Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 108

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Wrong Information

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia.com,

Hello, I am a student from a Korean school in the East Bay. I am doing a project with 2 other people on Jikji(jik-jee). Jikji is the oldest metal type press in the world made BEFORE the German Johannes Gutenburg. Jikji was made in 1377 by a Korean buddhist. On September 4th, 2001, Korea registered at UNESCO to give Jikji a Memory of the World Prize. They celebrated every 2 years. This years' celebration will take place in Australia on September 4th. For more information, you can visit digitaljikji.com. So, about the wrong information about Gutenburg, I suggest you change the information on the Printing Press/Wikipedia for the good of other people who are being educated right now. Also, I hope you can help spread the word about Jikji by telling your friends or other websites to let the entire world know that Gutenburg wasn't the first. I hope you can accept my offer.

Sincerely, Chloe H. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.197.113 (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, if you have some reliable sources for this then please post on the appropriate article discussion pages, such as Talk:Printing press and Talk:Johannes Gutenberg. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

merging or completing {{Databases}} and {{Database models}}

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I was visiting Relational database and Object database, and I noticed they were using two different template boxes: {{Databases}} and {{Database models}}. And none of those two boxes has a link to both pages (relational and object). Not sure why; not sure what change should be made. Coeur (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you discuss this on the two articles' respective talk pages. --Danger (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Proper use of optional name field in external link templates

Stale: Danger (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

There is an on-going issue concerning the proper use of the optional name field when using Template:Hockeydb and other similar external link templates. Two editors from the ice hockey project have been actively changing this name parameter for ice hockey players to “correct” the name to their preferred spelling - most recently at Oscar Alsenfelt. It has always been my understanding that the name parameter is used when the page name contains disambiguation brackets, but also to show the name as it is used by the linked source (in this case, as used by Hockeydb.com) if different from the article title. What should be done to address this situation? Dolovis (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The templates were created by the hockey project. And more than just two users have told you this. Probably closer to 10 by this point. Some of the templates you have been battling about this on even say right in the instructions that they are just for removing bracketed disambiguators. Names/Spellings are supposed to remain consistent throughout an article. It is actually you who are arguing for your preferred spelling. Another case of WP:FORUMSHOPPING when you don't hear what you want to hear. -DJSasso (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I enjoy the way you just make stuff up to try to win you points. I have only been encountering the two of you who are tag-teaming the conversions. And as for forum shopping, I've now noticed that your counter-part has opened up this same discussion in the ice hockey forum. Dolovis (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Do you want links because I can show you a number of talk pages you have brought this up on where people disagreed with you. There was one discussion were 4 or 5 people told you the same thing we did. There was also one occasion I believe where an uninvolved admin warned you not to revert people adjusting that parameter and pointed you to the instructions of the template that say how its is meant to be used. And yes he opened up the discussion there because you reverted him on something that you have consistently fought against consensus on and is the appropriate place to discuss an ice hockey template. -DJSasso (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
An unresolved discussion on a user's talk page is a valid reason to bring this issue to an appropriate forum. If you have links to a discussion where a consensus on this issue has been settled I would be very interested to see it. Dolovis (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Could you please provide a link to the discussion? Danger (talk) 09:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

global warming

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The main global warming article has a section on global warming controversy. A point previously made there is that there is that some scientific organizations have published consensus statements in favor of the view that global warming is man caused. I have added the other side, which is that many scientists, including Nobel Prize winners, have resigned from said science organizations in protest. I cite references. Science doesn't generally progress by issuing "position statements," or taking a position on the basis that "most scientists" agree on something. F=ma and e=mc2 not because of anyone's position statements, but because all experiments so far show them to be true. Someone keeps reverting the article without giving any real explanation. I mentioned this in the discussion section, but am not sure I put it in the right place. I can't figure out how to do this other than by placing my comment at the end of what's there. What is the right way?

If the wiki article on global warming is to contain any section at all titled "controversy" it should give both sides. You can read the whole article without learning that the Earth has often been both warmer and colder than now, generally warmer. During these past warm periods, co2 has often been high, and there is as much evidence that warming causes co2 to increase as the other way around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickcrane (talkcontribs) 20:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You should add comments on discussion pages in the same way you did here. Make a section header if you are starting a new topic and thread discussions by using an appropriate number of colons (:) to indent your comments. Make sure to sign your posts by adding four tildes to the end.
The global warming article has been the subject of a great deal of discussion on Wikipedia, including an Arbitration Committee case. I strongly suggest that you at least skim the archives on the discussion page before continuing. Undiscussed changes to a controversial article like global warming will often be seen as disruptive. --Danger (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, NewsAndEventsGuy pretty much covered everything; reading what he's suggested should answer you questions. Danger (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

They need help on the List of amendments to the United States Constitution page

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Was just reading up on it and it looks a mess. Can an experienced editor help out? From the talk page, they've been trying to figure out how to get the picture of the Bill of Rights in the right spot. It should be over to the right of the contents box of the amendments, I think. I thought it was a pretty important page to look so bad for so long. I couldn't figure out how to fix it either. Dancindazed (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Putting a decorative image side-by-side with an article-body table doesn't work well in many cases. It winds up overlapping the table at least on some major browsers or else takes up width that makes the columns of the table narrowed uncomfortably on non-huge monitors. Image:Bill of Rights Pg1of1 AC.jpg is nice decoration but it's a bit off-topic for the area where used in this article because it merges the two separate sections of ratified and proposed amendments. Maybe it would be better next to the non-passed-amendments prose, since if anything it highlights that there really are failed proposals even back to the earliest days. Bonus: that gives space for it rather than fighting against the navbox for space at the beginning. DMacks (talk) 12:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Daily removal of ALL content of my client's page, Ruth Landers

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I was notified that my client's page was repeatedly erased. i immediately added the biographical information plus at least 12 references. As soon as I submitted and reviewed, and recreated the the page, including photos as reference, someone immediately deleted it. This occurred somewhere between 1:30 a.m. Eastern time, and 7:45 a.m. eastern time. Just receivd message from a Phil Bridger. He claims that the information was "soap boxing." Giving a list of career points that are factual, as well as some biographical information is the purpose of Wikipedia. Citation of news articles that pertain to the subject matter have been added. I need assistance please. {www.LandersStarCollection.com}} Template:Www.LandersProductions.com {{http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7lgDXr1OaU*Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 108 at the Internet Movie Database Shop NBC Interview Template:Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvh4NNwvE1I&feature=mfu in order&list=UL Good Day Tampa Bay Interview Template:Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bEi4PE2UEA&feature=mfu in order&list=UL

<Soap Stars Magazine, June 28, 2010, article "Designing Women' by Michael Maloney>

New York Post,Starr report, January 25, 2010, by Michael Starr>

<Scene Magazine, February 2009, article by Cliff Roles>

<Canyon News,On the Industry" by Tommy Grant, January 31, 2010

<Echo Der Frau, German Magazine, September, 2009> — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeeEntertainment (talkcontribs)

There are a couple of issues here. The first one which will very likely lead to a block is that your username represents a company and is a violation of our username policy. I recommend you ask to change your username at WP:CHU/S. Aside from that, I reviewed the edits and they are very promotional in nature. That's why we have a conflict of interest policy. Edits like "However, show business was never far off. When Ruth’s older daughter, Audrey, decided at age 5 that she wanted to be a singer and an actress, Ruth somehow managed to find the time to guide and manage Audrey’s budding career, and some years later to manage Audrey’s sister Judy as well - all while running a growing printing company." are unencyclopedic and promotional. Remember, Wikipedia's goal is not to be an indiscriminate source of information, it's to build a freely accessible encyclopedia. That means that edits must conform to our neutral point of view policy and our manual of style policy. I strongly suggest you take the changes your'd like to see done to the talk page, discuss the changes you'd like to see, and then allow editors who dont have a conflict of interest decide what changes to make and how to make them.--v/r - TP 18:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Your client does not have a page here. There is a page about your client. That page is for impartial information from reliable sources. It is not for advertising and promotion of your client, her projects, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Admin needed to fix lowercase/uppercase issue in article name

