Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 124

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Removing links to other language wikis?

I've made a small mistake that requires a technical solution; I'd like to know how to enact that solution both to correct this mistake and for future reference.
I created the article Chief Justice of Indonesia and then linked it to the Indonesian language article for the Chief justice of their Supreme Court. However, they also have a Constitutional Court which also has a Chief Justice.
I need to separate the Indonesian language article for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from the English language article (now a disambiguation page) Chief Justice of Indonesia so I can add it to the new English language article Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Indonesia. Does anybody know how I can do this? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

You need to edit the entry at Wikidata to do that. The easy way is, where you're on a page that links to the incorrect foreign language article, is to go to the "Languages" area on your left sidebar where the links are. There should be an icon that says "Edit links" or "Add links". Click that and follow the instructions. I've done this one for you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: thanks a bunch, both for the assistance and the instructions. I'll keep this in mind in the future. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

General Lesley James McNair

I would like to discuss the information written about my Great Grandfather, Gen McNair. First, I will begin by saying, I am thankful for the opportunity to address any thoughts and feelings I've had while reading the info on Gen McNair. I've read the detailed instructions and suggestions on how best to go about making comments or discussing a topic. I can only imagine how vital it is to make mention of those things in hopes of facilitating a kind and cooperative approach. But, I am sorry to report, I am not happy with the information gathered and written about my Great Grandfather. It felt unbalanced, one-sided and terribly negative. I noticed Prof Mark T Calhoun referenced as if to imply the information provided came from Prof Calhoun's biography on McNair. In fact , Prof Calhoun is the first one to write such a book. He wrote it because there has never been an accurate piece of literature documenting the enormous contribution McNair made to the Military, and ultimately to the Victory of WW II. In addition, Calhoun illustrates numerous accounts in detailed chronological history, of what McNair did for the entire US Army, how it needed to be reconstructed and the ways in which McNair went about the process entailed. He was a great man. He was a noble man. He cared none for pomp and circumstance. His loyalty and devotion were unmatched. He was a soldier who taught men to fight to win, to kill or be killed. General McNair would not allow his men to go where he wasn't willing to go as well. He lost his life because of this kind of kinship. He was on the battlefield at the front lines, beside the men he taught because he knew it boosted their morale. He did this on several occasions because that's who he was- and then, to be killed by "friendly fire"- this was a horrific loss. This was a tragedy of war. But, to add insult to injury, 2 weeks following his death, his only son, Lt Col Douglas C McNair was killed by a sniper in Guam. Can one ever begin to imagine how excruciatingly painful this was for Mrs. McNair, first to lose her Husband , then, suddenly, she loses her only Son? She would have to bury each of her beloved men, who were separated by oceans at death, and to this day remain separated by those same oceans. Did this make it difficult to go to either of their graves on certain anniversaries , holidays, or birthdays? I wouldn't know as I've never been able to go to either of their grave sites. Nor has my Mother, Bonnie C McNair, the only grandchild of Gen. McNair's. His only Son's daughter. She was only 9 months old when they died. I wonder how many times she was held by these men? Did she ever feel again, the way she felt when they picked her up and delighted , how they oohed and awed over her with adoring love-filled eyes? Did the memory of them ever soothe her when she needed it? She would never know where this comfort came from. Her ability to recall it was not possible because it was locked deep beneath the surface of her awareness.

It occurred to me what they remembered about Bonnie. Her soft cheeks with her baby smell faintly splashing the air as noses came in with pursed lip kisses and sounds abound of gentle coos and happy laughter filled the air if they remembered the sweet smell of her tiny cheeks when they How many times did she hear their voices or love that comes only from fathers fatherly

I have the book as it was sent to me by the author , and I can't begin signed I have not looked up McNair on Wikipedia for some time. and even though the details provided on Gen McNair's contribution to the US Army, lacked — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.94.106.214 (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I can see how it could be difficult, or challenging, to read what third parties have written about someone about whom you have your own personal recollections or information. It may help to understand that Wikipedia articles are really just summaries of information that is already in existence elsewhere, outside this on-line encyclopedia, and therefore it is not surprising that the articles may not pick up on information and impressions that are known to just a few people. Perhaps at some point in the future another editor will read the Calhoun book and will supplement the article with information contained in it. (You could do it yourself but given your relation to, and obvious affection for, the subject it is probably better to leave the edits to others.) Thanks again for the note, and I hope this information helps you a bit. JohnInDC (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I took a look at the article and somewhat agree it could be improved. I left a message at military history WikiProject to drum up interest. I can't promise it'll be improved but hopefully someone will take a look. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion help...

I have an article (ANAB (ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board)) that keeps getting tagged for speedy deletion. As I do some work in the chemical standard industry, the subject was of some interest to me. Anyhow, I have gone through the article fairly throughly to be sure that there is no copyright infringement, even at the expense of editing some information I would have thought helpful. For example a succinct history of two paragraphs for so can be written for the organization however it contains names that appear on the parent website, so it flags as copyright infringement and there's really no way to write around names, dates and company affiliations, so I deleted it. However, what I have found unavoidable is the fact that some of the names of parent organizations are long and appear to be triggering the copyright infringement flag. I have also run it through a plagiarism checker and it came back fairly clean, except for the afore mentioned I have worked reasonably long and reasonably hard on the article, so I don't just want to let it go. there are also several orphan references on wiki that would present good opportunities for cross referencing. I have contested the fast deletion, but gotten no action or comment.

I appreciate your help. I can provide the code/copy from my latest version however I wanted to keep my initial query concise. Bbcard1 (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The tagging and deletion were not automated. An editor looked at the link and determined that there appeared to be copyright infringement. You might want to talk to the editor who notified you of it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

More leaders in political party infobox

Resolved

Current limit on leaders in Template:Infobox_political_party is 5. Is it possible to increase the number to 7 or 10? Some parties have more than 5 significant leadership positions.--Jay942942 (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I see that you posted this request on the template talk page on 6 May 2016, but copied over the request here at 16:49, 26 May 2016. Since there have been no objections at the template talk page, the usual presumption in Wikipedia is that no response to a proposal indicates a weak consensus in favor of it; for that reason, you might add the {{edit template-protected}} template to your request even though you've not received any response. Just be aware that in these circumstances some may regard silence as a "no" and strenuously object to your addition of the template. See the template instructions (click the link) for details and how-to. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Discipline:record of a crusade cleanup

article contains entire plot, spoilers. sectional deletion needed.FAMASFREENODE (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we don't avoid or flag spoilers; and we expect good plot summaries in articles like this. By our standards and expectations, you're asking us to make the article worse. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

However, the plot summary is appallingly over-detailed, and is not a summary but a hyper detailed blow-by-blow retelling at an absurd level of specificity. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

i need to know who the land owner back in late 1800s who owns the land that there are about 30 tent cottages left most of the time it was religious camps and we have been trying to find out

i think it dates back to 1867 i know one of the names downs camp ground and del mar va camp ground could you please try to look into it for emergency purposes i live at (Redacted) my name is maryann mcnicholas my original address same house was (Redacted) this is becoming a big messs not knowing who owned or owns the property now you can also call me at (Redacted) thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.132.212 (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia isn't the place to find this sort of information. It sounds like you need an attorney. If you cannot afford legal representation you may be able to find free assistance or a referral to reduced cost legal assistance via local legal aid clinics or your state bar association. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Or check with your local county assessor's office, which keeps those kinds of records. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

esterification in human body

can a seperate article or a section in esterification page be made,detailing the processFAMASFREENODE (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Web coinventor

World Wide Web (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Greetings. A number of individuals are editing the article World Wide Web to say that Robert Cailliau was its coinventor. I have met the man and don't believe this for a minute. He was of great help to Tim Berners-Lee, but he did not invent HTML, URIs and HTTP--all of which Berners-Lee did invent singlehanded, read the sources in the lead. I'm sorry I am too close to this to participate. The talk page has lit up with at least two long discussions. Sorry this isn't a completely neutral request, but this campaign sounds like a birther argument. Or maybe that the USA did not land on the moon. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Resolved. Thank you very much. User:Andy Dingley raised this at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Inventor.28s.29_of_the_World_Wide_Web.3F and the page is now protected. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

It's far from resolved. ANI closed it immediately without discussion and as soon as the protection expires in a few days, I expect the same editor will be back. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh brother. This reminds me of the climate change and the Church of Scientology arguments. If not for one strong editor who must have been here 24 hours a day I think all would be lost. I wrote to a former colleague and asked her to write to Wikimedia Foundation but really, they can't be expected to babysit. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Acelity

My name is Laurel Harper, and I am reaching out on behalf of the Corporate Communications team at Acelity.

I'm reaching out because we have some additional and more recent information about the company that we think would be relevant for the Acelity wiki, and wanted to make sure we reached out to submit this information for consideration and talk through any of these points as needed. I have a draft with cited sources that I can email.

Many thanks in advance for your help!

All best, LEHarper2016 (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)Laurel

@LEHarper2016: It would be better if your draft could be posted at the article's talk page, Talk:Acelity, so that it could be reviewed by any editors there. Trying to do reviews by email would probably be pretty painful, and it's preferred that any such would be done publicly. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Explaining COI, Promotion & Notability Guidelines to New Editor

I am currently experiencing some problems with a new editor Sebagr regarding 142 edits from the one site, in which, they've added external links to one website likely directly related to the editor. I reverted all these pages, because they clearly violate adopted policies. I.e. Conflict of interest, and likely with an agenda, etc.

I have tried to explain these policies regarding advertising, promotion and notability, on the User's talk page, but this User now make wild claims to justify their edits, and is now starting to throw insults around.

My only wish to avoid further confrontation here and have acted as neutrally as possible. I would like a third party to examine the problem and reinforce adopted editing policies, as I feel I'm only escalating this issue. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Please ignore. The editor in question has been likely confirmed as having WP:COI. It have been referred to the associated noticeboard. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Need help with overcoming anti-IP bias

Splendidworld12 changed the text of a direct quote in the Mother Angelica article from "feckless" to "reckless", perhaps because he didn't know the meaning of the word "feckless". I reverted this change to a direct quote. Materialscientist reverted my edit, labeling it "vandalism". I reverted this corruption of a quote again. ClueBot reverted my second revert. We now have an article that has a bastardized quote and there is nothing I can do about it because if I try to change it again Materialscientist will probably report me for edit warring. Can someone please intervene here and restore the original quote? 32.218.47.22 (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

"Need help with overcoming anti-IP bias". Simple, create an account and log-in. Call yourself "dawnslayer2525", nobody will know if you're a high-school kid, retired plumber, a US Senator or someone who thinks indefinite blocks are for other people. That said, your edit was right, and Materialscientist has reverted ClueBot, so all is well. You could try and ask for an apology from him, but in general I find fishing for forced apologies doesn't really work and creates resentment. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

32.218.47.22 has done excellent working editing articles at WikiProject Wisconsin and I have help 32.218.47.22 with some of the edits; I do agree with User: Ritchie333 that 32.218.47.22 should create an account. This would make editing easier and with dealing with fellow users-thank youRFD (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". 32.218.37.93 (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. That means anyone else is also free and able to dismiss your contributions and revert them, if they sincerely believe they improve the encyclopedia. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Alright people, let's calm down. This ain't ANI or VP. The bad revert was undone. I reported a false positive to the bot maintainers. This is over. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes, but I'd like to point out to 32.218.47.22 that peoples' attitudes towards people editing from IPs is the result of experience, not bias, and that he/she/other would do himself/herself/zeself a favor by simply adopting a username rather than fight for the "rights" of IPs. - Nunh-huh 20:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Predatory behavior towards IP users

Resolved

Would someone please take at look at the edit history of this user? [2] I thought I was being singled out for abuse by this user, but apparently not. Apparently this user is systematically reverting edits by IP users like myself, usually with rather abusive commentary. This is exactly the kind of behavior that makes me want to stop contributing.

Apologize if this is the wrong place to post this. It's pretty hard to tell without a great deal of effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.167.67 (talk) 11:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

This is the wrong place to make that request. Complaints about user's conduct should be made at ANI. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Mandela Effect

Why are there no Wikipedia posts about The Mandela Effect? Why is there a redirect to confabulation? There are literally hundreds of videos on YouTube and thousands of Internet posts on the subject. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.186.175.215 (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Because it's a non-notable fringe theory, with neither scientific support nor an underlying history as a famous fringe idea (examples of the latter would include flat earthers and The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion). --Orange Mike | Talk 23:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The Internet Cover Up On Communism

Wikipedia,

I've noticed on Frank Marshall Davis page there's no mention whatsoever of his Communist friends, Communist activities, Communist organizations inwhich he was a member. Yes. And not only Frank Marshall Davis but many others.

Respectfully, John A. Kociuba — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:6096:C18A:CE87:34:4BF2:25FB (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

That's because Wikipedia relies on professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources instead of conspiracy theories. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Capitalisation of a company page

Hi Team

Can you please advise how to update the page title "Orix" to "ORIX"? There is no edit button on this area.

I am Sales & Marketing Coordinator for ORIX New Zealand and have updated the content to read "ORIX" as these are the standards set by our global corporation.

Many thanks.

Best regards Madeleine — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadeleineMc (talk • contribs) 00:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I put in a request to get the page moved here (For technical reasons (the page ORIX already exists as a redirect page to Orix) it requires someone with administrator rights to make the move) OsFish (talk) 05:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but no: according to our Manual of Style, we don't put brand names in all-caps. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Dispute about necessity to prevent discloser of facts about Michel Temer's cabinet

Basically, the Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, The Guardian, NY Times, BBC, Reuters, Forbes, London Independent,etc - regarding Michel Temer's cabinet - published that he "...unveiled an all-male, conspicuously white cabinet to run one of the world’s most ethnically diverse nations". They reported that Temer called for a government of "national salvation" and asked for the trust of the Brazilian people. He created his cabinet "in order to restore confidence in Brazil and demonstrate his commitment to fighting corruption." Finally, they published that "Ms Rousseff attacked the cabinet for being all-male and all-white.".

All the information above said has been removed, except the part that tells the reader that "Temer called for a government of "national salvation" and asked for the trust of the Brazilian people." by Xuxo. I failed the task to explain what is a Biographies of living persons, the importance of Neutral point of view and show that the sources that were used are Verifiability Reliable sources. I don't think that Xuxo knows What Wikipedia is not. Please, be so kind as to help us resolve the dispute. I don't want to be forced to ask the administrators to block the user, if we can avoid it. Thanks. Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 00:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

First, we should move this to the dispute resolution noticeboard as this is not the correct place for this. Now, what you added on the article which is solely supposed to focus on Michel Temer is that he appointed people that are "all-male, conspicuously white". Ok, so this quote comes from The Guardian, who's staff loved Hugo Chávez and South America's left. They also POV push Rousseff so much in this article about how "Dilma Rousseff, the country’s first female president ... was stripped of her powers" and that Temer "was accused of treachery by his former running mate Rousseff, who claimed she was forced out of office by 'sabotage', 'open conspiracy' and a 'coup'", while Temer's cabinet is described like this: "Temer and his cabinet are also tainted by corruption allegations. The interim president himself faces an impeachment challenge and has been barred from standing for office for eight years due to election violations." So, this quote about the white cabinet is what bothers me, it does not matter what color their skin is. But, what I think is more suitable, is placing the corruption allegations. Those are pretty interesting. I may add them myself soon enough, let's just stay away from the color of people's skin.--ZiaLater (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Good idea! Why not "just stay away from the color of people's skin" starting with the article "Apartheid"? Or the word "Jews" out of Nazi Germany? Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 01:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

By the way, You are wrong! It wasn't ONLY the Guardian, several agencies published this FACT, this REALITY. For example, The NY Times said: "Temer has faced daily protests in Brazil's main cities since he took office. Artists, intellectuals and politicians both left-leaning and moderate have also rejected him acting as president, not only for their opposition to Rousseff's impeachment but also for Temer's naming of an all white-male Cabinet that is trying implement more conservative policies.. Your attempt to hide reality will not work! This is the Wikipedia. Sorry! Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 02:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh ok sorry. I didn't see that because I only used the quote you provided above. But anyways, let's just focus on the people and their actions, not their skin color. I'm more interested in why his cabinet is "tainted by corruption allegations".--ZiaLater (talk) 03:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

CONVERSATION TRANSFERRED: "HERE". Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 16:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Brush Pen should redirect to Fudepen?

Right now, brush pen redirect to ink brush. However, at least in terms of English, Brush Pen typically denote to fudepen. While in Chinese Brush pen is the literal transliteration of 毛筆, The Japanese companies (platinum Art and Pentel at least) seems to use "brush pen" for their Fudepen. So should it be redirect to ink brush or Fudepen? George Leung (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Calgary external links

Resolved

June 2016[edit source]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to 2014 Calgary stabbing. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 117Avenue (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I just received the above notice after working hours on editing the article on 2014 Calgary stabbing. This user is bullying me, the links the editor is referencing as being commercial, were not commercial in anyway.

The victims external links are in place for their non-profit scholarships and trust funds. They were established to honor the victims. I created an external link section and placed a non-profit link to the band two of the victims belonged to prior to their deaths. The band retained one of the victims name in it title and they only play under the band naming for non-profit fund raising

corrective action - please revert all my hard work and advise editor 117Avenue to use the TALK page before BULLYING an editor's efforts. I did not place those external links for advertising or promotion, I posted them out of respect for their families that have lost a loved one - I posted them as a thought of humanity, not greed.

