At under 1000 edits, I'd consider him a new user, still learning. He's talking on the talk page, I've seen a lot worse attitudes. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks for keeping an eye on it, BTW they reverted your removal of the Facebook link so I took it out again and linked to WP:FACEBOOK in the summary. They seem to just want to put the page up how they want and without being terribly interested in the way Wikipedia works. Yep there still fairly inexperienced, as I am with a few more edits that --wintonian ^talk 15:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Atlantic (period) / Holocene climatic optimum

Answered

 – Danger (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, someone around, who can take a look at the two articles and decide whether they should be merged or edited to distinguish better between them? Because I can't find any source for the claim that the Atlantic period as such or the term Atlantic is limited to (Northern) Europe and therefore assume, that both articles essentially cover the same issue, with slightly different angles and wonder if two articles are warranted. TIA --h-stt !? 15:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The articles seem too specific to be merged. Perhaps both need polishing and more sources? I suggest you follow the procedures for proposals to merge (WP:PM) and contact the editors involved in the articles. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

External links at .300 WSM and elswhere

Answered

 – Whish, whish, whish, whack. Danger (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

This morning a user "Berean Hunter" decided to remove any external links I had added. A couple examples are...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.300_WSM#External_links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_SR-556

He managed to single out my contributions, that were on-topic and specific to the Wikipedia pages they were posted to. He did manage to ignore other references on the pages that were links to commercial services, so I'm not sure why he is singling me out. The links I added are on-topic, not commercial, and meant to supplement the information already on the page.

Markm84 (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Our guidelines about external links can be found here: WP:EL. Wikipedia is not a link farm so the general approach is that there should be a significant reason to include the link even if it is not specifically one of the "links to be avoided". Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Markm84 is a single purpose account whose contribs are explicitly spamming links for realguns.com and they are commercial.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I just reported them to AIV, continued after final warning. GB fan (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Debate has turned personal & offensive

Resolved

 – Kept as "no consensus". Danger (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I recently became a Wikipedia article editor and am working my way through a few articles that I noticed needed work, citations, idependent neutral sources, etc. Because the first article I worked on was nominated for deletion by another editor due to lack of citations or importance of the subject, some users have accused me of vandalizing, questioned my motives as far as the editing of the article, and also claimed I am on a personal "vendetta" against the subject of the article. Just today, there is a new user who has joined in the accusations. I believe the tone has turned too personal and borderline abusive and has shifted the discussion from finding outside sources proving the importance and notability of the subject into attacks on everything from my nationality to my motives. I would appreciate a neutral editor weighing in on the issue as there appear to be too many new or one time voters trying to change the direction of the issue at hand. I have tried to remain civil and talk about my reasons for the edits but it has not stopped the attacks. The discussion can be found at:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marisol Deluna (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marisol Deluna|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a copy of the original article I came across and started editing so you may judge for yourselves the amount of editing that was needed. Attention on the dead links and references:

http://www.enotes.com/topic/Marisol_Deluna

I would also like to note that most of the editing of the article was done by other regular contributors and the "conspiracy theories" arose due to the unfortunate fact that I was the first person to notice the article needed work. For the record, I just recently signed up for an account and name as opposed to just having an IP address to identify me and my edits. Thank you for your time.Aa1232011 (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Nicola Horlick

Answered

 – Danger (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Please can someone contact me about the reference to Madoff on this page. It is inaccurate and defamatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhorlick (talk • contribs) 08:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nicola, I can't see a reference to Madoff on this page, please do let me know where it is so I can investigate. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the poster means Nicola Horlick#Bernard Madoff scandal -- John of Reading (talk) 09:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

If the information reported in the press is inaccurate, one recommendation is to contact Wikipedia at info-en-q@wikipedia.org per WP:LIBEL. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I feel as though I am being unnecessarily harassed. Need some help/advice.

