Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Archive 10

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

Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11

Contents

Mark Steyn

I made a number of changes over the past while, trying to give fair voice to admirers and critics of Mark Steyn. I think the section of the Canadian complaint about multiculturalism has too much weight now so I think it should be reduced.

This is rated start class and I would appreciate more experienced editors commenting about improvements needed to move the article up the quality scale. Interactbiz (Norm, Vancouver Canada) (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Maria Rasputin

Maria Rasputin: just wanted to point out that the person depicted in the picture as Maria was the wrong one. I'm not sure I've done things correctly as I have made the correction a few days ago and nothing seems to have changed since. This is my first intervention. It all seems pretty complicated to me. Hypocampelephantocamelos (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

answred on talk page --Dak (talk) 08:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Electro Muscle Stimulation

The article on Electro Muscle Stimulation needs input from a third party, in particular in review of the references provided. I am unfortunately not expert enough in the field to research it properly, but the only other editor working on the article appears to have conflict of interest issues and has provided a large number of unverifiable references. Assistance and comment would be appreciated. Mojo-chan (talk) 12:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

New Article - Lullaby Preservation League

I would like to create an article on the newly formed Lullaby Preservation League but I am unsure that it would be an acceptable subject for Wikipedia.

I have created an initial draft of the article on a sub page of my user page.

User:Richpri/LPL

Please let me know what you think.

Richpri (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the more trivial issue that the article is written in first person (articles should nearly always be written in third person), the subject seems to fail our notability guideline. This guideline essentially requires that any subject must be discussed by reliable, outside sources before it can have an article. I've looked on google and this league garners a mere three hits, with two from its own website. As such, the article would inevitably be deleted as non-notable if you moved it into mainspace. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Pan Shiyi

Thanks for taking a look

Timeline of chemical elements discoveries

I've listed this article because I am stumped about an essential feature of the article/list: I am not sure how to define the discovery date. Here are some cases I have stumped onto (I am talking mostly about the Recorded discoveries section):

1) many early elements are noticed/discovered by someone, but there is not a good definition of chemical element available to label as such; also, there was no academic community to accept these discoveries;
2) many elements were discovered by someone but they did not care enough to advertize their discoveries (i.e. palladium) or simply did not get to publish it fast enough; meanwhile others have published similar discoveries, and not in every case the latter recognized the discovery of the first person;
3) some elements were discovered obscurely but never got any attention; nevertheless, scientific assesments suggest veridicity of results (I cannot think of a better example right now, but technetium is a good example);
4) some rare elements were discovered, but I am not sure they were actually truly isolated; for example some rare earths wewre probably isolated in small quantities, but there might be no report besides the initial discovery (heaviest radioactive elements fall in this category also)
5) some elements were almost surely known to exist before they were isolated; for example F isolation from HF had been attempted for a very long time before it was actually done; is isolation=discovery in this case?
6) some elements were prepared very impure; later, others got the credit for doing the separation the same way, but at higher purity (i.e. silicon); who is the winner?
7) more to be added! I don't care about MOS or text yet. I just want to know what should I use as a principal date.

Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well perhaps it is just me, but that table format doesn't seem to work too well. The empty gaps running through the table, combined with the block of text at the right end, make for distracting reading. Couldn't you just include a block of prose for each element and include the relevant information? You could include the best date estimate following the element name. For example:

Hydrogen (observed circa 1500, identified 1766)

Henry Cavendish was the first to distinguish H2 from other gases, although Paracelsus around 1500, Robert Boyle, and Joseph Priestley had observed its production by reacting strong acids with metals. Lavoisier named the element Hydrogen in 1793, from the Greek hydro meaning water and genes meaning creator.
Thanks.—RJH (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Comparative mythology needs new assessment

I recently made large-scale changes to Comparative mythology. I'd say the content is more than 50% different from what it was beforehand. Any interested editors should assess the article and tell me whether I'm on the right track. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 03:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Remembrance Day bombing

I made some considerable changed to the article in May (before and after diff here and User:Traditional unionist/remembrance intermittent diffs here]). I would be grateful for some constructive criticism on how to bring the article up the quality scale, perhaps to FA at some point.

Many thanks - Traditional unionist (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest waiting until BHG comes back, as she's by far the best person at shepherding NI related articles through the NPOV minefield. – iridescent 18:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
There are no NPOV issues here. There is no dispute with this article.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
It's in NI and it's a Wikipedia article – trust me, someone will find "bias" in there! He's quite busy at the moment, but Malleus Fatuorum is usually quite good with articles at this "almost FA" stage, and being in Manchester he's near enough to be familiar with the material but far enough removed that he won't be accused of bias. – iridescent 19:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
You could say the same about any article or subject. This article is stable and has no recent disputes.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for feedback on Common Impact Article-Confusion about Notability, NPOV, References, etc. Tags

I would like to request feedback about a page I created for Common Impact. I am a new Wikipedia editor and have tried to follow the guidelines but continue to receive tags about the content for notability, references, sounds like an advertisement, NPOV, etc. The organization has notability and is cited in many publications and I am having trouble fixing this and the writing style for the other tags and would welcome your advice. Thank you so much, any help is greatly appreciated.

Kmmd (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Onychodus

I'm writing about the prehistoric fish Onychodus and would like some feedback on my word usage and if it's comprehesive enough. Liopleurodon93 (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in this field, and the article could benefit from an expert opinion. That said: This article reads very nicely, right now.
A relatively minor issue (and one that will save you work, in other Wiki articles) is that links to other Wiki articles are most appropriate for words that the reader might not know, or to another subject they might not know exists, etc. And then, only the first time in the text. The style guideline is described in WP:CONTEXT. Words such as "meters", "tusk", "fish" and "scales" would probably not need linking in most Wiki articles, and certainly not in this highly technical one!
There is one problem, which is easy enough to fix, but it will have an unfortunate effect on the article. I noticed that you responded in the Discussion page to a request for a GNU license for the article pictures you uploaded. Filling out the Wiki form does not change the property rights held by the original owner. So, without further evidence, for example, it appears that "Onychodus Skull" would be copyrighted by Nature magazine, "Plate of the Lower Jaw of Onychodus sigmoides Newberry" by Ohio Geology Publications, and "A tooth whorl" by the New York State Museum.
Note the difference between the images you've uploaded, and the "fair use" explanations for the illustrations in the article for Dinosaur.
The "fair use rules" are complicated. But, I often "size up" the chance of something being a copyright violation by asking myself whether some "mean-spirited" person might object if they found their photos, art, or diagrams on Wikipedia. The answer is usually yes, they would. (And they would be legally correct!) On the other hand, and here again the Dinosaur article is useful, I have on occasion taken great pains to take a photograph specifically for Wiki -- which I release into the public domain, and then insert in a Wiki article. Note this is what was done for the Dinosaur article images. Some very public-spirited people (e.g., LadyofHats for the Edmontonia photo) did considerable work and just gave it away. But the issue is: it was hers to give away in the first place. She is the owner of the original artwork. You are not allowed to give away rights to the images you posted, because the original artwork does not belong to you. (Note that book covers, CD covers, various US government photos, extremely old photos, etc. come under different rules.) I believe many of your photos will be marked for immediate deletion, so you might want to investigate this matter further.
On the brighter side, your writing is comprehensive, lucid, and interesting, and that's always going to be welcome.
Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 09:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for good feedback. So, what must I do exactly with the images? Every image has 'fair use' templates and copyright tags. Liopleurodon93 (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm answering this on your talk page, since it might be an extended discussion, and involve other editors. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 04:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Louis Navellier

Alright, so I just got a new job with a marketing firm and one of my assignments is to eliminate the flags on the Louis Navellier page. I've never used Wikipedia, so it's complicated for me to figure out how to reverse-engineer this article to work. Any ideas? If it means axing the offending content, I'm cool with that. Thanks, cyberbuddies!