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Can some admin rename Shades of White to Shades of white? The latter is an older REDIRECT, and I cannot overwrite it. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 07:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. You can use requested moves next time. Danger (talk) 07:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Roger the RM. --Noleander (talk) 07:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


User talk:Austex/Donald G. Martin (Austin, Texas)

Answered: Danger (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Would appreciate a review of this WP:COI and WP:BLPSELF for notability. The case for notability is laid out in a temporary "Summary of Career" section that would be removed prior to moving to article space. I have worked hard at maintaining a neutral point of view and included four profile citations (that are specifically about the BLP, per Wikipedia guidelines) to strenthen the case for notability. See discussion page for more detail. You might also Google "Don Martin Austin" re further evidence of notability, as there are about 5 pages of entries for Don Martin. Your opinions and suggestions are most welcome. Please leave comments on the article's Discussion page. Thank you!!! AustexAustexTalk 14:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:FEEDBACK is the venue for this. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
This was the site the adminstrator suggested when I did a {adminhelp}. But I will post it there as well.'AustexTalk 19:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I would have suggested feedback, but no-one ever responds there unless it takes MarcusBritish's fancy. I have my doubts about this chap's notability, and I was hoping for a couple of other opinions on that. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, I looked. Non-notable estate agent with political ambitions. Probably wouldn't last a week in main space. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me, you didn't look very closely. I am not and never have been a real estate agent and am not selling anything. I did develop one of the largest New Urbanism projects ($400 million) in the five-county Austin metro area as part of a varied career. Nor do I have political ambitions -- rather I ran some of the most major political campaigns in the Austin area including for Nolan Ryan and for a new International Austin airport. I don't see how you get two completely false assumptions out of what you read. If so, I must have done an extremely poor job of writing. AustexTalk 22:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, property developer, businessman, whatever; in my opinion this does not meet WP:BIO. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy on notability says "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I have provided four such secondary reliable sources which are probably worth reading.AustexTalk 22:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
In WP:BIO, which you cite above, the number one criteria says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[1] secondary sources which are reliable, and independent of each other." So it's not so much what you personally think of the biography of the person or what they do as it is wheter it meets Wikipedia WP:BIO criteria. Personal biases and presumptions are not part of the criteria. AustexTalk 23:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Commented there. Danger (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Danger.The most appropriate place to make comments is the one you used, at the original BLP Discussion Page, HERE. Jezhotwells comments have been copied there as well.


Shoe-Images uploaded by Winston789 (talk · contribs)

Resolved: Danger (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

They are licensed under cc-by-3.0, the uploader claims own work, look professional and are wide-web-spread-images and marked for the transfer to commons. Example: File:Louboutin.jpg

Before transferring, please ensure they are really own work. I doubt so. Please ask the uploader for sending an OTRS-permission. Thank you. -- Rillke (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you are right, I have tagged one three as copyright infringements and reported the user at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations Jezhotwells (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Rillke (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Aubrey lawsuit

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

In the section dealing with Aubrey's final years, someone has taken aspects of a lawsuit Aubrey lost, using the minutiae of the proceedings as a platform for what appears to be the engrandisement of the plaintiff's legal team, rather than a chapter of Aubrey's life. There are unverifiable characterizations and allegations as well, making this more an editorial than a biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikejeanette (talkcontribs) 02:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

James Thomas Aubrey, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
You should discuss this at the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

wikipedia, facebook, and the wikipedia article titled "Arlington High School (Lagrange, New York)"

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 01:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

To Whom It May Concern, The wikipedia article involved in this request is Arlington High School (LaGrange, New York) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Also there is a facebook article involved in this request with the following link: Template:Http://www.facebook.com/pages/Arlington-High-School-LaGrange-New-York/184771638225707 Hello my name is Al and I have a long complicated question involving wikipedia and it's connection to facebook. A lot of the beginning of this question has a lot to do with facebook and is going to require me to tell a story so bear with me. So my curiosity began when facebook changed their profile layout in mid-2010, when the facebook-user's interests and "likes" such as movies and tv shows were automatically linked to a different facebook page. For example if someone "liked" the hobby of "Cooking" a small picture showing the act of cooking would be mounted on their facebook profile in their "interests" section and when clicking on it you'd be directed to a different facebook page showing the description of cooking. What I found interesting was that on this "Cooking" facebook page there was a tab on the left hand side that said "Wikipedia" indicating that all of the information presented on the "Cooking" facebook page was actually extracted from wikipedia. I thought this was really cool. In addition to "interests" and "movies" having there own pictures mounted on one's profile, there are also pictures of the person's college or high school mounted on a person's profile in their education section. I went to Duke University, so there is a picture of the Duke emblem mounted in my profile in the education section of my profile. When I click on this emblem I am directed to a new facebook page, much like the cooking one, where information on the college from wikipedia is displayed. However, my high school (which is named Arlington High School located in Lagrange, New York) did not have a little picture representing it on my facebook profile, instead it was just a silhouette of a person wearing a graduation cap, which I guess is the default picture for schools that have no facebook page, or not a lot of information has been posted on that particular school online. When clicking on this silhouette picture though, I am directed to a different Arlington High School-one that is located in Arlington, Texas. So at this point in time, I was motivated to create a facebook page for my own high school, upload my high school's emblem to it's facebook page, and somehow link my high school's wikipedia page to the facebook page (my high school does in fact have a wikipedia page, it is titled "Arlington High School (Lagrange, New York)"). So I went ahead and tried to do some of that; if you go to facebook and you search "Arlington High School (Lagrange, New York)" you will find my facebook page with the correct description of my high school and the correct emblem as its profile picture (it is currently "liked"by only 14 people). My main question is: am I taking the right approach to doing this? My ultimate goal is to have the emblem of my high school appear mounted on the education section of my facebook profile, and when clicking on it, to be directed to a facebook page displaying the information, extracted from wikipedia, of the correct Arlington High School I attended (in Lagrange, New York). What are the steps that I would need to take do this? Was going ahead and creating a facebook page for my high school a good first step? Will the wikipedia page for my high school somehow get automatically linked to the facebook page when a certain amount of people "like" it? Do you know who I should ask to get this process rolling? So far I have sent a million messages to facebook and they haven't responded. I'm hoping some wikipedia users can give me some help. Any and all help will be greatly appreciated! Thank you, Al Wikiwest999 (talk) 01:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Anything that appears on Facebook's pages is Facebook's responsibility, and Facebook would be the people to talk to about it. As far as I know, they take all this data from Wikipedia without ever having mentioned to anyone at Wikipedia that they planned to do so.
On the other hand, since Facebook haven't been very responsive by the sounds of it, let's try and do what we can to sort the problem out at this end. Arlington High School (LaGrange, New York) doesn't currently have a working image on it, so that's what needs fixing first. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, the Wikipedia page now has the logo from the school's website. Whether and how and when that information gets absorbed into Facebook is probably beyond the scope of this page, but others may like to offer opinions anyway. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Editing a page

Resolved: User blocked. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

I am attempting to see if I can be authorized to make perminant changes to the "Ask Foy" page. The computer that I am currently writing from is one at the Foy Information Desk, and I am one of its supervisors. I am requesting unlimited access to editing that page due to the fact that I don't think there is another source more reliable for information on the desk than the desk workers themselves. Thank you