Answered

 – Editor indicates that request is answered. Danger (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nipsonanomhmata&action=history A user who thinks that I have violated the 3RR rule posted a violation on my homepage (that same user has in the last couple of weeks violated the rule twice). My understanding is that they "cut and paste" the violation on my homepage without a good understanding of the rule.
I explained that I had not violated the rule and deleted the notice from my homepage because I realised that it did not mean anything (and obviously I would have been promptly blocked if I had violated the rule). The user has edit warred on my homepage to reinstate the violation notice six times. All recent edits. It's got to the point that it feels like a personal attack I would just like them to go away and leave me alone. What do you suggest/recommend?  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 16:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

HJi. Please provide a link to the article concerned. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nipsonanomhmata&action=history  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 16:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems that other editors are actively working to improve the references on the articles you've commented on. They perceive that your re-adding of the refimprove tag is not helpful. For example, at Hüseyin Özgürgün, where it looks like you re-added the tag three times. How about waiting a week before adding the tag again on any of these articles. You've already participated in the discussion at Talk:Mehmet Ali Talat, so you should be aware that other people are working on these reference issues. Please be aware that all these articles are under WP:DIGWUREN, which takes a dim view of nationalist editing. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Removing the tag before making an improvement isn't helpful either Ed (but that has nothing to do with the query that I have raised) and btw I re-added the tag twice (not three times). Nor have you resolved my query. Nor have you assumed good faith. In fact, worse than that, you have accused me of nationalist editing. Where did that come from? Did I make a nationalist or racist statement by adding a Refimprove tag to an article without any references that meet WP:RS? It's process-related. An editor adds a Refimprove tag and if an editor adds a reference that meets WP:RS to substantiate the content in the article then the tag is removed. Apparently, when I add a tag I must be a card-carrying nationalist. Thanks once again for your good faith Ed. I'm really looking forward to bumping in to you again.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 20:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Since I have received no advice on how to resolve this issue. I have politely asked the editor concerned to stay away from my homepage. Don't know what else to do. I sincerely hope that is the end of it.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 22:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You were sanctioned last year under WP:ARBMAC and now you're disputing at articles such as the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922). You've recently reverted at Derviş Eroğlu, İrsen Küçük and Rauf Denktaş. You were warned by an admin for nationalistic editing on a Turkey-related article at User talk:Nipsonanomhmata#TRNC Presidents. If you sincerely think your recent edits raise no questions of nationalistic editing, I invite others to say if they agree with your assessment of the situation. EdJohnston (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

And I showed you the previous violations of the nationalistic editing of the editor that set me up for that. And I remember that you blindly rode shotgun with them. An editor who was a rampaging nutcase who stalked me for months. You supported the stalker. Yes I remember. I'd rather somebody else addressed my query. You are not fit for purpose due to a conflict of interest. Furthermore, your assumptions are unfounded and poorly thought out. A fictitious "country" that is only recognised by the country which occupies the territory is not a country and neither is the leader of the puppet regime a "President". The content of these articles is misleading propaganda despite the occasional use of "de facto". Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopaedic, not an outlet that engenders the propaganda of a puppet-regime controlled by a country that is controlled by its military.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 12:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

My query has now been resolved. Thank you.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 14:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Third party intervention reqested

Resolved

 – User blocked for a week. Sideshow is closed. Danger (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

50.80.139.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Could someone tell this guy he is having an edit war with a bot? [3] (My further direct interaction with him would probably just be POKEing the bear. Active Banana (^bananaphone 05:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Very funny! He seems to have worked it out. He left a complaint on the talk page of the bot owner. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 09:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised that IP hasn't won himself another block for the tenor of his arguments with humans. Kind of a short fuse there - JohnInDC (talk) 11:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

MARY KENDALL WIKIPEDIA PAGE

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia, Some years ago, I googled your page on Mary Kendall (Westminster Abbey Mary Kendall). Your article was very interesting, and I was looking for it again, but it appears to have gone. Can you please help? Cheers, Anna Melbourne, Australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.213.183.67 (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Wikipedia has ever had a page on this person. There's a page at the Westminster Abbey website - is that any use? -- John of Reading (talk) 06:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Complaint about deletion of article

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Twice my article was deleted and both times there was no viable reason, only two users agreed that it should be deleted. Also This article was in for mediation before it was put up for deletion. I find that administrators or who ever these "Hackers" are have to much power and are abusing that privilege. What stops a "mob" of people that don't like something placed in Wikipedia to gather there friends to help delete an article by posting bogus discussions into the "article's talk page", just to show a consensus?