Congrads on the new job. First, my browser identified one of the references as an "Attack site" and would not display it. If, I say "if", you don't know what that site is, I'd say, delete the link, at once. (And do not go there yourself to investigate!) http://www.thestockadvisors.com/content/view/87/38/ . Second, you can fix the tag requesting in-text citations, by adding footnotes for specific statements. This has already been done for a number of the more "controversial" statements, so probably throwing in a couple more footnotes would meet the need. (For example, the statement "During the same time period S&P 500 made a 1456.9% return".) One potential problem, even with citations, is that the claims being made for Navellier's accomplishments are quite exceptional -- and therefore are going to be looked at very carefully. It's possible another editor will find even the references that make these statements as "unreliable" (and therefore, unacceptable). An easy approach would be to (significantly) moderate the claims. Third, the advertisement tag. This is more difficult, because, frankly, it appears that is exactly what the writer intends (A writer, by the way, who has contributed almost nothing to Wikipedia, except this article. This is often seen as evidence of having a vested interest in the subject). You could approach this a number of ways: a) Bite the bullet, and allow the advertisement tag to stay, b) Reduce the article to very basic facts that no one will dispute: publications, birthplace, TV appearances, significant jobs, c) Add several more reliable references, and remove any term that smacks of personal opinion, or "marketing hype". There's not a lot of it, but in this context, the less the better: "can frequently be seen", "has pledged to give", d) (and this may not appeal to him, lol) Insert quotes from a couple of hostile references...if they exist, of course...e.g., "methods are actively questioned by author XYZ", "is being questioned in regard to XYZ bank failure", "is the subject of a class action suit", etc.
Finally, however, his picture clearly states that it's copyrighted by InvestorPlace Media, and that all rights are reserved. That means it must be removed. Get a camera, take a snapshot of him yourself, and upload that, instead, releasing your photo into the public domain.
Your easiest path may be just to ignore the advertising tag, though. Hate to say it. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

CON-CAN Movie Festival

I recently created the page for the CON-CAN Movie Festival. CON-CAN Movie Festival (CON-CAN) is an audience-interactive online international short movie festival which aims to discover hidden creative talent from all over the world, enabling image creators and a global audience to share the underlying messages and sheer creativity expressed in profound short movie productions. Founded in 2005, the short movie festival's enables users to watch short movies for free on its site. The festival's award ceremony is held annually in Tokyo, Japan.

I'd like a review of this page in order to better represent Wikipedia standards. I would like to nominate this article for the GA / FA status and so I would like some feedback on the page.

Tokyocolumbia (talk) 09:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

My Article

Sirs,

I have an article on my personal page Apics44 that I would like to post to the main Wikipedia if it is acceptable. Also is there anyway I can make it not available for editing. Please advise.Apics44 (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that only Admins can prevent a page from being edited, and wikipedia policy is generally against locking up pages in the article space. You can expect anything you post here to be edited with wanton abandon by anybody and everybody. If that is unacceptible to you, then I recommend posting to your private web pages instead.—RJH (talk) 21:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Apics44, I've worked professionally in this field, and am deeply interested in the subject. Your article presents some common wisdom nicely enough in a conversational way, suitable for an editorial column in a professional manufacturing magazine. The punchline is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia with (sometimes) very specific rules about what is allowed and what is not. Strange though it may seem to an expert such as yourself, articles which are purely personal opinion, or purely based on personal experience are not allowed. If you were to publish this as an article, at best it would be tagged as having "multiple problems", such as being a personal essay. More likely, it would be marked for deletion, entirely, for the simple reason that few of the sentences would appear in, for example, the Encyclopedia Britannica.
May I suggest a different approach for your involvement in Wikipedia? Hunt down some of the existing Wikipedia articles on subjects which you knowledgeable about. Read them. Ask a few questions on the article's Discussion pages. Make a few, small corrections to the article, itself, and see what kind of feedback you get from other editors on that article. Pull out your favorite references from your library, and consider where a quote or two from them might help an existing article. This way, you'll get a lot of useful feedback, very quickly. Regards! Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yugra

I came across a large article on the west Siberian lands of Yugra, now generally the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug. Lot of great historical information, but I think the main body reads like an essay written for university and needs to be Wikified. I tagged as essaylike, but was reverted and called "rude" for doing so. Might be WP:OR, but still generally a very good detailed article just needing some minor cleanup. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This kind of revenge WK:RFF should result in banning. --Reacespeaces (talk) 08:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Chee Soo biography

I have re-written an article of biographical information about Chee Soo who was an author and teacher of Taoist Martial Arts with references to reputable published sources. Please can someone have a look and rate it and give me some feedback? Cheers. Chuangzu (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Dispersion Staining Images

I have posted a new article, Dispersion Staining, with a number of images recently uploaded to Commons. Two of five images are visible in the article. The other three show the frame, the title of the image, and the comments under the image but not the image. How can I correct that?IEQParticles (talk) 11:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You just had the image titles wrong. And just to note, all link titles are case sensitive; this was the error in two of the images. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Akitsiraq Law School

I came across this stub during research for the topic of Higher education in Nunavut. I used the links originally provided in the stub, and wrote a summary of the information. Although breif, I think that this topic has relevance in the globalization of education, and the dificulty of delivering complex Bachelors programs to reesidence of such a remote location.

enjoy Xxdriftwoodxx (talk) 05:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ursuline Convent Riots

I made substantial contributions to this article quite a while ago and got it up to Good Article status. I'm now looking at it and trying to think what else I can add to improve it. (I'm trying to discuss licensing of images from the Catholic University of America archives. Is there anything else that might help improve the article? -- MatthewDBA (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Requesting New Article Feedback

I'd like to add this article to Wikipedia, User:Webguru1. I've been doing a lot of reasearch to create a page that meets the proper guidelines, but I want to make especially sure that it's not tagged for deletion. I'd really appreciate it if someone could let me know if I can add it, or what else I have to do to improve it. Thanks Webguru1 (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks pretty good, although you might still run up against a CfD on the basis of notability. If you think it's notable enough to survive, I'd suggest a few MoS tweaks, such as bolding the company's name in the first sentence, and making sure that only proper names are capitalized in mid-sentence. You might want to find a target for "medical devices" as well, rather than leaving it as a red link. --coldacid (talk|contrib) 04:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Toastmasters International

I'm pretty much reorganizing and rewriting the article with the intention of getting it up to at least A or GA status. Most of these changes are mine, see the history page to separate other edits from mine. One of the big problems is the lack of reliable references from outside Toastmasters itself or its membership; I've tried Google up and down but without too much luck.

What can I do to further improve the article (outside of MoS edits) while restricted by the references issue? And on that, any of you other editors know of any sources I would find useful for the article? --coldacid (talk|contrib) 04:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Tried Google up and down, eh? Have you looked at Google News? Filter out the press releases, and there should be some good ones in there. Although I didn't spot any verifiability issues, personally. But certainly, third-party sources help out in terms of GA. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll just strike that; sifted through the hits and realized that all of them were press-releases, close equivalents, or trivial mentions. Well, I'll agree it isn't easy to find RS's for this. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Name change in inidan pass port

Dear sir, I have taken my pass port from Chandigarh office in the yaer 2001. I have applied the pass port with change of my name from AppaRao Bourothu to Ashok umar Bourothu with all relevent documents like affidavit and paper advertisement etc. I have got the pass port in the name of Ashok Kumar Bourothu. Till now I have no issues with the name change, but due to new rules change for UAE visa , all the education cirtificates are to be attested by government. They are insisting that the name change should be mentioned in the pass port. Kindly help me how to get a cirtificate or evudence that I have applied for the pass posrt with the name change. Any change in the pass port to be done from the same Chandigarh office or any where in india.

Kindly help me by giving proper guidence.

Ashok Kumar—Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.162.4 (talk) 03:50, July 25, 2008

Sir, this question is better asked on the reference desk, probably the miscellaneous desk WP:RD/M--omnipotence407 (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

How to make farmalade?

Where can I find this article please?

You can certainly start it yourself, but a quick google suggests that you probably won't find much in the way of reliable third-party sources for it. -- MatthewDBA (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Request that the Municipality of Caraga be not labelled as part of Caraga REgion, Region XIII, Philippines.

