Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 88

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

Craniosacral Therapy Article

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The first paragraph of the article is presented in a very biased way, using phrases such as "claims to be" and "said to be" implying that the method of therapy has no effect. I edited the article and removed such phrases without changing the content or references, but the editor that wrote them changed them back. I don't know how to make this article unbiased without this editor changing it again. Help! Please note: I am a medical student that has learned these techniques. Though I do not promote or discredit their efficacy, I would like to see this material presented in an unbiased way. example of biased text: "The practitioner claims to gently work with the spine and the skull and its cranial sutures, diaphragms, and fascia. In this way, the restrictions of nerve passages are said to be eased, the movement of cerebrospinal fluid through the spinal cord is said to be optimized, and misaligned bones are said to be restored to their proper position. Craniosacral therapists use the therapy to treat mental stress..." --Skywalker4532 (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

In the case of a fringe theory, we must be careful not to assume the validity of the claims for such a theory; this is standard for all such ideas. You were violating our neutral point of view policy with your edits. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Ballroom Dancers

Request unclear: Jezhotwells (talk) 02:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Lyn Aspden (now Gaskell) Sammy Stopford's first Professionsl dance partner of 7 years including approximately 18 months as an amateur rising through the ranks during this time. Amongst other championships, Sammy & I became the All England Professional Latin Champions and were British Invitation Disco Exhibition Winners (Blackpool)during the mid to late 1970s. Before retiring from competitive dancing to marry Chris Gaskell in 1981 I was responsible for helping to train many dance champions including Marcus Hilton and Janet Wild (British Junior Latin Champions), Mike and Barbara Stevenson (British Senior Latin Champions) to name but a few. I now live in the Costa Blanca. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyn Aspden (talkcontribs) 22:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

And what kind of help are you seeking? Active Banana (bananaphone 22:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


Resolved: User Talk:Shyguy1991 has been indefinitely blocked. Kudpung (talk) 04:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to ask for assistance. This user for the last few months has been adding every band that appears at venues in North America. So the user was asked by many editors to stop as it was adding undo weight to the articles. The ones I noticed that the user had been doing this to were Credit Union Centre, Staples Centre and The Forum (Inglewood, California). However, there many many more. Today I notice this user had decided to go the opposite direction. He not only heeded to the request, but went ahead and deleted every band listed on the pages. I do believe that a short list citing examples of concerts at a venue is appropriate.

Also, on the user's page, he keeps blanking it. Removing all warnings, requests etc. So I am asking for assistance to stop the user from going to either extreme. In the span of a couple hours today they made 41 of these removal edits to various pages. I don't want to be drawn into a 3R war with this user. Please intercede. If this is the wrong place for this, I apologize, I just didn't see it counting towards any of the other places. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 01:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Users can do what they like on their user and talk pages (within policy of course) even if it is considered bad form. if they remove warnings, it it is generally assumed that they will have read and understood them. As regards the other edits, my advice is to list all the diffs that you genuinely consider to be disruptive editing, and take the matter to the appropriate notice board. Start here: WP:ANI. --Kudpung (talk) 02:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Resolved: User talk:Undineoutthere has been indefinitely blocked.--Kudpung (talk) 04:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I wrote an article about the Thinking Environment and copied most of the text from my own website. Then I got a message saying my article was being deleted for copyright infringement! What can I do?

14:34, 15 October 2010 NawlinWiki (talk | contribs) deleted "Thinking Environment" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of and

Thanks, Charlotte Baker,, Undineoutthere (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Charlotte. Please start new posts on talk pages with a Level 2 heading prefixed and suffixed like this: ==My Problem==, or read the instructions at the top of the page for starting a new enquiry.
You may not copy text from another website even if it is your own. Please read our instructions at WP:COPYVIO. You must completey rewrite the contents in you own, new words. However, if you are closely connected with the subject, you most likely should not be writing about it at all because you will have a conflict of interest- please see our policy at WP:COI. Finally, you are not allowed to use Wikipedia to promote your activity as a consultant, Wikipedia is not a trade directory, and in any case, it is unlikely that your business is important or famous enough to have an article in an encyclopedia. Sorry about all this, but that the ruling I'm afraid. --Kudpung (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Issue with WP:CRYSTAL

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

An unregistered editor is currently adding information regarding a tour which will not take place until 2011 to the Primus article. As far as I understand it, it's a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to add such information unless A.) the event is almost certain to take place (i.e. The Olympics, The Superbowl, etc.) and B.) there is extensive documentation to verify both factual accuracy and notability of the future event. Since there is no certainty that the event is to take place and no sources beyond the band's tour page have been provided by the editor, I believe the info violates WP:CRYSTAL. In addition, the user is making contentious comments, such as the edit summary here, and even directly at me with the most recent edit.

I have reverted the user several times, citing WP:CRYSTAL in the summary. I've also commented about WP:CRYSTAL on the user's talk page. The user seems to act as if he or she cannot hear me. At this point, rather than revert the user again and further inflame the situation, I'd like to involve a third party. If someone could revert the last edit to the article and counsel about Wikipedia policies, particularly WP:CRYSTAL, I would much appreciate it. If, instead, I'm the one mistaken about the policy, I would also appreciate any info regarding that as well. If this is not the proper forum for such a request, please direct me in an appropriate direction. DKqwerty (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No opinion currently as to whether or not it's suitable to be included (the IP claims the tour is listed on their site, and they're not exactly adding large amounts of unverified information here, simply listing the name of the tour). I've added a citation needed template and removed the unnecessary comment the IP just left. Please discuss in talk to determine whether or not this can be properly referenced to verify that it will take place. It deifnitely needs referencing, but I'm not convinced that it's a violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL since it's simply the name of the future tour, which shouldn't be too difficult to reference (assuming it's accurate). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I find these issues a little mushy. It's really an intersection of policy and practice. For example, there appears to be a custom on actor pages to not include an upcoming film in the filmography unless it's started filming, even though a film can start filming and never be completed. So, editors - including myself - remove filmography entries that haven't started filming and cite to WP:CRYSTAL. However, when I first looked the policy, it wasn't clear to me that it forbad entries of films that hadn't started filming because you could still find sources that talked about the future film - but I finally gave in to the custom. I'm not familiar with the custom for band tours. I looked at some band articles, but the ones I looked it didn't have separate sections on tours. As for the reference to the upcoming Primus tour, it IS listed on their website and, in fact, you can even buy tickets. Strikes me that that's enough to include it. What more would you want - a newspaper article discussing it? I'm not crazy about the list of tours anyway, even the ones in the past. None of them is cited. Two of them say "unnamed". Anyway, I think you should leave in the Soundwave tour, but perhaps the broader issue about what should be included in the list and what has to be referenced could be addressed on the Talk page. I do think the IP's behavior is inappropriate. Surely one exclamation point is enough. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 14:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
And what is the reason for adding the future tour? WP:NOTADVERT / WP:PROMO come to mind as well. Active Banana (bananaphone 15:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
It's part of the band's work. If you take the position that future tours have only promotional value, then what is the point of discussing future films or future TV series or anything that hasn't yet happened but might cause someone to attend a future event? What about a tour that is ongoing but still hasn't completed? Couldn't listing it cause people to go buy tickets for the future dates of the tour? Even listing the band's official website has promotional impact. However, just because something has a promotional side effect doesn't mean it doesn't also have encyclopedic value.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Uh Banana, adding the name and year (and nothing else) of a future tour to the end of an otherwise comprehensive (I think) list of the band's tours, could hardly be considered promotional, and arguably adds to the encyclopaedic content, providing it can actually be sourced sufficiently to be verified. Remember to assume good faith. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
In general, we DONT "discussing future films or future TV series or anything that hasn't yet happened." Active Banana (bananaphone 15:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I can't cite articles that don't do it, but I can certainly cite articles that do: Jake Gyllenhaal, Emma Watson, Alan Rickman, Robert Pattinson, Brad Pitt, and the list goes on and on. The upcoming events are discussed in the body and cited in the filmographies (unless, as I said earlier, they haven't yet started filming and someone notices it and reverts the addition).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Banana, could you indicate where you've quoted that from? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
[1] 2 posts up from where I posted. Active Banana (bananaphone 19:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
"unless ... they haven't yet started filming and someone notices it and reverts the addition" And how is a future concert tour that hasnt had any performances any different than an upcoming movie that hasnt begun filming, particularly an upcoming tour sourced only to the bands website? Active Banana (bananaphone 19:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I stopped paying attention to the thread or I would have responded earlier. I don't think live and canned performances are the same. The intent of the filming "policy" is the film becomes more real once it actually goes into production. I'm not sure what we would require of a live performance, but it seems to me that if the artist announces the live performance for a specific date and sells tickets for that performance, I'm not sure why that isn't real enough to include it. Other variables - like hiring certain people for the tour and renting the space, etc. - would be very hard to document and unrealistic to expect for inclusion in the article. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't demand absolute certainty: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place." That second sentence implies that we can include the event but not the actual date of the event - frankly, a little odd if, as here, tickets are being sold for specific dates. In any case, to me, because the policy isn't absolutely clear, it requires some judgment. I think Banana's and my views differ, which doesn't mean that I'm right or Banana's right. I'm not sure if there's any consensus for it one way or the other.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


Unresolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Can someone help User:Elizium23 understand that for a Wikipedia article, the important thing about a person's birthday is the actual date, and not the random coincidence that it happened to be Easter [2]? Thanks. Active Banana (bananaphone 22:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You are both in breach of the WP:3RR three-revert-rule, fortunately you have not been reported to ANI yet. Do remember that any reverts by either of you in this issue will result in you being blocked. Try to find other ways of solving this issue without contravening policies. I have left appropriate messages on your talk pages.--Kudpung (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I beg your pardon, but I did not violate WP:3RR as plainly shown in the revision history of the article. Furthermore your accusation of changing date format is unfounded. The date had never been in the body of the article until it was snuck in by User:Active Banana. I made those reversions in good faith to preserve the work of another editor and I took discussion to the talk page where it belonged before I was anywhere near the 3-revert rule. Elizium23 (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Editor's persistence with external links

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Walsyman (talk · contribs)

The above editor has added this fan website to the external links sections of many articles. In some cases, he's been reverted. In others, not. One editor counseled him in December 2009, but it didn't slow him down. I have no idea whether the editor has anything to do with the fan himself. I put another warning on his Talk page when he added the same link to the Tim Robbins article. I reverted the change, and I also undertook the tedious task of removing the external link from many, many other articles. I've also noticed that he's been counseled for his uploading of images, but I personally haven't reviewed the substance of those issues. Although his actions don't strike me as egregious, he also doesn't seem to do much of anything else on Wikipedia. But I don't want him to keep repeating the same behavior. What would be the best way to handle this?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

So far the editor has received a level 2 {{uw-spam2}} warning. Ideally the editor will now be a reformed character, but if that doesn't work you can continue with {{uw-spam3}}, a {{uw-spam4}} "final" warning, and then a report at WP:AIV for admin action. According to WP:VANDAL, "Adding or continuing to add external links to non-notable or irrelevant sites (e.g. to advertise one's website) to pages after having been warned is vandalism", so WP:AIV is the proper noticeboard to use.
The image upload messages are all from several months ago, so this doesn't seem to be an issue at the moment. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, John. Would it be appropriate to issue a level 3 warning now? The first editor in 12/09 issued a level 2 warning, and then I just copied it into a new current section (I'm just beginning to learn about all these warning template levels for different purposes). Couldn't I change my level 2 to a level 3, or is the gap of almost a year too long?
As an aside, I thought the lu template would show the editor's contribs, but it doesn't. I just put in something else that does, but it doesn't look very good. Is there a better way to display contribs for those the convenience of editors looking at this thread?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Certainly when warning an anonymous user, warning messages from several months previously must be discounted, because the IP address may have been re-assigned to someone else. For a logged-in user, I don't know. I suggest you leave your new warning as it is, in case the editor has seen it already; it might seem unfair to replace it with a more severe version. Wait for more edits.
I've replaced your {{lu}} with a {{user}}, which has a link to the contributions. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I've notified Walsyman that he's being discussed here. Since he's added his personal web site using IPs as well as his registered account, here are all the mentions of his personal site still visible: mentions of Ciaran Brown is not a notable person himself, but he records his meetings with various celebrities and has himself photographed with them. EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Two things. First, I don't understand why the Patrick Moore page still shows as referencing the website. I simply can't find it anywhere on it. It was on it, but I removed it when I removed all the other references. Second, how are you able to determine that Walsyman and Brown are the same person? Some admin tool I'm unaware of and/or can't use? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
He is using his web site as Reference 8, to support Patrick Moore's cricket playing. I am simply guessing about the person placing the links, since it could also be a friend or associate. EdJohnston (talk) 21:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, next time I'll do a find in the edit box rather than just on the page. I've slightly reworded the sentence in the Moore article and replaced the website (misleadingly called a biography) with a better source.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

External Links mistakenly regarded as spam

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

In some articles (cameras, phones etc.) I've added a link to a site that collects a lot of tests and reviews of that given product. I've actually deleted links to single reviews, as I found this site (that I linked to) far more useful.
It seems that user User:MrOllie blindly deletes links without actually reviewing the content. I've been called a "Linkspammer", which is pretty harsh considering that I'm only trying to add some truly useful external links to those articles. For more information, please read my comment to him on his userpage User_talk:MrOllie. Who is right?
TobiasK (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Since TobiasK neglected to say so, I should probably mention that the site he's linking is his own. - MrOllie (talk) 21:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
But the links are still more useful than the links you keep (single reviews to DPReview, etc.). The links are also relevant to the context of the articles. It seems you're missing the points of external linking. I can't help that I've made a useful website! ;-) TobiasK (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Tobias, I recommend that you cease adding or removing links until you get consensus somewhere that your action is correct. is Digital Photography Review, a respected web site on which Wikipedia has an article. Dpreview gets seven million unique visitors a month. Can you say the same for your own web site? EdJohnston (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
relevant, helpful and informative, is what an external link should be (referring to our frequently asked questions for organizations). Is it a quality stamp, that a website gets millions of hits a month? If you think so, you're completely missing the point of external linking. TobiasK (talk) 07:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Tobias, I think you'll have to let the community decide that, and you'll just have to grin and bear it if the consensus doesn't turn out to be what you hoped for. In any case guys, you should now continue this discussion on the article talk page and continue, as you have already, to keep it friendly ;) --Kudpung (talk) 09:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Misdirection of topic

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Show is better than tell; from the main page, search for "nonplus."

The observation may be concise, but it is not unclear. Follow instructions.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Picarules (talkcontribs) 17:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It's true - a search for "Nonplus" matches Nonplus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which redirects to a band named Konstruktivits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I was surprised too. "Nonplus" is one track on their 1989 album, apparently. Is any action needed? -- John of Reading (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
It is standard practice to redirect stubs on non-notable tracks to either the album article or the article on the band, as per WP:NSONGS. Examination of the Revision history of Nonplus, shows that the page was created as a redirect. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Not clear what constitutes reliable source when it comes to criticism of companies?

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a reliable source, however, the objection I am seeing to adding the information to Wikipedia is that the reliable source itself only hints at this as being criticism without coming straight out and saying it is. I have a disagreement with someone else at Wikipedia, who appears intent on keeping the good image of the company and its executives, who is accusing me of inserting original content. Any thoughts?Ottawahitech (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the guideline: WP:RS.
In short, reliable sources are those that have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy and neutrality. Having an editorial board/peer review process is best. Pages that anyone can post on the web, fansites, or self published material of any kind, and fringe sources, and POV advocacy sites/sources are (generally) not. Active Banana (bananaphone 23:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Article appears to have been sent forAfD discussion. the community will decide if it is to be kept or not.--Kudpung (talk) 07:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article which I have been sent to read is titled: "Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources", but that does not answer my question. Can you point me to a specific section which explains which sources can be used for writing a criticism page at Wikipedia. Thanks, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation of article titles

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Could I ask for some advice with some of user:Laurel Lodged edits [3] relating to the moving of articles? For example South West Trains is the name of the company and has been moved to South West Trains, UK also they have moved things like Southwest Region, Cameroon to Southwest Region, Cameroon in the latter case calming that it's policy to use a comma and not (..) but looking through WP:AT I can't seem to find anything to suggest either, and shouldn't article moves be discussed first? Am I getting my nickers in a twist or how shall I proceed? --Wintonian (talk) 01:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

First off, check to see if a disambiguation is really necessary. Otherwise there appears to be no hard and fast rule whether the disambig should be in brackets (parentheses) or after a comma. - Much ado about nothing ;) --Kudpung (talk) 07:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I don’t think disambiguation is needed in my opinion. Ok I'll leave it (I don't do edit wars), just would be nice if people asked on the talk pages first. --Wintonian (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Joseph of Arimathaea

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I have added a short sentence on Joseph of Arimathaea. I was warned by a colleague that the administrator (Dougweller) would respond, and he did - and he just deletes the sentence all the time. The sentence reads:


The Vulgate Cycle also claims that it was Joseph of Arimathea's son, Josephus, who came to Britain; and that his son could be easily confused with Josephus Flavius the historian, as they were both 'men of letters'.