Djdubuque (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QSLogBook. Dougweller (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The article was actually created in April by Lngwth (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 12:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted it as it should not be recreated just after an AfD unless the problems that led to its deletion were resolved. Wikipedia:Deletion review is the way to appeal an AfD. Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Please - Need further opinions

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

An editor has removed a link to: [4] citing: "I've undone your edit. The Global Post article is sourced from (and apparently only from) SSP's own press release. (Every single link in the Global Post article is back to the Satellite Sentinel web page.)"

I disagree: When four experts issue statements in a press release, that is by definition a primary source document, no matter whose name is on it.

This editor, I feel, is being extremely unreasonable. --Jespah (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The (brief) discussion of this matter on the article's Talk page can be found here. For the broader context surrounding the immediate editing issue, interested editors may wish to review this COI Noticeboard discussion and this related subject Talk page, where persistent POV, WP:Advocacy and sourcing issues on edits by the OP in this subject area are discussed at length. JohnInDC (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I have replaced Global Post link above with http://www.voanews.com/english/news/africa/decapua-abyei-war-crimes-2jun11-123024863.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jespah (talk • contribs)

The OP has located a reliable and independent secondary source for this information and I have no objection to the revised content. JohnInDC (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm very disturbed about something that has happened on Wiki. One of the footnotes, a pdf from the Government, has been removed by someone. A few days ago.

History: A poster on a forum used a Wiki article to prove a false point about Katrina. On May 29 or so, I used that same article and cited one of the footnotes (which he'd overlooked and which disproved his argument), which was a pdf of the first letter written by Governor Blanco in which she HAD named definite counties she wanted help with "evacuation". That was the issue being discussed. To hold Blanco responsible, or not.

Blanco then wrote another letter the next day, but dated it to appear as if written the same day as the first letter. Anyone who followed the news around that time, including me, was fully aware of the two letters. Of course, the skuttlebutt was that it was to cover her youknowwhat. None of us thought it would work. But,since that time, that first letter has disappeared for the most part to enable the re-writing of history to favor Blanco for political reasons. With the second letter being used as evidence. I've seen both letters myself.

Wiki still had a copy of it. It had not been scrubbed. It is now gone and when I looked, the edit date was the same date as I had used it to prove a point on the forum

The problem: I've been trying to get evidence of the existence of these two letters into this Wiki article, but another editor, Escape Orbit, keeps erasing my changes saying that I can't remove "reliable" sources and substitute "unreliable" sources. [Conversely, someone HAS definitely removed a reliable source to skew this article (the Govt' pdf)] Along with putting in some very slanted remarks. One "footnote" didn't even have anything to do with the slanted remark I was checking, so I removed the footnote and put in one that was reliable that was completely opposite of the remark that had been posted.

Two concerns: A reliable source (Gov't pdf) has been erased, and an another editor is trying to keep any evidence to prove the point of the ""reliable source" from being put back in. Someone had to remove that pdf the last of May. What is going on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Donald (talk • contribs) 19:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC) Sam Donald (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Don

Please continue to discuss on the article's talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Doctor Who - The Doctor's Wife

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

'TreasuryTag' has reverted my edits in violation of the three revert policy. He refuses to allow my content on the topic page and believes they are wrong. Please see the 'Corsair' argument in the talk page of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Doctor%27s_Wife_%28Doctor_Who%29.