Foy Desk Supervisor — Preceding unsigned comment added by FoyDesk (talkcontribs) 23:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Note that I have blocked this editor indefinitely as well as several IPs (via rangeblock) on the Auburn network temporarily, as they actually appear to be engaging in coordinated vandalism (i.e., at Belgian waffle). --Kinu t/c 00:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Collaborative Decision Making and Group Decision Making

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

The term "collaborative decision making" (CDM) is a term used in business for group decision making. Today, in wikipedia, the term CDM is direct to Collaboration. While CDM is only a part of the collaboraton, it is synonyme to Group decision making. Can it be redirected to group decision making? --Tal.yaron (talk) 05:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I moved this thread to the bottom of the page (new talk page threads go at the bottom; if you hit the "New Section" tab at the top of the page this will happen automatically).
Well, CDM stands for a lot of things -- Conceptual Data Model and so on -- so CDM is a disambiguation page which is basically a menu that lists all the things that CDM stands for, and it should stay that way. What you're saying is that (on that page, or if you just type it in the search box) "Collaborative decision making" goes to Collaboration rather than to Group decision making (since there is no article named "Collaborative decision making"), and this should be changed.
I don't know the answer to this. It makes sense I suppose. Collaboration is a general term and that article is quite general -- it talks about kibbutzes, classical music written in collaboration, Black Mountain College, yadda yadda. And CDM is a somewhat technical business term (you say, and I believe you), and Group decision making is more focused on technical aspects of that. There's no perfect answer because we can't know what is in a person's mind when they type "Collaborative decision making", but your proposition seems reasonable.
Since this seems sensible but is possibly arguable, here's what I would do: I'd make the change (by editing the redirect page Collaborative decision making), and open a thread on the talk page of Collaboration saying "'Collaborative decision making' used to link here, but I have changed it to link to Group decision making, are there any objections?'". (Normally you'd make this note at the page being changed, which is Collaborative decision making, but redirect talk pages aren't watched much; instead, when I made the change, in the edit summary I'd say "Changing redirect, see Talk:Collaboration").
If you want further assistance in doing this, message me. Herostratus (talk)
Thanks Herostratus :-) you helped alot Tal.yaron (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Feedback about page editing

Answered: Visuall (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I've tried both firefox 3.x/6.x and IE 9.x, but the editing feedback tool always says "Something went wrong! Please try sharing your feedback again later.", so I posted the question here.

The feedback to be posted is "The page being edited is 'Higgs_boson'.

Some up-to-dated information (with references included) being added is always being removed directly (but not edited or updated). Editing process made me very sad."

The question is regarded to whether to add an important news that is reported by the BBC to that page. The original revision I submitted is 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Higgs_boson&oldid=452006549', the page modified as required by other user is 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Higgs_boson&oldid=452150121'.

Visuall (talk) 11:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC),

Thanks.

You do not appear to have attempted to resolve this issue on the article talk page yet. Please discuss it there at Talk:Higgs boson. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The One (TV program)

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_(TV_program) THe page is being edited by one of the contestants: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Shambhallah without citations or sources, to advertise their services. 122.109.54.63 (talk) 05:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The One (TV program) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
You should start by discussing this on the article talk page. That is why talk pages are provided. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Please include in the product info for Symantec Protection Suite

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not find any mention of the Symantec Protection Suite. The suite has two editons: Small Business and Enterprise.

Therefore, I propose that the Symantec banner Product info should mention Protectioh Suite which links to a stub to be filled by someone

A brief description of the Small Business suite's major components are

EndPoint Security 12.1
which includes Power Eraser—tool for removing malware on heavily infected systems.
System Backup and Recovery
Symantec Mail Security for Microsoft Exchange 6.5...

[To be verified and expanded] Enterprise editon include:

Symantec Endpoint Protection (windows, Mac, Linux)
Symantec System Recovery Desktop
Symantec Mail Security for Microsoft
Symantec Mail Security for Domino
Symantec Messaging Gateway
Symantec Web Gateway
Symantec Protection Center — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99gg (talkcontribs) 06:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
If you feel that there is more information to be included, please discuss on the relevant article talk pages. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

reference to site chichen itza rejected

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sir, I have placed a book "Mayan Temple Discovered In Europe" by Ronald Ritter as a reference book on the site of Chichen Itza , it was deleted as fringe archaeology, surely this is a very subjective comment that all books should be included even fringe arguments that show the proof about the age by current archaeologists as in correct. If you only include the usual dogma of archaelogical pursuit , then the reader gets a very biassed view point towards all archaeological pursuits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sussan evermore (talkcontribs) 09:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Good day to you. There are lots of books that propose major revisions in how we understand historical subjects. Some of them turn out to be very important; others come to be considered bunk. It is not the job of Wikipedia to try to sort through them. Time will tell what category this book is. In the mean time, Wikipedia simply goes by the current scholarly consensus. I note that you are credited as co-author of this book. I suggest you check out the guideline Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 13:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
In any case it is self-published by the writers, and fails WP:SPS (they also wrote an ebook called How to Create your first eBook in 30 minutes. Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Nima Arkani-Hamed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

In the entry on Nima Arkani-Hamed, the birthplace of his parents is frequently changed to Hamadan from Tabriz even as a reliable source, including his own father's biographical note for MIT, has been cited as reference, confirming that his parents hailed from Tabriz. Your kind assistance is requested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.218.67.253 (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2011

Please discuss this on the article's talk page at Talk:Nima Arkani-Hamed where it hasn't been mentioned yet. Thank you. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Corrections needed for article "Pythia", section 3 "Scientific explanations"

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Dear Editors, please notice that the section 3: "Scientific explanations", of this article (Pythia) is largely not objective and not complete.

Basically it reports only one single explanation, the one of De Boer et a about ethylene and Kerna fault. Furthermore this explanation (although the credit that it has received by the mass-media) has been proved to be not only not documented but also completely inconsistent by several other studies publishes on relevant peer-reviewed international scientific journals.

As your major concern is to make Wikipedia a serious, reliable and objective source of information, this page should be largely rewritten as for what concerns the above cited section 3 "Scientific explanation". My English is not so good to make such a large page correction by myself, but I am available to help in case you decide to edit the page in a more exhaustive form. Regards

--150.217.73.155 (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The article seems to give details of two or three other possible explanations. If you have reliable sources for the other studies or for the disagreement between them, please post at Talk:Pythia. They will then be seen by the editors most interested in this article. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Please help me against someone who blocks me for no reason

Answered: matter for Italian Wikipedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sir or Madam,

I've written several contributions to the following page: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repubblica_di_Ragusa. All of them with citations. I've never eliminated someone else's contributions. However the things written aren't liked by the users "Presbite" and "Theirrules yourrules" and "Abys" who bloked my account even though I discussed things politely and rationally. All I wanted was that Croatian as a language was included at the top on the right side of the page as one of the languages spoken in the Republic of Ragusa/Dubrovnik. I also described that Italian was spoken in Ragusa for it was a trade language in the middle ages like English. I also described on the talk page that the Ragusans felt as Croatians and not just Ragusans. I think that's not a reason to block my account. Can you help me? Thank you in advance.