With references [1][2][3]

Dougweller says I cannot reference the author Ellis. But I am not. The reference I gave is the Vulgate Cycle, which is the original book that contains this information. The problem here is that there are only 20 copies of the entire Vulgate in the UK, so it is not easy to locate. The more populist book by Ellis is easier to locate, and contains the relevant quotes.

Dougweller suggested I use "The development of Arthurian Romance" as a reference, but this book does not even mention Josephus (son of Joseph), according to Google Books The book by Ellis is simply an alternate source for readers who cannot afford to purchase the Vulgate Cycle (5 volumes costing about $450).

I can only conclude, from stories given to me by my colleague, that Dougweller has an agenda here, and is acting according to prejudice rather than in the interests of Wiki readers.

Disranter (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

See Narwhal2 (talk · contribs) and similar complaints all over the place when I removed mentions of the self-published minor fringe writer Ellis. Oh, and see File:Baalbek- largest stone.jpg where Narwhal2 identifies as Ralph Ellis. The article already mentions the Vulgate Cycle, so this would have been redundant. This belongs at either SPI or ANI. Dougweller (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Certainly agree that there is no apparent reason why this book needs to be referenced in the article. John Carter (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── - copied from ANI:

  •  Confirmed the following are socks of one another:
checked byUser:Tiptoety

Dougweller (talk) 18:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Which of course means that they are all linked to Ellis, as Narwhal2 is by the file provided. John Carter (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

afd question

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

hi i have been looking at afds lately. i have a question about how to discuss things there. sometimes a user will respond to someones vote saying that their reasons are invalid. if this is your vote and you believe the person is baiting you and does not have a valid argument do you need to respond to them at all? it seems like this could get out of hand quickly. i just want to know if someone says your reasons are invalid does the admin care if you respond or not? i hope my question is clear thanks. Aisha9152 (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesnt actually use voting. See WP:NOTDEM and WP:CONSENSUS. If someones !vote is based on reasoning that is not supported by Wikipedia policies, another editor may point point it out or provide counter reasoning. There is no need for you to respond. The closing administrator is supposed to make the determination based on the community's discussion (both the initial reasoning provided by the !voter and any further discussion of the reasonings) on how the consensus of the participants explain how Wikipedia policies apply based on the specifics of the article in question. Active Banana (bananaphone 16:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
To support their opinion, some !voters deliberately misquote policy in the anticipation that neither the closing admin nor the other !voters will check up. If you know this to be the case, by all means respond, but be absolutely sure of your facts, and be extremely polite without sounding patronising, condescendig, or bordering on WP:BAIT. AfD runs for 7 days so you can always ask another uninvolved admin or trusted editor on his/her talk page for advice before you go back to the AfD and make your response. This is important to know, because an AfD once started, sometimes develops into an argument in defence of accepted Wikipedia policy, rather than a debate as to whether to keep or delete just because and article is poorly sourced or because people just like/don't like it. Ultra inclusionists and ultra deletionists often appear to be less concerned with policy that with their own agendas. A few examples which might be of interest are this (defaulted to keep), this (current), this (current), this (merged), and this (deleted).--Kudpung (talk) 04:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Accused of promoting material

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Recently I have modified and changed I was told that until the company I was mentioning is notable I cannot post the article and that someone else will eventually write about the company.

Then later since I have done SEO for years now and wished to contribute in some other way I added an external link on to which is a very notable blog and impressive resource for Relationship with search engines.

What is the process I must take to add anything. It seems whatever I do I am being barred and threaten now to be banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KooDating (talkcontribs) 16:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, in terms of the site you tried to post originally you need to ensure that it meets the notability guidelines, which a startup site is almost completely not going to do. The link is to a blog, which is generally considered less than appropriate for external links. I suggest reading through the relevant policies and learning a little more about our guidelines and policies before adding more material.
I should also note that your username could be considered promotional, as per these guidelines - it's the name of a corporate entity, which is not allowed. I'd suggest you consider changing your username or abandoning this account and starting a new one. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The way I started out editing oh those many long years ago was doing some pretty basic cleanup work that I found at the community portal. There are huge backlogs of articles that need attention, a lot of it pretty simple stuff that just can't be done with bots. These tasks prepare you to do bigger things. Fixing dead links helps one understand external link policy and how citations work. Copy-editing makes you a better writer. And most importantly, doing some of this stuff will help you understand how Wikipedia works. Once you grok that, working in areas you're interested in is a lot easier. I'd also check out a WikiProject that interests you; they usually have a list of tasks that need doing. --Danger (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Algernon Capell, 2nd Earl of Essex

Resolved: semi protected Jezhotwells (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Algernon Capell, 2nd Earl of Essex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) User: misserma, IP Address: These users, I believe are the same people. Have now changed the information on here at least 3 times now. The information they keep adding is incorrect. There are more than 7 sources online that prove that the information she keeps insisting is correct is NOT. I would like her to either be blocked from editing this page or a lock be put on this page after the correct information be stated which is that the Earl had 3 children, the 3rd Earl, Lady Mary, and Lady Elizabeth. The only reason she is doing this is because we got into a discussion on another board where I called her out with these sources and even made a comment that wiki says there are only 3 children and no Thomas. After she deleted her account on that board after insisting she was correct even though she could only cite that she got the info from her family member, someone mysteriously ended up on here adding the person in question. It only makes sense that the user who is doing this is the woman I was in a discussion with over at the Tudor wiki boards. If you would like a link to the discussion please see here.. She will not relent on changing this. Every time I change it back to the correct information she adds the person back into the article. I have checked online and spent days looking for this supposed person, asked people who are well educated in this and he is not a son of this person. I have posted creditable sources which are online to look at and she tried to take down a source that I used to show there were only 3 children. I have many sources:

  • G.E. Cokayne; with Vicary Gibbs, H.A. Doubleday, Geoffrey H. White, Duncan Warrand and Lord Howard de Walden, editors, The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct or Dormant, new ed., 13 volumes in 14 (1910-1959; reprint in 6 volumes, Gloucester, U.K.: Alan Sutton Publishing, 2000), volume II, page 52
  • Charles Mosley, editor, Burke's Peerage, Baronetage & Knightage, 107th edition, 3 volumes (Wilmington, Delaware, U.S.A.: Burke's Peerage (Genealogical Books) Ltd, 2003), volume 1, page 1348.

Is there a way to block this person from re-posting? Links to sources: Please see..,_2nd_Earl_of_Essex
even this site...
Meg E. McGath (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it and put it under review status. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Removals of my work

Discussion moved: to WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Ericmelse Jezhotwells (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Please visit:

Qwfp does not respond to my response to his/her decision to remove my work. Frankly, I want disclosure who this person is and his/her motivation to remove my work. Moreover, I appreciate the opinion of another editor(s) on this action of Qwfp, i.e. if indeed my contribution (in this case) is in conflict with the "Wiki Way of Writing".

Much obliged, Eric Melse —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericmelse (talkcontribs) 13:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

To begin with no one is obligated to reveal who they are on Wikipedia. Every registered user goes by a name that they decide upon. You have decided to use what appears to be a real name others of us have decided that we don't want other editors to know our real name. So you desire to have disclosure of who Qwfp is will probably not be fulfilled. I will look at the edits you are concerned about if you will link to the article(s). ~~ GB fan ~~ 13:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
"Professor" Melse has been filling articles with links to articles by himself, and to YouTube videos he created. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
The videos are sales videos. He's also inserted links to a website that sells the same product(s) the videos are about.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that Qwfp has already explained his motivations completely, in the edit summary for his reversion of your links, here. --CliffC (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
And here.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a thread at the conflict of interest noticeboard regarding this user. See here. Netalarmtalk 02:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Ragsdale

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Can someone look at the article Jeff Ragsdale and it's edit history. The article needs a lot of help, and someone with more experiance also should head over and see if the IP and account working on the article seem suspicious. I saw that they were both only working on this one page, and considering the history that Jeff Ragsdale has with hoaxes and stunts, I am thinking possible COI, but am not sure. Either way, the article needs a lot of work from someone used to helping new articles from new editors. Sven Manguard Talk 06:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest you start a discussion on the article talk page about your concerns. Looking at the article it appears over-referenced and could do with some re-writing. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Problem with dissapearing referenced information

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Swedish Armed Forces and Military ranks of the Swedish Armed Forces: I have included information (with strong references to reports published by the Swedish Armed Forces) about the distribution of personnel vs rank as well as what military units Sweden has as of today. For the reader this is very useful information in order to get a picture of Swedish ranks and Armed Forces. However, it is being blanked out by User: Most of the times he blanks out everything without any comments, sometimes he makes claims that no one can verify. How do we deal with this? Regards, --Malin Lindquist (talk) 03:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Both articles could do with an easy clean up! The way to go is to invite User talk: on his talk page, to discuss these matters on the article talk page. Indiscriminately blanking information without providing rationale or references is not an accepted procedure and I have left suitable messages on his/her talk page.--Kudpung (talk) 04:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

my name is robert conrad the actor

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Dear Wikipedia, I was born in Chicago 1935 not 1929 my name is not Falkowski it is Conrad Robert Falk. I have a birth certificate to support this. I know you want to be accurate so any questions for Wikipedia only contact me on Thursday at CRN Talk Radio in Sunland, Ca 818-352-7152. I know Wikipedia wants to be accurate. Thank you, Robert Conrad aka Conrad Robert Falk —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

So you should post this, with reliable sources, at the talk page Talk:Robert Conrad. I note that the fact that your father's name is Leonard Falkowski is referenced.(Aaker, Everett (2006). Encyclopedia of early television crime fighters: all regular cast members in American crime and mystery series, 1948-1959. McFarland. pp. 143. ISBN0786424761.) What matters in Wikipedia is verifiabilty and reliable sourcing. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

List of Ribbon color meanings

Request unclear: Please clarify the issue so that we can better assist. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 16:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Lime Green Ribbon is for Lyme Disease its a different color then green. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you need help with? I don't see a List of ribbon color meanings. If you feel you can benefit wikipedia by making a change, by all means do so. It'll probably help if you provide a reliable source for the change though. Can you clarify which article (or list) you're referring to? GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 16:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I guess it's about List of awareness ribbons#List of Ribbon color meanings. It shows a common Green ribbon to cover ribbons which don't necessarily have the same shade of green. I don't think the shades should have separate list entries. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Navy SEAL List - people removing Governor Jess Ventura from the list

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Discussion moved: Talk:List of Navy SEALs Jezhotwells (talk) 11:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Whether James George Janos aka Jesse Ventura should be included in the SEAL list

My background: I have worked with Governor Jesse Ventura and I am colleagues from US Navy SEAL's from the 70's up until today. I have attended BUD/S graduations (family who are SEALs) and spent a fare amount of time at NavSpecWar in Coronado as a guest. I do not claim to be a SEAL. I have nothing but admiration for these fine men and nothing for disdain that pretend to be part of their community.

Reason that people remove Ventura: Personal, they dislike him and his showboating, ego, grandstanding, politics, theories on 9/11, conspiracy theories AND accomplishments above most others. One thing is for certain, people either love Governor Ventura or they hate him, much like another SEAL, Richard Marcinko (who no one disputes is a SEAL), neither seem to have people on the fence.

Mutually Agreed Points: Ventura graduated with BUD/S class 58 and from there he was assigned to a UDT Team.

The selection and training program for both SEAL and UDT was the same, Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training.

It is also agreed that UDTs both were a precursor program and concurrent program to the SEALs.

At that time, sailors would go from SEAL to UDT Teams and vice versa as well as command officers going from one unit to the other.

Ventura was in UDT during the Vietnam era, though he did not go to Vietnam and his assignments were elsewhere.

Ventura does not claim to be a 1970’s / Vietnam era SEAL, but a UDT.

Point in Question: Whether James George Janos aka Jesse Ventura should be included in the SEAL list and the answer lies in that the US Department of the Navy has long since merged both programs and as such stated that those serving as naval commandos/Frogmen, UDTs prior to the SEALs creation, and UDTs concurrent and after creation of the SEALs are ALL entitled to be designated to wear the trident insignia and use the term SEAL in connection with themselves.

Moreover, Ventura (BUD/S 58) was a distinguished guest at the BUD/S Class 258 graduation (his bicentennial class as it was referred to) at NavSpecWar in Coronado, California. As a Head of State guest of honor (being a Governor, Ventura is a Head of State and therefore must be saluted by the military, including Admirals, the same as US Presidents and Medal of Honor recipients) and was addressed as and considered by those in attendance including flag officers, team-mates and other UDTs and SEALs as a “SEAL.”

While at the SEAL base and the BUD/S graduation, if Ventura claimed to be something other than what he was (what is now collectively referred to as “SEAL”), wouldn’t have the Department of the Navy, Naval Special Warfare (who’s historical library is housed there at its entrance, routinely referred to for outing false SEALs), Navy SEAL BUD/S instructors and command or Naval Flag officers and Admirals questioned his assertion?

There were no accusations because his detractors’ claims are baseless and unfounded and I would argue are not in the abovementioned position that would actually be in such a position to make such claims or challenges.

They are, most likely, people who like to argue on Wikipedia about technical facts that they nothing about, are not members of the SEAL community at all or SEALS that would arguably be defined as “jealous” of his success and iconoclastic persona.

Ventura does not claim to be a 1970’s/ Vietnam era SEAL, but a UDT. It is the Department of the Navy that has melded those two into one, and thus he is now collectively entitled to wear the Trident and be referred to as a “SEAL” or Frogman.” -- (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)-- (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC) -- (talk) 03:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

He was not in the SEALs and his office has specifically denied that he was in the SEALs. "Governor Ventura's office confirmed that Ventura was never a member of the elite Navy SEALs..." There it is, verified. Jesse Ventura was in UDT 12 and served as a frogman in the Philippines. You can either produce some information that he was on a SEAL team or accept his own word that he was in UDT 12. This all came out when he was governor of Minnesota and he had to admit that he was never on a SEAL team and never in combat (after stating that he was and had been affected by agent orange in Vietnam...)
If you want to add him to a list create a list of notable UDT frogmen, but he has admitted that he was not a SEAL. V7-sport (talk) 04:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport

Response: You are both correct and incorrect. It is similar to statehood and years of acceptance to the union. He was not called or claimed (beyond the collective merger) that he was a "SEAL" during Vietnam or in the 1970's. Those have been since merged for the purposes of title.

It is similar to saying someone from Alaska or Hawaii in 1925 was or is an American. While they were not then, they are now called "Americans." Or Jim Bowie, he was technically not born in an American state and was yet a resident or birth of 5 or more states and territories through merger, annexation and lack of state delineations.

By your facetious note, Cahill, considered on of the great SEALs, was NOT a SEAL either. You cannot have it both ways, when Cahill did it, there were no SEALs and being a Frog or a precursor is not a SEAL by your standard.

We would then have to suggest to Wikipedia, by your own "rules of inclusion" that Cahill be removed at your instigation (explain that on your next trip to BUD/S).

No, Ventura was not a SEAL during the 1970’s, nor was he called one then, but he belonged to a unit that is now considered to be “SEALs”, similar to the Alaska Hawaii annexation analogy.

I suggest that you call Coronado Monday and get their official opinion of what he is able to be called and you will find yourself erroneous in your assertions. -- (talk) 04:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Look, the SEALs existed for 7 and a half years before he was in the UDT and the UDT existed for 8 years after he was out of the USN, to declare that he was a seal because the UDT was the "precursors" of the SEALs is ludicrous because had he wanted to be a genuine SEAL he could have filed the paperwork and been brought in with either the additional training or on a waiver. And the UDT were dissolved into the SDVTs not the just the SEALs, some frogs became NDU and ND but regardless; the SEALs were around for 8 years before he went into the Navy. You just admitted that "No, Ventura was not a SEAL during the 1970’s, nor was he called one then"... You want to call him something he wasn't on the flimsy pretext that some UDT became SEALs 8 years after he was out of the service.
I don't need to call "Coronado". I am a former Officer in the USN and am familiar with the honor code. More to the point here, I am familiar with Wikipedia:Verifiability and have provided a link from a reliable source where it is acknowledged that he was not a SEAL but a frogman in UDT 12, something you don't even dispute. Venturas name should be removed from the list as he was a UDT Frogman, not a SEAL. V7-sport (talk) 06:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)V7-sport

I did not state that he was a SEAL because UDT being a precursor, I simply stated that by your criteria, others should also be removed such as Cahill who no one disputes. In fact, let me ask you this before I go on, should Cahill thus be removed? If not, why does Cahill or anyone get the nod when Ventura does not? I appreciate your Naval service, but the Department of the Navy is the one who states they have the right to be collectively referred to as “SEALs” and thus your complaint should be with the Navy, not Ventura. Or, you should put an asterisk next to his entry and state that some people do not believe he should be included here for X, Y and Z reasons rather than to pretend he does not exist. Wikipedia is a historical reference and you want to revise history and remove him and pretend there was no Ventura. It’s akin to griping about the Alaskans and Hawaiians now being called Americans or women and blacks now having the vote, they didn’t, but now they do and you have to accept it. You are arguing a technicality (not called that then) when a technicality (all called that inclusively now per USN) is what includes him. Incidentally, I appreciate your formal debate and handling it in this manner and this forum, for that, you should be commended. -- (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to remove Cahill have at it. (Although he actually WAS a precursor to the SEALs in that the SEALs didn't exist when he was a Frog.) Yes, Wikipedia is a historical reference which operates on a set of rules and parameters foremost is Verifiability. Not only can you not verify that Ventura served on a SEAL team or as a SEAL, it is verifiable that he did not because he has confirmed that he didn't. Please, let me repeat that: Not only can you not verify that Ventura served on a SEAL team or as a SEAL but it is verifiable that he did not because -he has confirmed that he didn't-. Just because (as you assert and I dispute) one thing was eventually replaced with another (IE your Alaskans and Hawaiians analogy) doesn't mean that that original thing didn't exist. Besides which; Our personal opinions are irrelevant. If I were to state that I firmly believe that it is dishonorable to claim to be something that you weren't and use that to give yourself some kind of unearned legitimacy based on the sacrifices of others that wouldn't be reason to exclude him. The fact that it has been proven, admitted and documented that he was not a SEAL is what is relevant to Wikipedia. V7-sport (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport
Suggest that you sort this out on the article talk page, raise an RfC if necessary. There is absolutely no point in continuing here as we don't make judgements, just point people towards achieving consensus. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm waiting for the time to elapse so I am not reverting 3 in 24 hours. Since I have sources to back what I have written and he doesn't I don't think it is a matter of consensus as the facts aren't really in dispute. Thanks though. V7-sport (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport

from Wikipedia Underwater Demolition Team The SEALs expanded their numbers and roles through the 1960s and 1970s. By 1983, the chief function of the remaining UDTs was insertion and extraction of SEAL teams, and the UDTs were redesignated as part of the SEALs

in the spirit of cooperation, I am adding this caveat "It is important to note that Ventura was not a SEAL at the time of his service, but an adjunct program called UDT Underwater Demolition Team which was redesignated as part of the SEALs in 1983 and whose members are now collectively referred to as “SEALs” and the Frog, UDT, and SEAL community." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Even according to your source the UDT and the SEALs were different entities when Ventura was in the UDT. Again, 1983 was 8 years after he was out of the USN. Please, either find something verifiable from a reliable source that states that he was on a SEAL team or remove him from the list as he was not a SEAL. V7-sport (talk) 03:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport

His unit now called SEAL and thus deserves inclusion. I added caveat addressing your points —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Once again, he was in the UDT, not the SEALs and once again it was called the UDT when he was in it and once again, he has acknowledged that he was never in the SEALs and once again that is verifiable through reliable sources. Please discontinue this unless you can demonstrate that he was on a SEAL team, something you have ACKNOWLEDGED that he wasn't. V7-sport (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport
This Seal site [4] claims Ventura as one of their own. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
The "SEAL Site" fails WP:RS and carries the following disclaimer: " is a private web community of SEA Air Land athletes and Navy SEAL supporters. It is not affiliated with the US Navy. The views expressed here are solely those of the owners, and members, of" It is not a reliable source. V7-sport (talk) 06:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport.

We clearly need editorial assistance as V7sport has a problem with Ventura and changes the posts, historically accurate and explained for conflicts, every few hours. The Navy clearly states that his unit was merged into the SEALs and is now called "SEAL" and has the RIGHT to be called SEAL, the SEAL verification sites point that he was a SEAL and he is clearly a historical figure from that UDT/SEAL program, perhaps better known that everyone on than anyone on the list. I clearly made concessions to V70 and added notes and caveats to the nomenclature explaining the posts and revisions but v7sport is acting like a petulant child and starting an edit war. I am an adult with better things to do than squabble with some acting like a child after I clearly made concessions and clarifications on the post to acquiesce to a middle ground.-- (talk) 08:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Read this! "Governor Ventura's office confirmed that Ventura was never a member of the elite Navy SEALs...Ventura's spokesman, John Wodele, confirms Ventura was in the UDT's, and he says the Governor has never tried to convince people otherwise." That is Verifiable from a reliable source. Regardless, you have been reported for multiple groundless reversions. I have tried my best to explain to you that the standard inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability but for whatever reason, you are determined to claim he was something he wasn't and that he has denied being. Whether you are being deliberately obtuse or are just incapable of getting it your continued insistence on placing him on this list is vandalism. Read your talk page sometime, you have multiple warnings from different users. V7-sport (talk) 09:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport
Kindly sort this out on the article talk page. WP:EAR is not a place for extended discussions, Jezhotwells (talk) 11:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Why does it seem not okey to post lyrics of music groups to help people who know english as a second language, what music groups are singing? Do i need a reference or is it because i would need a permit from publisher? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pekaxmon (talkcontribs) 15:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

There are copyright concerns. See WP:LYRICS although it's marked inactive. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Wladimir Klitschko's negative reception of the film Borat / Confrontation with Sasha Baron Cohan at a LA restaurant

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm asking for a help here and not in the article's talkpage, what was suggested by my opponent, because I don't think it's necessary to clog up the talkpage with such minor thing, and secondly, this isn't so controversial issue which needs others' wikipedians opinions to include or not, this is pretty obvious and precise case which can be handled / resolved in the shortest possible time. So I added an information of prominent ukrainian boxer Wladimir Klitschko's views on film Borat, but this edit couldn't go trough, as a checkuser reverted it saying: "it's not important enough to include". I think given person's notability it can even have its own sub-section under the section "Controversies", there's even a pretty reliable source in russian, of the #1 russian online-news site. So I fail to see how some user can determine whether it's "important enough or not", it's not for him to decide. I already contacted the user who reverted my edit. And as you see he didn't even greet me, which doesn't make clear if whether he's assuming good faith upon me while having admin privileges. So it's either can be added in the sub-section "Critical" which is a brach of section "Reception" or in a created sub-section under "Controversies" with more detailed description. (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no encyclopedic value in some boxer's opinion of an American film which is neither about Ukraine nor boxers! Why are you asking us to help you clutter up the article that way? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I do want to clarify that the boxer in question, while not a Kazakh, was apparently born in Kazakhstan. That said, this does not make his opinion of the film Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan notable. I'm sure many people from Kazakhstan have made their opinion of this film and its star/author quite clear over the years. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
"Clutter up?" Are you kidding me? It's not for you to decide whose opinions are "cluttering up" articles or don't. And it's not just someone, it's a notable person no matter whether he's boxer or some musician. And why are you speaking on behalf of other wikipedians who have higher administrative privileges than usual wikipedians? However, like I said, it could be put onto different sub-section. But being a relevant and coming out from a notable person - it has all grounds to be mentioned in the article. (talk) 07:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The opinions of a Ukrainain boxer about a comedy film are in no way notable or encyclopaedic, so they should not be in the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
He's not a film critic, so his opinion of the film is not notable, even if he is notable for something else. I'm sure thousands of notable people have something to say about the film, but we're not about to put them all in the article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Klitschko's comments are not relevant to the encyclopedia article.--Kudpung (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
What about the president of some country? Who determines here "notability" and says that boxers' opinions cannot be in articles and presidents' - can. What kind of double standards these are? (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't suggest only adding his opinion as a critic, this incident which took place at a LA restaurant and was directly relevant to events of the film Borat, can be mentioned somewhere in the article. (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Taking a step back... 95.59 - this belongs on the article talk page because the people who decide whether it goes in are the editors of Wikipedia. Not administrators. So you need to go back to the talk page and reach a consensus (do read the document at the other end of the link) with other editors as to whether it goes in or not. If you can't agree, there are a whole set of dispute resolution processes you can try. In general, Wikipedia adds film criticism from reliable sources for film criticism (Rotten Tomatoes etc), Press film critics and so forth. The response of the Khazak government to the film would be notable - especially as didn't they tell SBC never to darken their doorstep again? If the guy had hauled SBC out of the restaurant, beat the crap out of him, there had been a court case etc, that would be notable. But the response of individual Khazaks who are not film critics are not notable.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for elaboration of criticism section, but I'm gonna repeat it again, I didn't suggest adding it only in this section as a criticism / bad review of this film, as it doesn't particularly focused on decomposing it on plot details / acting etc. Though if a pro-critic sees an utter crap he wouldn't bother himself going into details and would just say - it's total crap. And no, I don't want steer up / Baleeting noise over such obvious and a pretty minor information, somewhat bit important. And it's a pity some of you have so strong, negative attitude on adding it in the article. I already brought up two arguments, first one - notability, second is relevancy. It has both, then what's the deal? He's not some stranger, comes out from a who's notable and was born in Kazakhstan (adds relevance and his opinion would outweigh opinion of another notable boxer who wasn't born in there, some sort of a curios zest), and his disagreement with this exact film played a crucial role in the decision to prank SBC who portrayed the protagonist character and who was one of creators of this film. Lastly, he's not kazakh by ethnicity nor by nationality / citizenship. (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
You just don't seem to get it. This is not notable in any way. The article talk page is still the place to discuss this but I think you will get the same response there. Wikipedia works by consensus and you haven't produced anything relevant to this. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid it is notable in some way, you see, sometimes some curious incidents which are relevant to some subjects might be added to these subject's entries as a custom information, know what I mean? Like .. did you know.. sort of. And it's not obligatory to make out of it some bureaucratic pitfalls, this information isn't critical, I suppose, if pair of admins decided not to put it in the article then so be it, in the end it's an encyclopedia which collects wide sorts of wonderful informations concerning one or another matter. Pity, you decided to omit this one. (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Tiffany (Korean singer)

