Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 97

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

Contents

Rabbi Pinto

Unresolved: Tempest still roils. RfC has been started though. Danger (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Rabbi Pinto - can you please review changes and edits ? The Editors repeatedly remove information regarding this controversial individual. He hosted a fundraiser and the project failed anyway why would that be pushed off on others ? The sources they use are primarily foreign minor blogs meanwhile they claim AOL is not factual for a feature there. The amount of bias is absurd. Help please. He's very controversial and they refuse to admit any of the many sources stating that to be the fact. Babasalichai (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

All of this has been properly and extensively discussed on the article's discussion page. You are having problems because you are adding unsourced statements like "But some people think that Rabbi Pinto is not entirely free from the influence of money and that not all of his followers are interested in spiritual development", and other editors are properly reverting them. A Wikipedia article is no place for your own opinion, but only for well-sourced information, and we are particularly stringent when dealing with biographies of living people. You also tried to source a statement that the Rabbi is "controversial" to this AOL News article. Our WP:LABEL guideline says, " When using controversial, give readers enough information to know what the controversy is about", so this edit was also properly reverted. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Changes which damage the Mithras article

Resolved: Mediation has been initiated. Danger (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if someone can advise on what to do about the Mithraic mysteries article. The article tends to rot because there is an immense amount of hearsay around about the cult. Even professional scholars, who are not Mithras experts, tend to repeat this stuff. So I've edited the article on the basis of what the professional Mithras specialists say, and simply quoted their (sometimes differing) views. The objective, in short, is to give the best of modern scholarship, without taking any position on disputed areas.

Over a couple of years, I've also gone through the article and checked every statement and located a reference for it, and quoted the original. For existing material I have verified whether it is referenced; if it is not, I have determined whether it is true and added a reference. Where it is referenced I have checked the source, and removed bogus material with fake references.

A couple of weeks ago a user "Civilized Education" came along and started making edits in order to introduce material about "Mithras and Jesus". The chosen material is by a scholar, but not by a Mithras specialist, and makes a view which Mithras specialists contradict. To defend this proceeding, he proceeded to attack the policy of only using expert sources. I attempted to reason with him on the talk page, but he simply reintroduced his edits and ignored anything I had to say. None of his edits indicate any interest in, or knowledge of, Mithras scholarship. He seems to want to alter the article to reflect claims on non-scholarly sites online that "Mithras = Jesus" or "Mithras was before Jesus" or that kind of thing.

Some of the ancient sources are hard for ordinary people to access. I obtained these, typed them up on my blog, and made a translation. I then added these as links in footnotes, so that people could check whether the source actually says what the article claims. These he has removed from the article, without saying so, thereby preventing people from referencing them. No-one gains from being prevented from checking sources.

In one case a footnote quoted an English translation of a scholarly source, and indicated that the translation was defective and linked to the French. He removed the material that indicated the translation was defective. He's now trying to scrape up material to make the article say that Mithras existed before Jesus. So I think we can see an agenda here.

I have attempted to reason with this guy on the talk page, but his response was to ignore what I said, prattle about wikipedia policies, attack me personally, and generally waste everyone's time. After I'd said the same things several times, I became aware of how much time I am wasting. Tom Hennell is still trying to reason with this guy, in vain, as far as I can see. I've reverted his damage a couple of times, but of course he just readded it, I don't want or have the time for an edit war.

This is one of the best articles in Wikipedia. It's being damaged by someone with no claims to edit it except determination, and no interest in the subject except insofar as it relates to Jesus, or so it seems.

What should I do? I am not possessed of endless time; but I hate to see all this good work thrown away because of someone who is no better than a vandal. Roger Pearse (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I've put in a request for protection, and added a note to the talk page asking that people reach consensus. Anyone got any better ideas? Roger Pearse (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
To be blunt about it, I'd advise you take a look at your own behavior as well. You are referring to another editor's changes as "damage" (and as "vandalism" on the talk page, and referring to content-disputed edits as vandalism is counterproductive and a huge no-no), been accusing the other editor of sockpuppetry, and in general acting as though you feel you own the article. I know it can be frustrating to have a content dispute, but discussing things calmly always leads to better results. You can also engage an article request for comment. But it's always best to look at fellow editors as a colleague who disagrees with you, and treat them accordingly. That doesn't mean you can't strongly advocate your position (and indeed you should, many excellent articles have been hammered out between several parties who disagreed on many things), it just means to be careful of how you word your advocacy, and to discuss the content, not the contributor. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Getting Rid of Orphan Designation

Unresolved: Still an orphan. Danger (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

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

The article on Daniel Ivankovich has been labeled "orphan". I have found at least four other articles that mention this topic. How does one go about getting rid of the orphan designation? Also, the picture that was formerly in the Daniel Ivankovich article no longer appears. Can you tell me why?

Thank you.

Doinggooddaily (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)DoingGoodDaily

Strictly speaking, the article may no longer be an orphan because it is linked from four other places. However, User:Doinggooddaily appears to be substantially a single purpose account working on this article and adding potentially non-notable material about the subject to other articles. Potential conflict of interest and autobiography issues. Oh, and he didn't find the other references; he added them. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I think the article can be pared down a bit (I took a stab at it), and the subject's notability isn't *entirely* clear, but it's not as bad as some I've seen lately. In answer to the original poster's question - probably, the article is still a bit of an orphan. And the picture is gone because, when you uploaded it you forgot to include important required information and after a while it was deleted. Check your Talk page for details. JohnInDC (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

My corrections were reverted back

Answered: Danger (talk) 14:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Hi,

I found a portion of article Hindu_astrology having incomplete information and also posing claims as a fact. I made small changes to reflect the same and those were reverted back by administrator calling them redundant.

I would like to understand what made administrator consider those changes as redundant and keep the partial / incorrect information.

Regards, Pankaj Gupta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pankajgupta80 (talkcontribs)

This seems to be a pretty minor content issue - you should try and initiate discussion with the user, preferably at the article's talk page. Rehevkor 18:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit War

Discussion moved: Now appearing at your local ANI! Danger (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Myself and user [Charlie Tango Bravo] are engaged in an edit war on the page [Joint Special Operations Command]. The Congressional Research Service citation on the edits pages SPECIFICALLY states that the 75th Ranger Regiment and 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment are believed to be members of JSOC. The other user claims that because other references only include a few other units the 75th and SOAR are not a part of JSOC: supporting his belief that absence of information in HIS sources means automatically the 75th and SOAR are not a part of JSOC. The Ranger Regiment has not deployed without part of JSOC since before the 1990s [Operation Gothic Serpent], [Task Force 121], [Task Force 6-26], the list goes on. The 160th is the ONLY Special Operations Aviation unit. How can the unit NOT be a part of JSOC if it is the only unit for Special Operations? The answer is it cannot. Just as the 24th Special Tactics Squadron is a part of AFSOC, SOCOM, and JSOC, the 75th and SOAR are a part of USASOC, SOCOM, and JSOC.

{Joint Special Operations Command (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paolau.kalani (talkcontribs) 21:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that both editors, plus other regular editors of the JSOC article, should hash the matter over on the talk page. I'm not getting involved in the merits of the changes; all I'm doing is reminding all parties to keep it civil, to not edit war—and if necessary, to block for 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Note: The other party of this dispute has filed a report at WP:ANI#JSOC Edit War. —C.Fred (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Talal_Abu-Ghazaleh - editing dispute

Unresolved: Dispute continues unabated. Danger (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Talal_Abu-Ghazaleh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) User:Ramoooz and myself User:Hyperionsteel are having a dispute regarding this article on Talal Abu-Ghazaleh. I have included information (sourced from MEMRI) regarding Mr. Abu-Ghazaleh statements on Zionism and Jews during an interview in July 2010. User:Ramoooz has repeatedly removed this information by claiming that it is inaccurate but he has not provided a source that indicates this. Rather, he keeps cited sources which support my additions and then claims that they actually support his position (I don't know if he (or possibly myself) are confused). I'm trying to assume that he is acting in good faith but this dispute dragged on for some time now. I have put several comments on this article's talk page but he has not responded. I request that efforts by made to resolve this dispute as it has become clear that User:Ramoooz and myself User:Hyperionsteel cannot come to an agreement.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC))

Well your options are to request a third opinion or raise a request for comment. Or you could enlist help from Wikipedia:WikiProject Jordan. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Doris Miles Disney

Answered: Danger (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Doris Miles Disney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

February 13,2011

Novelguide.com has a well written article about my aunt, Doris Miles Disney, mystery book writer. Could this be combined with your summary? I did like the way my favorite character,Jefferson DiMarco books are now listed.Please Reply. Thank you. George B. Tolve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.18.11.113 (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The existing article could certainly do with expansion. I don't think that Novelguide.com looks like a particularly reliable source however. You could try editing yourself, but be mindful of our policies. I have placed some useful links on your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

lurie dispute

Discussion moved: Discussion being carried out at the biographies of living people noticeboard. Danger (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

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

My edits have been blocked, and credible external links blacklisted by Off2riorob. All quotes, to my knowledge, were properly referenced

06-10-10/895457.shtml

I am requesting the intervention of an unbiased third party administrator.

regardsTruthjustice411 (talk) 05:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you have been blocked. Your edits were undone because they contained especially contentious material about a living person with links to unreliable sources like blogspot and wordpress. For example you say that he has hepatitis B without any proof. I would suggest that you discuss your additions (start with the non-contentious ones) on the talk page. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 05:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The hepititis B reference originates from a Lurie quote in link that is still on his Wiki page, and was not in dispute.: http://www.furious.com/perfect/johnlurie2.html
All the material which was removed is likewise derived from his referenced quotes.
If I am not blocked, how do I proceed, or where do I go for instructions as how to proceed with edits?
What about questionably "blacklisted" external links? Huffington post, etc...
Thank youTruthjustice411 (talk) 06:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • - This issue is also at the BLP noticeboard here - additional assistance and assessment are of course appreciated, user has been requested to move to talkpage discussion but as yet is still repeatedly attempting the add the same content and multiple externals of bloggy and unreliable mature - user should take a little time to read some policies and one point related to his comments here is that although a external link might be left in the EL-link section it might not be reliable to support any content in the body of the article same person has imo been recently editing under Lurielurie account and is clearly overly involved - issue resolves around recent health claims and claims the lurie is being stalked by another artist. Off2riorob (talk) 11:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

My description was removed.

Answered: Danger (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Under "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_cue_sports_terms" I placed an entry which properly describes a "Masse" shot... My description contained this paragraph.

"however, an experienced player can massé with a nearly level stick. Using proper english, be it left or right, an experienced player can hit the cue ball forward with a left or right spin. Once the cue ball velocity reaches a low enough point where the spin angular momentum is stronger, the trajectory will alter in the direction of the spin. Then once friction slows the energy of spin angular momentum the cue ball will continue in the original trajectory though on a slightly altered path. Not so much a curve - More like a temporary change in direction that alters the path."

Though I'm not perfect in technical writing, it is completely accurate. If you spoke with someone who understands physics of motion they would agree. Could someone please explain to me why my description was dropped?