Vatroslav Tudor

Account name VatroslavTudor

I'd also like to ask how can I become an administrator and block someone else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VatroslavTudor (talkcontribs) 08:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

We can only help you with en.wiki issues. I'm not sure how Admins are created there, but I imagine they go through a process similar to ours at WP:RFA. Dougweller (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Vatroslav, this issue has already been treated earlier today per your request at user talk:Kudpung#Please help me. Please refrain from reposting your request everywhere on the English Wikipedia. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


Kye Palmer

Answered: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Please look at page 'Kye Palmer', I have tried to do as much clean up as possible to make sure this is a properly referenced and linked page. I did find quite a bit the original author never did bother to find. The tags could probably be taken off at this point but a recognized editor would have to do this. Jcooper1 (talk) 05:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Notability is asserted but there are still unreferenced claims in the article, so I have changed and updated the tag. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Does this body not conclude there are 'several' Grammy nominated/award winning CDs? Please clarify, I did give reliable sources that back this up from what I see.
He has recorded for major motion picture soundtracks, including Seven Pounds, Man of the Year, Three to Tango, Stuart Little, and Me, Myself & Irene. Palmer appeared on the Brian Setzer Orchestra's Grammy Award winning recording of "Caravan", as well as Vavoom[9] and Boogie Woogie Christmas which were nominated for Grammys, and the certified gold Setzer CD Best of the Big Band. He recorded on the 2005 Grammy nominated, multi-platinum award winning CD It's Time (Michael Bublé album). He has also recorded with trumpeters Ron King, Marc Lewis, and Ron Stout on the CD The Clifford Brown Project in 2003 on the Capri Record label.[10] Jcooper1 (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Generally , major awards should be corroborated by the award board's own website. failing that, reports of awards in very reliable, established independent news media would suffice. Blogs, forums, or obscure websites are not reliable. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Abraham Isaac Kook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Abraham Isaac Kook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I attempted to put a link in the article that would provide neutral source documentaion for quotes written in the article. The link is to raw data, in the form of unedited documents that offers a primary source for the quotations. In spite of my multiple attempts at explaing this, a user certain has insisted on erasing the link, without giving any type of reasonable or applicable rational. As I have no interest in being part of a edit war, I have decided to list the article here, for an editor to assist in placing the link on the site- without allowing a user to erase it without basis. I assume the behaviour of the cited editing user was not malicious but simply mistaken. However, since the user is not willing and/or able to comprehend the neccessity for the link as a primary sorce document, I will leave to the editor's capable hands to do so. Thank you. Ksavyadkodesh (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Material that you have yourself uploaded to the Scribd document-sharing website cannot be used as a source - we have no way of ascertaining its authenticity. There may also be possible copyright issues involved. The editor concerned was entirely correct to remove the link. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

To address your two points:

1) The documents posted on that specific Scribd were quoted in multiple newspapers (citing the link for readers to view). The authenticity has been confirmed by multiple news sources. The question as to who uploaded the 80+ year old documents is not relevant under any stretch of the imagination.

2) There are no copyright issues involved- the documents are 80-100 years old that were posted with permission.

In other words, the only reservation you mentioned are not applicable to this case. Please review the article and documents and present your opinion.

Thank you. Ksavyadkodesh (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Material posted on Scribd is not a reliable source. By all means cite newspaper articles, information on how to do this is at WP:Citing sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
In reply to (1) none of that is any relevance - we don't use documents posted on Scribd as sources, as we have no way to ascertain for ourselves that they are what they purport to be: the link to the website is not 'sourcing' by our definitions, so cannot be used as such. If the documents are available elsewhere, then they should be sourced directly from there.
Regarding (2), that is an issue between you, the Scribd website, and the owners of the document copyrights, should they still be valid. Regarding copyright issues, we have to err on the side of caution, and the Scribd site has been problematic in the past over this issue. Not that this is worth debating anyway, given its non-admissibility as a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how to cite the newspaper articles, but it would be most appreciated if the two senior editors here could assist in adding them to the wikipedia article. The two newspaper articles are found at the following links:

1) http://www.5tjt.com/local-news/11762-remembering-rav-avraham-yitzchak-kook

2) http://issuu.com/jewishvoice/docs/201109 (Page 16)

Ksavyadkodesh (talk) 02:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't say what you want to cite the articles for. The first one seems to be sourced from your own Scribd page - so the question as to its authenticity might possibly still arise - it is in any case a primary source document (written by Kook himself) - such documents need to be used with care in articles, if we are to avoid including original research in our interpretations of them.. The second article is on Issuu - another website for user-uploaded content. I think that this is likely to be unacceptable as a source in the same way that Scribd is,unless it can be ascertained that it was uploaded with permission. I'm by no means an expert on the article subject matter, and suggest that you discuss these articles, and what you wish to cite them for, on Talk:Abraham Isaac Kook. The article itself might well benefit from further input from knowledgeable outsiders - it seems to be lacking in balance, and seems to be attempting to draw conclusions that aren't necessarily derived from external reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The original documents are being used purely for text- they are the sources for quotations found in the Wikipedia article. Why you think there is some sort of "plot" to be biased or "attempting to draw conclusions" is beyond me. There are no opinions involved here, it's simply quoting verbatim from an original document. Regarding the article posted on "ISsuu" it was posted by the newspaper owner (as it is every month). Your question of permission os obviously not relevant.

I respectfully request once more for you to not "shoot from the hit" instead of looking at details before making a conclusion.

Ksavyadkodesh (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You asked why the sources you originally linked to were removed - I explained our policy. As I stated, I'm no expert on the topic matter, and this is better discussed on the article talk page. I think that you may have misunderstood my intentions here - I'm not suggesting that there is a 'plot', but merely that you are perhaps unaware of our requirements regarding sourcing etc - this seemed to me to be indicated by your comments on the article talk page where you referred to a link that " is to raw data, in the form of unedited documents that offers a primary source for the quotations". I suggest that you read Wikipedia:No original research, and in particular the section on Primary, secondary and tertiary sources to understand why we consider the use of such material, unsupported by secondary sources, as best avoided. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

As stated more than once the "raw data" was confirmed by two newspaper sources which I gave you the links to. Please put the links on to the article, as I don't know how to do so.

Ksavyadkodesh (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit Conflict: Jonathan Morris (priest)

Answered: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Another editor, Alexei72, is repeatedly removing (without using the revert function, presumably to avoid the three revert rule) relevant, sourced content from the article about Jonathan Morris (priest), presumably because the content does not reflect favorably on Father Morris. Alexei72's contribution history suggests an affiliation with Father Morris. Alexei72 has ignored my invitations to discuss the problems on the article discussion page. I would appreciate some help. Thanks. Lahaun (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You've started a discussion on the article talk page - perhaps wait and see how it develops. Alexei72 has been warned about edit warring already. If there's no response to it, try leaving an invite on the talk pages of other contributors. If the edit warring continues on the same piece of content, you are perfectly free to escalate the warning yourself or to raise the issue at WP:AN/I to get the attention of an administrator, who may initiate block proceedings. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Answered: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi...Before I make changes and additions to a page (bio) that needs additional material, could I first send the references, links and reliable sources that I have put together and intend to use on the page to find out if they are satisfactory/sufficient to prevent the deletion of the page? Thank you. --Mona MG (talk) 08:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You haven't left a link here but I assume you are referring to Star Academy Arab World. The article is tagged as requiring clean up, but I don't see any indication that it is slated for deletion. Check that your sources comply fully with WP:RS, and if you feel confident that the addition(s) you intend to make is/are relevant to the article, feel free to go ahead and make the edits. Normally I would suggest you discuss it on the article talk page but there seems to be little activity there apart from some trolling that I have just removed. You may also wish to check the article history that the IP edits are genuine information. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Malcolm McFee

Answered: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The current article Malcolm McFee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a redirect to the TV series "Please Sir!", replacing a one line stub. I wish to recreate the article, which relates to a former pupil of my old school, and expand it. McFee was an actor who starred in the TV series Please Sir! for three years, the Please Sir! movie, and the spin off TV series The Fenn Street Gang (apart fromn the first season when his character was played by Leon Vitali). All of this is verifiable. He also appeared in other TV roles. To me, this justifies inclusion. My reason for asking, however, is that McFee died in November 2001. I don't know if wikipedia has a policy regarding articles on deceased actors and I have not been able to find out. I don't want to set about creating an article only to find I have fallen foul of a particular rule. Advice would be welcomed. Thanks. LenF54 (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You can do this yourself: Go to the article Please Sir!, click on the link 'Redirected from Malcolm McFee', When the page loads click on the edit button for Malcolm McFee; in the edit window delete the Redirect link, then start or paste your new article in the normal way., thn preview and save. There are no special different policies to observe between BLP (living persons) and deceased ones, the same rules for WP:NOTABILITY and reliable sources apply, so do be sure that your article is adequately referenced. If you can, add the dates of birth and death to the article and if you know how to add categories, add them too .