Thanks. 81.157.230.175 (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That's because it is wrong, and it was previously discussed on the article talk page.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

And that was only 2 reverts, so the 3RR policy doesn't apply. WP:BOOMERANG, on the other hand... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Deliberate vandalism is exempted from the 3RR, not that I think I actually did revert three times. Cut it out. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 21:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Assistance understanding scientific vs. fringe claims and how to deal with them

Discussion moved

 – WP:FTN#Alchemy#Alchemy_as_a_Protoscience Danger (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Alchemy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm confused as to how the Wikipedia policy applies in this case Talk:Alchemy#Issues with Article, New Contributor (you have to read the whole section). I'm trying to provide academic peer-reviewed sources but am constantly contradicted by another user who supports a fringe theory, with older or non-academic sources, and I'm having to continuously object to bold edits making absolute statements (non-neutral) about how alchemy is spiritual. No one else seems to care, so I appear to be fighting this battle myself. Advice please. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 03:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I just skimmed through the talk page and the article, so I apologize in advance for not having fully learned and analyzed the situation. My first thought is that I can't understand your main statements in the context of the article. The topic of the article itself is unscientific and so you seem to be arguing that the coverage of an unscientific topic is unscientific? ! ? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Only the popular public view of alchemy is unscientific. The academic view is scientific to an extent, and largely historical. So does that mean that the academic view doesn't matter since the public consider it not serious? Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 23:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I went back and read that whole section of the talk page, but there's still more to it that I haven't read. Pretty big to try to wade into. Seems to me that Alchemy was defined by the eyes of the practicioners. So it's agreed that one group of them approached and defined it as a science. Was there another significant group that defined / approached it as mystical? If so, while the mystical viewpoint itself might be fringe, reporting that people had that view is not and should be in the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I never objected to such statements. I only objected to non-neutral statements made that alchemy is that, alchemy is that, etc. I am the editor who keeps changing the wording to say "proponents of this theory say this", instead of "alchemy is this". Actually this point is being discussed on fringe noticeboard now, so no need to discuss it here. My point of posting here is to ask for advice on regarding the reliability of statements in times where they contradict each other. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 02:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Cool. North8000 (talk) 11:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained reverts

Discussion moved

 – WP:HELPDESK#Unexplained reverts. Danger (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Why where this and this reverts made, apart for being rude. This is not a comercial but rather a caltural reference, translated from here, and the only explanation I have for the reverts are caltural bias. Deror (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You might have first looked at WP:ADVERT and at WP:UNDUE and at WP:IINFO before jumping to conclusions about an editors intentions. Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I fully stand by my reverts. Wikipedia is becoming the new Craig's list where everyone and his brother mentions a new CD, some band they have formed in a garage, etc. and spam it. And there is always a hook for listing some new CD somewhere. Does Britannica mention the CDs by various artists? No, not at all. The no spam policy must be followed everywhere. And FYI Dror similar sentiments were expressed here before then by myself and others (search for Craigslist). So no need to reach for the "cultural bias" panic button, just because it is there. Spam is a totally cross-cultural phenomenon, and must stop. Period. History2007 (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Crossposted to WP:HELPDESK#Unexplained reverts - please continue the discussion there if necessary. – ukexpat (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone made a funny on the Nero page.

Resolved

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

On the "Nero" page, the caption under John William Waterhouse's painting reads "That Was a Dick Move, Nero." The painting is actually called "The Remorse of the Emperor Nero after the Murder of his Mother."

64.8.1.2 (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for letting us know. The vandalism has been removed. In the future, feel free to be bold and remove it yourself. Danger (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete Slanderous Discussion Comment

 Done

We have a slanderous discussion comment posted by some disgruntled employee or some random child. We are requesting that this is deleted immediately. We have pride ourselves on doing going business within the music industry and this comment is slanderous. It has been up since January. This must come down. Thank you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spectra_Records — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spectra29485 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

done Active Banana (^bananaphone 17:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)