Vwanweb (talk) 03:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

This forum is not for requesting the kind of assistance you are seeking. For a list of methods by which to resolve conduct or content disputes with other editors, see the dispute resolution policy. Once you have chosen a type, be sure to carefully read the instructions for that type (on it's own respective page) before going forward. If you've not done so already, you might want to read the external links policy to judge whether or not the other editor is right on the external links. Discussion at the article talk page is always the first step to working out such problems; either party can start it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

wiki page Ireland

Good afternoon, your wiki page on Ireland has some false and misleading information, first of Ireland is not part in anyway a British Isle, the wiki page states that the island of Ireland is the 2nd largest island in the British Isles. This is very wrong and misleading as Ireland is in no way British. If you could please edit the page to reflect the interest and views of the majority of the people who live on the island of Ireland who dont reconise the term. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.114.169.253 (talk) 12:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The use of the term British Isles has been discussed extensively at Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force/Manual of Style and many other places, also outside Wikipedia (British Isles naming dispute). The term is very common and there is no consensus to remove it from Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Date sorting not working for a sortable wikitable

I'm having a problem with the date sorting function on some wikitables but not others, and after a few weeks I'm out of ideas as to what to do. I checked Help:Sorting#Date_sorting_problems and found nothing of value since the relevant section opens with: "Sorting works correctly in all the tables below." Well, it isn't working correctly for a table along that format, and after trying to search the Reference and Help Desks, I haven't found anything specific to this case.
I created a wikitable for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Indonesia. It's good, it's great, it works. So I copied the same format for Deputy Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Indonesia, Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court of Indonesia and Deputy Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court of Indonesia, and found a problem with the "term length" column that I copied from the first article. The term length is being calculated as way too high for the latter three articles, yet I literally copied the wikitable from the first article; nothing that I can see is different. I don't understand why one is working and the others aren't, and I'm all out of ideas. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@MezzoMezzo: Your issue is not about date sorting but about calculating a number of days. This is completely unrelated to sorting. The articles use Template:Age in days. See that page for documentation. You must supply the start and end dates as parameters. They cannot be read automatically from other cells in a table. I have fixed two cases in [3]. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: thank you so much for pointing me in the right direction...it seems that I had entirely misunderstood what I was doing. I'll keep this in mind and take it slow as I try to clean this up. You rock. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Kenosha Kickers

Kenosha Kickers redirects to Home Alone. There doesn't seem to be any connection between the two. Is this vandalism? Can someone look into this? 32.218.41.207 (talk) 01:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

No, it's legitimate. It might be RfDable but "Kenosha Kickers" refers to the band Kevin's mom has to hitch a ride with on the last leg of her odyssey home, towards the end of the film. See this old revision. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Article on"Baptists"

I tried to edit this article as it is incorrect, however, a box came up sarong it was protected to prevent vandalism. How then do I edit it? Robert Emerson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.11.192 (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

You can click the "View source" tab and follow the instructions to submit an edit request. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Determine consensus on merge discussion at time travel in fiction

Requesting an uninvolved party (preferably an admin or experienced contributor) to determine consensus or no-consensus for or against the merger of time slip (plot device portion) and time loop into time travel in fiction. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Since there seems to be significant disagreement there, I'd suggest doing an actual request for comment. If consensus still isn't clear after that, you can request a closure at WP:AN/RFC. But probably better to request uninvolved editors' participation via a real RfC, that can help break a logjam. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Urgent Help Required!

Hi,

Can you please assist me with the article I have drafted? This is my first article and I genuinely require help getting it on Wikipedia. I have added more source links and citations after the first two reviews. Please help me!

ForsakenRadical (talk) 06:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@ForsakenRadical: I'm not sure why you think this is urgent. AfC submissions aren't deleted unless they haven't been edited in over six months (or otherwise meet deletion criteria). Even just a basic copyedit or wording fix "restarts the clock", as it were.
That being said, the article has a lot of problems beyond referencing. A good deal of it reads like ad copy. It starts with "Bharat Floorings & Tiles Pvt. Ltd.". The "Pvt", "Ltd", etc., aren't necessary, just the name of the company will suffice. A lot of it is full of the "™" and "®" symbols, which should never be used in an article. It's also full of puff like "...gained immense popularity..." (immense according to whom?), a laundry list of presumably non-notable awards (at least they don't seem to have an article), and the whole thing reads like a glossy sales brochure. If that were in mainspace rather than draftspace, I'd delete it as spam. I was considering it as is, but I'll give a little more leeway in draftspace.
Additionally, many of the "references" don't look to be to particularly reliable sources. They're either clear puff pieces, interviews, mention it only in passing if at all, or don't show any indication of reliability and seem more like blogs. They'd need to be reliable and solidly cover the company in depth to count toward notability.
Finally, between the apparent "urgency" here when there is actually none and the fact that this article has been your sole focus, it appears to me that you may be commissioned or employed to work on this article. If that is the case, or you are otherwise being compensated in any way or expected as part of your employment to work on this article, you must disclose that fact, as well as make all other required disclosures at the paid editing requirements. You may not have known that, but now that you do, those disclosures would be mandatory if this is the case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: Hi, thank you for your response. I am new to all of this. Bharat Floorings is a tile manufacturing brand based in India that was started more than 90 years back to support the Indian freedom struggle by contributing to the economic independence from the British colonial rule in India. To keep up with the modern times, Bharat Floorings has hired my team to mark their presence on the internet. Belonging to a country like India, it is a matter of great honour if someone (be it an individual, a family or an organisation) has served for the country's independence movement, and that is also one of the reasons why the respective brand should have a page available on a platform like Wikipedia. Thank you for informing me about the Wikipedia policies that I was unaware of. I will go through them, but will also be highly obliged if you would kindly guide me with them. The sources that I have used are legit and verifiable, however, your expertise will be a great help to me with the article. I will make the other changes that you have suggested. Please let me know if there is something more to be done with respect to the same. Thank you.

ForsakenRadical (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi ForsakenRadical. Looking at the most recent draft, it looks like there's only one really good reference in that article, the one to the Indian Express. Most of the other references are to the company website, which don't help establish the notability of the company. Keep in mind there is no guarantee that a given subject will ever have an article. You have to demonstrate notability first. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Created Family planning policy

While it was a redirect to one-child policy in the past, this page was semi-recreated due to the fact that there was no linkage to zh:中華人民共和國計劃生育. While wikidata can be edited, you will notice on the [4] that the user:Cwek refused to link them together. So there are three solutions

Create One-child policy in zh-wiki, which may ended up being deleted or redirected to zh:中華人民共和國計劃生育
Create The Family Planning Policy. This is what I did. Maybe I should name it as Family Planning Policy (People's Republic of China)
1. Migration of items from One-child policy to Family Plkanning plicy as needed.
Dispute it as wikidata. Made it so that zh:中華人民共和國計劃生育 will be placed in wikidata Q221719.

206.226.72.100 (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit "Life" Synonyms

Two words are listed in parenthesis on the Life page headline text in addition to Biota. Vitae, and Eobionti, and from what I gathered they were supposedly synonyms of Biota. However, I checked the reference out of curiosity and looked around on Google and can't find any evidence anywhere that Vitae, and Eobionti are real words. Id love for them to be because they sound cool but the reference was the only source of information I could find and it was not credible as far as I could tell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iiumbral (talk • contribs) 05:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Iiumbral (talk) 05:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I followed the links through and found a link to a Czech website that listed those as synonyms but that's as much as I could find. "Vitae" of course is Latin for "of life" but I'm not sure it's used in the scientific sense it was presented there. I took them both out. JohnInDC (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

I declared a conflict of interest on this article I drafted and would like to invite an independent review. I decided I wouldn't attempt any further to publish this article unless I obtain the agreement of other more experienced editors. Thanks in advance. BroVic (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Remove redirect to “Island_ecology” and create dedicated page “Island_Conservation” with Sandbox draft content

'Island Conservation' currently redirects to Island_ecology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Instead I believe there should be a dedicated page "Island_Conservation" to describe a non-profit organization also called "Island Conservation". This organization has been in existence since 1994 and is the preeminent group conducting conservation on islands having deployed teams to protect 994 populations of 389 species on 52 islands. The organization has a staff of 40 people working in the Caribbean, North America, South America and the Pacific. I have created a draft entry for this new page in my personal Sandbox:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Angusparker/sandbox/Island_Conservation

I respectfully ask for an editor to remove the redirect and create the page "Island_Conservation" using the draft content in my sandbox. Thank you.

Angus Parker (talk) 02:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I would recommend going to Articles for Creation and following the instructions there. The reviewers will evaluate the article for conformity with Wikipedia polices, and will offer constructive tips on how to improve it, if necessary. JohnInDC (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion JohnInDC. Alternatively, I could just remove the redirect myself and create the article I suppose. Would you consider a volunteer board member of an organization has a conflict of interest as the article creator? I obviously know a great deal about the organization and feel well placed to create a well researched article and I have noted where appropriate the controversies associated with the organization's work.

Angus Parker (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Since I already have a draft I assume I can do this below?

If you have already created the draft and want to submit for review you can add {{subst:submit}} on the top of your draft.

Angus Parker (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd recommend going through the AFC process. (And, yes, I think you can do just that to get your draft reviewed.). I took a quick look at the article and noted that it seems heavily sourced to its own publications - that's not a bad thing in and of itself but it suggests that third party coverage of the organization might be thin, perhaps even too thin to warrant creation of an article. I also came away with the impression that it goes into an awful lot of detail about current projects, etc., which may not be appropriate when laid up against the actual amount of coverage such undertakings have received. The folks at AFC will give you some good feedback. As for your potential COI - I guess I'd call it that, yeah, but the fix is just to get an uninvolved party to look at what you've done. Helpful? JohnInDC (talk) 14:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll do as you suggest and lighten some of the self-referencing. Angus Parker (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Geographic Names

Looking for any standards on Wikipedia for geographic names. Recently the page for Squaw Island was renamed to Unity Island after the City of Buffalo Common Council voted to change the name of the island. Everyone seems to be unaware of the federal Board on Geographic Names and the formal process to change a name, which apparently in this case has not been done. Shouldn't the page reflect the officially recognized name of the island until the name is officially changed? GullyWalker (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Emanuela Bellezza

Hello,

I was trying to insert a picture at the beginning of my article, but it was not accepted, for some reason. Can you please help me with that. I need to insert the artist's main picture at the beginning of the article. Also, how can I access the forum, so that other contributors can help me? Please, let me know. Thank you!

Here is the link of my article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Emanuela_Bellezza&action=edit

--Emyskate1234 (talk) 02:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)Jean 7.27, 9 July 2016

@Emyskate1234: It looks like your draft duplicates an existing article, Emanuela Bellezza. Is that the same person? If so, it'd be better to work to improve the existing article, there would be no purpose to having a separate draft. As to the photo, that was deleted from Wikimedia Commons because it did not appear to be released under a free license. For living people, we allow only freely licensed images in articles. If none of those exist yet, someone will need to take a photo and release it under a free license before the article could have one in. If the copyright holder of that photo wants to release it under such a license, you can direct them to how to donate copyrighted materials, but they should be aware it's a donation. "Permission to use on Wikipedia" or "permission for educational use" or the like is not free licensing, the image would need to be put under a license that allows reuse without permission or royalty, including commercial use. Whether or not they want to do that is strictly up to whoever holds the rights to that photo, which would be the photographer unless they've explicitly transferred the rights to someone else. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Geobox Information/templates

Stale

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello -

Can anyone point me in the correct direction to find formats for Geobox templates and the ones used for biographies (bioboxes?)?

Thanks! Schwindy (talk) 10:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean {{Geobox}} and {{Infobox person}}? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Legendary Creature vs. City -- Should I Revert or Branch?

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

This article used to be about a group of mythic people found in medieval bestiaries (see this revision), but it has since been overwritten by a well-intentioned editor and now discusses a place in Zimbabwe that is apparently also called Nuli. Should I summarily revert to the old version since the new article is unsourced and unformatted, or should one of the topics be branched off into Nuli (legendary creature) or Nuli, Zimbabwe? Thank you. —Pie4all88 ^{T C} 06:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I deleted the entire article. Restored and move just the place bits to Nuli, Zimbabwe. The restored the mythical creature. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

By the way Bing shows that it is a real place. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Awesome; thank you very much! —Pie4all88 ^{T C} 07:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Commons and plagiarism

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

How can a website be posted to wikicommons by author to allow for it's use as a source for simple things such as list without creating a plagiarism problem? Understanding that the owner of the information must grant permission, must it be done with files and not urls?

Bbcard1 (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Bbcard1: It is not necessary or required that a site be posted on Commons to use as a reference, and Commons probably wouldn't accept the entire content of a website anyway, even if it were suitably licensed. If you need to cite a reference, the page here explains how you can do that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Not sure where to take an issue

Resolved

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

An editor has used multiple IP addresses to repeatedly add an external link to the website for a table-top RPG in to the lead paragraph of the "Low Fantasy" entry. The link seems to be WP:ADVERTISING for someone's pet project.

diff 1 diff 2 diff 3

I reverted twice, and left notes on the talk page and the user page for the IP address, explaining why this was reverted. The user has not responded to either message, but instead re-inserted the same material using a different IP address (diff3). This doesn't rise to the 3RR yet, but it doesn't look promising. I'm not sure if I should take this to AN/I, ask for page protection, or treat it as vandalism/spam, or something else entirely. Any thoughts? Nblund (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I requested page protection. It ought to be granted, and hopefully the IP will lose interest. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Huh. Got denied. Guess the IP will have to be more disruptive to merit semi-protection. Another option is the spam blacklist, but I'm less familiar with the procedure for that. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Mendaliv. I left another message on the IP user's talk page, and it looks like they're agreeing to stop adding the material. Hopefully that's the end of it. Nblund (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Farman editing

Resolved

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmaan

There is regarding editing discussion on Farman talk page.

An editor removed the entire plot asking for citation. From what wiki pages I have seen of old TV shows, plots may not have citation due to lack of net pages/internet in those days. Same is the case for this TV show. Tried explaining to editor. The plot was deleted completely without discussion/explanation. What should be done? The editor also removed title song sentence from page, not sure why? If the information exists in clips of shows (on Youtube, for example), but not in form of article, should it be removed even if no one challenged it?

Lone1wolf (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Issue resolved via DRN/Talk page. Can be archived. Thanks, Lone1wolf (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Notability

Stale

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

I have submitted an article a month ago and other users provided me feedback about article, what should I correct. I had to add references about the subject, which I did(several news articles) but got no answer. Could you please tell me what can I do to get some information about the status of my submitted article?

Thank you in advance. Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mici quattro (talk • contribs) 10:04, 15 April 2016‎ (UTC)

I believe that a biased editor may be removing things from a page that I am trying to improve with facts.

Answered

– Foo. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

I am trying to used factual articles and references to edit the Naam Yoga article. I think the problem is that they are saying there are too many primary resources, however, fFor many months, the text on the article was the same and I came and made one small edit and the editor Ronz came and stripped the article almost completely bare after I made one small edit. I tried reposting using extremely valid sources. It seems very biased that other editors left the text up and then he came and stripped it down after many months.

Thank you for your help, Bob RilkensBobrilkens (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

It is premature for you to be asking for assistance here until you've actually tried to respond to the reasonable questions at Talk:Naam yoga#Recent expansion. Newcomers may not be aware that Wikipedia is so strict about finding good sources. We are also on guard against anything that sounds like promotional editing. EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

MD labs

Resolved

Hello, I just created my first article, but wanted to rename it- Rxight is the name of a specific genetic test, while MD Labs is the provider, and should be the name of the article. I cannot seem to find the move button anywhere, and am unable to edit the title myself (i got a message that the proposed new title was unrelated). Thanks, JacobAWM (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)JacobAWM

Answered at MD labs talk page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Ralph Wolf and Sam Sheepdog shorts

I authored the pages for the Ralph Wolf and Sam Sheepdog shorts, and there's been a couple deletions applied across the entire list of shorts that have bothered me. There's seven shorts, but I'll refer to this old version of the Double or Mutton page, since it shows all my issues clearly.

One issue is regarding censorship. On each episode, I listed the parts of the shorts that are no longer aired on broadcast TV, with a screenshot and a citation to that effect. Some of these shorts include several censored scenes, such as in Double or Mutton. One user, User:Trivialist, has gone through and removed all these sections, citing them as "minor trivia". Typically, this was done underhandedly in two steps: first, they would rename the "Censorship" section to "Trivia", and then come back a year later and remove this "Trivia" section.

Another is the unquestioning removal of non-fair-use images. The title card used in the info box, although perfectly suited for the info box, does not give an indication of the visual style used in the short, so I typically included an actual frame of the episode somewhere in the plot. Unfortunately, these tend to get deleted by presumably well-meaning users, even though showing visual style is a perfectly acceptable reason to use non-fair-use images according to Wikipedia:Non-free content. The same Double or Mutton article shows an example of this as well.

I'm not sure what to do about this, as it cuts across all seven shorts in the series, and all the images have since been auto-deleted. I believe the articles are unquestionably stronger with this content, I've cited the censorship, and I've justified all the non-free content, but I don't want to invest the time into restoring these pages if once again they'll just inevitably end up being, well, censored. Furthermore, as evidenced in the history of the Double or Mutton article, it seems clear that Trivialist is willing to get into an edit war with me, a war which I have no interest in fighting.

Can I get some help here? --Skrapion (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Skrapion It looks like, to be quite honest, it hasn't gone far enough. The ones I've looked at are long plot summaries with little or no secondary source material, leading me to believe the individual episodes are not notable and should be merged into a single "List of" article or the parent article about the characters. The plot summaries are excessively detailed, to put it mildly. One nonfree image is acceptable in some cases to illustrate visual style, if and only if reliable secondary references have commented extensively on such style and a representative example is needed to show visually what they're talking about. More than one being appropriate would be very rare, and they certainly would not each have one in a list article. Otherwise, the nonfree content is simply decorative, and would fail nonfree content criterion number 8. And unless reliable independent references refer to any removal as "censorship", we can't refer to it as that, as that is not a neutral term. Changing away from that is entirely appropriate, and without secondary references having commented on that as being of some import, it is indeed trivia. More cleanup needs to be done here, please allow it to be done. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

As I suspected, I'm afraid I'm not able to find any out of universe sourcing to speak of, so the episodes aren't notable. I've redirected them to the parent page. The histories are intact if you'd like to merge anything, but the plot summaries should be brief, not a blow by blow. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

List of Casualty Episodes

I have discovered an issue regarding this article - List of Casualty episodes.

This article uses in its Episodes section, two templates - the first, Template:Main, is used to link a Series subsection to the article covering the respective series of Casualty (UK TV Series), while the second allows the episode table from the article to appear on the "List of Casualty episode". However, upon reaching the subsection, Series 28, the templates do not function as they should. Instead this subsection has the Template:Main function fine, but the second becomes a wiki-link to the article. Beyond that, the remaining subsections appear as "Template:Main Casualty (series xx)", while the sections beyond have issues; the Specials section does not display info on the specials on the episode, instead retaining the headers of the Episode table, preceded by a line that repeatedly says "Template:Episode list" over and over again. Even the "Template:RefList" does not display the references of the article, and the collapsible lists of shows that feature the setting of Holby City is no longer shown, replaced by the line "Template:Holby".

What I would like to know, is whether the article has reached its Template limit, or that someone has done some editing that has left the page with editing errors. Can someone find out what has happened? GUtt01 (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The page is in the hidden category "Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded". The advice given on the category page is "These pages should be simplified by removing or simplifying calls to templates, or they will not render properly." I suggest you either give up having a grand list of all episodes, or split the grand list into two parts. For example, series 1-20 in the first, and 21-end in the second. EdJohnston (talk) 03:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Australian census page

Answered

A person is sticking to the "compulsory" claim what ever thatmeans, and refuses to even state you are not legally required to answer the census until

The act says 14 Failure to answer questions etc.

           (1)  A person commits an offence if:
                   (a)  the person is served a direction under subsection 10(4) or 11(2); and
                   (b)  the person fails to comply with the direction.

10 (4) For the purposes of section 8 or 9, the Statistician may, by notice in writing served either personally or by post on a person, direct the person:

                    (a)  to fill up and supply, in accordance with instructions contained in or accompanying a form accompanying the notice, within such period after the service of the notice, being not less than 14 days, as is specified in the notice, the particulars specified in that form; and

                    (b)  to cause the form so filled up to be furnished to the Statistician, or to an authorized officer, in accordance with those instructions.

11(2)  For the purposes of section 8 or 9, the Statistician may, by notice in writing served either personally or by post on a person, direct the person to answer, within such period after service of the notice, being not less than 14 days, as is specified in the notice, a specified question that is necessary to obtain any statistical information in relation to any matter referred to in section 8 or 9.

Which clearly shows its not "compulsory" and you are not legally required to do it until these sections of the Act (law) are met.

This being Either asked verbally or 10)4) "by notice in writing served either personally or by post on a person, direct the person"

So can we get the page to be correct and at least include in the opening paragraph You are Not legally required to do it. (Which is true) Or your not legally required until .......

ThanksA12bc34be5 (talk) 08:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

This is a content dispute which should be discussed at DRN. A12bc34be5 clearly wants to tilt at windmills and make this a behavior issue for AN, as they've harassed editors here, here, here, here, and here and yet can't understand why no one will help them. Chris Troutman (talk) 09:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@A12bc34be5: It seems you may be a newer editor. The way Chris Troutman put it may not have been the most diplomatic, but essentially he's right. It doesn't matter what editors here think about a subject, or how they personally define a word, or what they define as correct. The way we determine article content is to look at what reliable sources have to say, and that's the way to settle things here. If the consensus of high-quality, reliable sources is that the Australian census is compulsory, that's what the article should reflect. If their consensus is that it is not compulsory, that's what the article ought to say. If there's serious disagreement among high quality sources about the matter, the article should catalog and describe the dispute but never "take a side". If the sources are silent about the matter altogether and don't even mention it, the article should follow suit on that too. But we determine article content via finding and reflecting good quality source material, never via our own original research or synthesis, and we never should editorialize or "argue" with the consensus of those references in an article either. So it does us no good for you to demand that other editors provide you their own definitions and their own thoughts, or personally justify something, because those don't matter. Only what the sources say matters. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

architecture nonprofit

Resolved

Hello,

Our architecture nonprofit documents the development of Modernist design in North Carolina. We have worked for the past nine years compiling information about the state's architects, past and present. Our archive is now the largest in the state, perhaps the country, and we'd like to share some of this on Wikipedia. Knowing Wikipedia's policies on live persons, we started last week to develop two articles on NC architects that passed away some time ago. Both were deleted as "insignificant." We respectfully request information on how to appeal this on behalf of our state's legacy of design. Thank you very much.

George Smart North Carolina Modernist Houses — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.17.168.100 (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Start by taking it up with the administrator who deleted the articles. If you are still not satisfied after that, see deletion review. — TransporterMan (TALK) 02:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Provably fair Suggestion

Resolved

This noticeboard is for requests with how to edit, not for requests to help editing. The maintenance tag already on the article is for the purpose of drawing that kind of help. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Contributing to National Disability Insurance Scheme while being a (somewhat) connected contributor

Resolved

I'd like to contribute to National Disability Insurance Scheme because it is important yet currently very basic. However, i've declared a possible COI. Given there appear to be few others working on this page regularly, what is the etiquette around contributing? --Markbrown00 (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Propose yourcontibutions at Talk:National Disability Insurance Scheme. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

OK --Markbrown00 (talk) 08:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Page Restore Request - TeamSupport

Resolved

Hello,

I have been a contributor to Wikipedia for many years and recently had a page abruptly deleted that I initially created:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeamSupport

I went in to add that the company had recently opened an office in South Africa only to find the page had been entirely deleted. No message to clarify or rectify the content like I am accustomed to, just outright deletion. I am a research professional with over a decade of experience in secondary research. I find it frustrating that despite taking a neutral point of view (i.e. listing the positive and negatives of the company) and gathering an array of third party sources that the page was deleted. This is the first time a page I have created has been deleted.

I added the page as a software user and seeing how poor its competitor pages are, yet these competitor pages still remain...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novo_Solutions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kayako https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freshdesk

I would like for this page to be restored and would like to work with someone who can help me. I'm happy to change content and pull sources as needed to get the page back online and in good standing. Working with the person who deleted the page would not be ideal in this scenario as in my opinion our personalities may not align well (i.e. they call people "chumpions" and "nitwits" on their talk page).

Thank you very much for your time,

Mabmattbrown (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Follow the instructions at Deletion Review, starting with the part about contacting the administrator who deleted the article. If the admin or deletion review restores your article it's probably going to be in your userspace. You won't get any help working on it there, so you might want to submit it through the Article Wizard into the Draftspace where you can ask for it to be reviewed from time to time before it shows up "live" in the mainspace and becomes subject to being deleted again. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Advice request: How do I address repeated reversions by an IP Address Account that won't discuss it?

Resolved

Hello. An editor without an account 207.255.246.159 has been repeatedly replacing changes I've made to the above article. In each case, their edits have included no sources, no edit summary, and no post on the article's talk page explaining the reason for the edits. I have left messages on their talk page and also the article talk page requesting a discussion of the edits, but the editor has not responded. I have reverted this editor's edits on 3 occasions over the past 3 weeks, but in the last few days the editor has re-applied their edits once again. I am reluctant to revert their changes again at this point because I don't want to engage in an edit war. What should I do? Thanks. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 08:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Do what you did, which is to explain your thinking and concerns on the Talk page and try to engage - and avoid edit warring. I've reverted the IP's excisions and left a warning on its Talk page. I don't know whether your information is more or less correct than what the IP is introducing but it is certainly better explained and better sourced, and in the absence of any other conversation, sourced / explained wins! Let's see what happens from here. JohnInDC (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance! It looks like your actions may have encouraged the editor to create an account and respond on the article's talk page, which is just what I was hoping for. I also don't know if the information I've added is more or less correct, so I'm glad that now we can work together to figure this out and improve the article. Thanks again. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

One Direction active band members

Resolved

Hi! I just noticed that Liam Payne has been moved to former members when he is still an active member of One Direction. All the members (minus Zayn of course) are still under contract as One Direction, the only difference is that Liam, Harry, and possibly Niall have side contracts as solo artists as well. I saw a couple other websites had to change their pages because they made the same change and listed Liam as a solo artist of former member. To be clear, Liam Payne IS still in One Direction he just also has a solo contract. Thank you for your time!

```` Amanda Hernandez — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:4200:8DA0:C91:599A:76EA:3A71 (talk) 01:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

This forum is for advice on how to edit, not to request edits. You should state your concern on the article talk page or be bold and make the change yourself if, in either case, you can provide a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia for the change. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

How to put a warning on approaching 3RR?

Resolved

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I am at a point where either me or User:Anmccaff will approach 3RR. Instead of going there right now, I want to do the following:

Put it up on the talk page on the specific
Possibly putting an "approach 3RR" warning

When should I do point 2, however, and how do I do it? George Leung (talk) 18:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Since you're both past 3RR, I've issued a warning to both of you. If a party will not discuss (though I don't really think that's an issue here), consider the advice given at DISCFAIL. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Request arbitration on Trolleybus

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Can someone please arbitrate my edits on Trolleybus? Thanks. George Leung (talk) 00:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Supplement: This is my plan for the edit on #disadvantage-Comparison to Trams:

//BEGIN SECTION

More control required - Trolleybuses must be driven like a motorbuses, requiring directional control by the driver.
Road based restriction - Rail-based vehicles can have tighter loading gauges than road vehicles, and can skim in the decking/paving for bridges and tunnels. This can be beneficial for modern trams routes that is constructed in the manner of light rail. ^{[further explanation needed]} This disadvantage is less apparent if the proposed tram/light rail route is used to replace existing road-running bus route.
Car commuter transfer rate - Consistent market research and experience over the last 50 years in Europe and North America shows that car commuters are willing to transfer some trips to rail-based public transport but not to buses. Typically light rail systems attract between 30 and 40% of their patronage from former car trips. Bus systems attract less than 5% of trips from cars, less than the variability of traffic.^[1]
Higher capacity - In many cases tram networks have a higher capacity than similar buses^{[citation needed]}. This has been cited as a reason for the replacement of one of Europe's busiest bus lines (with three-minute headways in peak times) with a tram by Dresdner Verkehrsbetriebe.

//END SECTION

User:Anmccaff proposed edit is as follow:
Trolleybuses must be driven like a motorbuses, requiring directional control by the driver. Because buses not fixed to a track, bridges, tunnels, and right-of-way must be wider.

In the talk page he actually said the following:
No, you are stating something which is both different from the original point, and wrong. For straight tunnels and bridges, rail can have tighter loading gauges than steerable vehicles, and can skimp in the decking, since all the loads are predictably on the rail. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the maximum size of vehicle that can be used on a dedicated road right of way. Buses can be made are wide as you like, and are: there are some semi-production 13 footers, IMS. Rail can be no wider than about twice the track gauge. The same point applies to height. The track width of buses is greater, that means more resistance to tipping. Easier to make the unit taller, not harder. Anmccaff (talk) 00:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I actually added his explainations, but he removed it. He even out right consider my edits as vandalism. George Leung (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

References

^ Andrews, Dave (2011-05-18). "SUSTAINABLE LIGHT RAIL | Claverton Group". Claverton-energy.com. Retrieved 2015-03-08.

Unftunately this is the wrng venue. he forum you want is WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard (see the instructions on the top of this page and again in red at the top of this page when you edited it). You may wish to copy and repost your issue there. It's a more active forum with people specialised in content issues. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Should I wait until he reply back or try to blanket revert again? George Leung (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

It would be poor form not to wait. However, if yu have t wait too long for an answer, you could give him a nudge on his talk page, failing which, DRN is the place to go.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Brecksville, Ohio

I am being bullied by an editor Ryecatcher773. I have been maintaining Breckville. Ohio for a couple years. Recently, Ryecatcher773 has been inappropriately making changes to this site and then insulting my education background, etc. I am frustrated because Wikipedia makes the dispute process very difficult to navigate. Additionally, they do not appear to monitor the bullying comments that "editors" post. Sfo1980 (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)sfo1980

This appears to be a content dispute, and as such not suitable for resolution here. You should raise your concerns on the article's Talk page (though for what it's worth I agree with Ryecatcher). Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

My content being reverted various times w/o explanations

re Pacifica and also KPFK page,

reverts being made various times by Stereorock who demeaningly describes my efforts to report updated info. I am undereducated in HTML and computer-istics probably -obviously - but willing to correct & learn about process...Content I write is intended to update information not easily available. These are radio station & umbrella organization that are mostly non transparent. Other information there is old, slanted and some outdated altogether. Trying to inform and report all I attempt to do, not sway nor have any gains. please help me with this person who quickly reverts my diligent work. I tried to use talk page but not sure I did correctly. thank you. Activistrep (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)activistrep Aug 19 2016

These are content disputes and the first resort should be to raise the issues in the articles' Talk pages. Though, as in the preceding instance, here too I'm inclined to agree with the reversions. JohnInDC (talk) 00:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

International Music Score Library Project

Stale

– This no longer seems to be an active issue. If that changes, feel free to remove this status and comment on ongoing issues. Murph9000 (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

There has been some repeated undos for this article. Can someone take a look? There are some discussions on the talk page too. 2601:182:C904:998:D86F:1D86:41D8:102 (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Plagiarized figure for PID controller

Answered

– Murph9000 (talk) 11:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe that my work has been plagiarized by User:Zerodamage. On 27 January 2013, I uploaded the below figure and on 22 June 2016, Zerodamage has substantially copied without alteration my work and has not given attribution in the description statement. Zerodamage then modified the PID controller page to use their image instead of mine. I believe that this usage falls under the Wikipedia:Plagiarism policy as the first case: copying from an unacknowledged source. Since this is considered the most egregious form of plagiarism, I have decided to request editor assistance. My work has been attributed correctly elsewhere (see [5] under the video information). Given that Zerodamage copied the figure without referencing my work, then modified the PID controller page to substitute for my work, I cannot make a case for good faith on the part of Zerodamage.

Zerodamage's archived image (dated 10 December 2011) which has a significant error in the diagram	[6]
My image (dated 27 January 2013), modified from the archived image and does give attribution to the original work in the description
Zerodamage's current image (dated 22 June 2016) which does not give attribution to my work in the description

TravTigerEE (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@TravTigerEE: I offer this as an opinion from a non-lawyer who has significant experience and knowledge of intellectual property law.

This is not plagiarism. It is not wholesale copying without attribution because User:Zerodamage was already responsible for the majority of the work copied, and a quick application of WP:AGF says that it was an innocent action which at most requires clarification of the edit history. The portion of the earler work which Zerodamage did not hold the copyright for, was owned by the preceding author which was already acknowledged in Zerodamage's earlier upload.
Your action in uploading a minor change under a new name contributed to the issue. The better course of action would have been for you to upload your changed version under the original name, which automatically preserves the edit history for all to see. To me, it is roughly equivalent to the strongly discouraged WP:CUTPASTE.
In your image, the majority of the copyright, possibly all of the copyright is actually owned by the previous authors. The change in your derivative work was so small that it may not actually qualify for copyright protection, if it was simply to correct the "u(t)" label without any other changes (I didn't spot any other changes on a quick glance, but this analysis could be wrong if there are more extensive changes involved). A relatively trivial change to create a new derivative work, even where it is to correct an important mistake, does not necessarily create a new copyright interest, especially when the majority of the work is copied verbatim. Regardless of this, as a matter of basic courtesy and good practice, your correction of the "u(t)" label should normally be acknowledged and recorded in the edit history.
While I actually believe that you do not truly own any copyright due to the change being too small for protection, it is reasonable to acknowledge/record your contribution by simply editing the description on the original image name.

Others may have alternate opinions, but I believe that User:Zerodamage did not do anything significantly wrong here, that the action (on both sides) was most likely in good faith and innocent, and that it is all a quite minor issue which at most just needs a small tweak to the summary info under the original image name (and possibly deletion of the redundant "updated" image created by User:TravTigerEE).

Murph9000 (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

all

Answered

– Referred to WP:PG. Murph9000 (talk) 11:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Please, make it policy to have valid proven trusted bibliography. I've seen 10,000 citations needed and bullcrap is everywhere. If it's a free for all then everybody knows nothing but what gethro without a ged had to say about life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.158.180.73 (talk) 01:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Not an issue for Editor assistance/Requests. Referred elsewhere

– Your request is far too vague to be actionable here. It does not highlight specific problem instances. This is not an appropriate place for general (not specific to a particular article/edit) discussion of policies and guidelines, which largely already cover everything you said. Murph9000 (talk) 04:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Edwin Brown Firmage

Answered

– Referred to WP:RA. Murph9000 (talk) 12:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Please create a biography of Edwin Brown Firmage - politician, Mormon, professor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.183.153 (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

This forum is for help on how to edit, not to request articles. Place your request at requested articles after reading the instructions there carefully. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

"Did You Know" content

Answered

– Murph9000 (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

While I am pleased to see Mexico featured in the "Did You Know" section of the homepage, I wonder if the selection of articles is biased: All of said articles refer to living Mexican politicians. Might there be some bias or an agenda involved? Thanks. Cuatito (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The selection is based on personal choice when it comes to article creation. DYK articles have to be new (nominated within 7 days of creation) or expanded 5 times or promoted to GA. It seems to be one or two editors who are prolific article creators. Since I don't know Mexican politics I could not tell you if they only represent one political view (I don't believe so myself). Not sure how to address this since all article work is on a voluntary basis and we cannot dictate what subjects are covered? MPJ-DK 21:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

K. Kumar Ref Error

Resolved

– --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I've been working through Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting and this is the only page I have left. I cannot seem to find where or what the ref error is on this specific page. Can anyone help? Silver seren^C 01:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Fixed -- John of Reading (talk) 06:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Our company Wikipedia article vanished...

Answered

– --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

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

The article on our company "Software MacKiev" seems to have been deleted sometime in the past few months. Any chance to restore it or we have to start from scratch? Any way to find out why it was deleted (to keep that from happening again in the future)? Thanks, Jack Minsky, President, Software MacKiev Jack Minsky (talk) 09:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems to have been deleted twice over the past 10 years, most recently as non-notable, under the terms of WP:PROD. If you wish to recreate the article, you'd best contact the deleting editor. See here for a link to that editor's talk-page. I'm just passing by here, btw, and can be of no more help than this. Haploidavey (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Minsky: It looks like the article was deleted via proposed deletion, which is a process for deletions where it's believed they will be uncontroversial. If anyone challenges a proposed deletion, the deletion gets stopped, or reversed if the article was already deleted. You're clearly objecting, so I'll go ahead and undelete the article. Since the deletion is now contested, I'll put it in for a full discussion at articles for deletion, where the community will discuss whether or not the article should be deleted. You're welcome to participate in the discussion there if you wish. Please also do have a look at our advice on editors with a conflict of interest—it is very, very difficult to stay neutral when writing about yourself, your own company, etc. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

2Leaf Press

Answered

– Murph9000 (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

2Leaf Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Draft:2Leaf Press (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

2Leaf Press was deleted and I would like it put back up.

The purpose of the 2Leaf Press entry is to inform the public about its existence and how it is structured, not to promote, which is already achieved by its website and social media. With respect to the notability issue, since 2Leaf Press is not a scholarly press, there would be no reason for it to be listed under JSTOR and should not be held against the 2Leaf Press entry in Wikipedia. 2Leaf Press is well-regarded in the literary and small press world. It isone of the few minority-owned publishers in the country. It has published world renowned writers (note internal Wikipedia links of writers); all books have ISBN and LCCN assignments and are listed in WorldCat; and the press sells books online and in bookstores around the world. This is factual and not promotional. With the revised references, and the fact that the 2Leaf Press entry closely follows the format of entries by Coffee House Press and Milkweed Editions, I look forward to the 2Leaf Press entry being put back up.

Gdavid01 (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Gdavid01: The article was deleted by Tokyogirl79 (talk · contribs) for failing to meet Wikipedia's strict WP:NOTABILITY standard (see also WP:NCORP for the specific standard for companies). It was also flagged for being too promotional, which can sometimes be down to the general tone of the article. Both of those issues would need to be addressed before the article could remain; and it would be under constant threat of deletion if restored and the issues remained. Failing to meet the notability standard does not necessarily mean that the company can never have an article, it can mean that the article simply failed to properly establish the notability (including citations to reliable sources), or failed to clearly demonstrate it. Most of us can't see the deleted article to offer any specific advice or opinion on its contents. In the first instance, contacting the deleting administrator can be a useful step, to get some detail on their thoughts about it. Beyond that, there are the WP:REFUND and WP:DELREV processes. Informally talking to the administrator is usually the best first step, and can avoid the need for more formal process. See also WP:YFA for some good general advice on what it takes to successfully avoid deletion of a new article. I strongly recommend not creating the article directly in the future, but first creating it as Draft:2Leaf Press, where it can be worked on in a less pressured environment and there is a review process to ensure that it meets required standards before being moved into the main article space. Murph9000 (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a response to my initial inquiry.

As per Criticism of Wikipedia, this deletion is based on the question of “notability standards” which appear to be “arbitrary and essentially unsolvable” and biased. If a reviewer has never heard of an entity or an individual, that should not be the basis of deleting an entry. I note that the corporate publishers have no problems acquiring a listing on Wikipedia, however, small presses such as Milkweed Editions, New Rivers Press, AK Press, have all been queried for notability when in fact, they have been around for years, have published notable people, and are known in literary circles. 2Leaf Press was established in 2012 and has published notable authors. If the reviewer does not believe 2Leaf Press to be notable, how can that be when many of 2Leaf Press’ authors have Wikipedia pages? How can the authors be good enough to acquire an entry in Wikipedia and therefore considered “notable,” but the press that has published them not notable”? If we can agree that corporate presses and publishing houses have the ability to have greater access to publicity and listings, how can a Wikipedia reviewer expect a smaller press to have access to those same resources so that it can be considered “notable" in the eyes of the reviewer? If Wikipedia’s sole purpose is to provide encyclopedic information, it should be based on the merits of the entity, not whether one believes it is “notable” enough for a listing. If this is the case, dictionaries and encyclopedias would be a few sheets of paper instead of the volumes of material of people, places and things both notable and not notable.

Secondly, how is this entry specifically “promoting” as opposed to “informing”? It is easy to tell me to refer to an article, but unless you are specific in your critique, it makes no sense. I look at this entry and see it no different than the Coffee House Press entry or other small press entries that exist on Wikipedia.

Based on the above, I ask that this entry be put back up and ask the reviewer to please provide a specific critique so that it can be properly corrected as per Wikipedia standards. Thanks. Gdavid01 (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Gdavid01, did you talk to the deleting administrator as I advised above? You need to do that. Posting critical messages here will achieve very little, and does not help your case. Murph9000 (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The page was fairly promotional in tone, which was part of the reason that the page was nominated and part of the reason I deleted it. There were multiple things that came up as promotional. For example, in several places you referred to the founder as "David", which is too casual at best and at worst is a common promotional tactic used by marketing departments in order to make a topic more relatable to the reader. Other elements that came across as promotional were statements like the one below:

People wrote on leaves in ancient times (so we have the theme of past revived), and the imagery of green leaves, falling leaves, and dead leaves have been tropes in fiction and poetry practically since that time.

This is problematic for several reasons. The first is that it's a bit WP:OR and is written in a flowery language unsuitable for Wikipedia, partially because language like that can so easily be seen as promotional. Then there were outright promotional phrases like this one:

Since its founding, 2Leaf Press has injected new blood into the contemporary literary scene with emerging and established authors by producing strikingly unconventional books like novellas, off-beat memoirs, cool books of photography and illustrations, travelogues, song lyrics and epic poetry.

That's outright promotional and uses various WP:BUZZWORDS and WP:PUFFERY phrases like "injected new blood" and "strikingly unconventional". That is at best a personal opinion and at worst marketing type. Then there are things like the one below:

The press also creates high-quality industry standard (IDPF) eBooks, which are available on Kindle, Nook, Kobo, Google Play and iTunes.

Not only does this contain promotional buzzwords, but it's considered to be extremely promotional to tell people where they can buy a company's stuff. It's also unnecessary because it's generally assumed that a publisher's work will be available on at least one of the major retailer sites. The only time that this is worth mentioning is when the sale location is something that has gained a large amount of coverage for that alone. For example, a notable self-published author who only releases his work on CreateSpace is likely to get quite a bit of attention for that fact, so it'd be worth mentioning in their article that they published there - although saying something like "it's available on..." is unacceptable because it's promotional.

That's just the promotional content. There was also some issues with notability as well, as the sourcing was almost entirely WP:PRIMARY. You used sourcing like this, which is a routine database listing. The notability was borderline as far as A7 goes and if it had just been that, I'd have opted towards declining and recommending that Reddogsix take it to AfD. However because it was so unambiguously promotional, I deleted it.

Now as far as the notability standards being biased and my not having heard of the publisher, I actually have heard of this publisher before. I'm also aware that notability standards are difficult for smaller and independent publishers to pass, but they must still pass overall notability guidelines and the article must still be neutral.

I also have to ask - do you have a WP:COI in this situation? If so you must disclose this. Rubyperl, who created the article, must disclose this as well - which I noticed they did not do. As far as I can tell (granted I didn't look very hard) you have not disclosed any COI either and I see that your userpage contains an article about someone who has published with this publisher. The article was so promotional that it's extremely unlikely that the article wasn't written by a marketing person, freelancer, or someone who was otherwise paid or asked to create the article. Promotional content like the type written above is extremely common with COI editors. I'm aware that you did not create the article, however there's enough in your edit history to suggest that you have an extremely strong tie to the company. There's also the question of a related article up for deletion that looks like it's written about you. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I've opened up a COI/N report here, since I'm just very concerned that it looks like there has been a concentrated effort by at least one editor to promote the magazine since 2012. It's been far more concentrated lately, but it's still an attempt to promote the magazine and without any sort of disclosure. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response.

In as so far as disclosure, here it is: A number of students at University of Connecticut asked why 2Leaf Press and its entities were not on Wikipedia. I explained that I could not do it because of the conflict of interest, so they offered to do it (they took information from the website, and I answered a few questions), and I have since stayed out of it. It was only when Rubyperl, who was responsible for the actual submission, got hit with the notices that she came to me for help and I stepped in to help figure out these notices, including the issue about citations and references, and helped with formatting the info box. This is it. This is the disclosure.

In the past, when I have posted Wikipedia entries, the reviewer helped guide through the process by indicating specifically what the problems were up front so that corrections could be made to make the entries Wikipedia correct. In this case, you did not do this. Instead, you merely said it was up for deletion, was promotional and not notable. The fact that it took several weeks to get a response since the initial submission, and then be given less than 24 hours to respond with the threat of deletion is very disconcerting. At least now, you have provided a guideline that is doable, and for that I am appreciative.

I have been writing for many years, and the idea that the entry is “literary” and “promotional” is subjective at best. For example, the line:

The press also creates high-quality industry standard (IDPF) eBooks, which are available on Kindle, Nook, Kobo, Google Play and iTunes.

was written this way to let people know about the different venues and formats the eBooks are available in, but can be simply changed to:

The press also creates industry standard (IDPF) eBooks, which are available in Kindle and ePub formats. [with a citation to explain that ePub means the other venues, because most people don’t know this]

Also, “Industry standard” is an important distinction because many small presses publish eBooks using Word documents, which is not industry standard.

The statement:

Since its founding, 2Leaf Press has injected new blood into the contemporary literary scene with emerging and established authors by producing strikingly unconventional books like novellas, off-beat memoirs, cool books of photography and illustrations, travelogues, song lyrics and epic poetry.

was taken directly from the website and could be rewritten to read:

2Leaf Press publishes emerging and established authors and produces unconventional books like novellas, off-beat memoirs, books of photography and illustrations, travelogues, song lyrics and epic poetry.

You said that the statement:

People wrote on leaves in ancient times (so we have the theme of past revived), and the imagery of green leaves, falling leaves, and dead leaves have been tropes in fiction and poetry practically since that time.

is flowery and promotional? How so? It is a fact. See Palm-leaf manuscript. Also, stating that the imagery of leaves “have been tropes in fiction and poetry” [7] are both facts that are tied into the naming of the press. Obviously, you do not see it this way, and rather than argue, we can just cut the line out.

Finally, you stated:

For example, in several places you referred to the founder as "David", which is too casual at best and at worst is a common promotional tactic used by marketing departments in order to make a topic more relatable to the reader.

The last name of the person is David. How is that casual? We can refer to the individual as the “founder” if you like.

I apologize that I came on strong, but at this juncture, is there any way we can work together to finalize this? These students have worked very hard to put this material together and I have spent a day and a half trying to find a clear path to help them complete this task. Thanks for your efforts. Gdavid01 (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Gdavid01: The core of the issue is, though, we shouldn't be taking material "from the website" for the bulk of an article about anything. Rather, articles need to be based on references independent of the article subject, that is, having no interest in promoting them, and not simply publishing or republishing material generated by the article subject. This would mean original content about the article subject, not simply reprinted press releases, interviews, etc. Such material needs to be from a reference that's reliable, having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and needs to cover the subject in reasonable depth, not just a blurb or name drop. If multiple references like that don't exist about the subject, we can't accept an article about it at all. Our notability guidelines aren't just arbitrary restrictions. Having multiple independent reliable sources covering something in reasonable depth is crucial to maintaining neutrality in an article. We can't have articles written primarily based on something the article subject has published about itself, such as from its own website. It must be from independent sources. Is that type of reference material available about this subject, or not? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I had to re-write this a few times because I don't want it to sound accusatory. I just want you to understand how this looks to many of us. As far as the last name goes, that was my mistake but the other issues still stand. The article was extremely promotional and was a valid G11 deletion. That you say it was written by a student does not make it not promotional or not a G11 violation and student written articles are just as applicable for deletion as an article written by someone who is formally paid by the organization. I could go into detail about how some of the proposed changes could still be problematic, but it's kind of a moot point because the notability is still a huge issue.

Any sort of COI must be disclosed, even if the person writing the article is a student. In the case of a student or unpaid volunteer/intern this is even more of a necessity because it's just as much for their benefit as it is for transparency. Without going too much into past cases on Wikipedia, we have had instances where people and organizations have tried to manipulate Wikipedia by using people who are dependent on them for grades or recommendations. In some cases they use them with the idea that they can get around COI requirements. I'm not saying that this is what is happening here, just letting you know how important transparency is on Wikipedia. Not disclosing something, even if it wasn't meant to be an intentional attempt to hide any ties, can leave a lasting negative impression on Wikipedia that can make it far harder for an article to get re-created on Wikipedia, especially if this is tied to other issues with the articles. I also need to note that at no point was there any indication that Rubyperl was a student or that there were students working on this at all, given that there seems to only be two accounts editing the material.

Now as far as the article goes, even if the article was restored and the promotional content removed (which would require it to be practically re-written), I think that deletion would still be inevitable. There's nothing to suggest that the publisher would ultimately pass notability guidelines. The claims that were on the page were borderline and even if they would pass A7 criteria, they would ultimately fail WP:CORP, which is one of the most difficult guidelines to pass on Wikipedia. That it's the publishing wing of a non-profit and a small publisher doesn't matter on here, corporations and organizations are judged under the same general guideline. The main claim to fame was that it had ties to notable authors, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by this tie.

At this point I have to say that it's far more important that you focus on the articles that are currently up for deletion. I honestly think that 2Leaf Press's article is a bit of a lost cause at this point because even if I restored it, which I am not inclined to do, it would only be deleted at AfD at this point in the game. If these articles are all deleted, which I honestly think is likely, then the best advice I can give you is to wait a few years and just slowly gather coverage that would be considered independent RS. You might also want to look into starting your own wiki, as you can do far more with a wiki in a place like Wikia, PBworks, or a personal wiki created with MediaWiki, since their guidelines are far less strict. It's not Wikipedia, but it is a good place to get started and to create a draft that could be tweaked and edited for Wikipedia if/when the topics do pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Willie Nelson did not write "Whiskey River".

Answered

– Murph9000 (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Your article thar is a list of songs written by Willie Nelson (List of songs written by Willie Nelson) is in error when it lists "Whiskey River" as being written by Willie Nelson. It was in fact written by a good friend of Willie's, Johnny Bush Shin (born 02/17/1935 and better known as Johnny Bush). Johnny had developed a condition known as Spasmodic Disphonia in the early to mid 70's and was no longer able to sing and record. Willie decided to record "Whiskey River" so that his friend, Johnny, would receive a song writer's credit for each album sold by Willie and have a little income from it. According to Johnny Bush at his 75th birthday in 2010, Willie had recorded the song 23 times at that point, while Johnny said he had only recirded it twice. Johnny has been receiving treatments for many years and is recording again on the Heart of Texas Record label, headquartered in Brady, Texas. They can be reached at (325) 597-1895.^[1]

2600:387:1:809:0:0:0:A6 (talk) 03:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons you might want to). Someguy1221 (talk) 03:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

References

^ Bush, Johnny; Rick Mitchell (2007). Whiskey River (Take My Mind): The True Story of Texas Honky-Tonk. Austin: University of Texas Press. ISBN 0-292-79531-9.

Format issues on a chart, please help.

Resolved

– Murph9000 (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

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

I just now edited the wiki page for David McCallum. His 1966 filmography omitted an interesting film performance of "The Big T.N.T. Show", so I added it in, but I did a poor job and it is now not proper. I am asking for someone with the experience to look at and fix this, as it should be relatively easy for an experienced Wiki editor. I am mostly a Wiki user and rarely edit, so I am asking for someone to correct this modification to the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbbrown25 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sbbrown25:

Fixed There were a few issues with it, you can see what I changed by looking at the diffs in the edit history. It's a moderately complex table. One note, Wikipedia is not a WP:RS and generally should not be cited; just a normal wiki link to the article is usually sufficient inside a list. Murph9000 (talk) 07:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Woods

Inappropriate forum for this kind of solicitation/notice. Consider Village Pump. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Thomas Woods (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Please give your opinion here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard § Thomas Woods --GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Table header doesn't display in Firefox

Resolved

– Murph9000 (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I started a talk page thread here because i thought the colors used in a table were unexplained. It turns out some of the table headers do not show up in Firefox. See the discussion for details and an example of the issue. It's probably simplest to respond in the talk page thread, if it can work that way. Thanks so much for any help! "alyosha" (talk) 07:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

We seem to have resolved it locally.The original editor has made it work. Best, "alyosha" (talk) 06:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for Editor Assistance

Resolved

– User has been blocked for sockpuppetry.

Murph9000 (talk) 02:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

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

An editor is doing a major re-write of a biographical article on Sophie Morgan that I always thought was poorly written and sourced. I have tried to address my concerns with this editor both on her talk page and on the article's talk page, all of which she has rejected. And I have suffered a great deal of personal abuse from said editor in the process. I believe there are inaccuracies in the article she is re-writing and have pointed these out. I have found sources that I believe address these which would indicate a level of doubt about some of the 'facts'. As the article is about a Living Person and in the process of a major re-write, I believe these should be looked at in the process of a re-write if flagged up. The editor has re-written the article and removed much of the previous content and refs from a four-year old article. Furthermore, I don't understand why the editor has changed free-view sources to pay-to-view sources. I don't understand why a Twitter account is posted as an external link when the link to the Twitter account is prominently displayed on the first page of the subject's website which is already on the article (and I've read the guidelines about social media which say that when this is the case it is not necessary to add a link to Twitter). Also, I always thought, according to wiki guidelines, independent refs were stronger than interviews with the subject of the article. I have been told 'I thought wrong'. May I please have Editor assistance in showing me whether the issues I believe should be addressed in this major re-write (I have only outlined a few of them here) should be summarily dismissed out of hand, as they have been? I also have an issue with using Tabloids as primary sources (The Daily Express, The Sunday Mail particularly) which the editor defends. Her argument is that they contain first person interviews. I believe that even first person interviews in Tabloids are often taken out of context, and are thus misleading and unreliable. I would very much appreciate some assistance. I have been made to feel that I am not welcome to post anything or make any comments at all on this article. I feel I cannot edit without advice. Transparentfish (talk) 09:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Transparentfish: Ok, first of all, I'm no expert on the ins and outs of the perfect WP:BLP article, so I can only be of limited help here. I've trimmed the Twitter link, per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, which does typically allow the single official website to be both in the infobox and at the bottom of the article, but is clear that we don't usually link second sites when they can be reasonably found via the primary site (which applies in this case).

Now, as far as the content goes, you certainly are welcome to make constructive contributions (subject to all the usual policies and guidelines). Be sure to keep it about the content and not about the contributor, and make sure that any edits to the article have an excellent edit summary explaining the rationale behind them. For the refs, there's certainly a fairly strong anti-tabloid sentiment in some parts of WP, and my understanding is that interviews need to be used carefully as they are an obvious source of potential bias (the subject's own words need to be used with caution, but can sometimes provide useful information). Good independent reliable sources need to be provided for the major stuff, and are essential to keep the article WP:NPOV. The sources need not be one or the other, they can be both (just not junk quality).

I suggest you raise your concerns about the content (not the contributor) first on the article's talk page, then at WikiProject Biography (if the talk page does not seem to be achieving anything), where you should be able to find people with good expertise in the general area, for advice and to get a good 2nd opinion on the article. Possibly start with the two or three (or four) most significant issues, rather than every single little thing, so that it's not instantly overwhelming to someone coming into it. Also, if you can get the big stuff fixed, the little stuff may fall into place without too much of a problem.

If it comes down to an actual content dispute, don't get anywhere near edit warring (never break WP:3RR, don't even get close to it), take it to the article's talk page as a first resort. If talking it out isn't going anywhere after about a week, work through the official Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process (please read this now, before you get to needing the formal steps, as it covers the early informal steps as well). No matter what happens, keep your side of it calm, WP:CIVIL, and focussed on the content; no matter what the provocation may be (and try your best to avoid being provocative in a bad way). That's probably enough to be going on with for now. I've most likely not addressed everything, and I wasn't really trying to cover it all. Please do come back here for more, if you want to. Just take it step by step, slow and steady, and remember there is no deadline. I hope that helps. I offer no particular judgement on who is in the right or wrong, or how good or bad the article is right now; just some general advice to hopefully push things in a positive direction, and I deliberately did not dig through the history behind this.

Murph9000 (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind assistance. I have been very upset by the unprovoked personal attack on myself posted on the article's talk page: Talk:Sophie Morgan. I will take your advice and address issues slowly, one by one so that I can once again feel confident in my editing. Thank you for taking down the Twitter link, which I knew from policy was not valid and had provided a rationale for this. Also, thanks for providing the links so I know where to get help if I need it. I will slowly bring everything to a second opinion I think in the circumstances rather than risk any further personal attacks upon myself. As you can see, I have raised my concerns about the content on the article's talk page following an unsuccesful attempt to discuss them on the editor's talk page so will now take your advice and take my concerns about the content to WikiProject Biography. Transparentfish (talk) 11:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment Specious complaints from a now-blocked sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vaishal Keri (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Very poor English.

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

Is it possible that we could collectively attempt a better version of this page? Luckily, understanding a little German, I could get the context.

Franz Lucas (SS medical team in auschwitz)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.197.118.237 (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

It looks like a crappy machine translation. It certainly needs improvement. But you don't need anyone's permission to work on it. If you're interested in improving that article, please do! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Name removed wrongy from the List of Legally Mononymous People

Answered

– Murph9000 (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

List of legally mononymous people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Draft:Fun (person) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (born Courtney Blair Schwebel, 1977), Writer, Artist[8]

This was removed by user Quac who believed this person was not notable. Fun is well known in the United States. Over one million people know who he is. This is not by dint of fame either. The added reference included may appear to be 15 minutes of fame, but that is the only online source of information available about him. He has worked in Television, Film, & Live Sports for ESPN. He was a marketing representative for RJ Reynolds for 8 years and travelled across the United States meeting and speaking with 250-2000 people per night 5 days per week. He was a radio DJ at Sweet Briar College during their closure scandal in 2014 too. Additionally, an article on the front page of the largest newspaper in Arizona, the Arizona Republic about his name change went viral and was reposted across the internet reaching people around the world. For that article, he appeared on several local and national radio programs along with a TV news appearance. An essay he wrote while in colege was also printed in the Freshman English textbook Reading Life: A Witer's Reader by Gabrielle Gautreax and Inge Fink that was used in colleges and universities across the nation from 2004 through 2007. Being famous is defined by being well known. If Fun was on Television, Live Sports broadcasting, and appeared in films, as well as personally introducing himself to a million people across the United States for RJ Reynolds, being published in a textbook, and appearing across the internet, news, and radio, I believe that falls under the definition of famous. Additionally, to be notable is defined as being famous.

I think the user Quac has made an error, and this person should be placed back on that list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.70.100.176 (talk) 03:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks legit to me. See Wikipedia:Notability (people). Really nothing that you've given automatically qualifies someone as notable. Maybe, possibly, but we'd need good sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

A pretty handy rule of thumb for such lists is, a person or thing is notable enough for inclusion in the list if there's a Wikipedia article about them; and if not, not. I'd suggest writing the article, with links to more than just that one link, and then re-inserting him into the list. That way if there is a debate about his notability, it will come about as a discussion about the article - with its full set of sources - and not here, which is really the wrong place for deciding whether a random person or thing is in fact notable. JohnInDC (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

http://celebrity-birthdays.org/celebrity/fun — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.70.100.176 (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

http://m.imdb.com/name/nm2343289/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.70.100.176 (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

New Company Page Request

Answered

– Murph9000 (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear Editors, I am looking for assistance to have a company page created for Advanced Aquarium Technologies as we have a very interesting story to tell. The main focus of the business is constructing large commercial aquariums around the globe. AAT have completed many large aquarium projects and are a manufacturer of aquarium life support systems, rockwork and now acrylic through a partnership with Evonik Industries. The new unit, AAT ACRYLICS, specialises in the manufacturer of aquarium tunnels, domes, cylinders and large panels.

This media release is a great overview of the company and how we have grown - click here

Offical AAT website www.advanced-aquariums.com

Images are available on dropbox and more can be supplied - click here https://www.dropbox.com/sh/agylzyljlc18y5f/AABtp57NmzZqlIvSfy4LQsHza?dl=0

Your help would be extremely appreciated!! If you have any questions please let me know.

Advancedaquariums (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC) ir

Please note: This editor has been blocked for their promotional username. The links here are promotional as well. I don't know whether that means this post should be removed or not. MarnetteD|Talk 01:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a soft user name block, so they're permitted to either create a new account or request an unblock to change name on the existing one. Since they're not barred from editing, I see no reason to remove it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Seraphimblade. I have not worked with this page very often so I did not know what was best. I appreciate you taking the time to repond. MarnetteD|Talk 01:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

So, we probably ought to address the actual request here. In order to write an article about anything, we'll need substantial amounts of reliable source material published by those independent of the article subject. "Reliable" means that it was published by an organization with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, "independent" means written by someone not having an interest in promoting the subject (this rules out press releases, interviews, material from the subject's own website, etc., since these are not independent of the subject), and "substantial" means that there's a good amount of material directly about the subject, not just a blurb or name drop. If you can point out where this source material might be found, it would certainly help any editor who might be interested in writing an article. If such source material doesn't exist, I'm afraid we can't write an article without that at all. Regardless, please do remember that any article will be required to be neutral in both tone and content, and may not promote anyone or anything. Also, since you are affiliated with the subject (and thank you for making that clear), you should review our guidelines on conflict of interest. It's very difficult to remain neutral when it comes to a subject you're very close to or have an interest in promoting. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Whitley Bay

The population figure quoted on the town page for Whitley Bay is incorrect.

It is currently shown as only 9,416 (based on the 2011 Census), however, the town of Whitley Bay is made up of 4 town wards - namely Monkseaton North, Monkseaton South, St. Mary's and Whitley Bay Central and the figure shown clearly only relates to Whitley Bay Central.

The correct population figure - based on Mid 2013 research from North Tyneside Council - is 36,623, comprised from the following ward breakdown: Monkseaton North 9,121; Monkseaton South 9,881; St. Mary's 8,275; and Whitley Bay Central 9,346.

I have an email from North Tyneside Council to confirm these details, if required, however, confirmation can be obtained by contacting the Senior Performance Officer at North Tyneside Council, Pam Colby.

Please can you amend the details on the Whitley Bay page asap.

Kjh12345 (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@Kjh12345: You can be bold and do this yourself, alternatively, post the URL where the population figures are on NTC's website (which, as a public record of information, should be available) here and I'll add it as a footnote. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced draft

I found Wikipedia:Clique and think it should be moved to Draft: space but am not sure because Clique already exists. Perhaps it should be userfied instead? - Brianhe (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

It used to be in the author's userspace - not sure why he moved it into Wikipedia space. I just undid the move. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

FN Five-seveN

Resolved

This page is being used as a marketing brochure. I made edits to emphasize its actual cultural identity as "the cop killer" based on its ability to penetrate body armor ^[1] and to minimize the marketing language. Not only have they been taken down, but notes have been added saying not to edit.

- The real definition and cultural significance should open the article. Long pieces of history and characteristics should go under Development and History

Thank you! Wonderactivist (talk) 10:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC) Wonderactivist

References

^ Wired magazine [1])

This forum is for help on how to edit, not for assistance in resolving disputes with other editors. To resolve content disputes, see dispute resolution (but note that all forms of content dispute resolution require talk page discussion first); to resolve conduct disputes, such as page ownership through do-not-edit warnings, speak to a administrator or file a complaint at ANI (being sure to carefully read the instructions there first). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

List of computer-animated television series

Resolved

I just created this list article, but the main table keeps falling to the bottom even if it is not positioned there. I have no idea why. Does anyone know how to fix this? Thanks. - Alumnum (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The problem is now fixed. - Alumnum (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Simple request

Inviting a fresh set of editorial eyes, regardless the outcome, to this topic here: Simple inclusion of a notable recurring character before time lapses without any input or consensus for or against. Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

My apologies. I just realized this is not the place to invite editors to another noticeboard. Maineartists (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of interest editing? Help!

Hi there,

I'm a librarian at The King's Fund and I've previously posted on the talk page for our organisational entry on Wikipedia regarding some edits which I think might need to be made to the section on financial independence. In order to present a more balanced view of The King's Fund's financial independence, I'd like to include some information from our website about the source of our funding and independence but as I'm an employee, I understand that this might represent a conflict of interest. I posted on the talk page suggesting this a year ago but didn't receive any response. Would someone be able to help me determine whether it would be suitable for me to make these edits myself?

Thanks,

Honganhnguyen (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what to do regarding AfD debate protocol dispute

I'm looking to get some help with an ongoing dispute involving AfD debate protocols. Tiptoethrutheminefield has been editing the debate in a way that I feel may obfuscate the debate history. The user is editing previous sections of the debate to which responses have already been made, rather than adding additional commentary further down the line. Signature stamps have also been placed in such a way that may be disingenuous, or at the very least, distort the debate history. I already reverted these edits once, and added a note regarding the event to the debate, and explained my reasons for doing so in the edit summary. However, Tiptoethrutheminefield, reverted my edits and deleted my note regarding the incident. I'm trying to avoid an edit war, and I have reviewed WP:AFDFORMAT, but I'm still not sure what the appropriate next step is. Any assistance or guidance would be greatly appreciated!

Original version of the debate: [9]

Tiptoethrutheminefield's first edit: [10]

My version including the restored original content and note regarding the incident: [11]

My version including additional reply: [12]

Latest version after Timtoethrutheminefield deleted the portion of the debate that I restored and deleted my note: [13]

Bmhs823 (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Bmhs823, an AfD is not some sort of contest involving a series of chess-like attacking or defensive moves made in the form of a sequence of unalterable post after unalterable post. Of course I can add to or clarify or expand on points that I have made earlier - especially since neither you (or any editor) had given responses to those specific points expanded on (the self published nature of his books, lack of papers or articles, non-notable "awards", everyday projects claimed to be educationally innovative, and so on). You are also free to edit or expand on your own posts, but you should not duplicate the posts of others complete with their sigs - I don't see how you could have though this [14] made the AfD discussion clearer to understand or any of the points that we were both making easier for others to read. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Tiotoethrutheminefield, I'm not trying to engage in a contest, and I actually went out of my way not to call you out after the original changes in the hopes of diffusing the situation, and assuming the edits you made were in good faith. Changing a statement or a series of statements that has been responded to distorts the progression of the debate. New comments or clarification should be added in a new section using the appropriate level of indentation. Furthermore, the changes (or lack of changes) you made to particular signatures/time stamps further distorted the history of the debate as it progressed. I felt it was best to reproduce the altered content exactly in the interest of full transparency. Bmhs823 (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

From what I can tell only one of his books was self published, and it was his first. I don't think it's that unusual for an author or academic's first book to be self published. Bmhs823 (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I copied all the content from this section over to the talk page, and submitted a request at the Dispute resolution noticeboard. This discussion maybe be archived or removed as appropriate. Thank you! Bmhs823 (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States needs updating

This article needs updating it states that some states still dont have same sex marriage legal but according to other websites it is legal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewtarnowski (talk • contribs) 16:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

More Info in a Category List?

This presents itself as a kind of wish- the specific page under consideration is Popular Songs based on Classical Works. Suppose we are given the composer from whom the theme was taken, but not the song, then one has to click through each entry on the category to locate the composer.

Not common, granted, but the suggestion would be to modify the category entries with an abbreviation of composer & work. Take the first entry, All by Myself. Now we are told the song comes from Sergei Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto No. 2 in C minor, so the question would be to an acceptable method of abbreviation. Perhaps something like All by Myself (Rach.: P.C. 2)?--Lmstearn (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Are there "restricted" pages within Wiki?

Hello, I hope I am in the right place. If not, please direct me where to find an answer to this question: recently in an online discussion outside of the Wiki community, someone referred me to a supposedly "restricted Wiki page."^[1] I found this odd as it was not a direct link to a Wiki url but rather a cloaked page within a private website. Additionally, when one clicks on any of the administrative buttons such as for Edit or Contents, it always redirects to the private person's website and not the corresponding Wikipedia pages. My question is whether this is a well-crafted fake Wiki page to lend credence to the person posting it or if such "restricted" pages actually exist within Wiki? If it is a fake page, this is using the image and brand of Wiki to mislead the general public and I thought Wiki should know. If, on the other hand, it is an actual screenshot of an existing restricted page, then Wiki should know that their restricted pages can be shown publicly. So what's the point of having restricted content? Could a senior Wiki editor or admin give some insight into what they believe this to be? Thank you. Got2Bthere (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm not an admin, but I think I can give you a quite good answer. On Wikipedia, there are no normal "restricted" or hidden pages, but I can see the there are some special pages that are restricted/hidden and that can be accessed only by users with certain privileges. Besides that, some pages are protected from editing to prevent vandalism.

After looking at the page you linked to, the website seems to be completely fake. The owner have probably created a page on Wikipedia and took a screenshot, before it got deleted by herself or an admin. If you search the web, there are no sources confirming anything, not even that this persons name is real. I searched for some of the books that's listed at the bottom of the "Wikipedia" page and I couldn't find none of them. So probably everything else on that website is just made up, for some reason (probably earning money on private sessions, on people believing it's a "skilled and well-known" person they have consulted, but this person only seems to be good at making things up).

That's my bet. Hope you can use it. I don't know if you/we can do anything about people misusing Wikipedia, except trying to make people (around you) aware of it. /PatrikN (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi PatrikN, thanks for your input. After my post, I also searched a little further online and found the exact same results (or lack of), and came to the same conclusion, as you. I knew about protected pages on Wiki, but those would be visible. This page just seems so ridiculous, tbh, that I couldn't believe someone would really try to fake a Wiki page. But unfortunately similar impostor and fake sites and pages are all over the internet. Guess we can only try, on an individual level, to keep vigilant about checking anything that seems odd. Thanks again. Got2Bthere (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

References

^ "Wikipedia-restricted_sasha-abendstern".

Request to revise page

About two years ago, I posted Surya K. Jayaweera onto Wikipedia. It was speedily deleted since it was considered solicited writing. After reading the rules again, I wanted to try to revise it with a neutral and encyclopedic tone. The moderator who deleted the article also erased my message on their talk page regarding my contention. It looks like they aren't willing to reply to other articles that were speedily deleted either.

My question is: may I have permission to create this page again by another moderator? I will use the proper drafting process this time so even if it is not considered notable, the article itself doesn't have to be deleted again. Thank you for your time. Dodgetherocks (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dodgetherocks: I have created this page in your userspace where you can work on a new article and move it into the main space once you feel it's ready. I'd be happy to review it as well once you think it's ready. If you need to review your old work, you can try a restoration to user space request per WP:REFUND. -- Dane2007 ^talk 07:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

American Rock Band NEEDTOBREATHE

Hi there,

We have been working to update NEEDTOBREATHE's Wikipedia page to list them under the genre of "rock band" or "American rock band" instead of "Christian band" because they are not a Christian band. I - along with others in the past - have listed many sources, quotes, articles, etc. explaining the reason for this change and proof that this change would be beneficial to the Wikipedia page's accuracy. Here is the link to the band's talk page where this discussion is taking place: Talk:Needtobreathe#American_Rock_Band (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Needtobreathe#American_Rock_Band|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'd like additional feedback on the best way to go about resolving this before going to Formal Mediation, as editor Walter Gorlitz and our Third Opinion are not comprehending this distinction that is important to the band, their label (rock label Atlantic Records), and their fans. If you go back through the talk page's history, it seems that editor Walter Gorlitz is unable to be objective about this change, and seems personally adamant on not allowing it.

Thank you, Kaileypearce (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Kaileypearce: It looks to me like the third opinion summarized it well. The band is categorized correctly based on the sources. They are both christian and rock. -- Dane2007 ^talk 07:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Conflicting assertions

Dear Friends at Wikipedia: At the Yale Record (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yale_Record), we find this assertion: "The Yale Record is the campus humor magazine of Yale University. Founded in 1872, it became the oldest humor magazine in the world when Punch folded in 2002.[3][4]"

At the Stanford Chaparral (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Chaparral), we find this assertion: "The Stanford Chaparral was established in 1899 by Bristow Adams. Published for more than 112 years, the Chappie is the second oldest continually published humor magazine in the world after Nebelspalter (1875–present). It is the oldest continually published humor magazine in the United States, as the Harvard Lampoon did not publish during World War I and World War II."

What should happen in such a conflict? Thanks, George Boeck — Preceding unsigned comment added by George.boeck (talk • contribs) 21:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@George.boeck: It is advisable to evaluate the sources for verifiability and correct whichever article needs to be updated. -- Dane2007 ^talk 07:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Images Question

La|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Tucker

Hello, I work for Ross Tucker. An unknown person has posted a wiki article about Mr. Tucker on Wiki English. It has been proofed and is accurate, therefore we would like to keep this page intact. However, Mr. Tucker would like for 1-3 images applied to this posting. I have created a Wiki account to perform this service yet I am not autoconfirmed. I have attempted to upload and apply these images in every way I can find through the 'Upload file' portion of Wiki including asking from experienced Wikipedians. These are non-free, non-copyrighted images. They are owned by Mr. Tucker and Go Big Recruiting (his company) and have been adjusted by artisticrebels.com (my company) for this site. Since the article is not in Wiki commons, I am not autoconfirmed, and I cannot seem to make a proper request from experienced Wikipedians. What would my course of action be to get this images applied?

Thank you, Montgomery Jason (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Montgomery_Jason

@Montgomery Jason: Use the {{edit requested}} tag on the articles talk page and link to the images you are trying to put in. An editor will review your request and respond appropriately. As you have declared a conflict of interest, it is strongly advisable that you use the process I outlined above for any other types of edits to that article as well. -- Dane2007 ^talk 07:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Please delete User:Кукамонга/vector.js

Please delete User:Кукамонга/vector.js -- Кукамонга (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Done. In future for such deletions you can add {{db-user}} or {{db-author}}. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Notability/Reliability for Environmental Articles

Two questions regarding environmental/Superfund articles. First, would a site's listing and/or remediation as a Superfund Priority confer enough notability on that site? Second, would EPA process documentation (e.g., Records of Decision, Five-Year Reviews) be considered reliable sourcing for articles on Superfund sites?

I've been interested in trying to flesh out some of the redlinks in the lists of Superfund Sites in the U.S., but am a little worried some of the more detailed information I've looked up might not be up to par with some guidelines, or that the sites might just not be notable enough to survive an AfD. Buerish | pull a leg 17:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Move Locaid Page & Update Content or Delete Page

Hello,

I am writing regarding the Locaid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) page to get it moved and updated or deleted. I must disclose that I have a conflict of interest as I am employed by a company called LocationSmart that merged with Locaid in 2015. I am the Marketing Manager for LocationSmart and this information is included in my Wikipedia user profile. (merger source 1, source 2, source 3)

We wish to move and/or replace the Locaid page with information about LocationSmart. If it is easier to delete the Locaid page then we will gladly follow this procedure.

As a result of the merger, LocationSmart absorbed all of Locaid's customers and its employees. We now do business as LocationSmart. Our offices in San Francisco were shut down and they are now located in Carlsbad, California. The Locaid website and its other online properties have been deleted or redirected to LocationSmart-owned properties. This move/update or deletion will provide accurate information for the Wikipedia audience and it could assist with SEO for LocationSmart.

I wrote a message on this topic to the group supporting the Locaid page two weeks ago but have not yet received a response so I am hoping that contacting an editor may help push it forward. Here is a link to the group's page with my message included. [[15]]

I look forward to any feedback and will happily answer any questions.

Thank you, Nweidmann (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nweidmann: I'll take a look at what you've got here. The "Locaid" article certainly needs a bit of editing (it had a long laundry list of "awards" which was a bit much, and seems to entirely elide the privacy and security concerns brought up by the references). Of course, as long as the merger can be verified, that should be mentioned in the article, whatever title it ends up at. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Peacockery/NPOV

H.M.S. Pinafore

Hello, I am new to WP. I have come across the article above and found it riddled with what I believe to be peacock words and otherwise biased verbiage that I think is inappropriate in the context of an encyclopedia. Upon editing, my edits are swiftly and continuously re-edited by one particular user.

Frankly, I do not want to provoke said user and am ready to walk away from this article completely at this point, as I have already tried resolving through Talk and have found this utterly ineffective and rather frustrating. Thus, I write here only for guidance in the my future edits. Are these illustrious sentences okay in the context of an article like this? To me, it reads like a story, not an encyclopedic entry. Is this okay? Am I being too anal and inflexible? Thanks Mathygrammar (talk) 12:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Smith County Texas article

I'm seeking assistance from other editors on the Smith County, Texas article. After reviewing it this morning, I noticed two major unsourced sections. One is fairly minor in terms of being unsourced, and is easily sourced, and lists the current elected officials, which is acceptable. However, I believe the portion under that, related to the Smith County Road and Bridge Department, is a bit excessive and inappropriate for the article. It is also completely unsourced.

Going back through the edit history, I am curious if it is a county employee actually making changes to the article. I would like to undertake a revision/edit of this article because it is very, very week in terms of history in particular. However, the history of Smith County, particularly in the 20th and 21st centuries has some aspects which are controversial (the county has been featured in a book and a movie).

I am curious if other editors believe, based on past history, it may be appropriate to (a) request protection for the article after making the constructive edits and (b) if the road and bridge section should be deleted, even if sourced. I am unaware of another Wikipedia page for a county in Texas that highlights its road and bridge department in this way.

VinceLeibowitz (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

The article does seem a bit skewed toward detail - might benefit from a cleanup effort. JohnInDC (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Final #Election2016 numbers

PopularVote: #Trump: 62,972,226 #Clinton: 62,277,750

ElectoralCollege vote #Trump 306 #Clinton 232

I was researching the election results and found these numbers written in an article . . . They far differ from what you are reporting perhaps further investigation needs to be done because our numbers for popular are less than shown here.

Thanks Donna Schanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.246.57 (talk) 10:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Help in deleting a photo

Hello there, could I please request assistance/guidance in how to delete photo /edit and complete a page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ben_Russell_And_The_Charmers.jpeg

I have no idea what I am doing and would appreciate some help.

I basically want to delete this photo and need-be delete the page and start again?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meltemkocak (talk • contribs) 14:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Why should it be deleted? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

George Washington

Dear Wikipedia, The captioned article begins with the following sentence:

"George Washington (February 22, 1732 [O.S. February 11, 1731][b][c] – December 14, 1799) was an American soldier and statesman who served as the first President of the United States from 1789 to 1787."

Please change "1787" to 1797 at the end of the sentence. Also, in the future, how can I make edits to articles which don't have "edit" links? Thank You,

Fritz Clifford — Preceding unsigned comment added by FritzClifford (talk • contribs) 19:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Done Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@FritzClifford: Thanks for the correction. You can edit semiprotected articles like George Washington when your account becomes autoconfirmed after four days and ten edits. Until then you can click the "View source" tab to make an edit request. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Proof reading help

I need help proofreading the content I added on the article: "class Analysis". Minus the first paragraph, everything there is my addition to the article page.

My grammar is sub par and I am having some difficulties adjusting to encyclopedic tone as it is a first for me. I believe moving a couple periods and commas shouldn't be a problem for someone to edit but of course any re-wording/phrasing of lines to uphold the encyclopedic tone can be addressed to me so I can act on them. If you'd like to help in the edit by all means. Please be sure to ping me so I can keep and eye on where you responded whether it be on this page or the talk page on the article or my talk page. Any help would be great thank you. Rhern240 (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism on Wahid Omar article

Can someone with more experience help revert the article to its 02:21, 8 July 2016 revision, as the article was clearly vandalised to turn it from an article regarding an Afghanistan politician to one on a Facebook preacher? Thank you! CherylHew (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I have done as requested simply because the earlier version of the article looks in better shape, but somebody who can read the Arabic sources will need to check its factual accuracy. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I did do a search on both Wahid Omars, and the Afghan politician/President Karzai spokesperson is quoted/spoken of in numerous articles from The Washington Post, Al Jazeera etc. while the Facebook preacher is only found in his Facebook group. Well, if he really wanted an article on himself (and met the notability guidelines, which he doesn't actually) he could have made a separate article instead of vandalising an existing one to propagate himself.. CherylHew (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Reversion of edits

I tried making an edit- in the last section wich deals with speculation about what happened to it. My edits were redacted, citing bible as being non-authoratative (this is silly) and my references to a website where to research further was claimed as not allowed. (again silly) Who is anyone to judge? The information already on wikipedia is already non-supported, at best, much of it referes to ancient fables or conjecture with cited sources that we have no idea of why or how they came to be or how accurate they are. So, in the interest of fairness, and giving new updated information of new discoveries so that others can have more information with which to research more on the subject, should this not be welcomed on wiki? If not, then we must throw out the entire section speculating on its whereabouts. None of the sites purported to hold the ark have any real supporting evidence. I however, simply want to add an additional one which at least biblically may have some merit. Geojoeman (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)Geojoeman

@Geojoeman: The appropriate thing to do, if other editors revert your edits, would be to take your concerns to the article talk page and raise them there. A few things, though. First, templates are enclosed in double curly braces, not a single square bracket, {{like this}} (without the "nowiki" tags if you're viewing the page source). Second, we really don't worry about "biblical merit", since the Bible is a mythological and religious work and many parts of it are not verifiably true. It's a reliable reference for what it itself says, but we wouldn't present what it says as necessarily being correct. We also don't do rebuttals, editorial, and argumentation in articles. We stick to what the references have to say. If good and reliable reference sources disagree, we note that disagreement, but don't "take a side" as it were. If an editor disagrees with a reliable reference, well...too bad, really, unless some other relatively equally reliable reference backs them up. But really, the appropriate thing to do, if an edit gets reverted and you think it shouldn't have, is to next use the article talk page to discuss the matter. The reverts of your edit to date are correct, those edits weren't acceptable. Also, we frown on inappropriately marking minor edits. A minor edit would be something like correcting a typo, syntax, etc., without affecting the actual meaning of any article content. Something that changes any actual meaning in an article is not a minor edit and should never be marked as such. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Hoax/vandalism on topics relating to the Medellín Cartel

I came across an article, Anthony Salerno, which included questionable, poorly-written material in the lede. I removed the material and almost went on my way until I noticed more similar material, so I checked the edit history and found that

208.102.136.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

had added all of that material and more. I spent a bit of time going through the diffs (as there were other edits interspersed) but finally removed all of it. At best it was non-encyclopedic and opinion-based, but it also included a number of implausible quotations and so was more of a hoax than typical vandalism.

Checking the IP user's contributions I found that the same user had added the same kind of material at Medellín Cartel, for example:

The DEA also stated that "Pablo Escobar had the power, wealth, reach, influences, and resources of a king. and he was untouchable and invincible for years. At the height of his power, nobody and no Government could stop him, he was too powerful, and too dangerous, Escobar controlled all of Colombia with an iron fist, he had more power than the Colombian Government and the president, he was considered the unofficial dictator of Colombia. Escobar rivaled Adolf Hitler in the power that he had, and Escobar also rivaled Adolf Hitler in the atrocity's that he committed."

Needless to say there were no other mentions of this quote, or any part of it I could find, anywhere on the Internet aside from Wikipedia and its mirrors. In addition to being an entirely implausible quote it sports the IP user's phrasing, capitalization, attribution of quotes to inanimate agencies, and general glamorization of the lifestyle. I reverted what I could in like fashion.

Unfortunately I'm not really familiar with the subject (Columbia, drug cartels, etc.) and so I'm not particularly good at dealing with these sorts of edits. If anyone is interested I strongly recommend checking out the contributions link above, where you will find at least two edits talking about Forbes Magazine's "50 biggest Gangsters in America" (does not exist, as far as I can tell) and people on Forbes' list of The World's Most Powerful People in the 90s (but the lists only go back to 2009, according to the article).

CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

CRGreathouse, I've done what you would have done if you hadn't done your excellent clean ups - I semi protected both articles for a while.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I also noticed that (presumably) the same user is posting from 184.54.25.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Should we send warnings to one or both? - CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

CRGreathouse, They certainly could be the same. I've blocked 08.102.136.116 but 184.54.25.2 doesn't appear to have edited for three weeks. Don't hesitate to use your admin tools if you need to. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I wanted to run this by someone else to make sure I was being reasonable before blocking anyone. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Help with Page Issues and Missing Photo

Resolved

I am working on the page for Author Bob Truluck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). There are multiple issues cited at the top of the page now, and the original photo that was uploaded to go on the page has been deleted. First, I issued a request to find out why the photo was removed, and I have not yet heard anything about it. Below are the issues listed on the page:

-This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. (October 2016) -The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. (October 2016) -This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. (October 2016)

This is my first time creating content on Wikipedia, and after reading multiple "help" articles, I still don't know what I need to do to comply with the errors, or how to get the photo up.

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Pinknolegirl (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The photograph was deleted by Wikimedia Commons after this discussion here. The issue appeared to be one of authorship of the photograph. Keri (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The article is not written in the tone expected of an encyclopedia article. The phrase "Bob Truluck's syntactic prowess is a product of his Southern Gothic upbringing, his brandish rebellion and his burgeoning years in post-war-modernity", for example, might be eye-catching on the dustcover of a novel, but it actually makes no sense. "[A] master-craftsman of sharp-witted prose" is also a subjective opinion. The article requires paring down to facts, with suitable references to support them. Keri (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

It was also a copyright violation, taken from his bios published on Amazon, etc. Keri (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The photo is owned by Bob Truluck, and he has asked me to create this page on his behalf. Also, the bio from Amazon is his direct writing, and it is what he asked me to use. How can I prove those belong to him, and therefore belong on the page?

I do understand the corrections needed to clarify subjective opinions, etc.

Thanks again.

Pinknolegirl (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

If we used Bob's own writing (from Amazon, etc.) then the article would be autobiographical, which is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. See also Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Keri (talk) 22:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Separation of church and state in the United States

Resolved

in the page for "separation of church and state" the discription is incorrect, as it reads now: "The intent of this clause was to limit the power of the Federal Government in regard to religion thus ensuring freedom of religion in the United States of America". in the debates for the first amendment Madison tried to get language that would have "ensured freedom of religion in the united state of america, but that language was rejected, interestingly everyone misunderstands what is written in the debates as it's clear that the line above should read: "The intent of this clause was to limit the power of the Federal Government in regard to [State establishments] of religion thus ensuring freedom of religion in the United States of America [at the State level]. The exchange with the Danbury association reveals that there was no religious liberty in Connecticut as they describe it as "priviledges granted" not unalienable rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonymessinajr (talk • contribs) 04:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

This forum is for advice on how to edit, not to advocate or propose changes for you. The concerns you mention above should be advanced by either editing the article or proposing them on the article talk page, and then following BRD. If you cannot come to consensus after discussion, then consider dispute resolution. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 00:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

IP editor 72.192.72.19

Answered

This editor seems to be under the impression I've made edits to the Larry Bakman page adding or replacing improvement tags, when the only edit I've ever made to that page was to add categories. They have posted to my talk page twice (one has been bot-archived), most recently threatening to report me for abuse and refusing to enter into dialogue, including deleting anything I say on their talk page, when I've done absolutely nothing wrong and have tried to point out their error in the past. What can I do? Katharineamy (talk) 11:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm looking into this now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Katharineamy, I have given a single only-warning to the IP. Let me know directly on my talk page if they harass you again or if they disrupt an article or edit war and I'll block them immediately. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I will do. Katharineamy (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Release dates for CDs or LPs

Answered

Dear Sirs,

This is not a request to edit or change an article but rather to include within the articles the foregoing as it would pertain to release dates.

In researching album titles whether the format is CDs or LPs, I find that only the original release date is given .

However in any other album with the same title but listed as remastered or re-issue is only given the year but the month and date is not given as in the original release date.

When doing research the complete release date should be given to all albums, which I would find very useful in compiling albums in chronological order. My question; is it possible to include the full date on these albums and not just the year in the Wikipedia articles dealing with recording albums.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony W. Belcher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.227.158 (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

There have been differences of opinion, but the general agreement is that we use the original release date as it is normally the most important, and having one date avoids clutter. For a full set of release dates, consider https://allmusic.com or https://discogs.com Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

If you have the exact day / month / year of a certain release date for an album, by all means, include it. Exact information is encouraged in the infobox i.e. here: (released dates) [16] & here: (recording dates): [17]. Obviously, the habit of merely placing the year in parenthesis has become the custom due to the fact that most albums up to a certain point only recorded the year (and perhaps in rare instances: the month) and most editors continue that habit thinking the exact day and month are not important. IMHO: exact information never hurts. Maineartists (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Vietnamese wikipedia photo

Answered

I want to add this photograph to the article (from the Vietnamese wikipedia). https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%E1%BA%ADp_tin:T%E1%BB%95_qu%E1%BB%91c_v%C3%A0_s%E1%BB%91_ph%E1%BA%ADn.jpg Google translate seems to say that it can be used as fair use in the vietnamese wikipedia which is on servers located in the US. As I understand wikipedia's policies, shouldnt it be usable also for the English wikipedia? Can someone clarify? NPalgan2 (talk) 07:26, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

If it is only licensed by the copyright holder for use in Wikipedia, we will not accept it, as that license is too narrow. We only accept licenses which permit re-use (including commercial re-use), alteration and repurposing. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Orange Mike; but I stilldont' understand. The image is in a vietnamese wikipedia article now; either the image is free, so it can be used on all wikipedia projects, or it's non-free content, and according to this page, English and Vietnamese wikipedias have similar EDPs, so shouldn't it be usable? https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-free_content

A third possibility is that the picture shouldn't be in the Vietnamese-language version, either, but nobody has caught it yet. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Misleading information in Johor Bahru page

Resolved

An editor by the name of User:Johorean Guy has posted misinformation in the Johor Bahru page by stating that it is part of the second largest metropolitan area in Malaysia, even though statistics point otherwise. User:Johorean Guy also undid my revisions that reflect the real figures. Assistance in dealing with this misinformed user is appreciated. Semi-auto —Preceding undated comment added 15:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Your current attempt to use Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (I've removed your Third Opinion request; it's not proper to file a request in more than one dispute resolution forum at one time) to resolve this dispute is the right idea, though you may be turned down for lack of substantial talk page discussion about the question. If the other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations made at DISCFAIL. This forum, however, is for advice on how to edit, not for resolving disputes about editing. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Anton's in Austin

Answered

I just looked up Anton's in Austin. It lists that Anton's was opened on sixth street, in Austin. I lived in Austin from 1965-1982 near Guadelupe and 34th street, walking distance to Anton's.

To my recollection, Anton's was on Guadelupe Street, just South of 34th Street. I recall being there one night when Steve Ray Vaughn was playing, I was under-aged, and so was he. The cops showed up and Stevie was shoved out the back door...I went out the front touting my older sister's ID.

I believe after I moved away, Anton's moved to sixth street, however, I don't think the establishment originated on sixth street.

Comments and assistance with this technical detail would be appreciated.2601:8C2:C000:6865:ECFB:B5A5:15E6:75E4 (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@2601:8C2:C000:6865:ECFB:B5A5:15E6:75E4: According to this piece, Antone's opened on Sixth street and relocated to Guadalupe in 1981—probably around the time you're remembering. So, no, it wasn't always on Sixth street, but it was there first. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 17:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Issue with Editor Accusing me of Edit War

Resolved

Hello,

I have been editing the RATT page to include the latest legal battles. Yesterday, the page was reverted back to what it was many months ago, stating that this was the last stable version of the band. I hadn't noticed in the Talk:Ratt section that they had decided to wait to update the page until all legal resolutions were made, but these legal issues have been on going for over a year.

On RATT's talk page, I discussed the changes with Sabbatino, who did the revert, and User:Mlpearc replied asking me "WTF" about the legal information I was referring to. I explained what I was referring to and provided the reference. Sabbatino and I came to a consensus that I could revert the page back and make it so it was similar to Jack Russell's Great White (as their situation is similar). Mlpearc came back and said good luck. I reverted the changes, and was in the process of applying the changes to make the page similar to Jack Russell's Great White, when Mlpearc immediately reverted my changes back and then sent me two messages accusing me of an edit war, when he saw that Sabbatino and I came to a consensus. Now I'm afraid to do the reversion because I don't want to be kicked off of Wikipedia, but what he did was completely unprofessional. A consensus had been made, and yet he took away (once again) all of my changes and then accused me of being in an edit war.

Please advise me on what I can do to fix this situation.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dijares (talk • contribs) 17:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dijares: This issue looks like it might be better resolved on the dispute resolution noticeboard. However, it seems to me that Mlpearc isn't being very understanding or communicative. The revert seems unnecessary, and I wouldn't say that the dispute amounts to an edit war. Mlpearc referred to your edits as good faith in his revert, after all. If you two could discuss your rationale in clear terms without being dismissive, accusatory, or argumentative, that might clear things up on all sides. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 22:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, @Rasimmons:. I tried just now to discuss it with him on my talk page, and he replied, "I have no wish to discuss this issue". Unfortunately I think you're correct in stating this might have to be resolved using the dispute resolution noticeboard. I had hoped not to do this, but unfortunately this person is being very misunderstanding. Thank you for your assistance. User talk:dijares 22:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Wrong information about Baba Ramdev page

Resolved

On ur wikipedia page of Baba Ramdev u have given some wrong information earlier as Baba Ramdev has died due to cardiac arrest when he was laughing. However u have already deleted that . But u still have to make some changes like was into is , bcos he is alive and many more. Hopefully u would edit that page. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.50.50 (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit and anyone includes you. If you feel changes need to be made and you can cite your material to a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia feel free to make the changes yourself or use the talk page of the article to ask for someone to make the changes. This noticeboard is for requesting help and advice on how to edit, not for asking for changes to be made on your behalf. However, I would note that the information you mention, which was probably vandalism, has already been changed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

NOTHERE editor

Resolved

What's the appropriate approach and / or protocol for dealing with an editor who seems pretty clearly NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia? Ninety percent of this user's 300+ edits are to his own user page or subpages, and the few substantive edits he's made have been reverted. He's also made user pages for nonexistent users, under variants of his own name (now speedy deleted). It seems like a straight-up block would be in order, but the level of actual disruption from this editor is pretty low. Are there templates I can place, or a page where I can raise this that's something short of ANI, which I like to avoid when possible? I'm happy to follow through on this but just haven't been able to figure out the right path. Thanks for any thoughts. JohnInDC (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Went to ANI, he was indeffed, this can be marked as "resolved". JohnInDC (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Biased article

Resolved

Hello, I need some help with the article Institute of the Incarnate Word, a controvertial religious order (Roman Catholic). The article is extremely biased and written from own sources only, hiding important publicly-known information about the founder who was sentenced and destituted in 2010 and thrown out of the Institute by Vatican officials, with a lifetime contact ban with his members, and who was stripped from his priestly duties and is imprisoned by Church Authorities since 2013 (canonical reclusion) because of psycological abuse and mistreat of IVE members and seminarians. There is also missing any information about the new government instituted by force by the Vatican in 2015 and 2016 to replace the old one which was strongly linked with the founder and attempted to evade the measures in force.

There is a very powerful, experienced user of English WP who tries to prevent me from averting these deficits (bias and missing informations) using merely formalistic arguments (he sais there need to be inline sources if one wants to put a simple warning template to tell the readers that the article is wrong) and tries to induce me into an edit war in order to block me. For this discussion see my talk page.

I am not at all interested in such kind of disputes, the only thing I want to do is to put a warning sign that informs the reader that the article is biased and hides important information. All the reliable sources are available and publicly known at least since a year. The powerful user who "protects" the article from changes is able to understand all these sources (like myself, he speaks Spanish and Italian), but has not done anything by now to update it.

Because of my poor English I am not able to contribute very much to the article itself, the only thing I want to do is to put one or two warning templates to make the falsehood visible to readers until someone else corrects or rewrites the article. Also, I am not familiar enough with editing rules in English Wikipedia to discuss these things with such a powerful and experienced user. I suppose he could be be linked with IVE circles (he cites them several times on his talk page) and use his powers in WP to "protect" this article and prevent updating it.

What can I do?
I feel intimidated by this powerful man and not free to make my contribution without fear.
Is there any measure on English WP where you can let decide that a specific user is not allowed anymore to work on specific articles?

Of course, in principle there is no problem to give inline quotes of the sources when putting the warning templates, all the reliable sources are quoted in the German Wikipedia article and on the talk page of this article. But I feel too alone there and fear that the powerful user will use his powers to make me disappear. So I would appreciate the help of other users more experienced than me in the English Wikipedia. The aim is of course to make Wikipedia better (in this case by correcting obviously wrong and misleading information). Thank you! --Jordi (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Jordi. These are content issues, even bordering on slow edit warring. I don't think it's appropriate to refer to Elizium23 in the terms you use. If you cannot resolve your differences through user and article talk pages, then you should consider making recourse to WP:3O or WP:Dispute resolution, but your claim must be well founded and discuss the content and not the users. Your English appears to be perfectly adequate to explain the situation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thank you Kudpung for your impression! If there was something inappropriate about my fears related to Elizium23 I apologize. After all, you can see what people a doing. I think we resolved the problem, since he allowed the warning bark to stay. After all, you are right that it has to do with content, but at this moment I did not know where else I could get some public attendance and at the same time keep the problem from escalating into a real conflict, which is not in my interest. Surely, next time under similar circumstances 3O will be a better choice. Thank you for your advice.--Jordi (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism of Cardio-thoracic ratio

Resolved

Can a rollbacker help revert this article to [[18]], as it was obviously vandalised to become incomprehensible. Thanks! CherylHew ✽ ✉ 19:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Done here by JohnInDC. — TransporterMan (TALK) 00:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, yes, thanks; forgot to report back! JohnInDC (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! CherylHew ✽ ✉ 11:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism of South Wales Metro

Hello, I'm back with another request for a rollbacker to revert the article to [[19]] as it was blanked and replaced with highly questionable content. Thank you! CherylHew ✽ ✉ 12:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I've restored the article using the steps described at Help:Reverting#Manual reverting. This doesn't need the "rollbacker" user permission. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I did not know about manual reverting before this, will bookmark it. CherylHew ✽ ✉ 13:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Paul Horn death place

In Paul Horn death place in box and article disagree — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC01:4110:64B8:B365:8A9A:6604 (talk) 05:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting us. I've removed the wrong place of death. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Biography Question

From Template:Biography:

Subject's popular name (birthdate – death) can be a lead-in to the subject's real, formal, or extended name. Describe the subject's nationality and profession(s) in which the subject is most notable. Provide a description of the subject's major contributions in the immediately relevant field(s) of notable expertise.

I've been having an issue with another user on the page for film director Denis Villeneuve. Rather than the standard intro of "is a Canadian film director and writer.", this user insists on "is a French Canadian film director and writer from the province of Quebec." It is my contention that the added information is not only superfluous (in the case of his province of residence) but also inaccurate (French-Canadian is not a nationality). The entry style does not conform to other biographies, Canadian or not. I've posted on the relevant talk page, but gotten no response and the user again reverted my edit.

Not sure if anyone here is familiar with Canadian internal politics, but it seems to me that this user has an axe to grind - I've noticed that their contributions are almost exclusively changing the nationality of people to French-Canadian.

Any suggestions or input? Thanks. JimboM32 (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@JimboM32: RE Denis Villeneuve :Please see the top of this page: 'Discussions related to content disputes might better be addressed at the WP:DRN dispute resolution noticeboard. However, you should first attempt to resolve this with the other edior(s) on the article talk page, or if there is no response there, on the other editor's talk page - which you have made no attempt to do. Above all, avoid getting drawn into an eventual edit war. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try the user's talk page, thanks Kudpung. And yes, I noticed the dispute resolution link, but as an inexperienced editor I thought it best to first get some feedback from more experienced users. And not just regarding how best to proceed, but also whether my interpretation of the biography template is correct. Assuming I am correct, there is then the issue of the editing history of the user in question, and all the pages they have changed. Most of said changes have occurred in the past few months and are of a similar nature to the Denis Villeneuve entry. As a very infrequent editor, I'm not terribly familiar with policy, but wouldn't this fall under WP:SPA and advocacy? JimboM32 (talk) 07:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

changing the format of the article

'paudhur' isn't looking good in viewing so,plz help me,  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kakapoudel7 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Flower of Gloster

An editor tweaked a couple of syntax things on the article I created - which I appreciate - but also added a couple of rubbish references. Not only were they in the wrong section - it's an article about a book, with reference to a later TV series. His references are to the TV series but have been plonked right down in the introductory section about the book, refs 1 and 2. Not only is that an illogical location, but they merely link to The Times website which one can only access by taking out a subscription. This seems entirely out of keeping with the free ethos of Wikipedia. Who's going to take out a subscription just to look up a reference!! I placed a message on the editor's talk page which explained these same arguments, but have not yet had the courtesy of a reply. I don't want to get involved in an edit war, but I labored a lot on this article and it seems a bit spoiled now by this needless edit. I would appreciate your advice. Picknick99 (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Picknick99 Having reviewed the edit history, it seems that you are indeed "heavily invested" in this article; and perhaps a bit too close now to its creation. The edit in question that you refer was just included a few hours ago; and the editor did reply to your request on his talk page 6 minutes after your posting. I would kindly suggest your taking issues to the article's talk page before seeking assistance at help desks; and certainly give proper time before for editors to respond. Last, please understand: creating an article that you have "labored a lot on" does not give you license to claim that article. Any editor can make changes to the content and its appearance. Relax. We're all in this together. A word of advice, if you are going to call-out another editor as being "discourteous", it is in good faith to include them and their username within the post for assistance so that they can respond in kind. Best. Maineartists (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

[[:GreerHoneywill]] ([[Special:EditPage/GreerHoneywill|edit]] | [[Talk:GreerHoneywill|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/GreerHoneywill|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/GreerHoneywill|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/GreerHoneywill|delete]] | [{{fullurl:Special:Whatlinkshere/GreerHoneywill|limit=999}} links] | [{{fullurl:GreerHoneywill|action=watch}} watch] | logs | views)

There have been continuous claims made about the impartiality of this article, some verging on bullying. In the name of full disclosure, I DO know the subject, but am not the primary creator of the article. This page on Greer Honeywill has been improved significantly and now represents a dispassionate and accurate account of an important person. This is in line with Wikipedia guidelines. As one of the editors said, surely the purpose of Wikipedia is to be truthful and accurate. There is nothing promotional or self-referential about the article. And yet one or two editors continue to disallow the undoing of template headings. Despite other positive editors appealing to the gatekeeper editors, this appears to be going nowhere. Before requesting arbitration, I would prefer to resolve this with common sense. 121.214.49.175 (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Please update the vaccine table information on both articles

On the wikipedia page Herpes simplex virus and also on the page Herpes simplex research there is a table listing all of the vaccines. Can someone merge the best information from both tables ? (keep the column "Company & Lead Researcher" and keep things simple altogether)

..and put in in a centralised place, so information updated is seen on both wikipedia pages using just one table. This will keep things in order and centralised in one place and no information will be redundant or differ much.

Would do it myself, but don't know how to centralise a section like this.

--Devilhope (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Seth Moulton's education

I am reading on Wikipedia that he holds degrees from Harvard Business School and Kennedy School of Govt; however, it has not one reference. There is no link to find out the validity of this claim. Furthermore, on Seth Moulton's own website, he does not say he graduated from Harvard Business School or Kennedy School of Govt. He does not even mention attending these schools. His website only says that he has a degree in physics from Harvard.

Please see the instructions at the top of this page. Please post your concerns on the article's talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

vandalism to article "Lavrentiy Beria" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavrentiy_Beria)

I just noticed several spurious phrases embedded in this article, all containing the word "piggy". Also, I cannot find the article's "Talk" page.

I myself do not have the expertise to resolve this. In fact, I cannot even figure out how to access any individual article's "Talk" page. So, I am requesting of the Wikipedia community that:

- someone more expert than I "purge" the vandalism (but not the "vandal", at least not in the "Berian" sense!);
- someone direct me to instructions on how to access the "Talk" page of an individual article, and perhaps also make that generally more obvious for other novices.

Thanks, ACWilson9 Acwilson9 (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Acwilson9. Thanks for posting, JarrahTree and ClueBot NG have already reverted the edits made by Loudpiggy to Lavrentiy Beria. I have reported them as a WP:VOA to WP:AIV. — Sam Sailor 18:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

They missed some by an IP editor using a fake edit summary. I've reverted the article to the last fully clean version. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for digging that one step deeper, TransporterMan, and reverting what I ought to have noticed. — Sam Sailor 23:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Protected Page Issue

I would like to edit an image used on the Wikipedia page for the US president George Washington. On the page a flag is shown for the continental Army, but the flag shown is of "Don't tread on me" which is an anachronism and a politically charged one. I would guidance on how to edit this protect page. If someone else could perform that edit, I'd be just as happy. I suggest replacing the "Don't tread on me" flag with the Ross flag or similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CapuanoMS (talk • contribs) 23:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

CapuanoMS the way to start is by discussing on the article talk page, Talk:George Washington. Explain the change you would like to make and why you want to make it. It is a fairly active talk page with over 2,300 editors watching it so you should get a response. - GB fan 23:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

WHY ARE SOME WORDS UNDERLINED?

WHY ARE SOME WORDS UNDERLINED? JENA HUDSON — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.26.126 (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

You will need to be more specific. What words are you talking about, on what pages? Without this information the best we can do is say, editors have decided to underline certain words. - GB fan 23:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Plot theories for games

Would a plot theory for the story or lore in a video game be considered suitable encyclopedic content? I would think such content belongs on a fan wiki. Seb0910 (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

You mean things that are suggested but not actually shown? If that's like how movie audiences are supposed to draw their own conclusions in cases where things aren't specifically shown, I'd consider it interpretation, or original research. DonIago (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Further discussion at Talk:Inside (video game) ‎. DonIago (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Odd Squad

Resolved

Odd Squad (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) In the Odd Squad article, I've noticed that it uses EXTREME unprofessionalism. And I'm talking, not just a little bit here and there, but a COMPLETELY sland word filled article that doesn't follow the traditional Wikipedia business style. I was wondering if someone could protect the page until we get a proper editor to tidy up the page. Thanks! 2601:143:C700:4880:29AB:4E36:F7FF:ECC0 (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Make an application at RPP, but it's highly unlikely that you will be successful. Page protection is for preventing damage to an article through vandalism or edit warring, not preserving it for a "proper editor". Indeed, since PP would limit editing of the page it would be counterproductive to its improvement: this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, not just "proper editors." Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Adding brief description about deceased persons in the heading.

I'm having some issues, I do not believe I am in the wrong here, however if they are self inflicted then I'd like to know what I should to correctly set up the pages I've been working on.

On every wikipedia page about a deceased person I have ever seen, there is a short section in the heading of the page to provide information about the death, often times not cited, as a longer portion about the death of the person is found later in the article. As such I "fixed" several pages I found missing that information in the heading.

After doing so, I've had a user outright delete the information and say that it should not be in the heading (I believe this user is 100% mistaken), and had another user accuse me of "vandalism" (again, what???) for adding that information "without citation".

Question is two fold: 1) Is it incorrect to provide the death information in the heading, despite it being on every other deceased person's page that I've found, and 2) Should that information be cited within the heading despite being cited later in the article?

I'm trying to avoid edit wars, and also bringing light to this situation to avoid having one particularly over-zealous user "banning" me over this.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.138.185 (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

You write: "On every wikipedia page about a deceased person I have ever seen, there is a short section in the heading of the page to provide information about the death". In regards to "heading", do you mean "lede"? If so: this is simply not true. The only reason a death is included in the lede section would be if the death itself is notable enough to be mentioned: i.e. Robin Williams "suicide", Carrie Fisher "unexpected death of a celebrity", Lee Harvey Oswald "fatally shot", etc and then covered more in-depth within the article itself. To include a simple statement of death in a lede that already has stated it within the article -- or in the infobox -- is undue weight. However, without the links to the articles you question, it's difficult to assess. Maineartists (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

User IP 68.13.138.185 is referencing (at least) this edit on the John Saunders article. According to MOS:BLPLEAD, information about a person's death isn't typically discussed in the intro paragraph. The information about his death is included in the body and does not need to be listed in the intro since it isn't relevant to why the subject is notable. — X96lee15 (talk) 13:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

A list of famous people who used to be teachers

I couldn't work out how to request that this article be created. I mean real teachers, not unqualified people who did some nursery,(Princess Di)gym,(Stalone) or language(JK Rowling) 'teaching' but people who gained a proper teaching qualification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.202.73 (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

EMIGMA

I have a conflict of interest with the topic of the article I wrote. Could someone review the draft on my personal workspace please? CagedEye (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow, could the bias on Pizzagate be any more blatant?

Resolved

Looks like some aren't even trying to hide it. The article is intentionally named Pizzagate conspiracy theory instead of the shorter title Pizzagate; the article and the talk page are coincidentally both locked, and someone even made a note of claiming the theory is "debunked" in the opening paragraph using only a piss poor reference like Snopes.com as a source, and a NYT editorial.

Just for comparison, even an article which references conspiracies about the Illuminati blowing up the twin towers, or one about Nazi UFOs doesn't intentionally go so well out of the way to mark it as a "debunked conspiracy theory", in comparsion to one which is simply about a child sex trafficking ring, something which Jeffrey Epstein has been accused of in recent years, not even mentioning Bill Cosby's alleged scandal or the one involving Corey Haim. Seems apparent there's some intentional bias and NPOV violations going on here.--206.255.40.218 (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no equal time for Flat Earthers on Wikipedia. The "theory" has been thoroughly debunked. And, unlike Nazi UFO claims, there is significant confusion about "Pizzagate" in the US population (see yourself) and it directly affects real living people. Thus it is important to make its status clear. It would only be a NPOV violation if there were a significant reliable source that disagrees with the debunking - if you have one, feel free to list it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

206.255.40.218, we do not permit Wikipedia to be used for the promotion of fringe theories and beliefs. Please see WP:FRINGE and in particular WP:PROFRINGE. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Page does not meet the requirements of notability

Resolved

There's a biographical page of an individual who does not meet the requirements to have an independent page. As a donor I consider this a waste of resources.

See the page in question: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliad_Cohen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.172.110 (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

If you feel that way, then nominate it for deletion, see AFD. This page is for help on how to edit, and that's how to do so in that case. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Page on 'Suvayan Sengupta'

Resolved

Hi!

I have created A page on Mr. Suvayan Sengupta. He is a reputed Software Engineer, A social activist and a motivational speaker. I have all relevant proofs and photographs along with me. Still the page got unnecessarily deleted. Please assist to get the page restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SushmitaGhosh (talk • contribs) 07:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

To appeal a deletion see deletion review and follow the instructions there. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Chess diagram correction rejected as Vandalism

Hello, fellow editors.

On this page: Luis Argentino Palau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which corresponds to url: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Argentino_Palau I noticed a mistake on the chess diagram shown -- one piece missing. I'm sure about it as I cross-checked the position against the leading resource: chessgames.com. So I entered Edit mode and clicked the board image. It opened up for edit, I entered the missing piece using the predefined convention code, and hit Save. Panel popped up where I'd enter a brief of the change made, and hit Save again. Then a new panel popped up with the following text, which I translate from Spanish:

=====

This action has been automatically identified as wrong or harmful, and has therefore been disabled. If you think your edition is legit, please, get in contact with a librarian, and inform them what you were trying to do. A brief explanation about why the action was disabled is: VANDALISM/TESTS repetition of words.

=====

Here's my guess: The validity checker interprets the particular chess convention code used to fill in squares, as a string of repeating syllables, and rejects it as garbage input.

Can you please tell me a workaround to this?

Thanks in advance for your kind assistance,

--PapoCharlie (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Registration Plate AI

You have published the owner of the UK automobile registartion plate to George Perry, his name was George Pettit, he was my Godfather and was driven in his Jaguar XK 120 in 1949 when I was 10 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.64.22 (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I've added a reference to A1 registration plate. Several sources, including Maudes Trophy which is presumably related, spell it as Pettyt, so I've gone with that spelling. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Just to note if he is the George Victor Pettyt born 5 May 1889 and who died in 1950 and described in 1939 as Motor Engineer living in Exmouth then all the primary sources spell it "Pettyt". MilborneOne (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Article : John Boston

Resolved

Link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boston

I am contacting you because of this article. I am unsure how to state my concerns, please bear with me and I will try to be as suscinct as possible.

This article seems to be marketing material for a brand of beer brewed under licence for Woolworths limited. The references are either dead links or empty text files that contain basic html. Also concerning are the references within the single working reference, made by a single author, with little other work besides a handful of biographies that also contain dead references.

I'm sure this article likely started as documentation of an early Australian settler, I have concerns that this person may have been picked by Woolworths marketing department and details added to help sell their knock off beer. All well and good on their product, not on Wikipedia. Some of the article is taken word for word from the label of their product.

I have no proof if this form of guerilla marketing exists, or where to look research it.

I also do not know where to raise the attention if it is the case.

Wikipedia is invaluable and it would be a shame if large companies could insert or manipulate historic characters to sell their products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.182.226 (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I took a look at the article and it seems to be entirely about the settler; I checked the article history as well, at least bits of it - and didn't find any point in time at which the article was about a brand of beer. All seems well on English Wikipedia! JohnInDC (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Endorsements

Is adding a list of endorsements on a celebrity's page (with citations) considered as WP:Promo? Like the one added on Han Hyo-joo's page under the category "Endorsement". Need advice on this. Xdeluna (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

No. WP:PROMO is the use of Wikipedia to promote the subject of the article and a list of products, companies, or services she's endorsed is only a promotion of her by implication at best (i.e. the number of them suggesting how popular she is). However, unless she's made media commercials or ads for all those listed there (whether print, TV, radio, billboards, whatever) I have some doubt as to whether or not their inclusion gives undue weight to them. On the other hand, if she has made commercials or ads for them in which her image or voice appears, they are appearances by her and, though they might still be UNDUE in a shorter article, in an article of this length they're probably okay. That ambiguity needs, however, to be cleared up and the best way to do that is by adding citations. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi TransporterMan and Xdeluna, just want to drop a comment: whether "Endorsements" section falls under WP:Promo or not, I doubt its encyclopedic values for Wikipedia. GermanJoe made this discussion not long ago and I wholeheartedly agree with them. Thanks!--TerryAlex (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Move Draft

Resolved

Please there's a Draft for famous reality star Nikki Mudarris https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nikki_Mudarris Can an editor move it to be a official page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.133.26.210 (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Nominate it for review at Articles for Creation by putting {{subst:submit}} exactly like that, including the curly brackets, on a line by itself at the very top of the page. An experienced user will review your draft and, if needed, make suggestions for its improvement. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Can school students contribute to Wiki?

Resolved

Hi,

We are looking into a school project and wondered if its possible that school students could create wiki pages?

Thanks Manju — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.242.170 (talk) 08:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello. School students can contribute to the encyclopedia as long as they are contributing information on topics that meet our notability guidelines. -- Dane ^talk 08:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

You also have to have an account in order to create articles. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Categorisation of animals by location, particularly birds

Looking for advice on how to handle a situation. I have come into a disagreement with an editor about categorisation of birds by location. The issue came to my notice when he changed the categories on bird article page I was watching. The changes didn't appear to be helpful, and I asked for a rationale of why they were done that way. After a considerable discussion I am still none-the-wiser. What has brought it to a particular head is that he is putting children categories (and possibly article pages) into multiple ancestor categories at the same time, and there is even at least one case of a category category being a grandparent of itself. This is against guidelines (see Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing_pages). His responses have been like this one "Until now, current guidelines on categorization simply applied to all or the vast majority of projects, but not to this one, which simply requires an extra level of suppleness." He has resisted all suggestions to seek consensus or change of guidelines on the issue. I had started changing some of the categories myself but have stopped because I think it'll end up a bigger mess (I don't know the extent of changes that he has done).

We have had a long ranging, and unfruitful discussion about what he is trying to achieve and how what he is doing is moving towards that. He defends what he does with vigour, though without clarity, gives examples of his work and states it as obviously better, or simply sells it as such. He seems resistant to any suggestions of change. He justifies his belief in that he is improving wikipedia with statements like "if other users were truly opposed to my method, why would they have let me continue making hundreds of *useful* edits?". He may well have a better system of categorisation, but he is either unable or unwilling to adequately explain it, and is seemingly unwilling to listen to criticism or accept compromise. He is strongly antagonistic to the idea of setting up guidelines by which other editors can comment. And I am not convinced that the changes that he has made, and is still making, are for the better.

I have attempted a RFC, which met with distinct disinterest Category talk:Birds by location

I am not the only editor who has found a problem User talk:Jimfbleak

The laborious conversation is here User_talk:Couiros22#Common_hill_myna_categories. A cursory glance of the conversation will give the false impression that Couiros22 is conversing normally and reasonably, but I assure you that from my perspective he feels distinctly unresponsive and unhelpful, merely writing in a manner that gives the impression that he is helping. I really have know idea what I should do next. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Editing page for Lumateperone: Bias

Resolved

I have never edited any article and was intimidated by the "coding", so I thought I'd request an edit. The following paragraph appears on the page for Lumateperone under the "Clinical Trials" section and seemed problematic to me:

"Lumateperone is a drug that the schizophrenic community needs and wants to have. Risperdal works "superior" in Clinical Trials because it gives the clinicians/interviewers the idea that the patient is more calm and at peace due to the extreme sedation in which patients reports but almost always becomes an issue that is reported to doctors. Since there is no blood test for any psychiatric illnesses the idea of whether or not a drug works rests entirely on subjective tests given by a clinician or Doctor. Zyprexa and other Anti-Psychotics have such horrendous side-effects that a large portion of the Schizophrenic population would rather forgo treatment all together then to feel like a zombie and be told to cause as little disturbance as possible. Quality of life on drugs that heavily sedate you is null and something that needs to be talked about. The schizophrenic community and population doesn't need or want a drug which turns them into self described zombies nor needs a drug that HAS to better then a drug nobody wants to be on and doctors hate as well as try to avoid prescribing which comes with the side effect of almost guaranteed Diabetes and eventual heart disease. The schizophrenic community deserves another treatment option with no weight gain and no movement disorders."

173.187.54.15 (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

(Hope I did this right, it took me 30 minutes to figure out how to report this. )

An editor has already taken care of it; thank you for bringing it to our attention. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Welcome non-latin

Hi all!

Coming here because I'm having an issue with duplicate signatures on Template:Welcome non-latin, which I'm sure all of you have seen at one point or another. After some tweaks to the template, I'm now getting duplicate signatures, partially because I put the code for the signature next to the lead-out, but also because Twinkle is putting a signature in a grey box below the template. See File:Issue with Non-Latin Welcome Template.png to see what I'm talking about.

Any and all help would be appreciated!

Thanks! TJH2018 talk 18:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Peanut Allergy Prevention

While reading about "Peanut allergy", there is a section labeled "Prevention" where it states the following:

"Peanut allergy may be preventable by feeding babies who are at high risk foods that contain peanuts when they are as young as four to six months of age."

I feel there should be more important information along with that, if that is to stay in there. Someone who has a high risk of being allergic to something, shouldn't just simply be given what they're very possibly allergic to, without safety precautions. Such as being in a controlled setting, and/or with substances to reduce any adverse reactions in case someone were to have a severe allergic reaction, especially if it's a baby that is being tested for allergies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.228.84.101 (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Replying to an editor who is going to delete a page

How do I write a reply to an editor who has sent me a message, please?

From Pacdoc I wish to reply to Robert McLenon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacdoc (talk • contribs) 23:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Pacdoc. The page you created was inappropriate as an article for many many reasons. I would highly recommend you follow the tutorial at Wikipedia:Articles for creation before you try again, and select the option to create a draft article. This will allow you to work on the page and get feedback from experienced editors. Simply putting something right into mainspace as you did is a recipe for deletion, when you have so little experience with Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

How many days should we wait for before removing uncited contents?

Resolved

After adding {{Citation needed}} after uncited contents, how many days should we wait for before removing those contents if no one adds reliable sources? --Matt Smith (talk) 12:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

This is in reference to Talk:Republic_of_Formosa#Population_in_infobox. My own interpretation is that for any long time stable information (as long as it is not a BLP), we add cn tags and let it stay for a month or so. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

See Template:Citation needed#How to respond to this tag which says just that, and then remove only if you think it is not correct. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. --Matt Smith (talk) 07:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Tag on page pending review

Chi Sigma Xi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The article for Chi Sigma Xi has had a tag saying "This article, Chi Sigma Xi, has recently been created via the Articles for creation process. The reviewer is in the process of closing the request, and this tag should be removed soon." for a while. What exactly is it waiting on and roughly how long is "soon"? Does this mean someone is currently working on it?

Erin Pantone (talk) 06:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, you're the one who put the tag there, whether you intended to or not, so you can remove it if you'd like. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Disagreement

Resolved

Hi, can somebody please come check out the Broadcast/Reception page of BBc Sherlock's The Final Problem? somebody deleted the section I wrote about accusations of misogyny and homophobia and we can't seem to reach an agreement. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.20.37.113 (talk) 11:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

This page is not for seeking dispute resolution; see here for available dispute resolution procedures. Whichever you choose, be sure to thoroughly read and follow its instructions before making a request. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

James Harden Article: Position is listed as shooting guard, should be listed as point guard

Resolved

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Harden

He played shooting guard most of his career, but he plays the point guard now. He should either be listed as Shooting Guard/Point Guard, or Point Guard. Point Guard is probably more appropriate and it should be cited that he played shooting guard from 2009 to 2016, at which point he transitioned into the Point Guard position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adman1999 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and anyone includes you. If you believe a change is needed, and you can include a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia then make the change yourself. If you do not care to do so, then request the change on the article talk page. If you cannot make the edit yourself (because the page is locked) or should not make the edit yourself (because you have a conflict of interest), use the procedure here, but that process should not be used except in those two cases. Realize that, however made, edit requests may draw no response for days to weeks or, in some cases, ever, especially if no one else thinks the edit should be made. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Recalling of written pages

Resolved

Hi i was pondering how do I recall pages that I have already created the following content so that I could be able to get to continue to add content and have well referenced pages with reliable information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Applieqwerty (talk • contribs) 20:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

At the end of your signature, just above, click "contribs" and you'll get a list of all the edits that you've made. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Addition to Category:Spanish LGBT-related films - Wikipedia

Resolved

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Spanish_LGBT-related_films

A film that is missing from the list is the magnificent Las Cosas del Querer:

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_cosas_del_querer

Thank you

00:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Eleutherius1 (talk)

For a film to appear in that list, it must have an article written about it in the English Wikipedia because that's not a list of films but a list of articles about films. The Spanish Wikipedia article cannot be merely translated and copied over because it has no reliable sources as defined by English Wikipedia cited, though it could be used as a base if such sources were added. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Removed Link

I don't know if this is the correct place to ask, if not please email me and let me know where/who I need to go to. Anyway, at the risk of being in the wrong place, here goes. I write about Texas History and Wikipedia has used some of my published work in some pages. One I know of is titled "Runaway Scrape". I went there recently and saw that the link to my work has been removed. I'd like to ask why this was removed and by whom? What was the motivation? I truly don't see any information that was added by replacing my work. I was not the one who initiated the usage of my work but I was gratified by the inclusion of my input into the subject matter. This subject means a lot to me personally and it kind of perturbs me that my efforts have been systematically removed, this being the most recent. I'd like to express my thanks to anyone that can offer any information about this. Cicuye (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

If you go here you can see every edit ever made to Runaway Scrape. It may be tedious, but you can go back to a version where your work is cited and then work forward until you find the edit that removed it. The editor who did it will be identified and, maybe, a reason for doing so (unfortunately some reasons may be obvious to experienced editors which may not be obvious to you). Whatever the reason, you should never replace (or place) any references to your own work because you have a clear conflict of interest under Wikipedia's policies. If you believe that the edit was improper, you may request a replacement on the article talk page following the procedure set out at WP:ER. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Resolved

Being new to Wikipedia and physically disabled, I found your entry on Ed Roberts to be most informative and helpful. Just felt the need to let someone know this. Thanks.

07:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)2602:306:3077:4FF0:6920:9672:AB42:3B04 (talk)

You're very welcome. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Help

Resolved

Hi. I'm seeking a review of this page but have not managed this yet. Can someone help? Thanks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Euroclearable_(finance)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegengenie (talk • contribs) 14:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Make this request at WP:AFCHD. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

[claverton-energy.com-1] Andrews, Dave (2011-05-18). "SUSTAINABLE LIGHT RAIL | Claverton Group". Claverton-energy.com. Retrieved 2015-03-08.

[2] Bush, Johnny; Rick Mitchell (2007). Whiskey River (Take My Mind): The True Story of Texas Honky-Tonk. Austin: University of Texas Press. ISBN 0-292-79531-9.

[3] Wired magazine [1])

[4] "Wikipedia-restricted_sasha-abendstern".

[1]

[1]

[1]

[1]