Please review your article on Caraga. What is being pointed in the map is the Municipality of Caraga, Davao Oriental. Caraga Region does not include Davao Oriental as one of its provinces.The nearest municipality of DAvao Oriental which borders Surigao del Sur (part of Caraga REgion) is Boston, Davao Oriental.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.99.122 (talk) 21:21, July 28, 2008

MeeMix article for notability review

hello. i've edited several articles so far, but my article about MeeMix is the first which i pretty much wrote from scratch. i got notability and advertisement warnings about 2 months ago. since then i've tried my best to rewrite it in order to meet wiki requirements, but my article is not getting reviewed. i was wondering if this is a reasonable amount of time to wait, or maybe it was just mistakenly overlooked. assuming it's not on par with wiki requirements, i would love to hear some feddback. thanks! Rabend (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It often takes quite a while for these notices to be acted on. (Hence the backlog of RfCs.) I'll take a look at it. -- MatthewDBA (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I went through it and tried to offer some constructive criticism. I don't think it merits the "advert" tag, so I removed that; and I gave you the benefit of the doubt as far as the sources go and removed the notability warning - with some caveats that I posted in the comments.

Webkinz

I've been looking over this article and have made a few constructive changes. I was wondering if there was anyone out there who could give me an idea of what to do to improve it. Thanks!

PS if you need to contact me personally, I'd prefer on my Talk Page (I'll actually look there). spider1224 16:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

School district guidelines

I've been on Wikipedia for a while, and I picked up on something that many others have apparently refrained from doing; the creation of articles concerning the Illinois school districts. I have completed the majority of the non red-linked articles, yet I still have no general guidelines. A WikiProject Illinois member named Kranar drogin reviewed many of my earlier attempts, but did not give me information on how to improve the articles. Any feedback would be appreciated.

All school districts I have created can be found at this location sorted by county, or at this location in chronological order (just ignore the astronomy-related articles that I've also thrown in there); note that most of my earlier school districts are undoubtedly stubby, but many of my newer ones are lengthier.

If anyone could take a look at this and help me out, it'd be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

--Starstriker7(Say hior see my works) 13:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Requesting Feedback - User:Webguru1

Resolved

I would like to add this article: User:Webguru1. I've cleaned it up a bit since the last feedback request, and would like another look at it. Thanks, --Webguru1 (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like blatant advertising at the moment. Do you have any reliable, independent, non-trivial coverage of the product? Without that, we can't accept it. – iridescent 15:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:TOV/NeuroRev

Resolved

With the help of user:bstone, user:L'Aquatique, I've provided a re-write on WP:TOV as I feel this essay should most certainly be a guideline or policy. I've resubmitted it for policy, with three supports and no other interaction I'm not sure how to proceed...But I would like to see more community involvement. If the administrators check the history of the AN/I you'll see an incident just a few days ago, that clearly required attention to this as policy.

The original article is at WP:TOV and was previously denied as policy, L'Aqua, Bstone, and myself, are hoping the rewrite, will gain more consensus. I unfortunately have the feeling that because I am new, I'm being ignored for this sort of thing...I sincerely hope that's not the case, and that the Request for Feedback, will gain a positive result.

Thank you,
NeuroLogic 17:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a page for discussing improvements to articles, not for comments on personal essays about Wikipedia; try the Village Pump. – iridescent 17:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Thank you for the clarification! Feel free to remove my section.

Thanks,
NeuroLogic 17:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Disease eradication

Resolved

Dear all,

As my first contribution to Wikipedia other than various minor edits and small additions to articles, I have substantially altered the disease eradication article in a number of editing sessions over the last couple of months. Main alterations have included:

- The addition of a section on proposed disease eradication
- The addition of a section on regional disease elimination (sometimes also called eradication)
- The addition of an external links section
- The updating and minor editing of existing sections

I would be very grateful if a more experienced editor could have a look over this article and suggest any modifications, from the stylistic to the substantial. Also, I have one particular question - it is hard to fully research regional elimination to the extent of being certain of the total list of current programmes (never mind past programmes). Is it even worth trying, or should I just treat the existing five as examples of such?

Procrastinator supreme (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Good work! I'll leave specific comments on the talk page. I don't know the answer to your question, have you tried asking at WT:MED? It's the talk page for WikiProject Medicine, where a lot of people with knowledge in that area hang out and collaborate. If you need more feedback, feel free to reply to my comments on the article's talk page or leave me a message on my talk page. delldot talk 01:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Procrastinator supreme (talkcontribs) 08:56, September 9, 2008

Article on spittoons

Resolved

This afternoon, I made a short addition, intended to be constructive and helpful, to the article on spittoons. (It pointed out that a North Carolina historic site, which already had a large spittoon collection, had acquired what was said to be the "world's largest" collection. Since it is open to the public free of charge, I thought this would be useful information for people interested in spittoons.) When I made my change, citing a recent newspaper article, I seem to have inadvertently deleted the second half of the article. I am not a vandal! But I also don't want to spend hours learning what has become an outrageously complex amount of Wiki lore to figure out how to fix it. I've loved using Wikipedia, and have made a financial contribution in the past. But if it is going to be this complicated to add or change a simple piece of an article, I'll just keep my unskilled hands off! (But I kind of wonder if you might be losing something by discouraging people who might have little bits and pieces of information to add but who are not particularly interested in computers or wiki lore.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.47.225 (talkcontribs)

You're right, the person who accused you of vandalism made a mistake, and it's too bad if you came away with the feeling that your contributions aren't welcome, they definitely are. You're also right that you shouldn't have to do a ton of learning before editing. Unfortunately Wikipedia does get a ton of vandalism, so it's easy for the folks who are working hard to undo it to slip up and mistake a good edit for vandalism; I've done so myself. Don't worry, we have a very clear policy on being kind to new editors even if they make mistakes (which everyone is bound to), so this won't be your usual experience if you continue to edit! Definitely let me know if there's anything I can do to help. Peace, delldot talk 02:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality in SF

The above article has been massively changed in the last few months. Only a few bits i can still expand before i try for GA. Before that it needs a peer review. (I rated it B myself), and expansion correction from outside editors. Also i don't know how to format all the refs i added - if someone could format a few so i can see how they should look, would be great. Yobmod (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I added some comments to the article talk page. Suntag (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Cool, that was fast!. I answered initially there about specific points. I've now written a full lead, according to the MoS. So any further checks are still welcome.Yobmod (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I think there are problems with the images: all fair use images must have a rationale for each page they're used on. Fair use images shouldn't be used just to decorate the article (e.g. to show you a picture of a book cover mentioned in the text), but it would be valid if you want to discuss the image itself. I think you should check the entire article and make sure there's valid rationales for each copyrighted image. Please let me know on my talk page if you need any further input. delldot talk 02:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Delldot. The use of images in this article are not inline with policy. Most of them need to removed, and possibly deleted. Book covers are only appropriate for the article on the book. In some rare cases, in other articles where there is great detail about the cover itself. That is not the case here. This needs to be corrected fairly quickly. Jennavecia (Talk) 14:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

At Swim-Two-Birds

I have substantially revised this article, adding more detail about the book's composition, publication history and critical reception. I have also added inline citations for anything I think is likely to be disputed. I know that the article needs a better synopsis and more detail, but I would like to know if my changes have substantially improved the article and what else is needed. I have no special desire to be the one who goes on improving the article as I am not a great fan of the book in question, but the article was in a bad state when I found it and I have tried to improve it. Thanks in advance. Lexo (talk) 00:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Your improvements are good. You are correct in that there is still a bit of information missing, and the lead needs to be expanded. Other than that, there are a few references that are currently just author name linked externally. Those need to be formatted. Image use is good. Nice work. Jennavecia (Talk) 14:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Jason Shawn Alexander

Resolved

This is an article about an up and coming American artist, Jason Shawn Alexander.

This is my first article and I'm deligently working to improve my Wiki-skills. I welcome suggestions and edits :) Rosepuntil (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Good work writing the article, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your contributions are surely valued and I hope you decide to work on additional articles in the future. Unfortunately, the assertion of notability here is shaky. The strongest argument, which is the award, is unsourced. Blogs are not considered reliable sources and, as such, should not be used as references.
I also question the licensing on the images. If he's an up and coming artist, it doesn't make sense that he would freely license his work. If his work is copyrighted, then so are the images of it, of course. In which case the gallery is copyright infringement. I've tagged the images as such. If the artist is okay with his work being freely licensed, then he can confirm that through emailing permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and the images reuploaded (if they're deleted). However, freely licensing them allows them to be reproduced with no payment to the artist, so I doubt he'd want to do that. Also, in the image of him, by permissions it says "approved by artist". This needs to be confirmed through OTRS at the above email.
Putting those aside, focusing on manual of style issues for your improvement of skills, if notability is firmly established, the lead section needs expanding, and references need to be formatted correctly. Help on that can be found here. The article does look nice for a first try, so be proud of your work! And feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you need help with any of this. Jennavecia (Talk) 15:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Back to Methuselah

Resolved

This article is no longer a stub. I would like suggestions for improving it before submitting it for peer review and a better rating.
Wugo (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Compare to [1]. I am responsible for all subsequent changes. Wugo (talk) 12:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments I just made several changes, and EC'd you (diff). So here goes
  • The lead is short, and I turned that listy opening into prose, so you may want to expand it.
  • The summaries of each plays' section are getting quite long and you may want to look into sub-articles. I would leave individual infoboxes to if you created those sub-articles.
  • You should also start wikifying the synopses as it is light on links.
  • You may also want to use WP:Citation templates or the Make ref tool to format your citations in a more consistent style.
  • Wikipedia links are not references, you can link to wikisource for material, but that is different.
That's it for now and it is a good start. Let me know if you need some clarification from me. -Optigan13 (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Also another user has left comments at the article's talk page. -Optigan13 (talk) 01:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Optigan—I saw no need for those Infolinks, but wanted to get an outside reaction. I will add internal links and regularize the refs. I hope to avoid sub-pages, for the sake of simplicity. After the clean-up, I will trouble you again.Wugo (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

set notation

This mathematics article had been a redirect to set-builder notation. Since there are many notations for sets that don't fall into the set-of-all-x-such-that mould, I thought it could use more fleshing out. My two primary motivations were descriptive (to help readers become adept at understanding written descriptions of sets) and at least suggestive, if not prescriptive (to help writers use conventions, either for existing notation or to create notation when needed). I also decided to enter a bit, but not terribly deeply, into related issues of typography. I'd be quite interested in any constructive comments, suggestions, etc.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The first thing I noticed is that this article one cites one source, so I'm not sure if it is under-referenced, or just that everything in is considered common knowledge. Have you considered asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics to take a look at the page and see if they agree with your assessment? -Optigan13 (talk) 02:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Need feedback for the following article

I wrote the following article and it is not getting piblished. Would appreciate your feedback.

Soffront software develops Customer Relationship Management (CRM) software for Small and medium enterprises .

Contents [hide] 1 History 2 Products 3 Deployment types 4 License 5 See also 6 External links 7 References


[edit] History Soffront software was founded in 1992 by Manu Das who was recognized as CRM Leader by CRM Magazine for the year 2004. Soffront launched its first customer service application in 1993.Since its inception Soffront CRM has been installed in more than 2500 corporations worldwide.


[edit] Products Soffront solution is Web-based and XML compliant. It operates as a zero foot-print web client. The databases supported include Oracle, and Microsoft SQL Server. Soffront CRM is comprised of following Solutions:

Sales Automation: Automates Sales process Marketing Automation: Automates Marketing process Customer Support: Web based customer support Employee Help desk: Enter, track, manage, resolve and escalate employee support tickets. Knowledge Management: Knowledge Management System for support agents, engineers, employees and customers. CRM Portals: Customer portal: For Customers Partner portal: For Channel Employee Portal: For employees Asset and Inventory Management: Enter, Audit and track company assets and inventories. Sales order processing: Automates the sales order process and integrates with accounting and ERP systems.

[edit] Deployment types Soffront software offers hosted, on-premises and host to own solutions.


[edit] License Soffront's licensing options are - floating, dedicated, site, departmental, timed or leased.


[edit] See also Customer Relationship Management Sales Force Automation Web application


Thanks

Nuzhat—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuzhatara (talkcontribs) 08:59, September 2, 2008

Nuzhat—I can't find your article or your Talk Page. Probably there was some error in the way the article was submitted. You should review what you have written carefully to make sure it is suitable for an encyclopedia and not some form of advertisement. Also, make sure your references come from verifiable sources that are not biased in favor of the company. That done, try publishing again.
When you inquire about an article, enclose the title in double brackets, to create na internal link; for example, it I type [[Saffront]], there should be a link, which, if clicked goes directly to the article. Such links are blue; if they are red it means no article with that title exists in Wikipedia: Soffront.
It is important to sign your submissions to discussion pages such as this one. It is done by typing four tildes (~~~~). Wiki translates them into your signature. This is what happens when I type four tildes:Wugo (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • You also submitted this article to the new contributor's help page (diff) as well as the article being deleted several times over. As noted several times before this article seems to be overly promotional in tone. Do you have a link to an online version of CRM magazine that backs up the claim that the founder was marked as the leader in the field? The copy you have in your userspace uses external links that are all press releases by the company, and nothing independently written about them. This all appears to be a promotional piece for a company you are affiliated with still. -Optigan13 (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Feedback on a new article about American-Canadian writer

Resolved

I have drafted an article on the writer Howard Norman on my user page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SwcJholmes

Can someone please take a look and tell me where it should go from here?

Thanks!

SwcJholmes (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well done SwcJholmes! My main piece of advice would be to add more citations to reliable sources. Looks like he's a notable author (that is, he's been written about extensively in published sources), and you've done a good job of stating his claim to notability. However, the references you have are not the strongest; for example, the website of the university he works at is not an independent source and so would not be considered to be of that high quality. Similarly, an organization's website, while not terrible, is not an awesome source either. The best sources are respected publications like journals, newspapers, and books from respected publishers. Here's one you could use for starters. The more published sources you include, the stronger your case for notability will be. Remember, every non-obvious fact in the article should be attributable to a reliable source. Minor suggestion: for lists, an asterisk at the beginning of a new line will produce a bullet point. Definitely drop me a note on my talk page if you need any clarification or if I can be of any help with anything. delldot talk 02:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Environment Agency

Resolved

I've done quite a bit of work with this cleaning it up, and I think it is now better referenced and structured, and relatively easy to read. Trying to keep it balanced is hard work as the organisation is a bit of a mish-mash (and it is easy to get into too much detail on any particular area). I think it's beyond Start Class now, but would like others to review and make comments about how it could be improved. Also, if there's a GA/FA of a similar organisation that can be used as a benchmark that might be helpful too.

Thanks!

RTFArt (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. As far as finding a FA or GA, I usually hunt around related wikiprojects, but didn't have much luck with this one. WP:UK has The Scout Association, that's the best I could do. But if you're just interested in an article about a government organization, seems like you could hunt around and find one. I'm leaving some comments on the article's talk page, let me know if you'd like any further input. delldot talk 01:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Fundamental Problems in the Scientific Study of Consciousness

The initial difficulty for those wishing to understand this is the definition of consciousness. We can’t study or do it if we don’t know what “it” is. Consciousness is actually easy to define, just not as phenomenon that easily succumbs to the scientific method, hence the resistance to the oldest and clearest definition. Of all of the capabilities of the human being, that of consciousness has most puzzled those same human beings, religions, philosophers and most recently scientists.

Human beings are not unique in most of their abilities. Hints of all of them, even laughter (google “tickling mice”), language, adaptation to the new, the use of tools et cetera, can be found in the biological world. It is not even the collection or magnitude of these skills that makes us unique. What seems unique is that we can be aware of them, of our use of them. Thus, this definition, while seemingly simple is profound and carries extraordinary ramifications. Consciousness is awareness of existence. No other entity has this ability, as far as we know. “As far as we know" because of the unique properties of consciousness, especially with relation to scientific methods.

For all of us, but most particularly for scientists, a major difficulty with consciousness lays in the difference between proving and knowing. There are many things that can be proven but that we can never know. For instance, most of us can be reasonably certain that the cosmos has been proven to be nearly fourteen billion years old but we can never know that; we weren't there. Then there are things we can truly know but never prove. This drives the strict scientific method person mad; nevertheless it remains true.

We can know we saw a mouse run out that door but we cannot prove it. Many a spouse knows when their mate is upset even when the most highly trained observational behaviorist would be unable to point to any change in behavior. Somehow the other spouse just knows. I once had the fortune to observe an object at length from no more than a hundred yards. Before this I had suspicions but no way of knowing. After this I knew that there was at least some truth to certain scientifically questionable phenomena. I cannot prove that, but I know it. This unfortunately is the situation with consciousness.

You cannot KNOW or PROVE whether another is aware of their existence, at any particular moment. Only the individual can know though he or she can never prove it. This brings us to the single, almost universal misconception about consciousness.

Consciousness is a variable. It is not a constant. The neural machine can operate just fine without "us". While I cannot prove this to you, you can prove it to yourself with a simple thought experiment.

Think of a moment in your past about which you can remember everything. It might be a surprise birthday party when you were six, a moment of extreme danger or finally arriving someplace you had always wanted to visit. You can remember who was there, what clothes they wore, the smell in the air, the color of the sky, the time of day, everything. Close your eyes and remember. It is as if you are there.

Now think of another time, driving down the road. You come to yourself realizing you are twenty miles past your stop. Who, or rather what was driving? More dramatically, some of us have biochemically induced ourselves into unconsciousness, only to find later that this apparently did not deter our physical machine from indulging in some rather embarrassing behavior. Again, since “you” weren’t there, what was?

Further, some of us have had the fortune to have experienced an hour or a day of extreme awareness, an awareness of extraordinary clarity and penetration. For us we know that the human machine is potentially far more capable than can possibly be imagined. We cannot prove it but we do know. Obviously then, the neural machine does not need "you" to function and your awareness of existence varies continuously between "not present" and "present", a "present" that some know is but a pitiable fraction of what is possible.

There are three reasons nearly all of us operate under the delusion that we are always conscious. One is because we retain the same name, maintain the same mechanical habits and see the same face in the mirror, little changed from day to day. The second is that when someone asks us if we are conscious of our existence, we are, but only because we were asked, never realizing that that was one small pearl on a mile of string. That we rarely realize leads us to the third reason, the single most important and difficult problem with the study of consciousness.

Only to the extent that we are present do we produce memory. When we think back, all we remember is being conscious. We can go to the store and not remember going at all, but we won't realize that because we don't remember it, not unless someone who was there points it out. We can remember only that we went to the store but not what we did there. Then again, we can remember being in the store and so of course everything we did and whom we met, et cetera. If you examine the timeline of your life each day, you will find gaps, missing moments, which you cannot account for in your memory.

The point is this. The only way to scientifically study consciousness is to develop methods by which the subjects can study themselves and report their findings, coupled with continuous monitoring and statistical analysis (and that may even have to be some sort of quantum statistics, subject to the uncertainty principle). All other methods will involve the preconceptions and self-delusions of both the researchers and the subjects.

These observations also put to the test Searl’s Emergent Theory that consciousness is a property intrinsic to the development of complexity, biological or otherwise. It is evident from the above that, while the human machine is capable of housing an awareness of self, it is not necessary to the functioning of the machine. If consciousness is not necessary to the machine it is hardly likely that it fundamentally stems from the machine. The only byproduct of consciousness that may deliver survival benefits to its possessor is a possibly improved memory, although for the most part, the memories enhanced have little relation to elements necessary for literal survival. This of course leaves an unanswered question. Is consciousness an accidental byproduct of Evolution’s combined responses to other developmental needs, or are there larger needs at work, perhaps stemming from Nature as a whole, Earth (Gaia Hypothesis), the planetary system or even the Cosmos superimposed on our evolution? At any rate, this to me is the most fundamental mystery of “Mind”. Why and how would the human machine evolve a potential capacity for which it fundamentally has no need?

One final word: It has become quite the popular pastime to postulate a coming "Singularity" based on extensions of Moore's Law, that exponential advances in the study of the brain and consciousness, computers and artificial intelligence, will soon lead to human nirvana. When we haven't even the ability to consistently be present for what happens in and around us, how can "transcendence", mechanical or otherwise, possibly be near? Also, considering that when it comes to consciousness we are as yet children is it really wise for us to try to create artificial intelligence? Look at a pregnant fourteen year-old and see how well that works out. In the future when we have grown as individuals and as a culture, it might be conceivable that we could deal wisely with a new emergent being of great potential power, but now, right now, how could it be any different from giving a two year old a loaded handgun? --Father O'Know (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - Unfortunately all of what you have just written appears does not credit a source, and appears to be your own original research or syntheses of material which wikipedia does not accept. When you posted this to the Consciousness it was eventually reverted because of this (diff). -Optigan13 (talk) 23:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Pelle pelle

Resolved

Hello,

Yesterday I put an article about Pelle Pelle and I received the comment that it looked too much like an ad, that i1t had too many weasel words etc. I have rewritten the page and removed the weaselwords and tried to write a neutral article. Could you please look at it and see if it's ok now. And if it is, can you remove the tags above the article?

Thank you

Salense (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Salense

Comments
  • I've gone through and tagged the article for some more of what I consider weasel words, or overly promotional lines. It is difficult to write about a business without sounding promotional, so I may be a little harsh. I've also made some other changes.
  • You say after two years at art school(1971-73) he began working on the pelle pelle brand, but the brand is said to have started in 1978, what happened in those five years in between?
  • "Pelle Pelle" embodies a whole hip-hop generation..." Are there any prominent critics or journalists who said that, otherwise it sounds a bit much.
  • Soul food/Day 26/Notorious - You have entire sub-sections where most of the time you spend explaining who the person is. You don't need to. Just linke to the name, and explain Pelle Pelle's relation to them in one or two sentences. A film where he provided the clothing for one character, which isn't really that unusual or notable. If he had done the clothing for an entire film where the wardrobe was major part that would matter, but not the way it is stated now.
  • Celebrity quotes - don't bother breaking those out into sub-sections either. Just list a few as bullet points or some prose, if you have several quotes look into Wikiquote. See what I've done with the Ludacris lines.
  • Product - Try to find a citation to back up that he was the first to introduce baggy pants. Also notice that you used the company website to back up the claim that he has earned the respect of hip-hop generations all over the world. Try to tone down the promotional material and remove that reference. You don't need to cite that if you can list a whole bunch of times he gets namechecked by hip-hop artists in several songs.
I've also removed the external links section, and noticed that you have no categories, so try to find some by looking at similar pages and see what categories they are in. Also check in with Wikipedia:WikiProject Fashion and see if they have anything to say. -Optigan13 (talk) 03:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
This article included copyright violations from multiple websites. Very little, if any, of the article was original prose. Thus, it has been speedily deleted. I have left a note on the editor's talk page. Jennavecia (Talk) 19:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Europa Barbarorum

Resolved

Hello there. I have recently made quite a few changes to this article about "a modification of the computer game Rome: Total War" and would like some feedback on where to go next with it. I have also submitted it for WP:VG peer review but as that has not received any replies after several days, I am now also going to ask for comments from a more general Wikipedia audience. As with the aforementioned peer review, I would like to receive confirmation that I can remove the {{Gamecleanup}} tag that is on the article and also receive more general advice on where it can be improved. Since its tagging, the article has gone from this to this, with most of the intervening edits being made by me, and most importantly, I feel, I have added references to the article and re-written parts of it so that it no longer looks like a copy of this page.

Any feedback or comments are appreciated.

It Is Me Here (talk) 10:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that you've taken advantage of the video game project's (Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Europa Barbarorum) who should be able to provide you with more specific insight as they've worked similar articles. I would continue to work with them up until you feel it is ready for a full peer review. -Optigan13 (talk) 02:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Peer reviews often take a long time; have you tried asking particular people you know are active in WP:VG for reviews? As far as removing tags, if you think you've dealt with the problem, I'd say it's usually enough to leave a note on the article's talk page explaining why you think you've fixed the problem and that you'd like to take the tag down--if no one objects in a few days, you're probably safe to take it down. You could also discuss it with the original tagger on their talk page. delldot talk 03:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Alright, thanks guys. I'll probably use Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review and the tagger's talk page, then. It Is Me Here (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

5 steps to clear windows DNS cache perfectly

While surfing the web, you may find that the browser can’t connect to the DNS server .you may try to repair the internet connection by clicking “repair” in the menu of the connection icon, but what will you do if windows give you this message “unable to clear DNS cache”? Just do the following steps:

1. From the start menu, click on “Run” and type “cmd” then press open.

2. In the command box type “ipconfig/flushdns”.

3. If this failed to fix the problem and Windows couldn’t clear DNS cache, open “run” from start menu and type “services.msc” and click open.

4. Look for “DNS Client” and click on it, then make this service start automatic.

5. Try to repair the connection again or do the same thing in steps 1&2.

Source: http://inanotechnology.blogspot.com Written by:M.Rayes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.196.153.34 (talk) 08:13, September 9, 2008

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia, what you have written above appears to be something of an instruction manual. While Wikipedia does have pages (usually with a prefix of Help: or Wikipedia:) that explain how to fix technical issues relating to viewing wikipedia, Wikipedia is not a manual. -Optigan13 (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer review requested

I would like to eventually get Valencia (Spanish Congress Electoral District) to GA status and with that in mind would appreciate some constructive criticism of the article as to what is missing/ what could go in/ what should be excluded/expanded etc. As the article is part of 52 similar articles on the Spanish electoral districts, it would also serve as a template for expanding the other 51. Valenciano (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, but I should remind you that there should be no spaces between references and punctuation points per WP:FOOTNOTE. This is an example of what I'm seeing in the article: ...the right wing People's Party (PP) won nine of the sixteen seats in the district. [2] Do you see the space? It should be: ...the right wing People's Party (PP) won nine of the sixteen seats in the district.[2] That issue should be addressed before WP:GAN. If further clarification is needed, just give me a note. Thanks, -- RyRy (talk) 05:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I've gone in and removed the spaces. I also did some copyediting, condensed paragraphs, etc. Before going to GAN, you'll need to format the references (see WP:CIT), and the redlinks will probably have to be reduced. Jennavecia (Talk) 14:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm still a bit uneasy about the redlinks thing. The thing is that most of those involve people elected to the national parliament who thus automatically meet notability for politicians, however most of them don't have articles and as they don't usually have articles on the Spanish wikipedia to translate from, it would take some considerable time for that. Valenciano (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Diane Rodriguez

This is my first article. Is it neutral and referenced enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlackR2 (talkcontribs) 21:50, September 15, 2008

Extended content

Diane Rodriguez is a prominent American theatre artist who directs, writes and performs. Schooled in activist art, she received her BA in Theatre Arts from the University of California at Santa Barbara. She is a producer and director at Center Theatre Group, Los Angeles and an Artistic Associate of Cornerstone Theater Company. An OBIE Award winning actor, she is known for using comedy to confront various forms of oppression, often with special attention to issues of gender and sexuality.[citation needed] An enduring influence in Chicano theatre, she was born in the 1950’s to American parents from farm working families. She co-founded two theatre companies, El Teatro de la Esperanza (Theatre of Hope) and Latins Anonymous, and was a leading actress for the seminal Chicano theatre group, El Teatro Campesino (Theater of the Farmworkers).

She joined El Teatro Campesino during the mid 70’s. In political sketches for Cesar Chavez and full length works, she honed her comedic skills performing on a variety of stages from flat bed trucks to ancient European Greco Roman amphi-theatres.

She moved to Los Angeles in 1985 and in 1988 co-founded the critically acclaimed, comedy troupe Latins Anonymous as a response to the stereotyping and the kind of roles she was receiving in the Hollywood industry.[citation needed]

Rodriguez served as director of the Latino Theatre Initiative at the Mark Taper Forum from 1995-2000.

She began directing in 1991 and was awarded an National Endownment for the Arts/Theatre Communications Group Directing Award in 1998. She has directed and developed the work of Nilo Cruz, Lynn Nottage, John Leguizamo, Jose Cruz Gonzalez, John Belluso, Octavio Solis, Culture Clash, Oliver Mayer, Migdalia Cruz, Cherrie Moraga. She received Best Direction nominations for her work on Leguizamo’s Spic-O-Rama and Culture Clash's Border Town.

She won an OBIE Award (OFF-BROADWAY) Award in 2007 for playing multiple roles in Heather Woodbury’s Tale of Two Cities (Best Ensemble).

Published writings

  • Latins Anonymous Houston: Arte Publico Press University of Houston ISBN 1-55885-172-0
  • Cruising Through Town in a Red Convertible, in anthology Puro Teatro, A Latina Anthology, 2000 Tucson: University of Arizona Press. ISBN 0-8165-1826-2
  • Water in anthology Crème de la Femme-The Best of Contemporary Women’s Humor Saporta, Nancy, editor 1997 ISBN 0-375-70056-0
  • The Chicana Files: The Lobos Sightings-Liner Notes; Los Lobos El Cancionero Mas y Mas. 2000 Sire UK & Rhino Entertainment
  • The Pride of the Comunidad: Deeply tied to his culture, Miguel Delgado had a brief career fired by boundless energy. But his friendship was his greatest gift. Los Angeles Times 7 December 1998 sec F. p. 4.
  • A Skeleton In and Out of the Closet. Los Angeles Times, 1 November 1996, sec. F, pp. 1, 20

Plays

  • Latins Anonymous co-written with Luisa Leschin, Armando Molina, Rick Najera
  • The La La Awards co-written with Cris Franco, Armando Molina, Luisa Leschin
  • The Path to Divadom
  • Grenas
  • The Ballad of Ginger Esparza co written with Luis Alfaro
  • Los Vecinos/A play for Neighbors co-written with Luis Alfaro
  • Water

Critical studies

  • Sandoval- Sanchez, Alberto and Saporta, Sternback, Nancy. Stages of Life: Transcultural Performance and Identity in U.S. Latino Theatre. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press. 2001 Rodriguez, Diane 62; The Path to Divadom 130, 133, 138, 147-48 ISBN 0-8165-1828-9
  • Broyles-Gonzalez, Yolanda. El Teatro Campesino Theater in the Chicano Movement. Austin. University of Texas Press 1994 ISBN 0-292-72082-3 Rodriguez, Diane, 45, 128, 137, 141, 156, continued work of 153, 163. on gender issues being ignored 139, not mentioned in history 132. women’s early passivity 139 and Zoot Suit 178
  • Krasner, David Twentieth-Century American Drama. Writing Beyond Borders: US Latina/o Drama. Rodriguez, Diane 379, 383
  • Broyles-Gonzalez, Yolanda The Living Legacy of Chicana Performances: Preserving History through Oral Testimony Frontiers Vol. XI, NO. 1 1990 FRONTIERS Editorial Collective pgs 46-51

Articles

  • Rebel’s Advocate by Laura Weinert. Back Stage West June 1, 2000 p. 11
  • Alarcon, Alicia, Diane Rodriguez Has Taken the Chicano Struggle to New Places in Hollywood, La Opinion, 11 December 1989

External links

Category:American stage actors Category:American television actors Category:People from San Jose, California Category:Living People Category:Mexican American writers Category:American theatre directors

  • Comments First off I've gone ahead and collapsed the copy and paste of the article. You didn't need to copy that here, we can look at the one in article space, or you could have done it at your own personal test page at Special:MyPage/Sandbox.
    • Referencing/footnotes: The article does list several sources I'm guessing you used to build the article, but none are specified in line. I would recommend you take a look at WP:Citing sources and use some citation templates or Magnus' make ref tool to generate in line citations. You can also use Harvard referencing if that is was you are used to, but the other variation is much more common and almost a de facto standard on wikipedia. Some of the material seems a bit overly promotional, so take a look through WP:Peacock to make sure you aren't using any overly promotional material.
    • Infobox: A lot of the more basic information that is found on most article about people are contained in something like {{Infobox Person}} including Date of birth, occupation, etc., which helps easily explain to people(especially new page patrollers) notability and other information. But look deeper through Category:People infobox templates to find a more specific infobox.

I hope that helps for starters, you may want to follow up with Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre or Wikipedia:WikiProject Latinos which are on the article talk page, for more help on this as they may have more specific recommendations on this. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Marco Fu

Hey! I have just recently rewriten and expanded this article. I was wondering if anyone can give me any suggestions on how to improve this article to promote it up to good article status. Thanks! (The associated WikiProject is not very active, so that's why I'm asking here) - Nick C (t·c) 21:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You've done a pretty nice job with it so far; the writing is clear, smooth, and grammatical; it's well referenced and well illustrated. There are, as you have indicated, things that need to be done to bring it up to Good article criteria.
  • The Lead section is somewhat short and doesn't explain what he's notable for. It only says he's a professional snooker player from Hong Kong- it needs to mention that he's won notable awards and any other notable achievements of his. In his date of birth, the word "born" should be spelled out, not abbreviated, and I think should be in a separate set of parentheses from his Chinese name.
  • The section headings that simply mention years should be changed to something more descriptive. Also only the first letter in the section titles should be capitalized (unless a subsequent word is a proper noun).
  • If I'm not mistaken, Hong Kong uses day first date format (e.g. 17 September 2008), this is the format that should be used in the article. Also the links to the snooker seasons should include the word season in all the cases, not just the year.
  • I think the Records and Tournament wins sections should be consolidated and that the Medal record box should be moved to that section.
  • Several disambiguation pages are linked to from the article, these need to all be disambiguated to link to their proper articles.
That's what I see with a quick scan of the article, other editors may have further input. I hope this helps you go it through WP:GA, let us know if it does! Happy editing! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 00:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Famous people with Typhoid Fever

Union General George B. McClellan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.161.4 (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2008

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! You haven't really asked a question, but I'll take a stab at guessing that you want to either add this information to the George B. McClellan article, or create a list of famous people who had Typhoid. The fact that he contracted the disease is already addressed in the article, and there is a list of famous typhoid victims in the disease's article, but a hidden comment there says the list is for people who died from the disease. McClellan's article says he died of a heart attack. Also, while there is a Category:Deaths from typhoid fever, there isn't anything for people who simply had but didn't die from it. So, in the absence of a more specific question, I can't help you any more than that. Best wishes. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 02:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Dance Parade request for formatting help

Hi--could use some help with the formatting of my article?

I wrote up a basic history of the annual dance parade and festival that has drawn over 9000 dancers of all styles to the streets. The parade down broadway ends with a festival that is really unique.

Once the article gets to be in the traditional wikipedia style I intend to request a peer review and put it up for expansion.

I did a lot of research and have the references listed above the article but am fairly sure they should go below (the instructions said to put them above). Also, the title would look best if it were Dance Parade (with a capital P)--any idea of how to change that?

Media:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance_parade

Can anyone lend a hand to get me going in the write track?

Thanks,

Ononokomachi (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through and formatted the page. Take a look at the article's history for the WP:LAYOUT edit (diff); the Wikilinking edit (diff); the WP:Citation templates using tools:~magnus/makeref.php for what I've done. The first thing you should do is go through and finish templating the citations as I did in the first example, and then use those citations to make inline notes to back up claims in the article. If you are basing this on personal experience I would recommend you also look at the Wikipedia:Original research policy page. You should see the move tab at the top of the page, so just check the page name against current Wikipedia:Naming conventions on whether it should be Dance parade or Dance Parade. -Optigan13 (talk) 04:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Music video game

Hi, I have been working on this article for the past year trying to improve it. It was tagged as needing cleanup last May and I have made a few changes since then, although nothing major. I have posted in talk to ask what more needs to be done, and it was suggested that I bring it here. Can I please have some suggestions for further improvement on the article? I have some ideas of additions to make to the article but before I proceed I'd like to fix whatever problems still remain with what we already have. After spending a year on it I'd like to try to get it finally completely cleaned up. Cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Bates method - NPOV?

Over the last several months I have worked a lot on the Bates method article. Since February it has been tagged for neutrality, which has been discussed extensively on the talk page. The controversy mainly surrounds the way sources are used, so just reading through the article itself will not be enough to then give a satisfactory answer to the question of whether it now has a Neutral Point of View. The main (though by no means only) three independent sources are currently referenced in the first paragraph of the article (and many times thereafter.) Often, Bates' writings and the secondary sources which refer to them are both referenced, but I've tried to cut down the detail so as not to go significantly beyond what is discussed by the secondary sources. The article covers all the main criticisms of the Bates method as far as I can tell, and recently there has been some rephrasing to confer more authority to the majority viewpoint.

Also, updated grades would be appreciated for the WikiProjects which currently rate the article, since the B-class ratings are both about a year old. PSWG1920 (talk) 07:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there and my apologies for the fact that your question has languished for the past several days. I think the reason why is because this isn't the best venue for your questions. You would probably do better to ask about the POV issues at the NPOV noticeboard. The article grading is usually done by volunteers from the various wikiprojects- you could request the related projects for a new evaluation by posting on their project talk pages. Hope I've pointed you in the right direction even though I couldn't help you more. Happy editing! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 08:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
From what the NPOV noticeboard says at the top ("Post what is wrong with what content where, what you think it should say, and why. This board is intended for NPOV inquiries of a simple nature."), it does not appear to be a venue to request the type of review I had in mind. I guess the best option, if nothing further comes of this RFF, is to continue to discuss issues as they come up and when necessary use dispute resolution. Unless there is some other way of requesting an in-depth review of a tagged article? PSWG1920 (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
RFF are usually not aimed at fixing complex problem, i think, more for suggesting general improvments. However, i did read the article, and personally though it was not particularly unbalanced. It describes the technique, shows that people believe it works, but that scientific consensus is against it. Which side is claiming NPOV?
I think it is at least the B class it has, and any higher classess require official review. In terms of content and writing i would probably pass it as GA after small improvments BUT the presence of the NPOV tag would be grounds for a speedy fail. The page has to have consensus on the talk to remove the tags: if some editors refuse to comprimise, maybe a RfC can be used to get wider consensus on specific issues/sources. Yobmod (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting. Ironically enough (or perhaps not), factions of both sides seem to think that the article is biased in the other direction. I see that the editor who placed that tag, Ronz, responded to you on the article talk page. Hopefully we'll discuss this further there. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Annepi

I would greatly appreciate it if someone could check my page before I post it, at User:Annepi. I am worried that it reads too much like advertising copy. If this is the case, just how far have I stepped over the line?
This page is meant to replace the current version at IBM Haifa Labs.
Annepi (talk) 12:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The only part that looks like it may be a problem is that first sentence (about IBM being rated the best company in the world). That is a general statement that is more appropriate for the main IBM article. I think it would be better if you started with a paragraph summarizing IBM and the purpose for the branches in Haifa. Also, I'm not sure you need to use bulleted lists. (See Wikipedia:MoS#Bulleted_and_numbered_lists.) I hope this helped a little.—RJH (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Apart from a few grammar errors that I could correct once the article has been posted, I don't see anything wrong with the article. Antivenin 05:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I am searching for help with my article

FAMILIES OF THE WORLD (Collection) [The Families of the World Collection] records from sunrise to sunset, hour by hour the small events that shape daily lives of Humanity through the one experience common to almost everyone: the family. In 1983 world traveler, author, photographer, philosopher and speaker Hélène Tremblay gave herself the mission of presenting Humanity to Humanity so that every one on earth would know with whom they shared the planet. To achieve this she lived with families which represents the condition of living of the majority in 116 countries. No other person has known Humanity so intimately. Her experience is unique.

Book have been published in Canada, USA, Australia and France by Farrar Straus & Giroux, Camden House & Les Editions Robert Laffont. This project and great human adventure has received support from agencies such as UNICEF, UNFPA, WFP UNESCO and CIDA , and companies such as the Body Shop International.

FAMILIES OF THE WORLD (Company)

The Families of the World Company works in the fields of creation of content, communication, production, publishing and multimedia

Vision: Presenting Humanity to Humanity by being present in all households with The Families of the World Collection.

Contribution By making information accessible to all, The Families of the World Company seeks to : • Promote the development of a world consciousness; • Facilitate the awakening of a peaceful and responsible world citizen; • Participate in the survival and renewal of humankind and its environment. And awakens in each individual in contact with our products: • the pleasure of discovering our common human heritage, and • a desire to join, interact and share life with the citizens of the world.

Please take a look at WP:NPOV. This also reads like an advertisement, which conflicts with WP:SOAP.—RJH (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

UK Youth Parliament

The UK Youth Parliament is a youth democracy organisation in the United Kingdom. I've completely rewritten the article, and would love your comments on what to add/change next. I'd ideally like to get it to GA status. Many thanks -- PretzelsTalk! 15:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Good work. The article is small, but it is well written. I would advice you to add templates such as {{cite web}} to cite online sources in the article. AdjustShift (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
1)I would use the primary sources (eg, there manifesto / website) as citations, not only links, to confirm all the info it can. Although primary sources are sometimes problematic, in this case they are reliable when talking about internal facts (ie manifesto, candidates, terms of office). For GA, it looks insufficiently sourced, but using the primary sources, this should be solvable. Of course, the same facts from newspapers would be even better.
2)The sections seem too small and choppy. I think many could be combined, making the article flow better. Just have to thing of an better overall section title "Regulations" or "Organisation" or something.
3) The lead should act as a summary of the article. Although only a short article, it is quite fact heave, so i would expand the lead so that it contained a one (max. 2) sentence summary of each of the current sections.Yobmod (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
4) For getting GA status, i would like to see more on the reception and the publics perception. It does look a bit like a joke token(sorry!), so have more people criticised its usefulness? Or said it is something just for public school kids? Or is over/under representing some regions? Just something to fill in slow news days on Newsround or Blue Peter? Or have any of the comments already in the article be contested officialy or in editorials?11:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Omniarchy

There's quite a lot of groundless editing going on here. Text has only been added by this editor, and repeatedly removed by other editors offering completely groundless reasons, when they did so at all. Wiki Policies repeatedly state that an editor should leave a reason for removing anything, and engage the author in getting the article up to standard. This has repeatedly been ignored, and blocking threatened when I re-posted the text. Adding text is never tendentious editing, and the text I added does not qualify as vandalism.

This page was recently edited to remove my entry and then proposed for deletion. It really looks like something's going on here besides editing. The entry has been restored as of 13:10 CST 10/12/08 for your input.

Please read and weigh in. Editorial comments are welcome.RipplingBeast (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

As this article is now nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omniarchy I would suggest just waiting until what the community input there is on that article. If you would like to make sure it gets the attention of interested editor you may want to sort the deletion into the appropriate categories. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Pi Kappa Phi chapters

I have rewritten this article so that it contains updated information and statistics. I have also tried to maintain a neutral, yet historically accurate tone, but am not entirely sure if I succeeded. Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated. — ŁittleÄlien¹8² (talk\contribs) 18:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a great list article to me. I would say it is near to a WP:Featured List nomination, in terms of content.As long as you are sure it is comprehensive (if ex-chapters are missing, could still be comprehensive of current chapters? They might pass).

Can the list of chapters be explicitely sourced? Is that the sort of thing that would be on the university websites for example? A citation with a link for each of them is ideal (primary sources would be fine imo, so chapter websites pass in terms of confirming the existance). Yobmod (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

MIXISM

ZenF8 (talk) 06:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, ZenF8. I see that the article has been deleted twice, by different editors, under Wikipedia:CSD#G1. If that was in error, the first thing you should do is establish notability. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." If you can provide that, then I think editors would be able to give better feedback on how to avoid CSD, G1. Louis Waweru  Talk  00:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Celtic nations

The article appears to me, to have severe problems, yet is rated a B and the resident editors on the page are resistant to raising of these issues. perhaps someone could take a look and give a 3rd opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.42 (talk) 03:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No one is resistant to improving the article, most of us think it needs work. However you have suddenly started to edit under two different IP's not by improvement but using citation and other tags as a warring device. Both your IPs are new, but you evidence considerable knowledge of WIkipedia and you are not answering questions as to any previous edit history. --Snowded TALK 04:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
B class is subjective, but seems near enough right (its more substantial than a C class, but not GA). The synthesis problems are being discussed on the talk page, as they should be. It mostly looks like someone has to go to an actual library (!), so there is little RfF can do.Yobmod (talk) 11:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

indonesia - "perlak - aceh province"

dear,

i don't know how to called

i'm the new comer, but i explored wikipedia since i know, to used the website, more lesss 1 year ago..... so if i did somthing stranged, don't hesitate to telling.

first of all, thank you verymuch, as approval to sign in this WIKIPEDIA, i love to watch and to digging more about this natural creation....

i just want to sounding about the coordination of PERLAK, in aceh province of Indonesia i lived in aceh since devastated of tsunami, Dec 2004,

perlak is one of the subdistrict in aceh, i passed perlak when driven car from Medan - sumatera utara to Aceh (my home town is in sigli - PIDIE regency, in one line of perlak subdistrict... from my sight, perlak exposed into the map it is far away from the coastal, actually the subdistrict is nearby langsa (aceh tomur) for the refreshing, i try to remebering , the famous oil company named "caltex"...the site operation in lhoksemawe, it isn't far away from perlak.


just want to share


thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yrzal (talkcontribs) 07:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

article on John McCain

I'm not sure how to contact Wikipedia. But someone may want to edit the article on John McCain.

Here is what is in the article currently:

"John Sidney McCain III (born August 29, 1936) is a compulsive cocksucker that cannot keep his pruny hands off of small children..."

ty

Brad Geyer

Yes, this was what's known as vandalism; it is unfortunately the most common problem that Wikipedia faces. Thanks very much for your heads up, the problem has already been fixed. GlassCobra 17:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

All Saved Freak Band

I've taken it upon myself to completely upgrade the All Saved Freak Band article and hope for some feedback on the page. I believe I've addressed the issues raised by the two warnings at the top of the page and am in hopes that those notices might be removed if enough proper changes have been made. As co-founder and legal represntative of the All Saved Freak Band I'm hoping we can provide a definitive source for the article.

Great thanks for your help,

--Asfband (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC) Joe Markko


Good job on trying to solve the article issues. A couple of formatting points:
1) The citations are wrongly formatted. I added "Reflist", which will auto fill in the references. Now the citations that were manually entered should be moved to the sentence they prove (after the full stop), inside ref tags. The tags are in most cases already there (they make the superscript numbers in the text), so simply copy and paste in between the <ref>Insert footnote text here</ref> tags. I already fixed one (number 11) as an example and removed the unreferenced tag.
2)The citations to print material need the page number and publisher.
3) Paragraphs should have only one space between them.
4)I'll remove the "coatrack" tag, as i don't see why it is there, and there is no talk discussion. I also made "overview" into the lead, and removed a copy/paste redundancy.
I only read through it quickly, but i think after the citations are fixed, most projects would pass it as a C. Click on the project banners at the top of the talk page to find the assessment pages, if you are interested.Yobmod (talk) 11:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)