Cyberclops (talk) 00:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The edit you made seems to have been made 3 years ago. As of now the Article states: "Massé Also massé shot. A steep curve or complete reversal of cue ball direction without the necessity of any rail or object ball being struck, due to extreme spin imparted to the cue ball by a steeply elevated cue.[5] Compare semi-massé." This seems to be referenced, which may have been the problem with your edit, or perhaps the article has just been trimmed. If you feel that your 'level stick' method is significant - i.e. is commonly used in cue sports, and you can find a reliable source to back up your description and the usage of the term in this context, I'd add it - though try to keep the description brief, in keeping with the rest of the article, which is probably on the long side as it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Gordon Spivack

Resolved: Issue seems to have quieted down.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Someone called Thetruthyguy is making an unsupported entry thaty this well-regarded attorney was disbarred and under investigation at the time of his death. No citation is offered to support what is a grave and serious allegation. Attention is requested to block this unsuppoprted entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Former Colleague (talkcontribs) 23:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You undid the editor's change. I put a warning on the editor's Talk page. I'll watch the page for a while.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Image Help

Answered: Danger (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Adminstrator, thank you for taking the time to read my request. I was wondering how I would be able to insert an image for the Our Daily Bread devotional. Wikipedia does not currently have a general article on modern devotional books or devotional booklets (e.g. Our Daily Bread, the Augsburg Fortress, Upper Room) and I would like to create one (I know how to do this). However, I am wondering how to obtain an image for the devotional "Our Daily Bread," which I would also like to place on the Wikipedia article for that devotional. I found these couple images on Google search (1, 2, 3). Could you please tell me how I can use any one of these or do you have an image that would work? I would highly appreciate it. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Thanks, AnupamTalk 19:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

All three of those images are probably copyrighted (book covers generally are) so the only way to use them in a Wikipedia article would be to satisfy all of the non-free content criteria. That is usually possible for the article about the book itself, but would probably not be OK for a general article about devotional books. For future reference, Media Copyright Questions is the best place to ask about things like this. You should also check out the Books Project if you need help with your article. Hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. In the article on books, there is an image here that shows the covers from actual books. Could I use the same precedent when I write an article on devotional books? I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, AnupamTalk 21:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
You could probably take a photograph of a display of devotional literature. The individual copyrighted elements of the photo would probably fall under de minimis, but the folks at copyright questions know a lot more than me, so it'd be worth asking them. Danger (talk) 03:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

User changing all organization and geographic pages involving Turkey

Resolved: Used hasn't been editing lately. CouchTomato (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Freedom in the World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
G-20 major economies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eurosphere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Regional Power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Newly industrialized country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The user on IP 82.241.244.179 has been going around changing a large number of articles that involve Turkey, often in charts that classify by region. Now as Wikipedia has been going with the standard that Turkey is both European and Asian/Middle Eastern, but will mostly be classified under European if forced to choose due to geopolitical and historical reasons, many other editors, including myself, have been actively undoing his revisions. Most of his revisions include some note to the CIA Factbook stating that 3% of Turkey's land is in Europe, so it is therefore an Asian country. Here's an example from the Freedom in the World page: Freedom in the World differences If you look through the history, he has changed the page several times, while disregarding the editors' comments in the talk pages. I have discussed the same topic with him in Eurosphere talk, explaining why nearly all the articles on Wikipedia will list Turkey in European categories, but he/she responded with hostility. Please advise. Thanks! CouchTomato (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The thing to remember here is that theoretically the terminology Wikipedia uses is supposed to reflect the uses of the source that the articles are based on. We cannot substitute our own inferences for those made by reliable sources; this is original research. I would suggest explaining this to the IP editor in these terms, rather than accusing him/her of vandalising. From his/her perspective, he/she is correcting an error and trying to help. Trying to be helpful is not vandalism, even if it seems annoying. Also keep in mind that geographical descriptions like "Europe" are not obvious. Different definitions of "Europe" include or exclude Turkey. Is this helpful? I'm sorry that you seem to have gotten lost in the queue. Danger (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for responding, Danger. True, the policy applies for the Freedom of the World articles. If he/she changes those again, I'll remind him/her of the original research policy, despite the fact that people have already stated that that was how it was. This won't work for the other articles though. True, it isn't really "vandalism." However, when he/she's changing a whole slew of articles, and a numerous other editors had to engage in edit wars with him/her and trying to reason with him/her at the same time, it gets ridiculous. CouchTomato (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I understand that this sort of situation is frustrating, but you never have to edit war. Leaving the changes up while discussing them is a far better option than a revert war. At any rate, it appears this IP editor has lost interest. --Danger (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
It appears so. I guess I can give it a few more days, and if he/she really stopped, then this will be resolved. CouchTomato (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Robert McFarlane

Resolved: Public policy project notified. Some of the changes sourced and reinstated by EAR volunteers. Danger (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Several months ago, I proposed several edits to my post. The reasons for my edits were to provide a fuller description and to lend balance to the post. As it is written, the post does not give balanced treatment to the good things I have done in my life. The bad things (e.g. the Iran Contra scandal are emphasized) however, nothing is said about the significant good things I did (e.g. managing the national security decision-making process in the Reagan administrtation and conceiving many of the initiatives which are credited by Kremlin prinipals at the time with accelerating the end of the Cold War).

As nearly as I can tell, none of my proposed edits were allowed.

Why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Carl McFarlane (talkcontribs) 16:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I have not checked out your proposed edits or the article yet, but: Were your proposed edits supported by reliable third party sources? In addition, Wikipedia articles cover aspects of the subject in proportion to the coverage that reliable sources have given to them. It seems likely to me that a large portion of the coverage by third party sources may have been and still be focused on the politically important and widespread impact that the Iran Contra has had. Active Banana (bananaphone 16:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I am not seeing anything recent as having been suggested on the talk page. Do you know where you made the suggested changes? Active Banana (bananaphone 16:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
If the sources mainly discuss the Iran Contra affair, they should be cited better in the article. The whole of the section Robert McFarlane#Iran-Contra affair and resignation is totally lacking in inline citations, which is not ideal for controversial information in a BLP. I'd also suggest the lead of the article is indeed weighted rather unsympathetically. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps the poster means, rather than "requests", a series of edits by User:Rcmcfarlane n October 2010, the sum of which are reflected in this diff: [1]. JohnInDC (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
At one point in his life, there was a suicide attempt that was widely reported.[2]. It doesn't seem to be mentioned in the BLP. So, maybe there's both good and bad that have been omitted.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
It's already mentioned in the Iran-Contra section. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
(ec) The word "suicide" is oddly omitted. Anyhow, the reason the subject's edits were reverted appears to be lack of citations. Maybe we can find the needed citations.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I expanded the lead a bit, and inserted the word "suicide" later in the article. However, I am currently too busy to do much more.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
And I have chopped out some of the unfootnoted claims/details that had been mentioned as being troublesome: although it is likely that someone could fairly easily find footnotes for many of them, I also do not have the time/access right now. Active Banana (bananaphone 23:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Need help creating page

Answered: Danger (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi I am trying to create a article about a new company in Irvine, CA called SunCore Corporation for a project in my college class. I need help adding to it. It is only a userpage as of right now. Thanks

[[3]] TomKlov (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Reading the guidelines on company notability at WP:CORP might be a good place to start, but specifically, what help do you need? Tonywalton Talk 23:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

help me clean up the wiki page

Resolved: Danger (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixelmetrix and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Wilson_(CEO) and tell me how to edit the pages in order for the warning signs to disappear?

I've edited the pages many times already. As you can see, there are many reliable 3rd-party publications as reference points to back up both pages. I also deleted some peacock terms or superlatives to tone it down. However, we can't change facts. These are facts, so how do you expect someone to alter the facts?

Thanks.

"Quest for quality"? Really? That's marketese if I've ever seen it. It's not as bad as some I've seen, but the laundry list of awards and blow by blow history needs trimmed way down. (On an unrelated note, Wikipedia is not Wiki.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I just reworded "quest for quality". As for the awards, these are simply part of the company history. What's wrong with that? And what do you mean by "blow by blow" history? Please be more specific. Another question is who will be removing these warning tags once neutrality is established for these wikipedia pages? Do I have to wait for someone to take action or can I just help to remove it?

I think that you should let other editors judge when it no longer reads like an ad or a brochure. I trimmed the article down some more - its marketing roots were still pretty obvious - and it's better, but it probably needs a bit more attention still. (Your associated article re the CEO may not meet the notability test, and you should try to find some 3d party material there that discusses him in order to shore it up. It's not enough that he is the CEO of a company that happens to have a Wikipedia article.) JohnInDC (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I have redirected Danny Wilson (CEO) to Pixelmetrix on the basis that if he is notable (which is not admitted) it is solely as CEO of the company. The company article still needs work IMHO. – ukexpat (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Tim Harrison Page and addition to Canadian Folk Musicians Page

Answered: Danger (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Tim Harrison is a legitimate folk musician (8 Recordings released, first one produced by Stan Rogers and engineered by Daniel Lanois, arts administrator (founder of the Owen Sound Summfolk Festival), artistic director of Mariposa, Eaglewood, and Northwind festivals. Legitimacy may be established at www.timharrison.ca Please advise on how these editorial changes may be made.

Tim Harrison<ref>timharrison.ca<ref>cbcradio3.ca</ref></ref>—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.77.90 (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2011

Well, if you want to create a page about this artist you need to get an account and then start your reading here. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
See also WP:Articles for Creation and, if you are the artist or associated with him, WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIO. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Check

Answered: Danger (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Please check Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. Josve05a (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If you need help that requires an administrator to do something, like this task does, you should post a notice at the admin's noticeboard or the incidents subpage of that board. In this case, there is a small backlog of requests that we will get to shortly. Remember, administrators are volunteers too. --Danger (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Leo Hayes High School

Resolved: Edit war ran its course. Danger (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Leo Hayes High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've been maintaining this article, but I've recently had another user be disruptive by putting in erroneous and repeating information. Now all they are doing is reverting my edits to theirs, the result being an "editing war." I don't want to have to keep going back and forth with reverting this user's misinformation, but I'm unsure of what can be done.

Repetitionkills (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you guys are engaged in a revert war over whether the school has "almost" "approximately" or "more than" 1800 students and no-one is citing a reliable source on the issue. So its difficult for outside editors to take a position. Best way to settle it is to find a newspaper article or something similar you can reference on class size. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict):Use the talk page to discuss the editor's proposed additions. You should explain as clearly as possible why you think this material should not be added (I agree, by the way); avoid using Wikipedia jargon, but do provide links to the policies and guidelines that you are citing. Remember that this editor is almost certainly not inserting misinformation on purpose and may be quite frustrated that what he/she knows is being deleted. (post edit conflict: Jonathan, it's my impression that the material disputed is a list of "notable" alumni and that the changes you cite are collateral damage in the reverting. But at any rate, yes, that statistic should be backed up with a reference.) --Danger (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Similar problem here

Answered: Danger (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I am having the same problems with one certain user who has a problem with me personally editing and including factual information that is referenced on the page Bretherton she is reverting back information I know is correct and the references prove that but she thinks im trying to promote something which im not, im just providing factual information for the article. She has no links with the pages that she is reverting edits on and no knowledge of the village and building in particular that she has a problem about me editing. What can i do to stop her doing this as it is getting very boring and tiresome trying to reword the information so that is kept as it is factual information regarding the village. It is hard to resolve this if this user is editing information she classes as "irelevant" and "trivial" even though it is factual and a big part of the community of the village! Bankhallbretherton (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

There is an undue emphasis throughout the article on Bank Hall. Try to understand the message that other editors are attempting to convey to you on the talk page. Kudpung (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Trying to avoid "Advertising" flag

Answered: Danger (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm looking for some feedback on an article I updated recently. I added information about a new service and some new customer names to my company's Wikipedia article. I also edited some of the other matter (such as removing outdated company executive names). Although I tried to be neutral, the new version was immediately flagged as "written like an advertisement." The earlier version of the article did not get this flag. I've read the FAQs and perused some Wikipedia articles about similar companies (not flagged) and at this point am kind of at a loss as to what I can do better. I was hoping someone with more experience could review it and give me some advice. The article is Managing Editor Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) about the software company Managing Editor (also known as MEI). Thanks. Mary Sweeten Mary.sweeten (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The basic problem is that you have a conflict of interest and as such it will be very hard for you to write with a neutral point of view no matter how hard you try. That's why users with a COI are advised not to edit relevant articles directly, but to discuss changes that they want to make on the article's talk page so that they can be evaluated by neutral editors. You may find WikiCompany a more suitable outlet. – ukexpat (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm interested in a terse, notable description of this company, not a WikiCompany marketing fluff-piece. And Mary.sweeten seems interested in providing the former, for what it's worth. I think this company is mildly notable; but if it is not, please don't conflate that with COI. This page is a fine place to find neutral editors to help improve an article, and she asked for help in a polite and appropriate fashion. I took a pass at improving the article in question. SJ+ 09:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

User adding redundant categories

Unresolved: Danger (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems that user:Look2See1 adds redundant categories in wide range of articles. I notices this in my watchlisst (Courland colonization), but I checked and see it does in many other pages as well, eg here he made:

Category:Islamic architectural elements
Category:Architectural elements
Category:Islamic architecture

Please, someone with knowledge and authority, explain him the hierarchical nature of categories in wikipedia (if I am not mistaken). Lotygolas Ozols (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Dennis Genpo Merzel

Resolved: Involved editors sorted out the conflict on their own. Danger (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Dennis Genpo Merzel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My involvement with this article started because of a post to BLPN here. Unfortunately, editing of the article has become very tendentious mainly because of editor Tao2911's attitude. I hate to focus on the editor rather than the substance, but in this instance, I feel compelled to point out some of his comments where he calls editors a moron (me) and another editor (Drmies) an idiot. See here.