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The Big Bang Theory

Answered: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Please assist

I think The Big Bang Theory article should be called The Big Bang Theory Sitcom to avoid confusion with Big Bang Theory as this is the main and more important article

I don-t have privileges to change that so if you agree please direct the request to somebody who can.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milan studio (talkcontribs) 17:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

"The Big Bang Theory" is the actual title of the sitcom and the page starts with "For the cosmological model, see Big Bang", so people looking for that can quickly find it. "The Big Bang" and "Big Bang theory" both redirect to Big Bang. The latter is more important but a more relevant question for Wikipedia is what users are most likely to be looking for if they enter "The Big Bang Theory" in the search box. Given this is the real sitcom title and would be a long name for an article about the Big Bang, I guess most users will be looking for the sitcom. See also WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and Wikipedia:Requested moves if you want to take this further. If the sitcom is moved then the normal disambiguation title for Wikipedia would be The Big Bang Theory (TV series). PrimeHunter (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I started a move-request discussion on the talkpage of the article in question. I chose to propose a name in keeping with the article naming standards for cases with easy confusion. Putting capitalized "Sitcom" at the end is saying that that word is actually part of the real name, rather than an editorial comment or readers' advice about the name. Feel free to comment further at that talk-page. DMacks (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
We only went through this process 10 months ago and the consensus was to remain at the existing location. I've commented at the article's talk page and provided a link to the previous request for the nominator's benefit. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Image: Broadmoor Trophy

Answered: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I am the author and copyright holder of a photo of the Broadmoor Trophy http://www.tnphoto.com/images/broadmoor-thumb.jpg. I am willing to attach this image to the article but am frustrated by your policy. Do I understand correctly that I must wait four days and edit ten wikipedia articles before I'm allowed to donate my own picture to wikipedia? Tnp651 (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Please reply to: <redacted>

In order to upload files, your account must be 4 days old and have made at least 10 edits (note: this can be 10 edits to any page, not edits to 10 articles, so your edit to this page counts as one). – ukexpat (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
We do not reply to enquiries by email, and for your privacy, your email address has been redacted. Please check back here for replies, or see your talk page page for new messages. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Resolved: Editors warned about 3rr. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello I am a new editor on Wiki. Although I am new here, I am trying to contribute properly. I am having a editing dispute with an editor who has a history of bias on the the Nurburgring lap time page. The other editor has "rollback" rights and is also threatining me with an editing block. Any help is appreciated.(Hostile Rain (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC))

You have both engaged in edit warring and can be immediately blocked for this, and will be if it continues. I'm looking into the other issues and will comment again in a few minutes. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
You have both been officially warned about edit warring. Please check out WP:3RR if you have not done so already. A message has been left on the article talk page with a request for civil discussion, a reminder that all information must be properly and reliably sourced, and warning that administrators may see fit to protect the page if the disruption continues. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree that both editors have engaged in serious and disruptive edit warring. Hostile Rain needs some counseling in citing reliable sources and general editing. I am willing to do this on a 1:1 basis. Blhsing seems to know the rules. Both appear to be in violation of WP:3RR. The technical matters in contention are beyond the scope of the article, see talk page. I have restored the article to the status quo ante. Also, I see that there is no link to the incident, it is provided here. BsBsBs (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
User:Hostile Rain is a new user so I would ask all concerned to extend him the usual courtesies. As far as I can tell he was unaware of WP:3RR until someone (me) actually bothered to tell him about it. Though I am not an admin I am happy to provide any help I can to him. I personally think that new editors should be treated better than Hostile Rain appears to have been. --Surturz (talk) 08:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Two articles : Stormy Weather and Micky Katz

Answered: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

:

Dear Sirs,

I believe there are omissions in the above two articles.

Stormy Weather was also sung by Adelaide Hall and was recorded by the BBC and included in the long morning test transmission from Alexandra Palace that was broadcast daily in the 1950s. As a little girl, I used to watch it religiously every day! The television was owned by a lady who lived in our block of flats, televisions were out of our price league in those days.

The Micky Katz entry does not mention "Johnny is the Goy for Me", a skit on the then-popular "Johnny is the Boy for Me" a song based on the tune of a Romanian folk song. It was recorded in the 1950s. <redacted for privacy> email: <redacted for privacy> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.44.134 (talk) 08:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you have information that can be used to expand articles, please do not hesitate to add it yourself. Please note however that all information must be referenced and sourced. Please see Reliable sources. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Lorenzo Magnani

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

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

The article seems to me in good conditions but the following notes are still present I tried to solve the problem through article's TALK page but without success

This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (June 2010) This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. (Consider using more specific cleanup instructions.) Please help improve this article if you can. The talk page may contain suggestions. (September 2011)

Thanks for the assistance

Lorenzo Magnani

Still needs citations for most of the statements about his career. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

File download instead of Wikipedia entry

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

When I try to open the entry on safety bicycles -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_bicycle -- a dialog box opens up, asking me if I want to download a file of unspecified type. This seems to me a security risk. Why is this happening? Is it dangerous to proceed? 205.203.130.22 (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't be dangerous here at Wikipedia but it would probably not display the page anyway. It sounds like a glitch. Try clearing your entire cache and click normally on the article again. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Princess Alice of Battenburg

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Avicennasis

removes

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

imagee

File:Princess Alice of Battenberg coronation.PNG Princess Alice, leading her family from Westminster Abbey following the coronation of her daughter-in-law, Queen Elizabeth II


needs to re added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deafbud (talkcontribs) 06:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Princess Alice of Battenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The page history shows that the link to the image was first removed by Drilnoth (talk · contribs) because the image had been deleted. With a little more digging, I see that the image was deleted for copyright reasons following this discussion. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

1st signed Declarations of Independence in 13 colonies of United States of America

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Your information reports that the 1st signed Declaration of Independence in the original 13 colonies was the Mecklenburg Declaration that was signed May 21, 1775 .....but records on file in the American Archives show that the 1st 2 Declarations of Independence were declared in Camden, SC on November 5, 1774, and Long Bluff (presently Society Hill) SC on November 15, 1774....Both of these Declarations preceded the Mecklenburg Declaration by more that 6 months... References: Cook - "Rambles in the Pee Dee Basin"

           Gregg - "History of the Old Cheraws"
           Mills - "Statistics of Souh Carolina"
           Drayton, John - "A View of South Carolina"
            "Charge of Judge William Henry Drayton to the Grand Juries of 
              to the Districts of Camden and Cheraws (Darlington) on Nov. 5   
               and 15, 1774"