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Need help at Tiffany (Korean singer) with a new editor who insists on including trivial name (probably him or his friend) of a person giving a gift to the subject of the article. The editor has been warned and ignored messages about self promotion edit warring, the improper licensing of the image itself etc. Active Banana (bananaphone 19:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You don't need help ;) You are an experienced editor and you have already taken the necessary steps. Another editor has also chimed in. The photo will self destruct if it doesn't get a proper copyright notice. If the disruption continues to be a nuisance, use the standard warnings listed in your Twinkle tabs - do try however to reconcile on the article tp first :) --Kudpung (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Paul Overstreet

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

When you look up Paul Overstreet, all of his credits are not listed, and also he has written many songs for Kenny Chesney as of recent years. He has also written songs that Blake Shelton, Alan Jackson and Carrie Underwood have recorded in recent years. I think its important that information be updated. thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarletmoon320 (talkcontribs) 17:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you post that information on the article talk page, together with references from reliable sources of course. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Plea for salvation from malevolent bureaucracy.

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear wikipedia editors , please help me with this one.

This concerns the article about Ad-Aware.

Recently Ad-aware has added popup ads for it's own product to it's Ad-Aware spyware and popup removal software. This being a somewhat funny and ironic fact , I wished to add it to the Ad-aware wikipedia entry.

I never thought i would get so much fake red tape dumped on me for doing so. I assume someone connected to ad-aware , or people who are in the business of making wilipedia into a giant billboard for advertising their products are preventing me to add this to the Ad-aware wikipedia entry.

Please , someone who has no attachments to any commercial organisation or someone who isn't in the business of making money from wikipedia help me into telling me exactly , step by step what i should do to get this small curiosity added to the article.

For me this has gone from a quick matter of fact "hey this thing popped up , let's see what wikipedia has on this" ..."oh it's not mentioned here , well , i'll add it" .. To , after some trying , a mountain of jaw-dropping kafka-esque frustration. Is the ad-aware article only allowed to be a page of advertising for that particular product ? That's what it looks like to me. Investigatiuon into the motives of people hammering others into silence , when it comes to making an article something more than just a giant AD , wouldn't be entirely inappropriate either imo.

This is my plea to the editors.


Kind regards, and hoping for a reply.

ps: article in question , (if it's cut out , check history) (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"teach a man to fish": You will need to find a third party reliable source that is discusses this concept. Most of the hits that you find using (except for the blogs) or (except for those published Inc Icon and Books LLC and a few other self published books) are going to be acceptable sources. Active Banana (bananaphone 20:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not found in any news sources. It's news value is just not big enough. Though it is a fact. Are screenshots from different people not a "source" ..

Please discuss alternatives from , or scanned newspaper clipping etc.. for matters just not big enough to be featured in the "news" but are real none the less. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

If it is not verifiable as having been covered by third party reliable sources, then we do not cover it based solely on our own observations. sorry. Active Banana (bananaphone 20:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Between you and me you have seen [5] and [6] yes ? Both being pictures I found relying on 3rd party observations. I do understand people doctoring photo's to add UFO's . I somewhat dount they will add Ad-Aware popus in the same manner . I DO understand these points. My question is ... Where do i go from here. To me this is more than important enough , and relevant to add to this article. I understand ethical problems comming up when I would for example ask someone to write something about it.. But sometimes , welll , Calponia Harrisonfordi does crap in the woods , and noone writes an article about that. (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"reliable" third party sources - those with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Photobucket is right out. Active Banana (bananaphone 21:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok .. and the other one is from Lavasoft which is one of the related parties . Fine. And as i said. I understand.

What i need to know is where do I go from here ? I want to do this right. Assuming there are no online articles about this . And there is nothing in published media. I have been told aso that Proof and Fact mean nothing . Only "reliable source" . Someone get me out of this plz.

Josef K. (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

To explain: We're not a news organization. We're not here to be the first to report on something, nor to report our own observations, no matter how accurate those observations may be. We're here to summarize what reliable sources report on. If you would like to show your observations to some organizations which are reliable tech news sources, and they choose to write about the matter, we can then use them as a source. But if it's not significant enough for them to write about, it's not significant enough for us to write about. We absolutely require that content be verifiable through a source, not through personal observation. It's not that we won't include it in the article if sources do report on it, it's that until they do, we cannot. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
If it's true, then there should be information available about it in the requisite reliable sources. The computer- and internet-related press loves stories like this, and we have no reason to believe that it would be possible to cover something like this up. Since you can't find any actual reliable sources (and no, screenshots are not reliable sources), we cannot include such assertions based on mere rumors and undocumented claims. Insisting that a claim like this be backed up with evidence is not malevolent bureaucracy, it's Journalism 101: check your sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as i know , even refering to the actual ad-aware manual part where it is described this is happening is not considered a reliable source because it is from lavasoft which is one of the concerned parties yes?

Well , i'll patiently wait for a reporter to spontaniously mention it somewhere in one of his articles then. I will not point it out to any tech magazine eiter - <.< - since that would essentialy mess up their neutrality on the subject as well.

On a side note .. if every line in wikipedia got hammered on as hard as this one , i bet ther'd only be 1/3 of it left tbh. /shrug. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

And it would be a better Wikipedia for it. Active Banana (bananaphone 21:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

@orange I don't need to convince myself when the thing popped up , windowed my everquest2 , prevented me from healing , and killed off my entire raid because of it. I don't need a journalist telling me it happened to me. (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Please understand, no one is saying you're lying. However, there are certain requirements for inclusion in an encyclopedia (namely this one), which must be met prior to inclusion of the information. One of them is that it must be verifiable through a third party source. I personally have no reason to think you're lying, but that's irrelevant. Again, if you'd like to put this in as a news tip to a tech news source, we can use them as a source if they do choose to write about it. But regardless of how right you may be, no editor of Wikipedia is a reliable source—not me, not you, not Jimbo Wales, not anyone. There has to be a reliable source. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
You have had Wikipedia policy on reliable sourcing explained to you by several editors. Might I suggest that you read the policy and linked articles. You may not like it, but generally we do appreciate that Wikipedia has such policies to help protect the integrity of this project. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

@Orange Mike The "truth" of this is irrefutable. There is even an option to disable the self advertisement popups in ad-aware for registered users . Truth is really not the point here. It is finding a "reliable source" IE someone that found it worthy of writing something in the press about. (this is a pic from me , believing it is or isnt doctored is to your own discression) (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

@Jezhotwells Yes , and I read it. And I even agree with it . I do not agree with the fact Wikipedia is used as a giant AD bilboard , and that if anyone is adding some information to that Bilboard that doesn't fit into the corporate way of thinking it gets hammered on hard.

Hence , I am trying to get help for doing it right. That it doesn't get cut out. And has a right to stay there as an apropriate observation and comment.

My problem is still , I need help finding a valid source , truth or fact is of no consequence , I know.. I have been looking around sporadically from august till now. And I can't find anything. "3rd party" enough to prevent it from being cut out. (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

There may not be any such source. If so, the material is not appropriate for the article until and unless there is. The answer doesn't change because you ask the question a given number of times. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade In no way do i mean to offend you dear sir . I am merely trying to explain myself as well as I am able to. I am howerver asking for help on this one. Not asking a question. I understand the need for 3rd party reliable sources , and am unable to find any. Replies in the form of alternative places to look for them would be greatly apreciated.

Again to be absolutely clear , a reference to the actual manual in pdf format of ad-aware , explaining how to disable this in the paid version does not count toward a reference of it's existence yes? (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless I am getting actual tips on more places to look for those references , I will just keep on checking until something comes up. Thank you all. (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Matt Bomer's Picture

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Recently, User talk:ViewpointPR uploaded a picture of Bomer and replaced the infobox picture with his. I questioned the copyright on Commons in this discussion. Viewpoint states that he ("we") is Bomer's publicist. The issue of whether Viewpoint has the authority to permit Wikipedia to use the picture is still being discussed. So far, three editors (including me) have voted to delete the picture.

Here are my questions. First, should we use the picture while the copyright is in doubt? I reverted the picture for that very reason, but Viewpoint has reverted my reversion. Second, assuming that Commons concludes that the picture is properly licensed, does it matter that Wikipedia is using an actor's publicist's picture? Couldn't publicists then upload their pictures to Wikipedia for all sorts of artists and change the pictures in all their articles to be those of the publicists? Does that violate WP:PROMOTION, either the self-promotion or the advertising sections? For one thing, the publicist is arguably self-promoting and advertising, and, for another, Bomer, even if unaware of his publicist's actions, is indirectly doing so as the publicist is his agent. It's certainly not the typical self-promotion or advertising, but it feels wrong. However, feeling wrong isn't the best reason for declaring something to be inappropriate, so I would appreciate hearing the views of others.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

To respond to your questions: First, if you take a look at the username policy, "group" usernames are inappropriate. Accordingly, I've softblocked ViewpointPR to have them select a different username. The copyright concerns are being addressed on Commons per Commons policy, so for assistance with that, you'd be better to ask there than here. In general, though, there's nothing in specific wrong with a subject or their agent agreeing to release a photo under a free license so it can be used in their article, and indeed, that's something we may want to encourage. However, there is no requirement that we use such a photo even if they do so. A good photo in itself, however, is not considered promotional or advertising, nor does the subject or their agent's choosing to freely license it for use in the article constitute a conflict of interest. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is simply awash with policies. I can't tell you the number of policies I learn about on a daily basis. Of course, whether I ever remember them all is a different matter and is something best left to my gerontologist. Thanks for the pointer to the username policy and your other comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Stale WP project: Best course of action?

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I started this project a few years ago meaning for both myself and other users to see it through, but sadly I've been side-tracked with other stuff, and I can't see any major activity on the page itself in the history log...Though I do wonder if there might be any other users who still plan to continue work on it.

Anyhow...Given the numerous differences between the above page and the current German version, I'm not entirely sure what should be done with it. I've stuck a note on the Talk page stating that I might WP:AFD it if there's no response from others in relation to my suggestion, but - Given the numerous options listed under WP:DEL - I'd like to get a second opinion from the editors as to what option might be the best for this one. Could it qualify for Incubation, for example?

Farewell for now, and thanks for any advice. Please copy any responses to my Talk page - Thanks! >:-)

+++ DieselDragon +++ (Talk) - 23 October 2010CE = 00:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

As the Transrapid article has been fairly well developed, you could just blank the Transrapid/German article or place a WP:PROD on it requesting deletion with a reason. I may be wrong, and others here may offer other solutions. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Cheers for the response, Jezhotwells! Because the article seems to have been "stale" for quite some time, I've got the feeling that it might be somewhat abandoned...But seeing that others have made edits and contributions as well (And I wouldn't want their hard work to go to waste) I'm a little reluctant to throw it on the deletion pyre without consulting other users first. :-)
Because it's a bit dead at the moment but might still be usable as a contribution to the main article, I'm thinking that incubating it for the time being, allowing others to edit/complete it over time, then nominating it for merging with the current Transrapid article once done might be a better approach. Would this be acceptable practice as per Wikipedia standards, and is there a "Nominated for Incubation" category that I can add to the top of the page?
+++ DieselDragon +++ (Talk) - 26 October 2010CE = 14:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
If the content of the article and/or the project pages don't conflict with any Wikipedia policies, then there is no need for them to be deleted at all. As you say, someone might pick it up at a later stage. I for one, have a habit of translating stuff occasionally from the German Wikipedia.--Kudpung (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Cheers for that, Kudpung! I might still incubate it to keep it out of the main article namespace for the time being so it doesn't gunk-up any mirror sites or database downloads. Would that be desirable, or not needed given that it's just a single article? :-)
+++ DieselDragon +++ Talk, Contribs - 26 October 2010CE = 16:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Could a third party please review the contributions of IP User has made multiple edits to opposing candidate pages Mark Kirk (Republican candidate for US Senate from Illinois) and Alexi Giannoulias (Democrat candidate for US Senate from Illinois) including unsourced edits which add incorrect info and adding POV into summary comments. See here for an example of unsourced edit and here for POV in summary comments. And - Please advise me directly if Editor Assistance is an incorrect forum to handle this. Thanks in advance for your guidance. Cardinal91 (talk) 03:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard is probably the best place to report this. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - will do Cardinal91 (talk) 06:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Nevermind - page is now semi-protected in run-up to election day Cardinal91 (talk) 06:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Suspicious Move?

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This move looks questionable. Look into the close on the Talk:Jessica_(entertainer)#Move.3F as there are many other pages with last names in the title of the article please see Nicole Jung and Krystal Jung for examples. Ms. Jung's Wikipedia article refers to her as Jessica Jung several times already. It doesn't make sense seeing as her full stage name is Jessica Jung, especially when her own article addresses her as so. Another example Park Ji-yeon, commonly known as Jiyeon, yet her article title is Park Ji-yeon. (talk) 06:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Niklaus B

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

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

I think that I did provide sufficient sources within this article. It contains no original research (translation), sufficient citations (portrayed person is informed of this article), and I don’t see why it should be called an orphan. Could someone check? Am I allowed to remove the templates? --Spartanbu (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Your first step would probably be to contact the editor who added the tags, in this case User:WookieInHeat, to find out what the concerns leading to the tagging were. If the two of you disagree on whether or not the issue exists after discussing it, you may need third party opinions, but you may find the problems are correctable quite easily. As to the orphan tag, that looks correct—very few other articles link to it. Do keep in mind that maintenance tags are not "badges of shame", they're just there to keep track of articles for which certain types of work need to be done (in the case of the orphan tag, finding other appropriate places to link in to the article, for example.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I have removed two of the tags, since many references have been added to the article since the tags were applied. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

about large edit removal from Tahash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

About a month ago I began reading the interesting article "Tahash". Yesterday I returned to it to continue reading and discovered that most of the article had been removed! (I found out how I could read the previous version under "view history", so that was OK.) The reverting editor Aaron Solomon Adelman said the removed material had been provided by "a linguistic incompetent". I am not a linguist, but I am an amateur historian and was looking up the cited sources, and since they are supposed to be reputable and reliable I was surprised. Aaron Solomon Adelman did not say that the cited sources were faulty, and he did not provide a discussion of what he meant by "a linguistic incompetent". I couldn't find anything wrong with what he removed. I would have thought he would have corrected the linguistic parts if that was the issue, but he got rid of a lot of really interesting factual historical material too. Is this normal? I retire in about 2 years and thought I might become a contributor, but if this sort of thing goes on all the time its the kind of frustration I don't need. I want to ask if Aaron Solomon Adelman is an established reputable linguistic consultant on your administrative staff. Can he do this? I put back the material he reverted and stated my reasons on the article's discussion page, mainly the reliability of the sources. (It also seemed to me that calling someone "a linguistic incompetent" violated Wikipedia policy against insulting comments—but maybe not.) So I guess what I ask for is for your staff to look at the article and see if Aaron Solomon Adelman should be doing any editting at all (I looked at his talk page). Are the sources cited in the article unreliable? Is the information in the article wrong? Michael Paul Heart (talk) 16:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I would say you did the right thing and I also see that you have left a note on the article talk page,. which is good. You might want to leave a note at User talk:Aaron Solomon Adelman. I see that there is a thread about this at User talk:Aaron Solomon Adelman#Re: Hashem (Tachash). Jezhotwells (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I left a note as suggested. I just read the response from Hiergargo to my note at User talk:Aaron Solomon Adelman#about the big edit at "Tahash". Anyone who wants to see evidence of the level of Aaron Solomon Adelman's expertise should carefully read the article Tahash and compare the numbered responses, point by point, for accuracy and relevance, to the cited sources in the article. (For example: The whole article from beginning to end is about the etymology of the word, so how can he say it is not an etymology article? And Strong's Exhaustive Concordance Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Hebrew Bible, the BDB, and Gesenius, cited and linked in the article, all say that "-im" in Hebrew is also a superlative form. I don't have to go on. Just do the comparison. You'll see what I mean.) In addition he says he's not a linguist—so how can he evaluate the linguistic stuff as "incompetent"? Neither am I, for that matter, but I trust the reputable linguistic sources cited. He just doesn't seem to be a real contributor, and according to what I've read on his own talk page other people too have objected to his edits as wrong. What should be done? (Not just in this particular case.) I haven't gotten much clear direction on that from the Wiki policies I've been reading other than to "avoid edit warring" and to "simply let it go." What do you suggest? It just hurts to think that apparently good useful information submitted in good faith and documented with easily verifiable sources can be shot down and withheld. Michael Paul Heart (talk) 06:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Revert and warn. If the deleting editor exceeds 3 removals in 24 hours, report at WP:3RR. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip! Really appreciated! It's a relief to know. I'll wait, though, until such a thing is really, really necessary before taking that action. Michael Paul Heart (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yishayahu Yosef Pinto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please assist cleanup of: Propoganda and other useless materials - Whitewash many negative truths. His role in the death of Obstfeld not mentioned despite countless media references Lebron paid $1 Million for meeting - Whitewashed Users are solely joining WIki for this purpose and should be banned —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the clean-up has been done after you added contentious material. Please read and our policies on biographies of living persons. If you wish to open a discussion, please use the article talk page, that is what it is there for. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

(Username or IP removed)

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Under what circumstances is the ID of a wikipedian removed from the history leaving this instead: (Username or IP removed). I understood that everything at Wikipedia is left public, however I am sure there are some extenuating circumstances. How can one go about hiding their ID?

Just curious. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Oversight. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I was curious because I saw this line in the history of an article that has been removed/re-directed recentlly and is no longer easily accessible at Wikipedia. Even though I was involved in the editing of this article before it was removed I did not see any public discsussion about whether this mysterious ID deserved special protection and why (as the link above suggests, I think?).
This is what the history says: 01:39, 3 October 2010 (Username or IP removed) (4,489 bytes) (→Criticism and controversy: remove info that is off-topic and is present in other, more suitable articles) (undo) (Tag: section blanking) I am curious why such an innocent looking deletion of material that the editor says exists elsewhere at Wikipedia requires such a protection. Ottawahitech (talk) 21:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
There could be different reasons. It defeats the point of oversighting if we try to figure out the details and discuss it in public. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
If this were a for profit venture run by paid employees the statement above would not be out of place. However, this is Wikipedia which relies on an army of volunteers on whose goodwill Wikipedia depends. Many of the readers here act as ambassadors promoting Wikipedia to the outside world. If they stop believing in Wikipedia’s pure motives it will hurt. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be run like an open book? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
You did not say which article you're discussing. I guessed the one you refer to, and I noticed the deletion. Though it's been oversighted, and I can't see it, my guess is that the user involved just revealed their IP accidentally. If you look at the history carefully you can tell which registered user made the edit, since he took credit for it later. I think Wikipedia's 'pure motives' are not at risk here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation, you have restored my faith in Wikipedia :-) I wonder though why this was not simply spelled out. The person who accidentally revealed their IP would still be protected if the text (Username or IP removed) instead stated simply IP revealed accidentally or some such. This will also alert others who make a similar mistake that they can have their mistake covered up too. Ottawahitech (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Question on Hard Redirect to WP:SELF

Resolved: Per comments at Helpdesk noticeboard as described below. Saebvn (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Came across something interesting. If you search on the terms "What Wikipedia thinks it is," you get a hard redirect to WP:SELF, regarding the Manual of Style guideline on self-references to Wikipedia. Is this correct? Is the hard redirect proper? Looking for another set of eyes on whether the search term is actually referring users to the correct page. Saebvn (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Answered at Wikipedia:Help desk#Quick look from an experienced editor, please -- EdJogg (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Bronze star recipients

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Missing name of my best friend, Eugene A. Sorenson E-4 Co B, 8th cav, 1st Cav Bronze Star with V and Purple Heart. KIA June 18, 1968. Wonder Wall 39E-66 Thank You. (redacted email) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Please can you provide a link to the article where this should be posted? Jezhotwells (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the original poster may be under the impression that all Star winners should have articles? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Well of course it such an artcile could be written if there is sufficient material with reliable sourcing. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe the poster is referring to Category:Recipients of the Bronze Star Medal. However, categories can only list existing Wikipedia pages. Eugene A. Sorenson has no biography and probably doesn't satisfy the requirements in Wikipedia:Notability (people). See also the box at top of the category. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Tunnels (novel) dispute with user who has assumed absolute editorial control

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

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

I would be extremely grateful for your counsel with Tunnels which a Wikipedian susanne2009NYC, who assessed the article for GA status, apparently now considers to be under her absolute editorial control. The re-write to attain GA status introduced numerous factual errors which I and others have repeatedly strived to correct, including four edits in the last 24 hours, which she has again removed. Despite providing citations for reinstatements and corrections to the page, susanne2009NYC seems to believe that she has the ultimate power to veto anything which is not to her liking, sometimes to the point of irrationality. And despite the many comments on the discussions page wherein I and others have tried to invite debate and consensus, she overrides all other contributions.

On the Tunnels 'Discussion' page myself and other users have been asked not to correct what we know to be inaccurate with any further edits. I have irrefutable evidence that my changes are accurate. Myself and others apparently have no say in contributing to this page - she will not even let me add a sentence on the Manga edition and has totally removed my latest edit, regarding incorrect references in the AbeBooks article - which she is happy to accept as reliable, yet isn't written by an accredited journalist and hasn't been published in a accredited journal or newspaper (which she's says is essential). I believe the actions of this user contravene Wikipedia policy with regards: Taking Ownership, Preventing/dissuading other authors and participative editing, 3 reversion Rule, Ignoring consensus reverting changes to ensure her choice of critical reviews is maintained, Tenacious editing, Knowingly introducing factual errors, numerous Source Verifiability disputes in refusing to acknowledge Publishers/Authors/major newspapers and industry publications etc. Libellous commentary about the books Publishers, Refusal to allow collaboration - now we are informed no further editing is needed. I have spent many hours on numerous occasions sourcing the references to ensure they come up to Wikipedia's verifiability standards, and my only interest is to help make this article as accurate and informative as I can. This is a complex dispute and I have set out some examples of the sources/comments/edits etc. as numbered 1-10 in my latest post on the Tunnels (novel) Discussion page. Your expert opinion would be greatly appreciated.(Lifesawhirl (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC))

The accusations on the part of Lifesawhirl appear to be exaggerated (I have been watching this page for a while). However, could we please have some more opinions. I voiced my own opinion on how the article is being approached, but it may be a little extreme out of frustration. Can we get some more eyes to make sure I am not out of line, Sadads (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Having read through the discussion, it would seem that susanne2009NYC and Sadads are pointing out that information needs sot be reliably sourced, a concern that Lifesawhirl appears to disregard. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I totally agree there needs to be reliable sourcing, of course I do. The ongoing dispute is a complex matter and I have set out specific areas where I has asked for independent opinion and clarification. I have also quoted the relevant section of Wikipedia's guide on 'Verifiable Sourcing', which implies that some of the sources I have suggested would appear to be valid. My only objective was to make contributions that corrected factual errors and expand the relevant and informative content. I recognise the importance of a consistent approach in adhering to the Wikipedia guides and therefore when I see statistics and sources that are used in high profile articles, I assume that sets the precedent for the same on here. I stand by my view that I do not think it healthy for one user to assume ownership of an article - the same user who has confirmed no further editing is required. I do not have an extensive knowledge of Wikipedia policy or editing styles, but I have genuinely attempted to apply my understanding of the policy documented in those guides, being mindful of previous advise given to me about being 'Bold‘. I have not made edits with questionable benefit, such as the latest edit two days ago that replaces "subterranean" with "underground" - both have the same meaning and context here? My editing has been focused on putting right the inaccuracies, as I would like anyone reading this article to receive the right facts and overall representation of this novel. Should an Editor have the time to look at this dispute in detail, then I would hope they can see the legitimacy of my questions and likewise the referral here for independent opinion. As I have already stated, I cannot do anymore here and have no further comment.(Lifesawhirl (talk) 11:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC))

Author Jack Armstrong II---two articles

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Author Jack Armstrong II---two articles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I need help in positioning my (four) footnotes. On two articles by (pseudonym Jack Armstrong II) myself. Only the 4 superscripts appear, but the footnotes do not appear. The two articles (one page) are: "The current immigration crisis in NYC," and "The history of the jews from chaldea to the meshiak" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Armstrong II (talkcontribs) 21:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The current immigration crisis in NYC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The history of the jews from chaldea to the meshiak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Neither of the articles that you appear to be referencing appear to exist. Can you clarify your request? Active Banana (bananaphone 21:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:CITE give information about how to footnote/cite content if you are working off wiki on drafts. Active Banana (bananaphone 21:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
These were "articles" on his userpage; both totally consisting of original research. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Jack, there's no point in reposting your enquiry in every help department we have - you'll only get the same answers.--Kudpung (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a disagreement with another editor about a stub.

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is Vermonster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The other editor and I revert one another's changes. This happens very slowly, over the course of months. I think that it is clear that the material he wants to include does not meet notability criteria. I asked for a third opinion but it didn't seem to get either of us to change our minds. Blafard (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look as if any reliable sources can be found for records. Wikis and youtube are not RS. I also doubt the notability of the article, it might be better merged to the Ben & Jerry's article. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)