Substantively, the article now has almost nothing in it. I tried to restore the article to a sourced point of addressing Merzel's disrobing as a monk and the reasons for it, but Tao2911 keeps insisting on backing out the information. See here. I tried opening up discussion on the Talk page, but Tao2911's responses are mainly rants. One aspect is he apparently believes that because one of my edit summaries said that some of his edits were sound, I shouldn't have backed out all of them. But, in reality, although my initial edit backed out all of his edits, I then selectively restored some of what he had done. That method was easier because his edits didn't lend themselves to being undone singly.

Another editor (Marshhawk) has rightly pointed out that the information should be restored. Oddly, Tao2911 agreed with Marshhawk but then went off on another rant, accomplishing nothing. Also, Marshhawk questioned my/Tao2911's removal of the designation Genpo (which was one of Tao2911's edits I "restored"). Frankly, on that issue, I have no idea what's correct, and it should be discussed and resolved.

I don't want to edit war over this. Can someone please lend a hand?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If someone is insulting you, take it to WP:WQA. If someone is edit warring report them at WP:3RR. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, he didn't violate 3RR, and, based on what I've seen at Wikipedia, civility complaints rarely go anywhere. My bigger concern was the article. On that point, it's now been restored to, I think, an earlier point. The article is still problematic (although it's better than it was), but I think I'll bow out and let other editors fight with each other about it (or, as parents often insist, discuss it). Hopefully, it will evolve into something more appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction of information about relation between Salim Chishti and Khawaja Moinuddin Chishti

Resolved: Danger (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction of information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomb_of_Salim_Chishti - "Salim Chisti (1478 – 1572), a descendant of Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti of Ajmer"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salim_Chishti - "Salim Chishti was not the descendant of the famous Khawaja Moinuddin Chishti whose tomb is in Ajmer"

Monojoy (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Monojoy

It looks like the contradiction was the result of a recent bit of misinformation vandalism. I've reverted it. Good catch! --Danger (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Zoe Saldana Wikipedia Page & Racism

Answered: Danger (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I am deeply disturbed by the fact Zoe Saldana's wikipedia page makes no reference to her black heritage! It doesn't make sense to me that Wikipedia is denying Zoe Saldana's blackness. Zoe Saldana is indeed an African American she was BORN in the United States in New Jersey and she's black! Just because a black person's parents are from a Spanish speaking country in the Caribbean does not negate their blackness. Pedro Martinez, Sammy Sosa, are all black people they are just Spanish speaking black people. I understand the United States has a racist race classificaiton system. However, Zoe Saldana is clearly a black Latina. It is ignorant of Wikipedia to IGNORE Zoe's black heritage when she is cast in all her movies as a black woman! For instance, the Star Trek role that Michelle Nichols made famous was meant for a black actress and Zoe got the part. In the movie Guess Who with Ashton Kutcher Zoe Saldana again her role was of a black woman. And in Drumline and numerous other films she played the part of a black woman. So why is wikipedia not mentioning the obvious fact ZOE is BLACK? Yes, Zoe's parents are from the Dominican Republic, however, wikipedia doesn't explain the history of the country. The black slaves were brought from the African continent to Dominican Republic. Next, please add Zoe to the African American list of actors.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanjames (talkcontribs) ,

Well, there is an easy way to fix that. But make sure you have reliable sources to support your edits. – ukexpat (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking for the right place

Resolved: Danger (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I am wondering what all the entries of non-CIB individuals is doing in Category:Native American people and its subcategories (Bob Barker? WTF?). Before I embark on a massive purging-spree, where can I bring this up for discussion? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Judging by the category talk page, WT:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America looks like a good venue. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

College Mag

Resolved: Danger (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

College_Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Dear Editors,

I wanted to see how I can reach you on our College Magazine talk page to see if our page is ready to move beyond Start-Class.

Thank you, Cmeditorial (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Amanda

I suspect that having seen this entry, a few editors will head to the page and clean it up. It does need a bit of pruning, particularly in the refs / external links. Also, nearly all of the references in the article are from the magazine itself. The article would benefit from more third party references describing the magazine and what it does; they will also help establish "notability" in the Wikipedia sense, which is required of every subject of every article. Following a quick read, that's not entirely clear to me, and if it can't be established the article will likely be deleted. Finally - and I hope it doesn't seem like I'm piling on here - if the user name "Cmeditoral" translates to "College Magazine Editorial Department", then the article should have, for now, a conflict of interest tag put on it - and, you will need to do something about that user name too. On Wikipedia, "corporate" or "collective" accounts are prohibited. Editors are individuals, not organizations. Take a quick look at Wikipedia:Username_policy - and if I've correctly spotted this issue, you will need to fix it immediately. I apologize if this seems discouraging, but the policies and practices here do become clearer after you've been editing a while. Thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
John, you correctly spotted one issue. More third-party sources are needed, and the editor(s) should create personal WP accounts and explain on the talk page their connection to the magazine. (if they are students on the editorial staff, that's fine; they should probably work with a third or fourth neutral wikipedian in addition to whoever helped with the AFC to improve the article.)
I did some pruning and citation-cleaning for the article, and updated its circulation stat from the website. It seems right on the border of notability - decent circulation, limited third-party mentions (and it's name is a common phrase, so hard to find in casual searching). The right thing to do if someone wants to challenge notability is to explain the criteria and see what refs they can share about themselvse. Unfortunately, I had to undelete the article to edit it, as it was speedied somewhat out of process - the circulation numbers and external sources (however limited) should have prevented that.
I suspect the new editor, who clearly needs some guidance in understanding our policies!, was bitten and left hurt. Since the subject seems both mildly notable and interesting -- cross-university publications run by student writers are rare -- and people involved are young talented writers who I would hope to see become wikipedians in earnest, I hope that the article flourishes and the editors return (each with their own username :) I wrote them off-wiki to invite them back. SJ+ 08:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
As an aside, I am looking at how often new editors are driven away from Wikipedia by unpleasant first experiences, and think it might be worth having a noticeboard dedicated to reversing this cultural trend... EN/I, perhaps? SJ+ 08:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree. The article was deleted and the editor blocked within, I don't know, an hour or so after I commented, and when I saw that I figured I must've just missed some more obvious COI or spam posting issue. Thanks for restoring it and cleaning it up. Let's hope one of the article authors returns and sees that the page has been revived. JohnInDC (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

How to get a list of articles that belong to category X, but not category Y?

Answered: Danger (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

If I could somehow get a list of articles that belong to Category:American cinema articles needing an image but do not belong to Category:Short films (and it's subcategories) and Category:Lost films, it would make my work in wikipedia significantly more efficient. Any ideas?--tired time (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that I can think of is to copy paste the lists in the various categories into spreadsheets and then use a database to query the various lists. Alternatively, Help:Technical matters might be a good place to request this. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
AutoWikiBrowser has a "list comparer" tool that allows you to compare two categories and produce a list of articles only in one, the other, or both. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
List here. Rich Farmbrough, 22:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC).
Rich, you are a hero :) SJ+

Robert Maxwell (songwriter) Corrected Birth name resulted in the same article appearing twice. the second one is correct.

Resolved: Danger (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Robert Maxwell (songwriter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Request for editor to fix page layout error. The same article appears twice, with the second version being the correct version. The only change between the first and the second version is the true birth name for Robert Maxwell. It is factually "Max Rosen" and NOT "Robert Rosen" (as shown in two places in the first version.) Also, elsewhere under "births" concerning "Robert Maxwell (Songwriter)," the incorrect birth name is also shown as "Robert Rosen" and needs to be corrected to "Max Rosen", with the links between that page and the "Robert Maxwell (Songwriter)" page adjusted accordingly. Thank you.

I have personal family knowledge of Robert Maxwell's birth name, as my father (Myor Rosen) was his brother. ViolinBookGuy2 (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)ViolinBookGuy2

I've fixed your edit, I hope. But now I've seen the extra sentence you had hidden inside "ref" tags here, I will be undoing your change. Information in Wikipedia articles must already have been published in reliable sources such as books, journals and newspapers; personal family knowledge is not enough. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
This is the sort of case which tests the bounds of WP:RS. Personal family knowledge is sometimes essential in getting certain details right -- Jimbo's birthdate is a fine example. In this case, ViolinBookGuy2: can you please find and provide a photograph of a birth record? That would help set the record straight. SJ+ 09:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, and maybe we should edit WP:PRIMARY to allow us to cite it... but common sense should prevail here, we should at least redact the incorrect name and make a note on the talk page, until further steps can be taken. Personally I would be inclined to go with "family knowledge" - I know at least one notable person who's (book not WP) biography gets the gender of one of his children wrong. Magazines and newspapers are generally worse than books. Rich Farmbrough, 15:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC).
Redacted to the talk page for now. I'm inclined to agree with 'family knowledge' with some basic confirmation of family ties - ViolinBookGuy2, can you share any further links about your father or uncle's work? SJ+ 09:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Company entry marked as advertising

Resolved: Danger (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Sapient Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapient_Corporation

Please provide guidance on what on the "Sapient Corporation" write-up triggered an advertising flag. All the facts are properly cited and it's written in a very neutral, straightforward manner.

Please de-flag unless you can provide specific recommendations or can cite passages that you think are "not neutral" or not properly cited.

User:Dlabar

Well, "citing a passage" would require posting the whole article here—the whole thing is out of some marketing department's glossy brochure, and the whole thing is inappropriate. Some specific examples of issues:
  • Business speak/marketese. Examples are "three business units", "based in 12 countries and 35 locations" followed by an exhaustive list, "firm" rather than "company", "proprietary methodologies in program management, technology development, and process outsourcing", and bolding the name of each subgroup (only the name of the article subject gets bolded, and only the first time it gets used).
  • Advertising tone. The article contains laundry lists of what each division offers, speaks in glowing terms about them and their partners/clients, and overall is "talking up" the company, not writing about it in a neutral, dispassionate tone.
  • Peacock terms. "World's largest", etc.
  • Buzzwords. "integrated marketing and technology services, including web design & development, e-commerce, advertising creative, media planning and buying, content & collaboration, emerging technologies (e.g., mobile, social media, digital signage), strategic planning, and analytics...". Those don't tell me crap about what they actually do, they're just marketing buzzwords.
Honestly, it's probably good you're asking for advice. If I'd seen that, I would've speedied it. Since you are trying to fix it, I think it's only fair to give you a shot. But it needs to happen. Also, we strongly discourage the editing of any article for a company for which you work or with which you are affiliated. I'd advise stubbing it down and starting over, and keeping in mind that tone, as well as content, must be strictly neutral. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Should probably be noted that, looking at the history of the article, it's been heavily influenced by the company's marketing department for a while now. It probably needs a complete reworking to be neutral. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
It's much cleaner now thanks to a number of editors. The biggest problem with the article is that it says almost nothing about a half-billion dollar company -- there are dozens of fascinating historical details that one could add. SJ+ 10:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

US vs. U.S.