Please review/research this data and make needed corrections in your web page information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.107.0.53 (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the precise title of the Wikipedia article you refer to? Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence says "The authenticity of the Mecklenburg Declaration has been disputed since it was first published in 1819". [1] quotes from Camden's "little Declaration of Independence". It doesn't sound very explicit about declaring independence to me. Such issues can be discussed on the talk page of whichever article you are referring to. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

texas gonzales and northern - update

Answered

Shortline is seeing a boom in traffic due to Eagleford Shale oil play. Neville Switch is the name of a major expansion of track south of the County Road 284 grade crossing. On October 2 three power units were parked there along with tracks full of hoppers and crude oil tankers. There is no parking allowed along the road, and crude oil trucks roll into the facility to transload the cargo. A new track at Harwood now completes a wye toward Houston. Aerial views show what is developed and what is still being graded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.252.3 (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Texas, Gonzales and Northern Railway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Thank you for your interest in this article. If you can find press coverage of the railway's expansion, you would be very welcome to include it in the Wikipedia article. But an eyewitness account is not enough, because readers need to be able to check what has been written for themselves. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


boxes and no feedback after fixes on Matt Bostrom

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I am adding my first new article Matt Bostrom. Boxes appeared with issues. I addressed those issues. I posted explanations on the discussion page. I waited. So finally I deleted the boxes. Now the boxes are back with no explanation and no discussion. Is this an autobot? I have looked at multiple other articles and I think my article is doing great. I need some real feedback not a box. Please help. Thegracekelly (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

We seem to have already discussed this. I'm looking into it again. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, we did, and I have checked all those sources again and although the list is impressive, they are not of the kind that assert notability. Nevertheless, I'll let someone else leave a second opinion here - maybe the article should be sent to WP:AfD for community discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

MAKING A MOVIE AND LOOKING TO GET IN TOUCH WITH JASON COPE

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

DV8 FILMS IS SHOOTING A MOVIE AND WE NEED TO GET INTO CONTACT WITH JASON. PLEASE PHONE (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.174.8.10 (talk) 11:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

First please don't shout. Next, this is a help desk for Wikipedia, we can't help you get in touch with anyone. Also I removed your phone number to help protect you privacy. GB fan 11:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of our material

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Recently, I noticed that one individual has taken it upon themself to remove content that I and others had added to various sections. These particular sections were poor in content and asked for content and references. I justfied my content and again within minuites it was removed, I point particularly to the page on Colostomy and the comment by Comment of DCwom:- my question to him is why had he done this? my question and justrification of inclusion is as follows. I would also say I am bedbound due to complications surrounding my ostomy but have years of experience in reporting for US and Uk Governments on anything from economics to health as a report/media consultant employed full time by them from 1980-1990, before this I worked as a copywriter with McGrawhill in Rome and London (1969-1972) and Academic Press (1972-5) Therafter I worked on national press as an independent journalist until 1979 when I was offered the position of media correspondent for the Anglo_Dutch Chamber of Commerce in The Hague, and moved to the US Embassy in the Hague's Department of Commerce and worked on speeches for past US Presidential visits and Ambassadorial speeched among many other duties. I won awards for my distict writing both montary and Gold Seal, I moved to work in the US in 1990, still with the US DOC and continued to work as an independent journalist from 1990-2002 in the US, Canada and The UK. I was forced to retire due to the onset of crohn's an ostomy - hence my knowledge and research. My husband and co-autor worked with medecins sans frontieres and wrote for numerous publications and we decided to combine our abilties to produce a 440 page resource book for all ostomates worldwide, researching in the languages we speak as well as English. The conclusion has proved very successful and we update the book with out website an information only portal wiht links to the Internt=ational Ostomy Association Community, some government controlled. We found the pages on ostomies and related matter to be lacking and tried to update much of the content with our own copyrighted research. This has almost all been removed including the links to our non profit website that takes no advertising, membership or registration. It is non commercial as all profits from the sales of the book are being donated to the Uk ostomy associations for their use in research.

My comment to DCwom, whoever they may be, as they do not explain themselves. is as follows: So nice of you to undo this, may I ask what your own training is in this world of ostomies? Are you an ostomate?

The reason I added the longer explanation to irrigation that was already there is that it did not give the right explanation for and how to irrigate. Many ostomates take it into their heads that once having heard about irrigation, it is a simple procedure, which it is absolutely not. Advice should be taken from medical professionals before beginning down this pathway and people do not do this. One ostomate says to another "I irrigate, it's much esier than wearing a bag" ostomate two blindly orders the equimenr without any contact to the stomal nurse or consultant assigned to their care and then the trouble begins. These thing should be explained properly. What broken reference were you referring to? I gave the full reference. For your detailed information. I am an ostomate of many years standing, members of all 3 Uk ostomy Associations, write the Crohn's and Colitis Newsletter for Wales and was commissioned to write a book in 2007 as a resource for ostomates. It is now listed as 45th out of the top 100 health resource books in the UK and has been glowingly reviewed independently by the UOAA (United Ostomy Association of America)'s journal The Phoenix, September edition by a journalist that is sydicated to the NY, LA and Chicago Times on Health matters. He also happens to be an ostomate. Are YOU? Pur website is a non profit information portal (also in the process of being revamped into a wordpress platform to extend the information we can provide from medical sources and professional contributors only).

As an international journalists of 35 years accredditation, we wrote a book which is now listed as 45th out of Amazon's UK health reference books - Unwanted Baggage. (1st edition Published in Feb. 2011); 2nd edition is being published in December 2011 with a print run of 10,000 initially. This was compiled after 5 years of intensive reseach talking to medical professionals worldwide in 7 languages (which we speak fluently), and reading countless research papers from universities' medical research departments, talking to their authors and reviewing conclusions. This work has been recognised by the United Ostomy Association of the America's Journal "The Phoenix" which gave it enormous acclaim over two pages - the Phoenix reaches 1.2 million ostomates, medical libraries, stomal and colorectal nurses and gastroenterologists in 80 countries. The updating website http://www.thebowelmovement.info/ is an information portal only. No registration is requied. No membership is required, Nothing is asked in return. It contains relevant updated information on every aspect of ostomy life including the latest prescription ostomy products (not at the request of any manufacturer) and ostomy reviews of these products and breaking medical news (we are members of the BMJ journlists contingent and as such receive embargoed ground breaking medical news which we pass on to members. We have no forum or chat rooms, we take no advertising and are a strictly non profit company.

I fail to understand why this person has been trawling the ostomy sites to remove content he or she personally disagrees with. n some cases other valuable content has been removed some justificably as with meetanostomte.com which is purely commercial. Somthing should be done to monitor this person's habits and see what other damage he has done in rmeoving valuable essential content from other sites. Pleas let me know what you think. kind regards Liz Prosser

We do collect donations when possible but these are passed directly to the three main ostomy associations in the UK. but provide links to the 80 International Ostomy Associations some of which are government mandated and provide more specific in-country information. We also provide an educational service by producing ostomy videos for children to show they can live a normal life with and despite and ostomy. These videos are now is use with the Australian Stomal Nurses Association, The UOAA Nurses association and on the Norwegian Ostomy Association Website (sponsored by the Norwegian government).

The information we provide has been vetted by many of the professional bodies and associations worldwide. You seem to discount Associations as social organisatiions. This is not true of the official associations in the UK - i.e. The Colostomy Association, IA Support and The Urostomy Association of the UK, all of whom work with professional medical staff. In Australia, the Ostomy associations are government funded to distribute ostomy supplies to all ostomates who receive government funding. There are many chat rooms and forums which take advertising and exist as profit maming concerns. we do not fall into this category, with even the profits (royalties) from the book being donated to the UK's ostomy charities. These are strictly audited by an indpendent accountantcy firm. Someone seems to delight in removing any reference to us or our content from the wikipedia without any justification or knowledge of our activities. We have not been notified of these removals and had to find out ourselves. Elizabeth & Philip Prosser 14:48 October 4th 2011."""" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhosymynydd (talkcontribs) 14:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not exist to promote your organization. Links which seem calculated to promote or publicise it will continue to be reverted. Please be aware, also, of our rules about conflict of interest, from which non-profit organisations are not exempted. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

7 Deadly sins stated biblically

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Malace/wrath Averice Gluttony/greed Lust Pride Sloth Envy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.178.30 (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

What is your question? For that matter, what is your source? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


Carlo Tabalujan

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Editing help or referencing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cartel11 (talkcontribs) 08:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed the reference/citation links with this edit. For more on this system of referencing, see Template:Harvard citation documentation. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Accusations and irrelevant content on "educational data mining" page

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Educational data mining (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The "educational data mining" page is having a conflict, which I am hoping a senior editor can assist with. See that page, plus the related talk page.

Irrelevant/out-of-date content was posted on the page by Chire (he states that it was originally written by another individual for a different page). This text was previously removed from that other page for being low-quality. I removed that same content from this page. Chire restored his text, commented on talk, and separately sent me an insulting personal message that I interpreted as telling me that it is Wikipedia policy that I am not allowed to edit the page, as I am involved in the field (I'm the elected President of a scientific society in this area, the International Educational Data Mining Society, with around 200 members). I commented on the talk page that I would not edit further, and emailed a wide range of colleagues to ask them to get involved in editing this page. At this point, two have posted on the talk page; one removed Chire's text of his own independent decision. Chire restored his text, and added "major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view". He also posted to talk accusing me of using "meat puppets".

I'd like to ask a senior editor to intervene and help in this situation. Chire is adding irrelevant content that was removed from another page for being low quality, and making personal insults and attacks. It would also be beneficial to get an "official" adjudication as to whether this page deviates from neutral POV, and what steps could be taken to address this. I would certainly be pleased to see additional scientific content and perspectives added. Prior to Chire, the article mentioned two of the leading competing perspectives on the field (Baker & Yacef, Romero & Ventura), and linked to a third competing perspective (Learning Analytics). There are certainly other perspectives, but I'm not sure what additional perspective Chire believes he represents. He doesn't seem to be making any arguments in favor of the content.Ryan22222 (talk) 03:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

To start with, I'll just mention that blanking your talk page does not help us investigate this kind of enquiry. What was posted can still be reviewed from the talk page history, but it is not really very convenient. Also, if you or your colleagues are involved in editing this articled, please be sure to have read and clearly understood our Conflict of interest policy. I'm now looking further into this.for you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I have left a suitable message on the article talk page. If there are further clashes of opinion that cannot be resolved there, please take the matter to the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry -- I've unblanked it. I figured anyone could just look at the history, and didn't know it was against policy. Thanks for your help. Ryan22222 (talk) 04:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not against policy, just a generally recognised preference so that discussions are easier to follow. One common approach is to set up talk page archiving. This then gives you the option of either archiving discussions after a week or two, as I do, so that other editors can easily review discussions that are completed or on hold; or archiving after a few days, so that the amount of obsolete information on the page is kept to a minimum. It also means that if someone does want to view the older material, looking at the archives puts it a bit more in context. If you'd like to set up talk page archiving and need any help, just let us know. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I've tried to make it clear that I don't have any objections to major changes to that section, but that I consider it inappropriate to blank the entire section (you can find statements I did like: "If 90% of the section are off-topic and out of date, remove just these 90%"). Unfortunately, Ryan seems to have given up completely now: [[2]]. A pity, because it seems as if he was well qualified to help with this topic. I don't have a personal interest in that article, so definitely did not want anybody to leave. --Chire (talk) 06:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Section blanking by meatpuppets^W new/rare wikipedia users is still going on: Special:Contributions/In1romoc. But I'm giving up on this article. The article is clearly outside of my interests; I just wanted to stop the content I merged there (from cluster analysis, which I care about and spend some time cleaning up recently) from being deleted without being given a chance. --Chire (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

We've done what we can here at EAR, I've semi-protected the page. Please now take the issue to Dispute resolution noticeboard as I suggested before. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

SAS programming language

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAS_programming_language

keeps geteing redirected to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAS_(software)

even though there is a valid article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAS_language


this is because-

this matter is sub judice and referred by software patent judgement in http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2010/1829.html#para56 .

the attempts to modify redirect to SAS system are malafide and make it an advertisement

A note from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAS_Institute_lawsuit_with_World_Programming can help warn readers or editors or redirectors of this issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datagandhi (talkcontribs) 21:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the redirect has now beenn fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

images

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Greetings to you from sunny Port Elizabeth, South Africa I am just enquiring as to if you can help me with the following:

My grandfather in law, Mr Graeme Vivian Donald born 1919, Masterton New Zealand recently attended the 24 Squadron reunion held in London last week, the 2nd of October 2011. I’m desperately searching to try locating some historical photos of him either at the reunion itself or general historical pictures of him. He is a WW2 war veteran and was a top pilot for the RAF.

Can you help me at all?

[details removed]

Kindest regards

Jon Cohen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.216.206.39 (talk) 08:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you try posting at the Humanities reference desk, as some of the volunteers there tackle history questions and may be able to help. I have removed your contact details to protect your privacy; any answers will be provided either here or at the reference desk. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Report of vandalism.

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

In the article on Paracelsus, the first line of the section headed "Biography" has been vandalized. It should be corrected. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.170.109 (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It is being dealt with. In the future, you can click on "View history," then "undo," and save the page to undo vandalism. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfair deletion

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I edited in to Isaac Asimov's page and Arthur C. Clarkes that they turned down offers for cryonics services prior to their deaths and they were unfairly taken down. I attempted it a second time with different wording and it was taken down again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.112.28 (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The wording is not at issue. The fact that you failed to provide a reliable source to verify your addition and then blanked every page you'd tried to edit in an apparent fit of pique is. Danger (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Problems regarding stubs about notable families

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Adeler (noble family) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have written nearly the entire article Norwegian nobility. I am now wishing to make stubs for each of the families in this list. However, only a few minutes after creating the first stub, Adeler (noble family), it was 1.) nominated for speedy deletion, this because it may not have sufficient 'importance or significance', and 2.) marked as lacking references/sources.

My opinions are the following:

1.) Dano-Norwegian noble families are of importance or significance. It is unnecessary to nominate such articles for s/d, and the reason for that this has happened now, is likely that the user concerned does not know about nobility.

2.) If I shall have to contest s/d nominations for each of the 200 stubs that I am going to make, it will take a tremendous amount of time, delaying and disturbing my work.

3.) I do not consider sources to be necessary in a one-line stub (e.g. 'X is a family in the Dano-Norwegian nobility') which has interwiki-links to sister articles in other languages.

It is very confusing for a person working on nobility to be continuously interrupted by persons who have no interest or competence, but yet allow themselves to classify the subject as e.g. 'lacking importance'.

Kindly suggest a solution to this. I cannot work in such circumstances, which will force me to end all contributions on Wikipedia.