Answered: Danger (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

re: Acronym and initialism, I don't know if there's a policy on which to use when talking about the United States. Is there a policy or a preference? I like the latter and in shorter articles often replace US, but a lot of people use the former. However, if this is against policy I'll stop. Thoughts?? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

U.S. is more formal. As always, initialism are to be avoided when using a few extra characters is not problematic. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm with you on that, spelling it U.S. makes things an awful lot easier, especially if you have dyslexia or the sentence is ambiguous.
Ion Zone (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I forgot to mention using initials after the first use, and especially where U.S. is frequently used, as in a lot of political articles I edit. Also, I assume it would be unnecessary to add initials after first time use since most people recognize them, i.e.: United States (U.S.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
It is fine to use really common intialisms - US, UK, NASA, ISBN etc. especially in appropriate contexts. If worried you can link the first occurrence thus US, though even that would be seen as overlinking in most contexts. Rich Farmbrough, 15:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC).
There is a discussion on this at Wikipedia talk:MoS. I fail to see how US is more ambiguous than U.S. Rich Farmbrough, 15:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC).
Yeah, well, what do you know, being from the UK and all? Seriously, I don't think it's an issue of ambiguity but style. I'm sure people will hammer this one to death without, of course, reaching any consensus, but, as one American, I think US is ugly. By the way, NASA and U.S. are not the same. NASA is an acronym, and U.S. is an abbreviation.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for link to Wikipedia_talk:MoS#Statement_of_fact_challenged. I see there is sufficient controversy I can do whatever I want, as long as I keep in consistent in the article. Will save the link. Meanwhile, unwatching here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Unclear reason for deletion

Answered: Danger (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

As neutrally as possible: not clear why the following page was deleted - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rachel_Sklar&action=edit&redlink=1

The cache indicates the the rationale given - G8 - doesn't apply. [ cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&q=cache%3Aen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FRachel_Sklar&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1 ]

Any insight would be appreciated.

Sklarra (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Your best insight would probably come from asking the person who performed the deletion. I'd advise you go do that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
G8 applies because the article was deleted at the time: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Rachel+Sklar. The only content of the talk page was a wikiproject banner and "rachel is allergic to cats? thanks wikipedia!" PrimeHunter (talk) 05:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
That's why admins are required to check the history of a page before deleting; to make sure that the page doesn't appear to fall under a deletion criterion because of vandalism, as in this case. Sorry, haven't had the coffee yet. Talk page!= article. Danger (talk) 08:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC) --Danger (talk) 07:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Undeleted. I think we would be better off without G8 altogether. It offers little value, deletes/hides useful information when there was a meaningful discussion about a deleted page, and is simply confusing in cases where there is deletion churn. The fact that bots allow people to mindlessly enforce G8 within minutes of a possibly-dubious article deletion only amplifies the problem. SJ+ 10:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Removing cleanup tag on article page

Resolved: Danger (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I was finally able to hunt down and insert the citations referred to in the {{multiple issues|cleanup=January 2011|primarysources=January 2011}} tag on my article page. All the biographical info and publication info referred to in the beginning of the article comes from here:

[1]

Can someone take a look, make sure the format is up to wiki standards and perhaps remove the tag?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Camilopinilla (talkcontribs)

Could you please provide a link to the article? I'm sure someone would be happy to help you check, but we do need to know which article to look at. :) Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
From the enquirer's contribs, it appears that the page in question is Kevin Brown (author). --Kudpung (talk) 08:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
The normal venue for enquiries of this kind is Wikipedia:Requests for feedback. I've had a quick look at the article - comments will be posted shortly on your talk page. Kudpung (talk) 08:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ Contemporary Authors New Revision Series: A Bio-Bibliographical Guide to Current Writers in Fiction, General Non-Fiction, Poetry, Journalism, Drama, Motion Pictures, Television, & Other Fields, Volume 116, pp. 47-50. Farmington Hills, Michigan, 2003. ISSN 0275-7176.

Question regarding article verification

Resolved: Danger (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

William Kennedy Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While reading the article on William Kennedy Smith, it states he went to Bryn Mawr College for post-baccalaureate coursework. Bryn Mawr College is currently a private female only college and one of the Seven Sisters colleges. This fact is not cited in your article. How did a male complete coursework at an all female college? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.36.243 (talk) 05:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Bryn Mawr College#History says "In 1931, Bryn Mawr began accepting men as graduate students, while remaining women-only at the undergraduate level." The Graduate School of Arts and Sciences "How to Apply" at http://www.brynmawr.edu/gsas/Admissions/ doesn't mention a gender requirement. The application form http://www.brynmawr.edu/gsas/documents/GSAS_Complete2010.pdf has a "GENDER (Optional)" field. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
The more relevant link here is http://www.brynmawr.edu/postbac/program.shtml which says "We are highly selective and will typically enroll 75 women and men per year". PrimeHunter (talk) 05:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
The issue has now been addressed on the article talk page which in any case would be the more usual venue for a discussion of this type. --Kudpung (talk) 06:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I have added a citation.[4] PrimeHunter (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I have left comments on the article talk page.Kudpung (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Rajinikanth - a GA?

Resolved: Danger (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Rajinikanth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There is currently the GA + logo on this article that I dont think belongs there - primarily just based on the quality of the article and its sources, but it is also not listed on the GA page and it is rated B class on its talk page and there is no link to a GA assessment page. But I dont see the coding that is placing the GA mark on the article to remove it. Can someone help? Active Banana (bananaphone 18:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The template was at the bottom of the article, in the external links section. I have removed it. Seems it was added by Vensatry (talk · contribs) here during a series of edits. Rehevkor 19:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
(may be a copy/paste error from Kamal Haasan, see [5].) Rehevkor 19:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! Active Banana (bananaphone 19:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Smoking in Japan

Resolved: Danger (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

This edit seems like an attempt to preserve self-promotion. It is being disputed on the Talk page but keeps being reverted. Thanks. Smoking in Japan (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not there at the moment. I edited the section to tighten it - weird stuff.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Shmoo & Darwin

Resolved: ~~ GB fan ~~ 13:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I have made a small addition to the article Shmoo about the use of the imaginary animal the shmoo as an example by evolutionary biologists. For some reason, this has irritated an editor. I have tried repeatedly to get a discussion going on the talk pages, to no effect. And I have tried a couple of variations, but they all seem to be unacceptable. The editor doesn't have a user page, so I can't talk there. Most recently, the editor says that s/he will "report" me, on what basis I don't know. I feel that I am just being intimidated. TomS TDotO (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The user does have a talk page, User talk:Rackinfrackin, but it would be better to discuss your edits on the article's talk page, Talk:Shmoo. ~~ GB fan ~~ 13:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Update, I see you have tried to discuss it on the talk page with no response. I posted on their talk page asking them to discuss their reverts. Hopefully they will explain why they are reverting. ~~ GB fan ~~ 13:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. But there seems to be no response. Next step? TomS TDotO (talk) 11:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Rackinfrackin has edited anything since 19:17, 13 February 2011. I posted on their talk page 13:34, 14 February 2011. They probably haven't even seen my post yet. If they are editing elsewhere and still not responding then we can look at next steps. ~~ GB fan ~~ 12:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Again, thank you. It's now been about a week with no activity. I am getting impatient about making some changes. How would it be if I move some text from one place to another, to a place which seems to be more appropriate anyway, without making any changes to the text itself as it is now. The present text does not seem to be unacceptable, so it shouldn't be a direct confrontation just to put it in a different place. Yes, I have an ulterior motive, which is to draw the other editor's attention (my name appearing on a change). But I do think that it is a legitimate change. If I do nothing, I feel that I have been blocked from ever making any change by (what appears to me to be) unreasonable behavior. Or is there something else that I can do? I don't want either to write this off as not worth the effort or to be forced into waiting for months. TomS TDotO (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed the resolved box added above. I don't know what that means, as it sure doesn't look like anything has been resolved. TomS TDotO (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I placed the "resolved" tag because there's been a week with no activity by the editor reverting your addition, nor have they responded to talk page messages. Presumably, then, were you to re-add the material, they would not object. Don't worry, you are not going to be blocked for adding material that's not copyrighted, as long as you abide by the three-revert rule. I've removed the "resolve" tag because this discussion is still active.
However, the material you are adding appears to be synthesis, that is, an original combination of ideas. You have interpreted Darwin's quote as applying to the shmoo. If you'd like to expand this example, I'd suggest being more explicit on why Dennett says the shmoo is a falsification of natural selection, rather than talking about what Darwin might have thought about the shmoo. Does this make sense? Danger (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I understand your objection, and I will take that into account. I'm going to proceed gently and slowly, and first of all just make the move that I suggested above before adding any material which has raised objections. TomS TDotO (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I've made a few changes over the last few days with no response, so I'm assuming that there will be no more objections. Thanks, both of you. TomS TDotO (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Need Help with Content Dispute

Unresolved: Danger (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Hi, I've been involved in (what seems like) a long argument with an editor called Ion Zone on the Christian terrorism‎ page. This has reached the stage where Ion Zone has deleted large amounts of cited text from the article, basically because he doesn't like what it says, before other editors have had a chance to reply to the debate. As well as the deletion, he has started leaving little editorial comments in the text. I've reverted his deletion three times and obviously I'm not going to touch the page any more any time soon. I'm unsure what to do next. Perhaps an uninvolved editor could take a look at the talk page and let me know what they think, and advise me on how to proceed. Thanks. --rpeh •TCE 15:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Rpeh has had several days to make his case for the relevance of the sources I have removed. This is a debate which has been going on since the 28 January. Several other users have commented, and a number of them agree that the deleted portions of that section are irrelevant to the article. Most of these sections are pure opinion with no balancing views or justifying evidence, the remainder are quotes and references which have no bearing on the actual subject. I have debated with Rpeh for quite a while on the subject (see talk page) and he has yet to justify their specific inclusion, or even try to. The notations mentioned refer to an already-present comment that I have copied from the header of the article and a section of text that I have commented out as it may prove to be relevant with further research and justification.
Ion Zone (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
And I'm getting sick and tired of Ion Zone claiming that I've not justified the content. I have done, several times. His mischaracterisation of events is infuriating: to claim the debate has been going since January is inaccurate, given that he only appeared two days ago. "Several other users" is three, so to claim that "a number of them agree", when the figure is two, is true but disingenuous. --rpeh •TCE 15:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The issue of this section's validity has been open since January. I never claimed to have been debating you for that length of time. Please address the concerns raised on the talk page.
Ion Zone (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

There have always been problems with this page. I set out some gorund rules with other editors back in the distant past, maybe they are still there. I'll take a look. Rich Farmbrough, 21:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC).

misleading statements on "compressive sensing"

Answered: Danger (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I believe the article contains confusing and misleading statements on "compressive sensing" that must be clarified. Please instruct me how can I suggest necessary corrections. Thank you, yarolp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yarolp (talkcontribs) 16:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You can make necessary corrections. Just make sure they're backed by reliable sources. If you'd like input from other editors first, the article's talk page would be a good place to start. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of my article

Answered: Danger (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I had created an article The Great Indian Tamasha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which is not a personal account of people, but aimed at bringing to light the vagaries of indian democracy. The artilce has been considered for speedy deletion by wikipedia on account of content not being enough.

As the article is not a biographical account on individuals, but only to portray how individuals use/misuse power for personal gains and providing factual information on how democracy is costing the country.

Request for consideration of the article.

Regards

Raji.krithi (talk)R.Krithivasan

I'm not sure if "no context" was the correct deletion reason, but speedy deletion criterion G10 unquestionably applies, as the article contained negative material about a living person that was unsupported by reliable sources. In accordance with our policy on biographies of living persons, any negative material about a living person must be balanced and impeccably sourced to a highly reliable source. Wikipedia is not the place to advance conspiracy theories or smear campaigns. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict):The article was deleted because it was probably very short (one line only) and unreferenced. You can start the article again, but please consider doing this in your userspace first, and then moving it to article space when it is ready to be seen by everyone. To do this, please click on all the blue links in the message on your talk page and read all the instructions very carefully. When it is ready, you can also either ask an editor to check it for you before you move it, or ask at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback. Happy editing! Kudpung (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Help me! George Washington

Answered: I learn something new everyday at Wikipedia. Danger (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't understand your instructions, but I know there is a mistake in your article concerning George Washington. The article incorrectly states that he was born under the Julian calendar on February 11, 1731. The year is quite wrong. Under both the Julian and Gregorian calendars, Mr. Washington was born in 1732. Do as you wish with this information; I'm tired of trying to contact you. Ciguy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciiguy (talkcontribs) 06:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

George Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The 1731 date is marked "(O.S.)"; that blue link takes you to Old Style and New Style dates. It seems that in some countries at that period, each year began on March 25th, not on January 1st; in those systems, GW was born towards the end of 1731. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
In areas under British rule, from the 12th century until 1751, the historical calendar year began on January 1st, and the civil calendar year began on March 25. The usual way to indicate dates in months in which the year of the historical calendar and the year of the civil calendar differed (that is, January, February, and March) is to show them as "February 11, 1731/2". These "double dates" avoid ambiguity, and should be used in our articles. - Nunh-huh 18:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

List of countries by GDP (nominal)

Resolved: Edit war ran its course. Danger (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone seems to have added the European Union to the List of countries by GDP (nominal) article. The article is a list of countries GDP's. The EU is not a country. An editor with a history of edit warring keeps re-adding it. I fear I am losing my cool and don't want to begin an edit war. Any help is appreciated. UrbanNerd (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Considering that you've already disparaged another editor's country and accused them of having "G8 envy", whatever that means, I'd say you've already lost your cool. (An apology might be in order, by the way.) In this case, Wikipedia gains nothing by being rigid. If reliable sources tend to list the EU as a whole in their compilations of GDP stats, then we should too. It follows the sources and is probably information that readers are interested in. Just add a footnote indicating that the EU is not a country per se, but is often treated as an economic unit for the purposes of calculating GDP or however you'd like to word that. Then there's no ambiguity that the EU is a country and the article keeps some important information that reflects the sources. --Danger (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Magaret Sanger

Answered: Danger (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Magaret Sanger is a known racist and the factual proof is located in the books written by Margaret. How can you NOT mention that she was a known racist? How? She was no different than Adolf Hitler in her views of elimanating minorities through abortions. The facts are clear! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.250.32.100 (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources to back up your personal opinions. Active Banana (bananaphone 17:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Her advocacy of eugenics and allegations of racism against her are all dealt with in the article, in accordance with our neutrality standards. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Opinion-Based Analysis Added to Film Articles

Resolved: Danger (talk) 14:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I deleted a large section of "Plot Analysis" on the Coffy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) page which was poorly written and offered little in the way of encyclopedic information. 98.155.83.59 reinstated the section, and when I removed it again I (albeit snarkily) explained why it didn't belong on Wikipedia. He posted this on my talk page:

"This is for a school assignment, please remove it in a week. Till then, leave it be. I agree with your reasoning, but the professor desires different. So with all do respect, her opinion trumps yours..."

I do not consider this a valid reason to contribute poor material to Wikipedia. Nor do I think this user's professor should assign a letter grade for contributing unencyclopedic writings to an online encyclopedia, but that's neither here nor there.

70.114.205.67 (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd entirely agree with your deletion: there is no reason whatsoever why a 'plot analysis' for a school assignment would need to be placed on a Wikipedia page. What kind of idiot sets an assignment like that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I've left a note on the user's talk suggesting alternative routes for improving the articles and giving them a link to the guidelines on school projects to send to their professor. If this is really a kid in a bind, we should probably provide the tools to get their instructor to reconsider a poor assignment. --Danger (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit's age

Resolved: Danger (talk) 14:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

In the biography of Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit it states that "At the age of 16, Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit began training as a merchant in Amsterdam after his parents died on August 14 in 1712 from eating poisonous mushrooms." In 1712, Fahrenheit would have been 26. 75.88.104.44 (talk) 10:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Thank you for catching this. Looking at the talk page and at the sources, it looks like the error was in the date of the death of his parents. I have edited the article to make things consistent. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Person deliberately damaging trance-music related pages w/ a triumphalist view of house music out of apparent hatred of the trance genre & preference for house music.

Resolved: Storm passed. Danger (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Trance music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Progressive electronic dance music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone named Danceking5 has been been making massive disparaging changes to pages concerned trance music to destroy the legitimacy of it as a genre and to advance a triumphalist view of house music in a strongly agenda-driven way reflecting his/her hatred of trance music.

Eg, he/she has made 15 straight changes without any comments or edit summaries to deligitimize progressive trance. see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Progressive_electronic_dance_music&action=history . If these changes had been made in good faith, he/she would have given edit summaries or comments. Whereas the original page talked about progressive house and progressive trance together, the new page

Eg, he/she changed the popularity from "mid" to "none" in the main box at top-right. Changing popularity to "none" is clearly not a change made in good faith, and is clearly agenda-driven rather than being more dispassionate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pengowl (talkcontribs) 01:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Likewise, this person on two sets of occasions made many strongly anti-trance, pro-house changes to the main trance music page. For example, everyone (eg in published books, etc) traces the origin of trance to the early 1990s in Germany. And for years, this is what it said on Wikipedia. However, Danceking changed the page to claim trance is merely a subgenre of House and changed trance's origins to instead be what are actually the origins of house. You can see this at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trance_music&oldid=415306063

The problem on that page began similarly: Danceking5 made 11 changes on Feb 22 without making any notes at all in terms of comments or edit summaries. He uprooted what had been on the page for years with a clear agenda to disparage trance music and exude a triumphalist view of house. I don't think anyone who knows even a little bit about electronic music would say that trance is a subgenre of house and delete its origins and instead put the origins of a completely different genre of music. The only reason to do this would be a hatred of one genre of music in favor of another. If he hates trance music and loves house so passioantely, he probably should not be ripping apart years' worth of accumulated knowledge on the trance music page.

(I will note that another page Danceking5 made many changes to (Trance Energy) was originally so badly written & biased in the other direction that I let Danceking5's changes there stand because even if biased they were better than what was there before.)Pengowl (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

An example of damages on a smaller page: Danceking5 changed the first sentence of the Dream trance article to say the genre was merely a "marketing buzz word". This page, with this name, had been around for 4 years, and suddenly now was pronounced just a "marketing buzz word". This is not unbiased language.

What can be done to prevent this person from making deliberate content damages to trance pages out of hatred for trance and a triumphalist attitude towards house?

Thanks! Pengowl (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Since no one else has chimed in here, I'll try and give some input. In your first example he changes unsourced text to different unsourced text - that kinda makes it difficult to comment on by someone who's familiarity with trance ends with Robert Miles. He did however remove a bunch of what seem to be copyright violating external links, which should never be linked per WP:ELNEVER. The "marketing buzz word" thing does seem a little off to me, suggesting a possible bias. The only advice I can give really is to try and discuss the issue with the user directly, if that fails there are avenues at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution available to you. Rehevkor 13:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Telegraph Journal (Saint John, N.B.) page.

Answered: Danger (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I was looking at your article on the Telegraph Journal and possibly noticed an issue. It is stated that J. K. Irving owns Brunswick News but I believe it is actually J. D. Irving. I work for Brunswick News.

Thank you!

Jillian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.63.6.82 (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I haven't found an accurate source to confirm yet, but it looks like Brunswick News and J. D. Irving Ltd are both owned by J. K. Irving. James Dargavel Irving, appears to be the owner of the sawmill that started the entire company back in the 1880s. I hope that clears up the confusion. WormTT 09:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Need your help in removing false comments that is hurting our business

Answered: Astray. Danger (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

We have a company called Doli Systems Pvt. Ltd at Chennai, India. We have been providing training and services. We have trained over 1000 people in 5 years and have placed and are placing them in large companies such as IBM, Accenture, HP, etc. All of the trainees are doing very well in their career. We have not cheated or looted anybody. This comment posted by someone is hurting our business. Please let us know what information we can provide you that can help remove this comment.

This is the comment that is hurting us and also the future for many more people. http://wikimapia.org/6804122/doli-systems

32 months ago sunil +2 Doli Systems - the money looters. dont join doli systems. they call u for interview and brain wash u to join their training program for 1.2Lakhs. pls dont get cheated

Hoping to hear from you. Please send me an email at <email redacted>

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doliwisher (talkcontribs) 16:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, it looks like you might be lost. This is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. We are not affiliated with Wikimapia. We don't seem to have an article about your company, so in order to remove this comment, you'll have to go to the Wikimapia site. It doesn't look like they have a mechanism for removing comments though. Danger (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


wikipedia used to advertise software

Answered: Danger (talk) 09:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiceworks This amounts to a product promotion and has no other value. Should this be allowed, if so then all other product web sites will want their own wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.239.146 (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There are tags to notify other editors of problems like these: I advise the use of {{advert}} for explicit advertisement, and {{tone}} for generally "off" and non-encyclopedic tone. Any editor can add such tags, including anonymous editors like yourself. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

torsion field

Resolved: Dispute was taken to Fringe notice board, ANI and Jimbo. Danger (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

neutral point of view not respected in references or discussion by wikipedia administrators and page creator user:cubbi:

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

please help the world213.233.93.182 (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a scientist, but as a layperson, the article makes no sense to me. The lead says it's a pseudoscientific theory developed in the 1980s that was "exposed as a fraud." The body of the article then seems to try to make a real theory out of it, but every time it gets close, you see a citation needed template. Then, of course, there's the wonderful section called "Torsion-related scams". Does anyone else find this article more of a joke than anything else?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Its what I call a "POV quilt" where the intervention of editors with opposing POV's ensures the article does not have a single voice. I particularly enjoyed "torsion field theory has been embraced as the scientific explanation of homeopathy, telepathy, telekinesis, levitation, clairvoyance, ESP, and other paranormal phenomena[citation needed]." This is as good a place as any to mention my single favorite missing citation on Wikipedia, from Majestic 12 (recently removed): "The significance of this paragraph is that it ties MJ12 to the Aquarius document, a purported fabricated document, that alleges that Jesus Christ was an alien.[citation needed]" Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I posted something on the fringe theories noticeboard, as it appears from their archives they haven't discussed this article since 2009. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Help from Editor Please Disambiguation & Advertising Telmar_Software

Resolved: Danger (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

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

I have edited this article several times to try and get rid of the advertising flag, was wondering if someone could take a look and tell me what I am doing wrong. Also, there is an existing article called Telmar which is a place in Narnia, is titling Telmar (software) adequate/appropriate for disambiguation Thanks very much Brom479 (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Brom479

If you are affiliated with the company, please see WP:COI. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this is the link the article is up Telmar_(software) Thanks Brom479 (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Brom479

old lady requests edit of factually incorrect, uncited statement in "joint and several liability" wiki

Unresolved: Source given is not reliable, no substitute found. Danger (talk) 10:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This dog is just too old to learn new tricks.

There is an uncited statement in the above referenced, below-cited wiki stating that 4 states have several liability, actually I think that there are 10. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_and_several_liability

The statement is: "In the United States, 46 of the 50 states have a rule of joint and several liability, although in response to "tort reform" efforts, some have limited the applicability of the rule." But see: http://www.the-injury-lawyer-directory.com/jointseveral_chart.html

Also, as an aside, I'm not sure that microfinance deserves a section here, seems to me that it would only be relevant to the microfinance wiki, if there is one.

FYI, I was a $ donor last year, so maybe I can buy my way out of learning how to navigate editing wikipedia? Please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.203.103 (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You're already doing better than a lot of people do, in that you're not just operating from personal knowledge—you're looking for a reliable source to base it upon. However, the lawyer's directory doesn't really meet the requirements. It's not known who actually wrote that page (and so we have no idea what their qualifications are), it's undated (so we have no idea if it's up to date or was written ten years ago), and the source in general (the lawyer's directory) is not primarily a publication and has not necessarily established a reputation for fact-checked publishing. It may still be a cue to look further, though. Do you know of any better sources? Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Shmuley Boteach - Help Pls on the page

Answered: Directed to WP:RFF. Danger (talk) 10:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Shmuley Boteach is a controversial American Rabbi - Added a lot of content the page was very sloppy previously - Would you mind reviewing please ? Can you look @ the page and add thoughts ? Jonathanglick13 (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Others here might take a look, but WP:FEEDBACK might be the best venue. Jezhotwells (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Shmuley Boteach controversial individual - had been many debates before which someone close to author seemingly deleted from talk page and had over time whitewashed article. I'd like to request a lock and Editors to please review the changes add comments and become involved in discussions. 65.112.21.194 (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Arab people

Answered: Now being discussed on talk. Danger (talk) 10:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

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

I have a problem with some people who keep reverting my edits which has proper references just because they categorized it under "changing definition" of the Arab people's article, the definition was almost exactly like mine, and i have expanded and organized the article, plz help me and i want all contributions there to be watches so that we make sure that everything is going ok--Lutfi.Saad (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks like you have an ongoing discussion on these issues on the article's Talk page and that, as of now, no consensus has been reached as to how to word certain things in the article. It's a little early for intervention. Other editors may feel differently. If you're not already, you should be aware that these kinds of articles often generate a certain amount of controversy and heat.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I Think There Is An Error In An Article And That It Links To An Incorrect Link

Answered: Danger (talk) 10:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I do not understand how to edit an article.

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

That article refers or links users to this article:

Rostraver_Township,_Westmoreland_County,_Pennsylvania

I live in Arnold City, PA, and I am in Washington Township, Fayette County, not Rostraver Township, Westmoreland County. I do not think any of Arnold City is in Rostraver Township, Westmoreland County.

Carmellyn (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I changed the redirect to Washington Township, Fayette County, Pennsylvania, the article says it includes Arnold City, Rostraver_Township,_Westmoreland_County,_Pennsylvania does not mention Arnold City. ~~ GB fan ~~ 17:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Answered: Danger (talk) 10:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking for assistance with this article. Started out checking the citations and found dozens either not referring to the person at all out just outright false. I began removing the information and it looks like the article has been gutted but not sure what else to do here. Some people are revering without even looking at the irrelevent citations. Help from a more experience editor would be appreciated. Trying my best to stick with WP:BLP standards.

Wvtalbot (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I have tagged one dead link and marked to blog sources as unreliable. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Felicia Mabuza-Suttle

Answered: Danger (talk) 10:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Felicia Mabuza-Suttle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please update the information on Wikipedia about me. Thanks for the privilege of being on Wikipedia. Please visit www.feliciainc.com to see updated information. There is far more information on me than the one line on Wikipedia. I am presently hosting a talk show for The Africa Channel that airs in the US and UK. Regards, Felicia Mabuza-Suttle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.187.45 (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well thank you for stopping by! While in general we don't accept self-published sources, like personal websites, for sources on Wikipedia, your page of the secondary press you've received is very helpful. Do know that, since this is an entirely volunteer run project, it may take some time before the article about you is expanded. You are welcome to suggest changes to the article by posting them on the article's talk page (I would actually suggest posting them on the biography project in your case.) Anyone can edit pretty much any article here, but it's better if you don't edit about articles about yourself directly, except to remove blatant slander or do minor things like correct spelling mistakes. Best, Danger (talk) 05:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Help with my new page.

Resolved: Danger (talk) 10:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I just created a page for Emile Haynie, music producer from NY who co-produced both of Kid Cudi's albums along with songs for many other artists. I have a good amount down on the page for him for the first hour or so, but I cant figure out how to fix my ref cite problem. It keeps showing up and I have tried many things to fix it and make it go away but I cant figure it out. Could you please help me? Thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardsfan524 (talkcontribs) 03:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I fixed it for you. Take a look at the source to see what I did. If you have any questions, please feel free to post on my Talk page. Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

How do I remove the "this is blatant advertisement"-box after the article has been corrected?

Answered: Danger (talk) 12:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am new to wikipedia and have a question: How do I remove or who removes the "this is blatant advertisement"-box after the article has been corrected? Regards Iwantninja (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

What is the article in question? Also, do you have conflicts of interest you need to disclose up front? Midlakewinter (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Remember that editors are not required to disclose conflicts of interest – we do not require self-outing. It's suggested because usually the rest of us figure out that a conflict exists after the conflicted editor makes non-neutral edits. --Danger (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Helpful advice on that very topic at Wikipedia:COI#Declaring an interest. – ukexpat (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

az guest appearances

Discussion moved: To article talk. Danger (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

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

The best guest appearance ever made by AZ is not listed, yet you have it in your album info- Wu Chronicles, song 13 "Whatever Happened" aka The Rebirth with the RZA, 1999- just thought it should be on his list of appearances- thanks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu-Chronicles 72.47.127.223 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC).

Best to post thisd on the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Lennox Lewis

Resolved: Discussion continues on talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

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

The dispute is essentially one regarding his nationality. Lennox Lewis was born in the UK to Jamaican immigrants and moved to Canada at the age of 12. He fought in the Olympic games as a Canadian athlete but always boxed in his professional career as a British boxer. So the dispute revolves around the question; What is his nationality?. My argument made in the talk page is that Lennox Lewis has on various occasions throughout his career self-identified as British. There are three sources i provided to support this. On the other hand the contributor SaskatchewanSenator provided a link to a Daily Telegraph article that mentioned he had dual nationality (British and Canadian).

This may seem a trivial point but i think it can reverberate to wider considerations on how wiki deals with other sportsmen who consider their national identity to be different to the passport they hold. Please read the talk page where i bring up south american footballers. Any help and comments would be appreciatedZaq12wsx (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This comment on the talk page appears to sum it up best:
Lennox Claudius Lewis, CM, CBE (born September 2, 1965) is a retired boxer and the most recent Undisputed World Heavyweight Champion. He holds dual British and Canadian citizenship. As an amateur he won gold representing Canada at the 1988 Olympic Games after defeating future World Heavyweight Champion Riddick Bowe in the final.
Please continue the discussion there. Kudpung (talk) 07:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Assistance on Notability criteria

Resolved: Continues on article talk page. Kudpung (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Karina Longworth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I am in disagreement with another editor about notability of an article. This is the timeline:

  • 16:09, 1 March 2011—I created the article Karina Longworth
  • 16:22, 1 March 2011—(13 minutes later) Notability tag placed on article by User:Ttonyb1
  • 16:32, 1 March 2011—Asked Ttonyb1 to advise me on how to fix the notability problem. See User talk:Ttonyb1#Karina Longworth
  • 13:37, 2 March 2011—Having received no response from Ttonyb1, and after making links to Karina Longworth from other Wikipeia articles that already referenced her, and then reviewing Wikipedia:Notability (people), I removed the notability tag.
  • 15:17, 2 March 2011—Notability tag again placed on article by Ttonyb1
  • 09:59, 3 March 2011—Again asked Ttonyb1 to advise me on how to fix the problem. This time I included a detailed outline of why I believe the notability criteria are satisfied. See User talk:Ttonyb1#Notability of Karina Longworth
  • 13:07, 3 March 2011—This time Ttonyb1 responded with the single line
I again suggest you re-read WP:BIO and concentrate meeting the criteria using reliable sources.

At this point I am still in the dark about what is wrong with my sources. I believe I have shown the person to be notable. Ttonyb1 does not agree. I will abide by whatever a third party says. I am not going to try to revert anything or remove the tag again. If the article ends up being deleted—I suspect that is where this is going—so be it.--Foobarnix (talk) 04:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

User Ttonyb1 did respond rather succinctly, but having looked at the references you supplied, I have to agree. In any case, the article has only been tagged for ref improvement - there is no talk of deletion at this time. I have started the discussion on the article's talk page. Please take it from there when you have read the policy and guidelines, and I will follow it. Kudpung (talk) 07:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. See you on the talk page.--Foobarnix (talk) 08:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on sentence about Canadian head of state on Australian head of state dispute page

Answered: Danger (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I started a discussion on a sentence about the Canadian head of state on the Australian head of state dispute page. I believe it may be useful to try to broaden the potential pool of participants for this discussion to more editors who are familiar with Canadian politics. However, I am concerned that doing so may appear to be canvassing. Can anyone offer counsel if there is an appropriate Wikiproject that could be notified without the notification being considered to be canvassing? isaacl (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I have addressed the question on that talk page. So what if you're canvassing; why is that so wrong? Eclecticology (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't wish to disrupt the normal consensus building approach by influencing the discussion in an inappropriate way. There is a lot of sensitivity around canvassing so I wanted to get some additional views on what may or may not be considered inappropriate canvassing. isaacl (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
It is not considered canvassing to post a neutrally worded message on WikiProject pages to alert them of disputes on articles within their scope or to enlist the help of experts (which I gather is what you'd like to do in this case). This is actually a standard part of dispute resolution. I understand your concern though. The most important part is to be neutral in your wording of the notice. But otherwise, go ahead. --Danger (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Though the issue has been laid to rest now, I was trying to gather some suggestions as to which WikiProject pages might be best to approach that would (a) have the article in scope; (b) have a greater familiarity with Canadian politics; and (c) avoid problems with inappropriate canvassing. WikiProject Canada and WikiProject Politics were two choices I thought of, but I was afraid the Canada project might have problems with (a) and (c), and the Politics project might have problems with (a) or (b). isaacl (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Right, sorry, you got my first few edits of the day and the coffee hadn't kicked in. I think WikiProject Canada would have been the best place to go. True, the article isn't in their scope, but wikiprojects are also the place to get experts, which is what you needed. And as I said, as long as the notice is neutrally worded and you're not spamming a whole bunch of projects, you don't have to worry about canvassing. --Danger (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice; I appreciate it! isaacl (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Dictionary articles

Answered: Danger (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I frequently remove wikilinks for common words pursuant to WP:OVERLINK, but the fact that these words have Wikipedia articles in the first place is troublesome. For example, bachelor. Why does this article exist here (see WP:DICTIONARY). Should I be nominating these kinds of articles for deletion, or am I missing something?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Because the concept isn't as straightforward as it might superficially seem. Read the article; it's much more than a mere dictionary definition. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Not, in my view, according to WP:DICTIONARY: "a dictionary article is primarily about a word, an idiom or a term and its meanings, usage and history." The bachelor article has a lead section that discusses its definition and one other section called "Etymology and historical meanings." Sounds exactly like a long-winded dictionary entry and fits fairly neatly within the policy description.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, you could always propose for deletion at WP:AFD. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'm thinking about it, but I'd hoped for more discussion on the global issue first. For example, see want, purpose, either, and that. Is there a better forum to discuss this issue?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
You could probably get feedback on talk for WP:DICTIONARY or WP:NOT. Danger (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try WP:DICTIONARY.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sunset High School, Dallas, Texas - Notable Alumni

Answered: Danger (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sunset High School (Texas) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I write in consideration of being added to the Notable Alumni Page for Sunset High School in Dallas, Texas. I realize that this is a "self-serving" request; however, I hope you will concur.

Bill Melton (William A. Melton, Sr.) Sunset Class of 1958 (12-15-1939)

Served as Dallas County Treasurer for over 25 years. Recognized in 1995, as "County Leader of the Year" by American City & County Magazine; "Most Valuable Public Official in County Government in the United States", 1991, by City & State Magazine; "Outstanding County Treasurer in the United States", 1982, National Association of County Treasurers and Finance Officers; "Texas' Outstanding County Treasurer", 1981, County Treasurer's Associaition of Texas; Stadium Announcer, 1996 Olympic Games Men's and Women's Soccer; Pre Game and Halftime Announcer, Super Bowl VI, Super Bowl VIII and Super Bowl IX; Announcer, 2001 Presidential Inaugural Opening Ceremonies at Lincoln Memorial; Announcer, 2005 Presidential Inaugural Parade, "Salute to Those Who Serve" and Elipse Ceremonies; PA Announcer - Dallas Cowboys football, Texas Rangers baseball, Texas Relays (Track and Field - 38 years), World Championship Tennis, NCAA basketball and track and field Championships; Texas Lions Hall of Fame; Texas Track & Field Coaches Association Inaugural Hall of Fame; "Five Outstanding Young Texans"; "Outstanding Young Man of Dallas".

Please contact me if you have questions. I can supply References or email addresses to collaborating sites. I can also submit a complete Resume if requested.

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Bill Melton (atlanta96) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlanta96 (talkcontribs) 01:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It appears that you do not meet the notability guidelines for Wikipedia, but perhaps leave a note on the article talk page for editors to consider. Jezhotwells (talk) 06:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree that you probably do not meet our notability guidelines for a separate article, but it's possible that you qualify to be posted in the alumni section with a reference to the article about your County Leader of the Year award in the original magazine. It would look like this:
  • Bill Melton (Class of 1958) – Dallas County treasurer (Start year–End year), named County Leader of the Year (1995) by American City & County magazineReference
Please don't add this to the article yourself, but rather suggest it on the article talk page. Danger (talk) 10:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Can someone upload a school logo on a protected page?

Answered: Seems like none of us want to do this; doesn't seem like the logo is an official one anyway. Danger (talk)

Hi, I wanted to add a school logo for my high school but the "edit" button was not on the article page for some reason. If an editor can do it, it would be great.

School: Walnut High School in California http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walnut_High_School

Logo from the school's student body site: http://www.whsasb.com/whsasb/beauty/images/logoooooofelschoool.jpg

It's for identifiable purposes only.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.2.207 (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If you get an account and make the required number of edits, you can upload the image yourself, but please familiarise yourself with our image use policies. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Since the page isn't protected, there's no reason that you shouldn't be able to edit. Maybe try again? To expand on what Jezhotwells has said, in this case, since the logo is copyrighted by Walnut High School, you will have to put a fair-use rationale on the image page when you upload it. You can read more about those here. --Danger (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment: IPs can't upload images, only registered editors with a minimum number of edits. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Ray Traylor

Resolved: Danger (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Ray Traylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hey... I Was Just Wanting To Let You Guys Know That I Changed The Name Of "The Big Boss Man" Ray Traylor's Finishing Move From "Big Child Raping Slam" To "Bossman Slam"...I Just Wanted To Know If This Is The Correct Name For His Finisher...

--smwwe09 06:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Help!!

The linked sources seem to be divided on this, but the at least the source cited for the finishing move matches up with the name you changed it to. I'm not sure how WikiProject Professional wrestling deals with these sorts of discrepancies although the manual of style provides some suggestions on formatting. --Danger (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
There was some egregious vandalism there; I reverted back to a fairly clean version, I think. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Video links and how they should be handled

Resolved: Nicely done. Danger (talk) 02:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

As is being discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hek_Ki_Boen_Eng_Chun_Kungfu#Video_sections

on this article: Hek Ki Boen Eng Chun Kungfu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The video links on the page seem to be largely testimonials/sales info for the product. I was wondering, is that ok? If videos are to be included, shouldn't criticism videos be included as well so both sides of the product are seen? What's the policy on that sort of thing?

Wcwatchdog (talk) 06:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Testimonials and sales info are clearly promotional and should be removed. All but four of those links should be removed and I have made an edit request to that effect. – ukexpat (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Post was rejected, would like review

Answered: Danger (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Some time ago I was tasked by a band to get them on Wikipedia. I went to great lengths to figure out how to properly format for Wikipedia and successfully posted a page on them. It was subsequently deleted, citing a lack of relevance (I forget the exact verbiage used). I would like to have this reviewed, because they are a successful tribute band (one of the most successful in the US), and there are plenty of other tribute band pages on Wikipedia. In fact, I followed the format of a similar tribute band page to formulate the one for my band.

The original sand box version can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&oldid=391696508

Please let me know how I can gain assistance in getting their page posted. Thank you.

JS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffschad (talkcontribs) 18:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see the notability requirements at WP:BAND which the band was deemed not to satisfy if the article was deleted. Also, there is concern here about people being hired or "tasked" to develop articles for others, see the conflict of interest standards. Jonathanwallace (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

So I can't get an answer other than a link to other informational pages -- looping if you will. This is why I state that other, less successful bands have pages on WP, therefore I am unable to grasp how my band was deemed unsuitable. In regard to your COI piece, I would like to know how the vast majority of articles on WP get created if they aren't created by those with an interest in the subject matter in some way, shape or form. I am not in the band, I am not paid to put the WP post up, and I have nothing to gain (other than satisfaction) by posting their page. This is something I told them I would spearhead, nothing more, nothing less. Please reply. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffschad (talkcontribs) 18:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)OK, the version that you created in the Wikipedia:Sandbox on 19 October 2010 was deleted or over written as the sandbox is there for anyone to experiment with Wiki markup. I have copied your draft into your own personal sandbox at User:Jeffschad/Who's Bad, where you can work on it. You need to establish the notability of the band from verifiable reliable sources. When you have got it into shape you can ask for a review at WP:FEEDBACK. The notice on your page shows why the article that you put into mainspace was deleted "because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia.". Read up on the policies that I have put here and also that are linked on your talk page. You will need to find third party references. The band's web site is not enough to establish notability. Hope that this helps. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, great, thanks. It was actually published as an article outside of the sandbox before being deleted as well.I don't mean to come off as rude, but as I said, I used the precise format of other tribute band entries on WP. Therefore it seems like the standards aren't consistently enforced; either that or double-standards are in order. I will back up the info provided with citations from BBC, NY Times and other major media outlets that have extensively covered and chronicled the band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffschad (talkcontribs) 19:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Just because your article was deleted and a different similar article wasn't, doesn't mean that standards are enforced differently or that there are double standards. With 3,572,367 currently in Wikipedia, new articles sometimes get missed and hang around for a long time before someone sees them and deals with them. I read through the sandbox version and there was nothing in the article that showed how it meets WIkipedia's notability guideline. If you can improve the article and show that it meets the guideline that would be great. ~~ GB fan ~~ 20:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
If there are articles here that don't meet our standards, let us know; "Hey, look at the other crap that's here already!" is often a warning about things that have slipped through the cracks, rather than an argument for the retention of an inappropriate article. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Decide what to do with Edge of Universe page

Resolved: Danger (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_of_the_Universe currently points to a page about a band. It is far more likely that people a searching for the actual edge of the universe. I feel like this should either become a redirect page, be pointed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe, or actually be a page about the actual edge of the universe. Not sure what should be done but something should be and I need admin help to do so. Thanks Lonjers (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit boldly. I have moved the page to "Edge of the Universe (album)" to make room for the correct redirect. I am working to fix old links. Cliff (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Lonjers (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I've been corrected, and have moved the beegees page to Edge of the Universe (song). Happy universe-ingCliff (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Laurelhurst Theater

Answered: Danger (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

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

I have been discussing the article Laurelhurst Theater on it's Talk page. I have also discussed my concerns about the article on Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon. Each time I add a tag to the page to indicate that the article has a problem with POV, the addition of the tag is reverted by other users who do not correct the POV issues. How should I proceed? I do not wish to be involved in any sort of revert war.134.29.231.11 (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not seeing a POV issue here. This article is written about as neutrally as I've ever seen an article on an operating business. Remember, including positive opinions and attributing them to reliable sources is not a violation of POV unless negative opinion of similar weight is also excluded. It would have been helpful if you could pointed to any specific problematic phrases or sentences. --Danger (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. It seemed like a review to me rather than an encyclopedia entry, but I haven't seen many articles about small businesses like this one. I appreciate your time and knowledge. 134.29.231.11 (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I know there's an article about a music store in Michigan that's either one of our featured articles or a good article, but I can't find it. I think the best model we have at the moment would be Idlewild and Soak Zone, which is an operating theme park. The tone is descriptive and awards are reported, but not dwelled on, which is what I saw in this article. I think in this case, expansion will help with any balance issues, because most of the sources right now are where the theater has won some sort of award. When more history and architectural details are added, that part will be less prominent. (And wow, I'm sorry for my grammar in that last sentence.) --Danger (talk) 03:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's a link to the specific discussion at WP:ORE. Valfontis (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Query

Answered: Danger (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

How does one go about getting information added about a technology and a company. Here is a reference: http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/esearch/e3i14785206d4d123ec7bc13407136aea22?pn=3

Gerard F Corbett 07:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfcorbett (talkcontribs)

I have placed some links on yoru talk page about editing here and policies, there is a lot to learn and there is no great hurry, so please read up, have a look around. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Assistance on Speedy Deletion

Answered: Danger (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

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

To Whom It May Concern:

I have been attempting to create a Wikipedia page with no avail. I have written a page called "Totsy" stating concise facts that neither promotes or advertises the former as stated in the Wikipedia rules. In fact, after I received my first warning for "speedy deletion", I was willing to work with any verified Wikipedia editor to change anything that may be in violation of said Wikipedia rules. It is hard to edit on my own as I am not certain of the rules I have violated and would love clarification on what exactly needs to be changed in order to make the page, "Totsy", honest and live.

I would love some assistance and would be willing to be educated on Wikipedia guidelines further. Thank you very much for your consideration.

Yhoshino (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. The page has been deleted four times already. You have not 'violated' any guidelines as such, but I think you'll have to accept that further attempts to assert the subject's notability will be unsuccessful, even if you were to rewrite it. You could ask the deleting admin if he would restore it to your user space (details on your talk page), but their decision wold be final. --Kudpung (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect linking in Zeta (disambiguation) page.

Resolved: Danger (talk) 02:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not a registered wikipedia user, if some registered editor can correct this: in the Zeta (disambiguation) page, the link about the ZETA fusion reactor takes you to the page about the letter Z, not to the page ZETA (fusion reactor) as it should. Thank you, [details removed] 190.134.61.235 (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this error. I have fixed it. (I have removed your email address to protect your privacy) -- John of Reading (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Also note that as that page is not protected, you are encouraged to make such changes yourself. – ukexpat (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Mattress

Answered: Astray? Danger (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Wanted to give you an update on mattress sizes. one of the most commonly used king mattresses in the Hotel industry is the Contract King 72" x 80". There is also a NBA Double 54" x 96" or NBA King 72" x 96" available from Sealy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.120.191.6 (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to support that? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing Pictures of Mohammad PBUH from the article

Answered: Nothing more to be said. Danger (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

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

The above mentioned link shows multiple pictures of Muhammad PBUH. Please remove them ASAP

Regards Jawad

08:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawadiceman (talkcontribs)

Please read points 1 and 3 at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ -- John of Reading (talk) 09:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Distortions between Right-Wing Terrorism and Left-Wing Terrorism articles

Answered: Storm has passed. Danger (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Right-wing terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Left-wing terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Despite numerous attempts to bring these two articles in line, this has failed. The persistent efforts of those who will delete even the most well referenced and undisuptable of facts from the "Right-Wing Terrorism" page without any real reason then go on to do the exact opposite on the left-wing terrorism page, filling it with leading words and accusations of mass conspiracy. This is in contrast to the statements on the right-wing, which makes them seem like an incoherent bumbling lot seperate from any actual ideology.

Using phrasing that compared rightwing terrorists to misinterpreting books, while comparing leftiwng activists to people who commited active acts of violence is wholly inappropriate. To even sort of claim these pages are balanced is absurd. Which one is unbalanced is not really important; either the right-wing terrorism page must represent the same tone as the left-wing page, and must abide by the same criteria for inclusion of topics, or the left-wing terrorism page must be waterd down to the level the right-wing is.

In my case, I pointed out attacks on Abortion clinics, which is now absent from the article entierly. To deny that there were right wing terrorist attacks against abortion clinics and providers is simply not a real position. It just isnt. And In my post, I cited references to both conservative and liberal sources (good ones I think) decrying and detailing these actions. And yet it was erased all the same, as if I had done none of it. It wasnt re-written, it wasnt given any sort of real criticism, it was just deleted. And its the same folks continually undoing changes that make the right look bad, while plugging changes that make the left look bad into the leftwing terrorism article.

I cannot stay here with the same fervor these people do and continually play the Revert game. I would appreciate this be looked into, as at this time, its basically undeniable through a simple search of the edit histories to see the clear, unmistakable bias that has been injected into both pages, to make the left-wing look bad and the right-wing look good.

While either one of these pages on its own might seem "neutral" the fact of the matter is, neither of them are, because the same editors are drastically distorting the two pages as far as tone, quality and quantity of information, and overall scope of what is considerd terrorism. For instance, for a good while the left-wing terrorism page had talk about merging it with *two other* left-wing terrorism pages. This while the right-wing terrorism page has barely four paragraphs.

I do not like this sort of bias going on, nor its being ignored by the community at large. Neither page is neutral because they are aspects of one another, and those aspects have been clearly and repeatedly distorted in favor of a single ideology. Please act on this quickly. Of all the sorts of misinformation that may be plugged into Wikipedia, distorting the situation of terrorism, considering its pressing nature, is among the worst sort of partisan bickering and deception.

I request that the editors use haste in examining and bringing these pages into line. all attempts by users to reconcile this have failed. Chardansearavitriol (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a few comments, as I don't have time right now to do a thorough review of everything. Chardansearavitriol, I'd like you to consider how your behavior may be impeding progress here. I think it's fairly obvious that Right-wing terrorism could do with a significant expansion to make it as comprehensive as the coverage of Left-wing terrorism. However, accusing other editors of whitewashing and playing games is never helpful. Please play nice, even if you disagree with the actions and opinions of other editors. We, meaning humans, are much more likely to act in response to calm criticism than accusations of wrong-doing.
Another issue is that Wikipedia editing on contentious pages is a rather conservative process, not in the political sense, but in the sense of making change cautiously. It might be helpful for you to make smaller suggestions about specific additions of text or changes in existing text and then allow the discussion to go on for a while. Since it seems like TFD and you are alone there, you might suggest to him making a short message where you both can agree on the wording to relevant WikiProjects to bring in more eyes. (The editors here can attempt to help you, but you will find more expert and interested editors on WikiProjects.) Does this sound reasonable? --Danger (talk) 03:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for assistance and guidance

Answered: Danger (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Dear Sirs I have been working gradually on this ongoing article/page for some time, concerning an important Pakistani poet in my view. The article has a number of problems which I am working on to improve but I feel it would be unfortunate to delete it. In this regard, further verifiable sources are asked for and although I am giving sources and updating them as I go along, the following queries arise: (a) some of the sources cited are very well known mainstream Pakistani publications such as newspapers, periodicals etc and how should I reflect these in the references/notes? and (b) a number of these articles and reviews were published before the 'net resources were available here, and are consequently not available online, although they are published and archived in print form and are physically verifiable. But how should I reflect/cite these, please? And any suggestions to clean up the article also, please? Thank you for your help Sincerely Khani100 (talk) 09:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Khani100

References do not need to be available online. Wikipedia:Citations#Newspaper articles gives information about citing newspapers and the rest of the page covers other forms of publication. Wikipedia:Citation templates are a good way of adding references. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I would also encourage you to help create or improve our coverage of well-known Pakistani publications such as newspapers, periodicals etc.; we do our best, but always need more editors in these areas (not just in Urdu, either, but also in Baluchi, Sindhi, etc.). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Jogesh Chandra Chaudhuri Law College

Resolved: Danger (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Jogesh Chandra Chaudhuri Law College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article regarding Jogesh Chandra Chaudhuri Law College is a very authentic one. It is about a very well known and famous college of Kolkata, West Bengal, India affiliated under University of Calcutta. The College is registered under the Bar Council of India and University Grants Commission (India) as well. Like other eminent college Jogesh Chandra Chaudhuri Law Colllege also has a very enriched history and set of very popular, well known and established alumni. So it is an request to keep the article intact and free from the threat of deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arka1360 (talkcontribs) 18:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No one is doubting that it exists, the problem is the tone of the article. It is written like a promotional piece in somewhat flowery language, rather than like an encyclopedia article. Please take a look at WP:SPAM. – ukexpat (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh dear, it's also a copyright violation of http://www.jcclawcollege.in/ so tagged for that in addition. – ukexpat (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The subject is notable, but the article was a blatant copyright violation; and would never have been retained anyway, since it was shamelessly promotional. I have brutally trimmed it back to a mere stub, awating replenishment in accordance with our principles of neutral point of view, verifiability, and so forth. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Problem with deleting content. Not sure how to resolve this issue

Answered: Danger (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Functional medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)}

Hello.

This is Ron Grisanti. I am medical director for Functional Medicine University. I recently provided documented information to be placed on the key word, "Functional Medicine" I was focused on providing information which would best meet the needs of the public searching for information on functional medicine. I was surprised to discover that my information was completely deleted and replaced with information by a company called Institute of Functional Medicine. I am sad to see this happen.

I thought the purpose of wikipedia was to provide "neutral" information for the sole purpose of education and not used as a self promotion of one company.

What do I need to do so any information I add to wikipedia is not deleted and replaced with the self promotion?

I am at a loss.

Thanks.

Dr. Ron Grisanti www.FunctionalMedicineUniversity.com <contact details redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drgrisanti (talkcontribs) 21:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The first thing to do is to address the issue on the article's talk page (that hasn't had a comment since Nov 2009), and leave an invitation on the other editor's talk page at Talk:Functional medicine for them to join the discussion. Other contributing editors, or indeed anyone else, can discuss whether the entry is spam or a notable institution whose mention is a net benefit to the article. It might take a while, and If all else fails, then come back here. Do avoid, however getting involved in an edit war. Kudpung (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I have chopped out the whole of the "Organizations and Educational Programs" section as it was completely unreferenced as to notability and possibly spammy. – ukexpat (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible edit war -- advice requested

Resolved: Danger (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The Oratory School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is what appears to be an ongoing edit war on The Oratory School, and I have documented the activity on the article's talk page. The main problem that I see is that the user defending the deleted section of the article doesn't seem to be interested in discussing the problem or adding the necessary references and/or citations required to make it encyclopaedic.

Have I followed the correct steps in this case? Am I right to plan to delete the offending section in another month's time? What should I do if (more likely when) Pfgpowell reinstates it after refusing to fix it up?

Advice appreciated. — PeterBrett (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That section is pretty much unencyclopedic as it stands, it overpowers the rest of the article, and it's self-referential: why would anyone else outside of the school really care about the slang that's developed inside the school unless it's been studied in an academic manner? I'd remove it entirely, myself, but giving the other editor some time to comment is fair as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
As I explained, it's already been removed three times and reinstated three times, but it's a slow burning edit war between occasional contributors, and the editor in favour of the section doesn't seem interested in discussing it. If I unilaterally removed it now (it's very tempting to do so) what should I do if & when he returns and reverts my removal? — PeterBrett (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I deleted it as original research. Jonathanwallace (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I guess we'll see what happens. Thanks for your input. — PeterBrett (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Table problems

Resolved: Danger (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I need someone to look at List of Indian engineering college rankings. This is my first time with a sortable table, and there seems to be something wrong, as the table isn't proper. Can anyone tell me what is wrong? Yes Michael?Talk 17:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed it, I think, by making line 2 match lines 1 and 3 more closely. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Yes Michael?Talk 18:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

City Seal of Cabadbaran City, Agusan del Norte, Philippines

Stale: Requester has apparently lost interest.Danger (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

good day to all! i am a concerned citizen of Cabadbaran City, Agusan del Norte, Philippines. I would like to appeal to you to consider my request to review a page in Wikipedia "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabadbaran,_Agusan_del_Norte".

it is my desire to correct the City Seal which was inadvertently uploaded by someone. The present seal that appears in Wikipedia is one of the entries which won during the logo contest held by the city, but that doesn't mean to be used as the Official Logo(Seal). The adapted seal was the one appearing in the site cabadbarantoday.com which is the official website of Cabadbaran City. Please check this site http://cabadbarantoday.com/cbr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2&Itemid=6 for the seal. i hope that this appeal will be granted. Thank you, The webmaster cabadbarantoday.com

The place to post this would be the discussion page: Talk:Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Jeff Rense - unverifiable information

Resolved: Danger (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Jeff Rense (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

I have raised some concerns in this article's discussion area. I cannot edit the article myself as it is locked. No one has responded to my suggestions.

My concern is that much of this article's biographical information has no references. Possibly it was written by the subject himself or his representative; but even if it was, what assurances are there that these items are factually correct?

In addition, there is a statement that does not adhere to Wiki's NPOV, regarding Mr Rense's knowledge of Mario Lanza.

My suggestion is for the statements which are not verifiable to be deleted, and for the statement which does not have a NPOV to be modified.

Please review my suggestions and let me know if they are valid concerns.

Thank you.

LucyJones88 (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you are raising some valid points. I made one edit taking out some WP:PEACOCK phrasing about Mario Lanza. The article is semi-protected, meaning you will be able to edit it yourself when you have ten edits to other articles, noticeboards or talk pages.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
If you can't think of any useful edits to make just now, you could try the Lists of common misspellings. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
That list is poison! A gateway to terminal Wikipedianism! Danger (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/John of Reading -- John of Reading (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
One thing to remember is that uncontroversial biographical information (birthdays, employment, etc.) do not have to be referenced by sources independent of the subject. If you find a autobiography, non-promotional information can be sourced to that. I mean, that kind of thing could be fabricated, but why? I looked at Rense's site, but everything on it was flashing at me and I feel significantly crazier now, so I left off looking for a bio. Non-independent or biased sources can also be used to support the opinions or claims of those sources, ie "Rense writes that he ..." Is this helpful? Danger (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

My edit was not admitted

Answered: Danger (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Hello, I've tried to add information about Teatro Pereyra in Ibiza in your article about Ibiza. I believe Teatro Pereyra should be mentioned their since Café del Mar and Ibiza Rocks are and these are strict commercial tourist businesses that only open in the summer season whereas Teatro Pereyra is open all year and has an important social funcion on the Island. I believe you ask for published proof ( as if something printed reflects the truth...) so I googled an article of the daily mail : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-1216088/Ibiza-holidays-nightclubs-finding-peace-Balearic-island-paradise.html Please add my comments or tell me how to go about. Thank you so much, Eric-Jan Harmsen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibizapiano (talkcontribs) 12:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Another google search shows that you are closely linked with Teatro Pereyra. Please read the Wikipedia guidelines on advertising and conflict of interest; you should not be editing the article directly. You could try adding your suggested text and the source to Talk:Ibiza for other editors to review, taking care to note your involvement with the businesses. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for assistance - Michael Gruneberg page creation

Answered: Danger (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm a first time editor and am attempting to create a page on Michael Gruneberg. I've twice had the page deleted so I have rewritten it at: User:Bobg508/Michael Gruneberg. Would someone be so kind and tell me what I can do so that I can pass all of the criteria and the page will not be deleted again? Bobg508 (talk) 15:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:SYMUD and make a request for feedback at WP:FEED. – ukexpat (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Hi. All blue words are clickable links to more information. The article was deleted three times. Your new draft as it stands is not a biography, it is a list of an author's publications with little or no information on the person that wrote them. Please try to expand the article to include biographical information. It may help if you look at some of our biographies such as for example Rose Garrard, taking special note of the method for providing sourced references that must be verifiable and formatted according to the instructions for citations. If you need further help, please follow the instructions on the welcome message on your talk page, taking special note of the administrator's warning not to copy information from other sources. Happy editing! --Kudpung (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

JOHN M.FLORESCU

Answered: Danger (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

My name is Dana Gliga, registered on your website as Dana83art and I want to register a new page on wikipedia and I cannot understand why it can't be registered a whole text on your website. The page that I want to upload is JOHN M.FLORESCU and I want you to help me to tell me which are the procedures in order that the whole text to be published.

Thank you, Wait for your answer, Dana Gliga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dana83art (talkcontribs) 15:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dana. Welcome to Wikipedia! Please see the new message on your talk page at User talk:Dana83art, and follow the instructions carefully. Remember that all the blue words are clickable links that will take you somewhere - such as to help pages for creating and posting new articles. Happy editing! --Kudpung (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Just to be a little more specific having looked at the draft on your user page: it would appear that the subject meets the notability requirements for people set out at WP:BIO, but at the moment the tone of the draft is far too promotional and reads like an advertisement for him and his achievements. Please take a look at some of the thousands of biographical articles on Wikipedia and I hope you will see what I mean. So, you need to deal with the tone issue and you must cite references to reliable, third party, sources that demonstrate that he is indeed notable. Hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I moved the draft from Dana's userpage to a sandbox at User:Dana83art/John Florescu. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Can someone add a link for me to a semi protected page?

Resolved: Danger (talk) 16:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

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

I just created a website for the publicist of Dr. Drew Pinsky found Here and Would like a few things edited on his wiki page. Firstly, can you add in his publicists site under the "external links" section. Second Delete the "official message board link" (doesnt exist, and was never official). Thanks, I can provide proof or whatever that I'm associated with him.

-CarlosDaVampire — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlosDaVampire (talkcontribs) 21:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for posting here. That website wouldn't appear to be something we'd put onto that page per WP:ELNO. If the publicist were herself notable, then it might go on that page. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)