--- Aaemn784 (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

One problem here is that the references that you are using in Norwegian nobility, such as Store Norske Leksikon and Norwegian Historical Encyclopædia are user-contributed wikis and so they are not reliable sources. You may not consider it necessary to provide reliable sources for stubs, but Wikipedia does consider it necessary, please see: WP:Stub#Ideal stub article. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
No, no, and again no. I have seen this misunderstanding before. SNL and NHE are written by experts and approved by the encyclopediæ. However, NHE has unedited been copied to a user-contributed wiki.
--- Aaemn784 (talk) 05:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
You may also like to read Wikipedia:Inherent notability for guidelines on what may or may not be inherently notable in Wikipedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Until you have some substantive content for the article (including links to reliable sources [a term which does not include wikilinks or links to user-written websites], rather than a reprise of the title, you should keep your drafts in sandboxes, thus: User:Aaemn784/Adeler (noble family). There you may work on them at your leisure. --Orangemike (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I do not have time to write 200 articles, especially not when the work includes fighting against so-called disturbers. I will rather leave them as red links, which is not good, as it removes the possibility to create interwiki links for interested readers to follow.
I am all in all tired of Wikipedia, and will not remain here for long. It is impossible to work without being unnecessarily disturbed, e.g. by the person who now three times has reverted legitimate content in the article Norwegian nobility. I understand why many highly educated persons avoid this site; the lack of respect is a dominating factor here.
Thanks for the assistance.
--- Aaemn784 (talk) 05:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
If your intent is merely to create one line stubs for each of them, you might instead want to create redirects at each name to the existing Norwegian nobility article. No need for sources on a non-controversial redirect and it establishes a location on Wikipedia to link to. If meaningful content can then be added, it's no problem. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
That is a very good idea, and I had not thought about it. --- Aaemn784 (talk) 07:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Creating 200 one-line unreferenced stubs may be considered disruptive and you might be blocked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC).
Well, the way that I see it, creating an unsourced one-liner saying 'X is a family in the Dano-Norwegian nobility' is just as unproblematic as creating an unsourced one-liner saying 'Oslo is a city in Norway'. However, if the article concerned were standing alone (i.e. not interwikied to similar articles in e.g. Danish, Norwegian, and German), the case would be different. --- Aaemn784 (talk) 07:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: CrAdeler (noble family) has been deleted userfied. An appropriate message has been left on the author's talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --- Aaemn784 (talk) 07:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


Re How we can produce Mozzarella from partial Homogenized milk

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear sire
We are the biggest company Mozzarella &Feta Cheese production in Egypt and middle east. I am looking to produce Mozzarella cheese from partial Homogenized milk by homogenized the fat only by separate the cream and homogenized with milk but partial Homogenization to avoide the bad stretching.this is to increase the yield and quality and the moiture content. please if you have any new information about this poits please contact me throw my e-mail thanks

[contact info redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.52.247.194 (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

We only answer questions here so I removed your contact info.
Symbol move vote.svg Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps.
Note however that we are Wikipedia, a general encyclopedia, and the people at our reference desk may not have qualifications to help a specialized company like yours. Perhaps you thought we were representatives of one of the many organizations we have articles about. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Roberto Alonso

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 11:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

We have received a notice about the page regarding the Venezuelan political leader Roberto Alonso - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_Alonso - we have to say what follows

1. No, we do not have any relation with the subject 2. There are not enough Latin leaders posted in English 3. We feel that a person so important for the Venezuelan and Latin American contemporary history has to be published in Wikipedia 4. We have a list of subjects in line regarding Venezuelan and Latin American topics and leaders 5. We are an American foundation that promotes freedom in Latin American and the United States 6. We are not finished yet with Roberto Alonso, since there are a lot of references left to include, as you can see 7. We are Spanish-speaking journalist and we are having an American journalist to check the spelling and grammatical errors

Please let us know if we can keep on working on this page, since - as you can see - we have invested, so far, a lot of hours. We have also check other pages of similar individuals (leaving politicians) and they are similar structured, however, should you feel that it can be improved, we will more-than-happy to count with your help.

Thanks very much,

Dr. Marcos Portier Fundademo<email redacted>

IMPORTANT - We have noticed that the page has been deleted and instead they place the old page, which doesn't suit the subject profile at all. We have been trying to write to info-en-owikimedia.org and the systems tells us that such email doesn't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guarimbero (talkcontribs) 18:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, please discuss on the article talk page - and please take note of the message on your own talk page. You need to write in a neutral, encyclopaedic tone and you need to provide reliable sources for any information. I redacted your email, we don't respond by email, we respond to requests here. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

How do I report a suspected vanity page?

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 11:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

How do I report a suspected vanity page, especially one that is completely lacking in any content.

--Missy Chif (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Well there are a number of templates that may be placed, but it is best to begin by starting a discussion on the article talk page. What is the article? Jezhotwells (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
If you suspect it meets the speedy deletion criteria at WP:CSD, tag it appropriately (for instance if it's about a band, place {{db-band}} at the top of the article). You should also let the author know you've done this by placing an appropriate tag on their talkpage. If it breaches WP:COI (the WP rules on Conflict of Interest) it may need to be listed at WP:AFD. This probably isn't a simple thing to discuss here; I'll give you a shout on your talkpage for more details. Tonywalton Talk 22:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Account and article information

Answered: Unionhawk Talk E-mail 14:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like some help with my account. I would like to have my article reviewed without being blocked or banned from Wikipedia. I would like someone neutral to take a look at the article to see if it is acceptable for Wikipedia.

I just want to avoid any problems and get a second opinion on the article before letting it go. I believe it is a notable company and am trying to avoid COI.

Please advise. Thank you. Xpathy (talk) 07:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Xpathy

Well you could use WP:FEEDBACK, but don't forget to supply a link to the draft article. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can see, you were blocked and agreed to a name change, which you appear not to have done yet. This is a condition of allowing you to continue to edit. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Jezhotwells.

Kudpung: I've already changed the username once already.. I'm not required to do so again. The admin transfered the info from the previous account — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xpathy (talkcontribs) 03:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Understood. Apologies for my error - I was mislead by the block notices. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Kristen Ridgway Flores

Answered: Danger (talk) 23:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Kristen Ridgway Flores (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Did I correctly request help on the "Kristen Ridgway Flores" talk page? Revisions have been made to the "Kristen Ridgway Flores" article. Since these revisions were made after the two tags were attached to this article, is it possible for the two tags to be removed?

Dlridgway (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It appears that you are editing an article about yourself or someone in your family. This is a conflict of interest and may mean that the article is not entirely neutral. If you have addressed the other issues and checked that the references truly conform to our policies at biographies of living persons, and are all reliable sources (some of them are not) that support the requirements at WP:NACTOR, then you may remove the notability tag. You will need to tone down the prose to be less promotional. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Salary for a Governor should be public knowledge

Answered: Unionhawk Talk E-mail 12:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scott_Walker_(politician) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronimagine (talkcontribs) 02:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Salary should be public knowledge, and looks like it is. I doubt it should be included in a encyclopaedia article. Do we have the salary of Abraham Lincoln? Ronald Reagan? Why not? It is not encyclopaedic. There may be exceptions - this does not look like one. Simply some current discussion on budget cuts and sharing sacrifices, and we do not document every argumentation on any and all parliament, senate, etc. - Nabla (talk) 10:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Not everything which is (and should be) public knowledge belongs in Wikipedia. This is simply not encyclopedic content! --Orange Mike | Talk 13:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
The salary of a governor (with history) presumably belongs in the Governor of XXX article, not the article of each incumbent. cf. President_of_the_United_States#Compensation --Macrakis (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Agree. It's public knowledge, but not a level of detail that we would normally get to. There seems to be some kerfluffle about his salary and how much he gives back as compared to how much he says he gives back. If that's truly a notable issue that has been covered in multiple notable and reliable sources and is something that people in the state worry about then maybe it could be mentioned, in which case mentioning his salary could be part of that. I would be very wary of covering these kind of minor-leauge pissing contests as a rule since there seems to be no indication of corruption or illegality but rather (maybe) a politician not fulfilling a campaign promise, which is somewhere on the order of "sun sets in west" in terms of real notability. If it's just an excuse to rag on Walker, I'd let it go, unless its truly a big deal. Herostratus (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
    • ^ What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad.