Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 77

Threat to be reported as a troll in dispute

Resolved

 – --Diannaa ^TALK 00:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I hope this is the right place to put my question. I have been involved in a conflict regarding this article: Talk:Countess Palatine Eleonora Catherine of Zweibrucken. I have deleted information added because it was un-referenced. Antoher user, User:SergeWoodzing, then reverted the deletion, insisting I reference my deletion. I did not delete the un-referenced material again, as he insisted it remain, but added a sentence based on the referenced material on a corresponding article, in an attempt to at least make the un-referenced material a little more truthfull. I would not have added this sentence if he had not insisted that the un-sourced material remain. User:SergeWoodzing now threatens me with an investigation of my IP and reporting me as a troll and a disruptive editor. Have I done anything to varrant this? User:SergeWoodzing points out that my IP changes, but I can't help that my computor works this way. I hope some one can help in this dispute. Is it legal for him to trace my IP because we disagree in this issue? Please look at the discussion and the edit history of the article to see if I have done anything to varrant such accusations. I would be very gratefull for your help an assistance. --85.226.47.210 (talk) 10:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

anyone can track IPs. As for the edits, the whole thing doesn't have any inline citations-- maybe that should be fixed first... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should create an account. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Jezhotwells is right. If you wish more privacy, it is best to start an account. It is easy to do, and has advantages.

Mr Woodzing has now added a source, and has removed the claim that only Maria was awarded the title of princess. Unfortunately the book cited is in Swedish so I am unable to tell you what it says. He has also added more unpleasant remarks to the article talk page which I have responded to on your behalf (I hope you don't mind). --Diannaa ^TALK 15:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, you are not a troll. --Diannaa ^TALK 15:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I can see no evidence of trolling. There is nothing wrong at all with editing from an internet connection with dynamic IP, so that your IP address keeps changing, and if anyone objects to that then they are wrong. However, it is sometimes helpful to be able to see which edits come from which editor, which can be done if editing is done from a registered account. Since registering is free, why not? JamesBWatson (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Not trolling. However, most vandalism and a lot of poor posts come from editors posting from IP addresses rather than registered users. Of course, almost all of us did our first work here that way too. Some expereinced editors are suspicous when large amounts of editing are done by IP editors, and do work through it more fussily than they might with registered users' edits. So I suggest you register. It's also much easier to have a sensible discussion on a Talk page like this when you have a Wikipedia name. HiLo48 (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much to all of you for your help! I am glad that I asked for assistance. It appears that the matter will now be solwed, and I am sure that the user will make no more threats. Thank you also to Diannaa; of course I do not mind being defended! Perhaps you are right that it would be better to edit from an account rather than from an IP, especially since mine changes all the time. I must confess, that one reason is perhaps the fact that it is correct that Mr Woodzing and I have disagreed on other articles in both this and Swedish wikipedia (we seem to both be interested in Swedish history), and the discussions have almost every time been identical to this one. It can be a little intimidating, so somehow one feel more exposed to this with an account. But perhaps it is wrong to think so. If these threats are really so un-varranted as you say, then perhaps I should not hesitate to edit from an account. I was a little intimidated from wikipedia by this user, but you have made me think otherwise. Perhaps I will stop being afraid for this user and log in. Again : thank you for your help! --85.226.43.194 (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Help with good-faith editor repeatedly re-adding unsupported fluff/trivialities

Resolved

 – Edits seem to have stopped. --Diannaa ^TALK 00:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I am a little bit uncertain about how to go about this, hopefully you can offer some advise.

I have been going back and forth on The Get Along Gang with another user, who keeps adding in trivialities and unsupported statements (some rather bizarre), restoring them within days of my removing them, and doesn't seem willing to discuss their edits. I'm sure they're editing in good faith, but their quiet persistence is getting a little wearying and they haven't responded to a nice Talk Page welcome or anything, or a direct request to discuss their edits. I don't want to get tougher with the user, as they haven't exactly done anything to warrant it - but I would appreciate some advice/input, even if it is just to back off and leave them to it. As it is, the edit page for The Get Along Gang looks like I have ended up in a rather slow edit war, which I'm sure isn't good. Any and all advice appreciated, with many thanks Mabalu (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I reverted their most recent edit and left a note on their talk page. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much, really appreciate it. Mabalu (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

David Irving

Answered

 – --Diannaa ^TALK 00:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I posted a very short edit to the david irving page under the heading racism and anti-semitism, which to me seemed to balance out in fairnes the conclusions of that section which were all negative. So I placed a positive quote, tried to source it, gave the title of the speech it was from, the year it took place and the location. It was removed in about five minutes. I tried to give the url adress for the youtube video where my source could be verified, but there was a technical problem with the way I did it, i mentioned this on the talk page and asked for advice, if someone had the time to delete my edit, I though maybe they might reply, that was not the case. The talk page is already peppered with contentious dialogue, and I fear that I might be unduly attacked, I just wanted to contribute to this site and to some atricles I feel are heavily biased from any objective and neutral standpoint. Help would be so much appreciated.---- lacanorgan

Hi. I had a look at the edits in question. The first one you talk about the speech and then you draw a conclusion. There were two problems with this edit:

1. You did not quote any reliable sources (books, magazines, web sites - I don't think YouTube is considered a reliable source, by the way)
2. you drew a conclusion: that is called WP:original research and we don't do that here.

The second edit did not editorialise, but was still quickly deleted by the other folks working on the page because you did not give any sources.

By the way if you sign your name using four tildes ~~~~, the html code will place your signature on the talk page and time stamp it. Signing that way gives easier access to your talk page and edit history. Diannaa ^TALK 03:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Beware, Princess Elizabeth dispute

Resolved

 – Edit war seems to be over. --Diannaa ^TALK 01:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I am petitioning for editorial assistance because of continued content dispute between myself and editor Surtsicna on the article I created on Carolyn Meyer's novel Beware, Princess Elizabeth. A critical point in that novel and two related novels, Mary, Bloody Mary and Doomed Queen Anne discuss the rumours and accusations that Anne Boleyn, Elizabeth's mother, committed adultery; these led to later rumours that Elizabeth's father may not have been Henry VIII. Neither I nor Carolyn Meyer is arguing that Henry VIII is definitely not the father of Elizabeth, but that these accusations played a role in history, and more specifically, in these novels, as they are presented only in this article, not the historical articles on Elizabeth, Mary, and Anne Boleyn. The statement Surtsicna objects to is any variation of that "if these accusations are true, Elizabeth and Mary are stepsisters, rather than half-sisters". Surtsicna seems incensed at this, though I can not understand why it is taken so seemingly personally. In any event, Surtsicna's is self-evidently a false position. It would be similar to objecting to the statement that if the "birthers" (who assert Obama was not born in the US) are correct, Obama is not a Constitutionally legitimate president. That statement does not demand that the birthers are right, only that there is a logical conclusion to their assertions (even if those assertions are wrong). I have attempted to discuss this with Surtsicna on the discussion page of this article, which can sometimes seem less congenial than it should. And, in full disclosure, I was blocked for reverting these excisions 3 times, instead of trying to contact editor resolution, for which I apologise. I was further dismayed to learn that Surtsicna claims not even to have read these novels being criticised. On all counts, I consider Surtsicna's position close-minded and dogmatic, antithetical to the principles of Wikipedia. I am not objecting to Surtsicna's historical knowledge or views, only that both sides should be represented, even one not favoured, especially if it is integral to the plots of the novels, as this is. Thank you for your consideration and I look-forward to your view on this matter. --Alwpoe (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I agree with Surtsicna that these speculations have no place in the Wikipedia article. I do not have to read the novels to tell you so, either, as we do not speculate in Wikipedia articles as per the WP:No original research rule. Remember that although these people have been dead for over 500 years they were real people and deserve a respectful treatment in our articles. All three articles are slated for deletion/merger into the article Young Royals. --Diannaa ^TALK 20:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

And you have been edit warring to keep the material in the article. That is not a good idea. --Diannaa ^TALK 05:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

new definition - "Video short"

Answered

 – --Diannaa ^TALK 00:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You have the term "Video clip" in your encyclopedia. There is another term that's been around longer though; it's odd that no one has yet added the term "Video short." There is a difference: video clips are usually just brief parts of longer videos (typically 1-3 minutes), and they're generally not complete or serious productions. On the other hand, video shorts are typically 3-15 minutes long and generally complete productions, not just two or three minutes that are part of longer stuff. Got a problem here: I'm not really capable of properly writing a definition of "video shorts," but I have written a bit that I think can help a real writer. Two things now — #1: I would like to send what I've written (it's relatively crude) re the definition of "video short," and #2: I have listed several good websites that use the term "video short" - widely regarded as a historic category.

Hmmm, what the heck: I'll add the URLs I mentioned re "video shorts" here. I hope you'll want to see what I've written re "video short." Solid websites:

http://cactuspix.com/2009/12/10/video-shorts-are-the-hottest-video-production-style-today/ http://www.wjct.org/blog/?p=680CadyMike (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC) http://www.thebirthoffreedom.com/video-shorts http://content.photojojo.com/tutorials/stop-motion-digital-camera/ http://builttolasttv.com/shorts.php http://www.eioba.com/a118473/video_shorts http://www.corpshorts.com/ http://cosmo515.webs.com/contactus.htm

Sure HOPE I can hear from you soon. Thanks,

Mike Cady

I think the concept of a video short would probably fit under short film rather than as its own article. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

politics

Request unclear

 – –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

What are you thinking? Your newspaper, also many news programs are so greedy, do you know what you are doing do you even pay attention to anything but biased stations, Take some time and listen to a different station, Glen Beck for one, before you are blinded by greed and money. Think of your children!!!! Listen to the truth, not lies..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.252.195 (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, this is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper or a radio programme, I think you have your wires crossed! –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I can assure 71.232.252.195 that when you have teenage relatives who know you contribute to wikipedia, they make sure you listen to their political opinions, even if you don't share them! Neutral point of view starts at home and editors here are far less biased than you think. - Pointillist (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It is slanted a little to the left, from what I see. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge Template Being Removed by Article Author

Answered

 – --Diannaa ^TALK 00:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I have previously added a Mergeto template to the article at University Honors (University of Illinois) suggesting that the article would be better placed within the university's article. I've added a Mergefrom template to the article University of Illinois (or rather, where it redirects). In any event, the author of the University Honors article disagrees with my assessment and has removed the Mergeto template twice. Wishing to avoid an edit war, does anyone have any suggestion on how to proceed? There's been some (me, the author, and 1 other user) discussion on the University Honor's talk page already. ialsoagree (talk) 02:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I restored the template, added some commentary to the Talk page (merger makes sense to me) and asked the other editor to leave the thing in place until the discussion has taken its course. JohnInDC (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit page is written right-to-left

Resolved

 – Diannaa ^TALK 01:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Old Turkic Unicode block (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), {Cyrillic Unicode block (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): The article is presented readable. The edit-page shows the text in Latin, but the Latin wikitext is written right-to-left (in my Firefox on WinXP). I am curious to know why it ends up right, and preferring to edit in a regular left-to-right text. Anyone an idea? -DePiep (talk) 03:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Added Cyrillic, same thing. -DePiep (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

They had invisible RTL characters at the start for some reason. I guess the table code was stopping this from affecting the page itself somehow. Algebraist 03:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanx. Unicode is working ;-) -DePiep (talk) 04:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Correcting factual errors directly in the article or by commenting on the discussion page?

Answered

 – --Diannaa ^TALK 00:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia

I’m working at Novo Nordisk and we are currently updating our social media guidelines for our employees, which will now include a specific wikipedia section about how to edit and comment on Novo Nordisk related articles on wikipedia. More specificially on Victoza. We have read your principles and guidelines thoroughly but we are still in doubt about a few specific issues.

Can a Novo Nordisk employee edit directly in the article if we find factual errors that we can correct documented by third party sources or do we have to add a comment to the discussion page? We are eager to discuss if we can edit directly and under what circumstances. All comments and edits made by Novo Nordisk employees will be signed with name, title and relation to Novo Nordisk.

If we can only add comments to the discussion page, what if the main article is never corrected based on the documented comments? Can we then edit the article?

Another issue is that some of our employees from non-english speaking countries would like to add articles that are directly translated from the english article. Can employees at Novo Nordisk add new articles in non-english languages based on translations from the english articles?

-- Kasper Kofod 08:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kofod (talk • contribs)

1. It is always better to make the suggestions on the talk page. If your suggestions are ignored, add a {{helpme}} template to your own talk page, and another volunteer editor will come along to help you.

2. Each Wikipedia has its own rules; but they all have some version of our strictures about conflict of interest, avoidance of advertising, and neutral point of view. They each have their own rules and procedures about how to use material derived from articles in other languages; but remember always that Wikipedia is a derivative work: articles should be drawn from the sources used by Wikipedia articles, not directly from Wikipedia itself. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Editing Article "Agent": Agents in Espionage.

Answered

 – Answered by Chzz on the user's talk page. --Diannaa ^TALK 00:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I have edited the "agent" article but only to have it deleted. I was not finished and can cite other sources not in a job description however my sources a verifiable and literally define the field of expertise for the definition of "agent". How can I re-enter this information into this database without having it removed due to to much content in a citation (as was the cause for deletion)? Should I remove the citation(s) or is it my source(s)? The Administrator was unclear as to what was wrong with how it was written other that the references are too big and the some of the source data was actually a job listing...but a job listing that was directly relevant and also from the pioneers in the field of Agent handling. I was also not finished with my citation(s). The atricle is actually less reliable now that the article has been rolled back. Help please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahears (talk • contribs) 18:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this inquiry was dealt with on the user's talk page by Chzz. --Diannaa ^TALK 00:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring resolution; help needed.

Resolved

 – Edit war seems to be over. --Diannaa ^TALK 01:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The Armored Core (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article and its subsidiary game links have all been subject to a recent surge in the amount of edits to their External Links sections. It specifically involves the users Extraxi, ClericACO, and a few unregistered IPs. Over the past few days the editors mentioned previously have been adding and removing each other's links incessantly. I have removed their links entirely on two occasions and added the No More Links Template in the external links sections. I have also gone into the talk pages of the articles and placed sections for discussion of the validity of the external links as well as placing article issues headers on the articles. So far the only activity on the talk pages has been for user Extraxi who called for the cease and desist of those adding the link to the forums at armoredcoreonline.com. I have placed the Edit War warning template on the talk pages for users Extraxi and ClericACO as well as for one of the unregistered IPs in an effort to get them to come to discussion but nothing has come of it.

I feel it should be noted that none of us are entirely objective as we are all either members of these forums (as is the case with myself and user Extraxi and most likely some of the unregistered IPs), admins of the forums (as is the case with user ClericACO and possibly an unregistered IP), or the site owner (as is the case with the remaining unregistered IP). Here is a link to a discussion of the conflict on one of the forums (External Link) though it is probably unnecessary (and maybe bias-inducing) to read. It is these conflicts of interest that have kept me from requesting page-protection for the articles and/or reporting the users since I felt it would be better dealt with by a neutral third party. Any tips or guidelines on how to proceed would be greatly appreciated. Ninety (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You're doing the right thing - any links to forums should be treated as spam unless consensus can be achieved on the talk page for the addition. If no discussion takes place, revert and start with the spam warnings, escalating as necessary. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

N46 (talk) 03:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

John Atanasoff

Answered

 – Diannaa ^TALK 23:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like this page to be protected somehow, because people are erasing the fact that John Atanasoff is from Bulgarian-American nationality. According to at least half of the world nationality is term that mean mainly the nationality of the parents. I am aware of the American point of view, but Wikipedia is multinational, isn't it???!!! Also the father of John Ataansoff is not born in Ottoman empire, he is born in Bulgaria. Bulgaria is a country with older history than Turkey and Ottoman empire, and Bulgaria was there before and after the Ottoman empire rise and fall. For that fact and the fact that although Bulgaria was under Ottoman rule the country did preserve its own nationality , religion, language and history during the rulership. There is a difference between this place being the Ottoman empire and being under Ottoman empire rule. Bulgaria was populated with Bulgarians, and was never part of the Ottoman empire, it was under occupation and rule.

It is offensive to call Bulgaria, Ottoman empire when that place where Bulgaria is was always Bulagaria, has never been anything else, and occupation is different than nation state.

I would like that information protected by people who want to distort history, and that do not want to admit the nationality of that very important person.

At the moment the article favors American history and underminds the Bulgarian history, and not only that but the fact that nationality is not equal to citizenship is not reflected.

According to Bulgaria, which is interested part in the argument John Atanasoff is part Bulgarian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by N46 (talk • contribs)

This subject should be discussed at Talk:John Atanasoff, not here. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

my name is Larry Henry Carter Center, how is it possible I was told by someone here in Wiki that my username violates any policy?

Resolved

 – Discussion has ceased.Diannaa ^TALK 23:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

........I have been an American Atheist leader since 1981. ....... .......I was the primary litigant in Carter, et al v Broadlawns Medical Center, et al US Sup Ct (cert den) 1987. Beginning in 1984, as a charter member of the Primary Care Advisory Board, we won legal injunctions against the non-secular activities of a first ever employed chaplain after 8 decades of volunteer chaplains. ....... ..... I telecast 155 Dial An Atheist 2 minute messages from 1982 to 1986, 18 thousand phone calls in 33 months. ...... .....And I have appeared on local television featured programs, Paul Harvey News twice, radio interviews in 40 states, appearing live during Des Moines City Council Meetings from 1981 to 1987. Lost my '87 election bid for 2nd Ward councilor. .... ...Now here in Charleston, SC, a new lawsuit may be filed May 15th if the rogue firefighters do not remove a crude wooden crucifix with 22 light bulb sockets drilled into it, where at Firestation 12, HWY 171, these Liberty Lawyer led zealots steal electricity from the city each night since Dec 23rd, and sporadically for over a decade during December holidays. ...Please do not consider my capitalization of Atheist and Atheism "vandalism." The two such messages I've received from people here gave me no opportunity to reply to them. Hubert Henry Harrison fought for over a decade to have his name Negro capitalized. Also an Atheist, his leadership of the Harlem Renaissance towards popular street side education was historic. .... ..As American Atheist I.O.W.A. Chapter Director '82-'86, I also produced ten cable cast documentary discussion programs in Ames and Nevada Iowa. I supported the Iowa State University student Skeptics. You may telephone me at <redacted> to complete my biography. ......As a US Navy vet, '71-'73 my personnel work qualifies me for peace recruiting in career fairs in local schools today. .... ...In exile here, as Iowa's Only Political Prisoner of Theocracy, you can see my front page Des Moines Register photo on election day, 1990 with attendant front page story calling for a gubenatorial pardon. Since 2006 I've volunteered as a body guard escorting women past the religious fanatics who terrorize all who enter the abortion clinic, just two blocks from my home. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry Carter Center (talk • contribs) 10:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What about the unborns who are terrorized by women who failed to use contraception? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That really elevates the discussion; thanks. ClovisPt (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. 0:) P.S. This character is all over the internet, although that fact doesn't prove that the user is him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If you read the user name policy you will see that a user account is for an individual, not for a group or organisation. Including the word "Center" in your user name makes it look as though the account is for a group. However, checking on Google I have confirmed that the surname "Center" does seem to exist, so I will put a note about it on your user talk page, and you don't need to worry about it.

Your capitalisation of "atheist" was a change to another editor's talk page comment. You are very welcome to capitalise the word in your own writings if you wish to, but it is not acceptable to alter another editor's comment: how they write is up to them. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You're telling us that your name is "Larry Henry Carter Center", while claiming that you were a party in the case of "Carter, et al v Broadlawns Medical Center". Assuming that you were one of the "Carter et al" side, why were you known as "Carter" there? --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

He has apparently changed his name. There is no "Carter Center" being advertised here. I have redacted the phone number from his inchoate post above. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Updating an existing image

Answered

 – Diannaa ^TALK 23:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to know what the procedure (and etiquette) is for updating an existing image which is used on multiple pages. The particular image I am interested in updating is this animation, which I believe has a glaring flaw in its depiction (I have explained the reason on a discussion page here). I think my edited version of the image is an improvement on the original, as it depicts the operation more correctly and, unlike the original, it doesn't have identical first and last frames, which leads to an apparent pause in the animation. Any help or advice will be greatly appreciated.

Antagony1960 (talk) 11:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

As it is a featured image on Commons, you should probably discuss the reason for a new version on the image talk page at commons:File talk:Lockstitch.gif. When there is consensus, just upload it over the existing image - click on the "Upload a new version of this file" link on the image information page at Commons, commons:File:Lockstitch.gif, then follow the instructions on the upload form. Alternatively, you could upload it as a separate image on Commons, but you will have to give it a different file name. – ukexpat (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've done as you advised. – Antagony1960 (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Problem adding reference tags

Answered

 – --Diannaa ^TALK 01:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with the reference on this page, but it won't appear in the list. Could someone else proof it, please? What's wrong?

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

Thanks.Pkeets (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed; you had typed REFLIST in caps, but it has to be "Reflist". This is the name of a template (as is anything else between two sets of curly brackets), and it has its own page at Template:Reflist, where you can read more about it, including instructions for use. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

As a published Author should I add myself to Wikipedia?

Answered

 – Diannaa ^TALK 23:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I am an Author of three books and many audio books and CD's. I have also had some media coverage mainly sports magazines. I am obviously not famous but get around 100 people a month looking for my name specifically on Google. Having looked through the guidelines for biographies I am wondering if it is worth spending time writing a biography as it seems most biographies are of famous people? I do think it is of public interest albeit only 100 per month!

Any help would be appreciated. Authentic1 (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia strongly discourages autobiographies, as they inherently are a conflict of interest. If you are truly notable, then somebody will eventually create an article for you. If you really think you are notable, you could request that your article be created, but I strongly suggest that you do not create it yourself. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 15:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, please - go have a look at WP:PROUD. Having one's own Wikipedia article is not the unadulterated pleasure one might suppose! JohnInDC (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated opinion in article.

Answered

 – Diannaa ^TALK 23:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

In the Caduceus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article I removed an unnessecary sentence conveying an unsubstantiated opinion and the author undid my change. The sentence: "It is hard to trust a profession that cannot even get its symbols straight" is an opinion of the author that does not belong in the article. How do I dispute this?

The reverting editor claims it is about a verbatim quote taken from another source. As such, it is not the opinion of Wikipedia but that of another author. The exact referencing to that claim is however not very clear. So I would try to find the given source, figure out whether this is indeed a verbatim quote. If it is, you should leave it in (and perhaps clarify where it came from). If it is not an actual quote you should contest that the given reference is indeed stating what Wikipedia claims it does. In this case I would open a thread on the article talk page to discuss the status of this "quote" and ask the editors who want it in to provide the correct reference, and if not, you will probably get agreement to remove it. Arnoutf (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Continous reverting...

Answered

 – Diannaa ^TALK 21:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I've made changes on some articles, the Miss Dominican Republic article, and related ones. This is a personal problem, but it involves Factual Errors. My mother was Miss Dominican Republic 1973, and she comes up with the wrong name (a somewhat silly one, to the point that it would seem on purpose), and it says she's from Salcedo. She is not, she's from Santo Domingo.

I've made the appropriate changes, AND, I commented it on the talk page, discussing the issue. Well the changes have been contiously reverted (on a period of a few months), without any answers on the talk page, whatsoever. It would seem to me a bot is doing so; because actually, they having even been reversions, but re-editions with the previous information. If I get no response, how do I handle this? Must I be on a continous watch over it?

p.s.: the same reverting has been going on on the Spanish Wikipedia. Don't know if you can help or give me pointers with that one too.

Highwaychilli (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I can see that you feel that you are being constantly reverted, but to be honest, it is not that frequent. The other editor (not a bot) may think that you are trying to mess up the article. You could try talking to the editor (who does not seem to be a bot) on his talk page, as the editor is relatively new and may not have noticed your talk page entry. Addtionally you would strengthen your case and the article very much if you provide a source listing all previous winners. The articles as they are now are seriously lacking in reliable sources. Arnoutf (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to try to talk to him. As you can probably tell I'm new to Wikipedia too. I guess what I really wanted to know was if there is some kind of Wikipedia police, or something of the like. I'm aware the reverting is not most frequent, but if this happens a month or two from now, it could be even worse for me, because maybe I won't be paying attention. Again, I'm new to Wikipedia. That I remember, the only other article I've had the confidence to edit is the Dharma article in Spanish.

I don't know Exactly how I can talk to him; I went with editing his user page. But even worse, I don't know if the user will receive a notification of this, or if he will just look over it like he did with the talk page. And, sure, it may not be a bot. I agree it probably isn't, But, in the time I find out, it'll probably be two months from now when he does it again. Consider that, this is personal. I don't want to see my mom with some silly name on wikipedia (which btw are incongruent, one page with the next). I would just like my changes not to be reverted until he answers the talk page, the user page, or provides some kind of source, etc. What is the best way to go about this? In any case, thanks for the help.

--Highwaychilli (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

If you post a message on the users talk page he should receive a notification (see your own)

For the rest, that is the downside of an encyclopedia everyone can edit, sometimes mistakes creap in. You can put the articles on your watch pages (the star in the top bar in the new layout), but you still need to check regularly. Arnoutf (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

different lanaguages of articles

Answered

 – Diannaa ^TALK 21:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

As a wikipedia user, how can i post a different language translation of an already existing wikipedia article? so that it would then appear as one of article languages listed on the sidebar? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmradwan (talk • contribs) 16:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You add an interlanguage link to the bottom of the page. See this help page for instruction on how to do this.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 16:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

But that presupposes that the article exists on another language Wikipedia. If it doesn't, it should be created first. – ukexpat (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this article "Wiki worthy"?

Answered

 – Diannaa ^TALK 21:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed that there are some articles on Wikipedia that are on browser game making companies. So, I decided to make an article on one but choose to test it first on my page. What I need to know is if it is "Wiki worthy", ot in others, if I should transfer it to a page (by the way, it is my first article) I know it doesn't have any resources and I would need some help with that, but beside that, how is it? Mabye someone could find some resourses for me? Page: Hero Interactive Thanks in advance. By the way, feel free to edit the article. --Grizzly10513 (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

There may be two issues. The first being, is the topic sufficiently Notable to be on Wikipedia. Have a look at generic guidelines Wikipedia:Notability and company specific ones Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). This should help you decide whether the topic (company) is worthy of Wikipedia. Try to add evidence (i.e. references) to support the notability.

The second might be that you think whether the quality of your current article is good enough. Don't worry about that, the idea of Wikipedia is that you start an article with a stub or start version and that editors will collaborate to improve from there. Arnoutf (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks for the answer. I'll add some resources then add it to wikipedea, after checking out the Notability page, that is. Grizzly10513 (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Valentino Kanzyani- update on main biography

Answered

 – Diannaa ^TALK 21:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

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

notes on UPDATE - I have updated his Recycled loops name as it was used only for productions he did together with DJ Umek - he never released the tracks under this name as his own. I have added the fact that the label Recycled loops was closed and that he runs a new label Jesus Loved You. I have also deleted ˝techno˝ as he does not play this genre since 2007, he plays tech house to house, but if you need to label it please change the genre to tech-house. I have added two remixed names one being Carl Cox (reference : track name Carl Cox - Give Me your love /remix by Valentino Kanzyani http://www.discogs.com/Carl-Cox-Feat-Hannah-Robinson-Give-Me-Your-Love/release/334523) and the other being Nathan Fake -Outhouse /remix by Valentino Kanzyani (reference: http://www.discogs.com/Nathan-Fake-Outhouse-Rmxs-Part2-EP/release/883875

UPDATED ARTICLE

Tine Kocjančič, better known as Valentino Kanzyani is a Slovenian deejay and music producer. He has also released records with DJ Umek under the name Recycled Loops, which is also the name of one of the record labels that he co-runed (with DJ Umek), the other being Earresistable. The labels were closed in 2008. His productions and DJ sets variate from house to techno. He became famous in Slovenia, when he started playing music in 1995 in a club called Ambasada Gavioli, together with his colleague DJ Umek.[1] During a three and a half year period he booked and played with many of the top DJs in the world. He manages to play music from 3 turntables simultaneously.[2][3] Valentino ranked at position 75 of the TOP 100 DJs selected by DJ Magazine.[4] In 2005 he opened a label which he still runs Jesus Loved You. He has deejayed all over the world, and performed an Essential Mix on BBC Radio 1 in December 2003.[1][3][5] He has also been an in-demand remixer, mixing tracks by artists such as Carl Cox, Nathan Fake, Ken Ishii, Simon Digby, Deep Dish, Wally Lopez, and Jon Carter.[3][6] He is the son of Slovenian musician Danilo Kocjančič who used to play in bands Kameleoni, Prizma and Bazar. JLYPRESS (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I understand your request. Did you want me to put those updates on the page for you? You can make them yourself by clicking the edit button at the top of the article. However, I would suggest you first learn how to cite (click on that link) the reference you have included above. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation page

Answered

 – Diannaa ^TALK 21:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

NetRegs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm not sure that this should be a disambiguation page...but if not what? Teapotgeorge^Talk 20:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it should not be a disambiguation page. See WP:DAB. A disambiguation page links to articles with the Same Title. What you have would be called a stub article. Diannaa ^TALK 21:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you... I've removed the disambiguation template. Teapotgeorge^Talk 22:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent reverting edit of article Tachash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Answered

 – Diannaa ^TALK 21:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

My attention was drawn to a reverting edit this day of a substantial amount of well-documented and informed material recently contributed to the article Tachash, a reversion which appeared to me to be without merit, since I know something of the subject and the material contributed by the individual was by no means "unconstructive". No substantive reason was given for the reversion. I believe this merits the attention of the editors. I have said so also in the discussion page of the article.Hermitstudy (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Not knowing anything about the subject, I can't comment on the edits, but you are right that no adequate reason was given for removing the recent additions, and the warning left on the IP editor's talk page did not clarify. Since it only happened once, I wouldn't worry about it; it's not a problem yet. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Victim Rights Law Center

Resolved

 – Diannaa ^TALK 21:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Please help me get the post of the Victim Rights Law Center ready for the May 20th deadline. Thank you so much for your help! VRLC —Preceding unsigned comment added by VRLC (talk • contribs) 01:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

There are several problems here, I am sorry to say. First off, your post here implies, as does your user name, that your boss has told you to get an article up about the facility on Wikipedia. This is actually against policy as per WP:COI. What I am saying is that it is not considered appropriate for people or businesses to write articles about themselves for Wikipedia.

Second problem: The Center does not appear to be notable, in the way Wikipedia defines it. Although the centre is important and does good work, a quick check with Google does not pull up any hits other than its own web page and a couple of business directories. So if you post the article to main space, it will very likely be speedily deleted as not being notable at this time.

Third problem: The article does not cite any sources other than the web pages of the subject of the article. What is needed for Wikipedia purposes is to have reliable sources such as newspapers, magazines, or independent online sources for the article.

So even if your article is ready "on time" the chances are high that it would not meet these various Wikipedia guidelines, and it would speedily be deleted. Sorry. --Diannaa ^TALK 20:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This spamusername has been blocked. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Warner Bros., List of works produced by Hanna-Barbera, Associated Artists Productions

Resolved

 – Diannaa ^TALK 21:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate edits seem to have stopped.Diannaa ^TALK 21:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've been trying to remove unsourced original research and synthesized material, mostly from articles related to Warner Bros. in some way - Warner Bros., List of works produced by Hanna-Barbera, Associated Artists Productions, etc. These articles have been eyesores for a very long time, and the level of original research - as well as the duplication of content better suited to and already included in other articles - has gotten far, far out of control.

However, I'm having issues with an anonymous user, 71.84.93.21 (talk · contribs), reverting my changes. He even actually accused me of being a vandal, stating in one edit summary that "just because the articles don't have research and verifiable sources doesn't mean you have to keep deleting them". I was pretty certain, however, that that is what I was supposed to do (not delete the articles exactly, but the original research). He's reverted my changes on Warner Bros. twice; we're not quite yet at the 3RR level yet, and I hope not to get there. What should I do? --FuriousFreddy (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, this is the same anon user who has - for quite a number of years now - been adding false information about production companies to articles such as Warner Bros. Animation (see diff). --FuriousFreddy (talk) 08:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

For now, you should keep going with the escalating warnings. Eventually if they do not stop or respond, the next step would be to take the problem to WP:AIV or WP:ANI. --Diannaa ^TALK 20:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted pages

Answered

 – Diannaa ^TALK 21:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Why have been all my today's posts, e.g. on Jiri Kabele, deleted today? They are completely true as the links indicate. Please advise at <redacted> on the reasons and reactivate them all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiripik (talk • contribs) 09:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Because attack pages are speedily-deleted
2. No

-- Rrburke (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit War: Lost: What They Died For

What They Died For (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Resolved

 – The episode has now aired and normal editing has resumed.--Diannaa ^TALK 23:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I have been accused of vandalism and threatened with having my ability to edit blocked over at the edit war on this page. I could have been more constructive to begin with but I thought that making the point that Britannica, were it able to, would not carry summaries for untransmitted TV programmes was a valid one. I don't see a reason for having the plot summary there other than mischief - and it isn't verifiable when the programme hasn't gone out is it?

I have tried to find out the policy on spoilers for *untransmitted* programmes but no success yet. Any help? 91.111.47.43 (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears that you have been trying to make good faith edits to this article. One of the problems as I see is that there doesn't seem to have been much discussion. Nobody has been discussing the issues at Talk:What They Died For, which is the first place to start. You also don't appear to have tried to engage Vipinhari in discussion, the user who was reverting and warning you. You added commentary to the article that should have been on the talkpage. I don't view this as vandalism, but I can see that others might. It's hard to tell since you're not a registered, but was it also you blanking sections prior to today, under a different IP address? Unexplained removal of material will almost always be reverted (particularly, rightly or wrongly, if it's removed by anonymous users). Please try to explain your edits in edit summaries, but as soon as people start reverting you, please take it to the article talkpage to try to achieve consensus for your edits.

As for removing the information, I would think that a plot would need to have a reference if it's an untransmitted episode. Usually, plot summaries don't require citations because the work in question is presumed to be the reference. In this case, the plot is unverifiable, so needs a reliable reference. It shouldn't be removed on the basis that it's a spoiler though, because Wikipedia doesn't work like that. And I don't think it's "mischief" on anyone's part. My advice would be to start a discussion on the article talkpage and outline your views. If no one responds, try contacting the users that have reverted you and ask them to join the discussion. Perhaps you could even look for a reliable source to back up the plot summary yourself?--BelovedFreak 14:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. No I haven't edited the article before today, though there's obviously been a tit-for-tat thing going on for a while. In fact I read the Wikipedia page on edit wars for the first time today, so I began to try and take a more constructive route and engaged Merlinsorca. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.47.43 (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

New Info Added To Evil Dead page deleted -- why?

Answered

 – Diannaa ^TALK 21:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_dead On several pages related to the Sam Raimi's three "Evil Dead" films, I posted information about an Evil Dead Tribute Band "Ash & the Necronomicons". I believe these were legitimate as they were placed in sections such as the "spin-offs" section on the main Evil Dead page. All of the postings were deleted. I read the rules on bands before posting and don't think I violated them. Please let me know as I don't want to put the info back up if it is improper.Curlytop11 (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that other editors thought the additions were inappropriate. My suggestion would be to bring it up for discussion on the talk page for Evil Dead and find out what other editors think about adding the material. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Heading off conflict

Resolved

 – Aggressive behavior seems to have stopped. Diannaa ^TALK 21:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I can see that I'm heading into a conflict with another editor. The key issue from my perspective is that the other user has edited a message (indisputably not just a refactoring or reformatting) that I left on his/her talk page (which was a response to a message left on my talk page, regarding an unfree image possibly being used inappropriately), and when I left a message asking the user not to make such changes, the user twice deleted my messages. It's a relatively new user (first edit was within the last 2 weeks) who has jumped into Wikipedia very boldly, and so I'm struggling with how best to communicate this issue (and my frustration with it) without biting this newcomer. I'm open to all suggestions, including just letting the whole thing drop, but I don't like the idea of a comment remaining with attribution to me that has been edited this way. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 23:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll add that I now see others butting heads with the other user, so maybe it's not just me. cmadler (talk) 00:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I went to check it out and am suddenly involved! There are certainly some problematic aspects of this user's contributions; adding ridiculous amounts of maintenance tags, warning editors for vandalism when they remove them. Trying to WP:AGF about it, but it doesn't look promising.--BelovedFreak 00:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I've notified them of this discussion but that was blanked.--BelovedFreak 00:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you both should get a life and get out of your house. Tkfy7cf (talk) 00:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I note that you repeatedly delete warnings from your talkpage, Tkfy7cf. While policy specifically allows this, please note that The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Note also that you have removed, and presumably read, an "immediate" warning regarding the one above. Tonywalton ^Talk 01:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please be civil, Tkfy7cf. Generally speaking users have wide latitude over how they use their own talk pages, but it's pretty much never okay to edit other peoples' comments, even if it's on your own talk page. See talk page guidelines. — e. ripley\^talk 01:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I note also that Tkfy7cf has been moving ALL comments left on his/her talk page to an "archive", sometimes within minutes of the comment being left. cmadler (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Tfky7cf, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are policies for a reason. Your contributions are valuable, and people aren't belittling you by making suggestions or corrections. It can be frustrating to have your content questioned, but it turns out better in the end. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 16:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Help first time Editor with contribution to a controversial page concerning a living person.

Answered

 – Diannaa ^TALK 21:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please help me add a contribution to Brian Tamaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have some relevant information pertaining to Tamaki's status as a cult leader. The term cult is very ambiguous and possibly even subjective. I think that it needs some objective definition and then some of Tamaki's quotes given so that the reader can make a clear assesment of wheather he adequitly fits this description. I have good references but some of them point to Tamaki's own website and may be hence deleted in the future. My question here is what happens when a reference becomes inaccessable? Does the edit then have to be removed?

Due to the nature of this article I would like to draft the edit and submit it to an experienced Editor for review and comment. Is there an Editor willing to work with me and give me guidance? William Herbert (talk) 12:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC).

It sounds like you might want to consider pre-emptive archiving using a service such as WebCite. That would preserve a record of the website as it currently stands, regardless of what later changes the website owner makes. cmadler (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

mary bard spamming many pages involving "Mrs Pigglewiggle"

Resolved

 – user blocked. – ukexpat (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Mary Bard has repeatedly inserted the text "In 1996 Betty MacDonald's Family had been interviewed by journalist Wolfgang Hampel, author of several biographícal books and stories about Betty MacDonald. Especially Betty MacDonald's youngest sister Alison Bard had a perfect memory. Alison Bard lived near by on Vashon Island and told very interesting and witty stories about her and Betty's experiences. This interview has been published on CD/DVD in 2009" onto eight pages involving the book series "Mrs Piggle-Wiggle." This has been removed by numerous editors, but Mary Bard pastes the text back in, without comment. She has not responded to any talk requests or requests for mediation.

The list of pages on which she has been inserting this paragraph is

• Betty MacDonald
• The Egg and I
• Ma and Pa Kettle
• Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle's Magic
• Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle
• Onions in the Stew
• Hello, Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle
• Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle's Magic

I do not believe she has ever edited any other pages. Given the user name, it seems very likely that she is related to Betty MacDonald via her sister, Alison Bard (mentioned in the spam text), and that this effort is essentially self-promotional. I'd like the assistance of an editor please.

Uucp (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the edits are by and large tangential at best - and certainly unsourced. Perhaps there is a place for them, properly attributed, in one or two of the articles. I don't know yet. Meantime I notice that you mistakenly posted your various warnings to her on her user page rather than her Talk page. I took the liberty of moving them all over, and am about to add my own note about sourcing. Let's see if we get a better response. JohnInDC (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. What is the next step if she continues to spam? <Note that the Spam text remains in place on at least one of those pages, I've stopped removing it while the wheels of justice turn.> Uucp (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. The more I look at it, the less appropriate the material becomes. The repeatedly-cited "author" and "interviewer" appears (as best I can tell) to be simply the self-published founder of a Betty MacDonald fan site. I put a COI template on Mary Bard's Talk page but one of the articles indicates that Mary Bard is dead. It's hard to get a handle on precisely what's happening here but I would say one of the least likely alternatives is that someone is making quality, substantive edits to these articles in order to improve the encyclopedia! Where's the remaining text, BTW? JohnInDC (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It's gone now, I must have checked before you finished your sweep. Thanks. As for the death of Mary Bard, I suspect we're seeing edits by a niece who was named for one of Betty MacDonald's sisters, or something like that. Mary Bard (the senior) is dead, but Mary Bard (wikipedia user) types on. Uucp (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

She reinserted all the material this morning, ignoring a series of warnings (with one plea) in between, and she's now blocked for 48 hours. I suggest you continue to monitor the pages and report her to WP:AIV if she starts back up again. I think this item here can be marked as "resolved". JohnInDC (talk) 11:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I will do as you suggest. Thank you for all of your help. Uucp (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Etiquette re: "cleaning up" old messages on an anonymous IP's talk page?

Answered

 – Diannaa ^TALK 21:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. While I was leaving a welcome message on this anonymous IP's talk page, I noticed some very old vandalism warnings and block notices (2005 through 2009). I'm concerned is that a new editor might not know to "wade through" all of the old (and generally negative) posts warning against vandalism and see my (hopefully encouraging) message at the bottom.

I know that editing other editors' talk pages is generally frowned upon (vandalism reversions notwithstanding), but what about talk pages that belong to anonymous IPs? Are those old posts still relevant for admins and anti-vandalism editors? Is it bad form for us to archive messages (including block notices) on anonymous IP talk pages, that are older than, for example, a year or two? Is there, perhaps, a way to use the "show/hide" function to keep the older messages on the page, but just collapsed down so that only the recent messages are initially visible?

Any comments or suggestions are appreciated; thanks, in advance, and have a nice day. -- Bgpaulus (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

My opinion- don't touch anything, just add your notice or whatever. You have no need to decide to "clean up" anon talk pages. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Guidance needed: Company would like to translate part or all of good English-language entry to improve weak entries in other languages

Answered

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been looking through different parts of WP documentation on translation and on making email requests to editors regarding changes for companies and have been challenged to figure out definitive answers on my own, so I'm hoping someone may be able to help steer me right on this question.

A client company would like to improve the quality of several non-English-language WP versions of the entry about it so that they can more or less equal the comprehensive and fact-driven English entry. The company has worked with English-language editors to get that entry to a sound level, detailing the company's history, business structure, charitable involvements, sports sponsorships, past controversies and other issues in a straightforward, fact-based, heavily cited and appropriate way. It would like to do the same in the other languages, which have small, heavily flagged entries on the company and don't address many substantive issues well or at all.

The company would even do the translation of the English-language version, to replace those entries with a better one as a starting place for further community input. Alternatively, it would work with an editor in each language to merge/add translated material from the English-language entry to the existing entries in the other languages.

Jimbo Wales suggested we reach out to OTRS for help on this, but I have been challenged to find the reference in the Contact Us area for companies to make email inquiries such as this to OTRS or editors in foreign-language WPs for handling. Any clarity regarding what email address should be used for the company to send email requests for changes in specific languages' entries would be greatly appreciated.

DLBinLA (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)DLBinLA

I can't answer the specific question about contacting OTRS, but I can offer a couple of other suggestions. One is to check in at the other Wikipedias in question, and inquire as to how they would receive such an offer. Different Wikipedias have somewhat different rules, and so advice that you receive here might not be applicable elsewhere. The other suggestion I'd offer is to post your translated or "improved" version on the talk pages for those articles, or maybe better yet, put it in userspace and give a link from the talk page, being sure to clearly disclose the involvement of the company. The keys to such an effort will be full disclosure and willingness to work within the constraints of Wikipedia. cmadler (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

See this page for assistance contacting OTRS volunteers. – ukexpat (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Jessica Watson

Answered

 – Diannaa ^TALK 22:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

G'day!

Under 'jessica watson' 'Test run and collision' the article states 'The Bureau has yet to apportion blame for the accident ....'. This is incorrect. The Bureau conducts no-blame investigations. See their website. Suggest you replace with 'The Bureau is continuing its investigation into the accident .....'

Antigunzel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antigunzel (talk • contribs) 01:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Greetings! The source for this statement is here: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/travel/travel-news/watson-asleep-during-crash-report-20091020-h5sl.html, and if you scroll down and read it, it says "The ATSB has not apportioned blame for the collision and will continue its investigation." It does not actually imply that they will ever be apportioning blame, just as you say. I will go ahead and edit the article for you. --Diannaa ^TALK 04:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Help with merging

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the LORAN-C transmitter Port Clarence should be merged into the Port Clarence, Alaska article, but don't know how to tag it. I looked here [[1]]and was unable to understand the directions. Yopienso (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is where to get the step-by-step: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Merging#Proposing_a_merger. Use these templates to propose a merge of the two articles. If no one objects in a reasonable amount of time, say a week or so, go ahead and perform the merge. If you need more help, just post here again and I'll lay the templates on the articles for you, or even perform the merge. I've done lots of them. --Diannaa ^TALK 03:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like I did it! Thanks! Yopienso (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Accusation

Answered

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 16:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I received a link to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:89.101.75.147#December_2009 when I opened Wikipedia this morning. I have never had a Wikipedia account and am not responsible for the two revisions for which I have been accused. I wrote this on the page as you can see, proving my ineptitude with even the notion of editing Wikipedia. I demand an explanation and a rebuttal of these accusations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.75.147 (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Explanation is easy; you are editing without creating an account. This means that you are identified by your IP address, which is set as the username for editors without account. As IP many addresses get changed (depending on internet connection), another editor who was assigned your IP address made some violations of Wikipedia code and the warning directed to that editor was justified and ended up on the talk of the IP address you are currently using. For a rebuttal of the accusations we need evidence that the IP address did not make the violations. Well, it did. Arnoutf (talk) 11:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I would also suggest that you take a deep breath and pause a minute to let your anger subside. The warnings were not directed at you personally but toward the IP address from which you happen to be editing from today. Wikipedia and its editors have no way of telling the difference between you, the person, and that IP address. Multiple postings in various forums accusing people of "stupidity" and demanding apologies from people who did nothing wrong do not offer the easiest way of untangling this otherwise very simple problem! If you want to continue to edit in Wikipedia, your best bet would be to create an account. That way your edits would be more clearly tied to you, and this problem would be (for the most part) avoided in the future. Good luck! JohnInDC (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Explanation is done: your IP, for some reason, has been used to vandalize in December 2009. It may be because of a dynamic IP, it may be a shared IP. I don't know. IPs move around all the time, which is why I assume you didn't make those edits. Nobody is accusing you personally. Just relax, and carry on with your business.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 14:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Warning or notifying after reversion

Answered

 – Diannaa ^TALK 21:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Should you warn or notify someone after you have reverted their edits? I see that some do and some don't. Thanks. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I typically don't, but I will if it appears that the editor made questionable edits in good faith, perhaps because of lack of experience, and might benefit from a little guidance. When I'm undoing a more experienced editor I'll usually stick with some sort of shorthand in the edit summary. Finally, if it's an experienced editor *and* the point is hard to compress into the tweet-sized field of the edit summary, I'll say something on the Talk page. The only edits I revert or undo without comment are vandalism or other foolishness (or at least, I try to do that). JohnInDC (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding reverting (or any edit) without comment: In my first few months of using Wikipedia, I did not use edit summaries for minor changes and most reverts. But in reading discussion pages, I found that some believe "there is no reason why every edit, no matter how small, should not have an edit summary", and I've come to step in line with that advice, and have been using edit summaries on every edit to articles for about 2 years. I use "vandalim" or "typo" if no more needs to be said, and I see other editors like to shorten it even further to "v" and "ty" or "c\e" (copy edit). I rarely use edit summaries on talk pages, though, and I notice some like to "embellish on their opinions" via edit summaries, as though we are supposed to be reading talk pages and their history pages on split screens! (Which isn't likely to happen.) So my philosophy is to use edit summaries on articles always, and on talk pages almost never. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a good idea to warn persistent vandals on their talk pages. When a block is requested at WP:AIV, the blocking admin will take account of the quantity and recentness of warnings. - Pointillist (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I normally put notices on the user page if they write something that doesn't make sense. Someone wrote in lithium nitrate that it reacts with water to form hydrogen gas with aluminum as a catalyst. Since it didn't seem like vandalism, but doesn't make sense (lithium nitrate is an oxidizing agent, it cannot reduce water to hydrogen), I posted a message on their talk page. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on Dusha

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

Answered

 – Diannaa ^TALK 21:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

There was recently an edit war over the article's claims which are currently tagged as dubious or peacock. There is more at the talk page. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The article is now locked until June 12. I will help you keep an eye on it once it can be edited again. It definitely is one bad article and needs a lot of clean-up etc. --Diannaa ^TALK 03:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

While you are at it, the same editor who is adding controversial material to Dusha, has done the same in Sofia Rotaru as well. Things are currently under control in the latter but it can change quickly, so an eye is needed there as well. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I have added it to my watch list as well. Diannaa ^TALK 22:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

End credits of the motion picture Magnum Force Dirty Harry Calahan (Correct spelling)

Answered

 – Diannaa ^TALK 21:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I recently noticed the ending credits of the movie Magnum Force starring Clint Eastwood as Harry Calahan.....Calahan is spelled with one L in these credits...I had begun to edit the numerous pages for this "minor edit" only to be immediately undone ....People are citing IMDB as reference and they have Calahan spelled with 2 Ls...This (IMDB) is also incorrect. My source is the movie itself...--Ch8ch (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)ch8ch

WB.com, IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes and countless other sources state 'Callahan', one typo in the end credits of a movie is irrelevant in comparison. raseaC^{talk to me} 20:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, if you were finding the same Calahan spelling in the credits of all five Dirty Harry movies you would probably have a case, bur a single spelling (which may well be a typo) in end credits (from a time preceding computers and spell checkers!) is a bit shaky evidence. Arnoutf (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's two different original movie posters both spelling it with double ells: 1, 2.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Polystyrene

Answered

 – Diannaa ^TALK 02:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

i read the Polystyrene page a year ago it had a study that showed chemicals that leach mimic estrogen. that is gone now. can someone put it back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom12350 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Depends, did it have a reliable source? – ukexpat (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

yes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom12350 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well please provide details of the source and we can consider it. Best to continue this on the article's talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

i dont know the source i didnt put the info up. thats why im asking you. it was a year ago i dont know how to look in the archives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom12350 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

See Help:History to learn about browsing previous editions of a page. DMacks (talk) 04:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Glassblowing

Discussion moved

 – Discussion moved to External Links Noticeboard. Diannaa ^TALK 04:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(contribs) User:Tonyspatti has made one article edit in 3 years...namely to add his own website http://www.glassblower.info/ to the glassblowing article. The article already had numerous external links. I removed the link as the addition was clearly more about promoting his own website than improving wikipedia. I have removed others too. He is outraged at my actions. Can someone comment please? Teapotgeorge^Talk 07:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Now being discussed here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard Teapotgeorge^Talk 20:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Please help to re-establish an deleted article

Resolved

 – discussion taking place at Afd. – ukexpat (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Admins, User User talk:David Fuchs has removed the article Orchard Towers. This article was about a building in Singapore. The article was well sourced and existed for several years. The article was continuously improved. David should have marked the article for deletion and started a discussion if he wanted the article to be deleted. Unfortunately he just deleted this article. Orchard Towers is well known in Singapore and is notable. I have contacted David but he is not willing to discuss. I made commented on his talk page and I also commented on the deletion on the Singapore Portal. One more user of the Singapore Portal wrote on Davids talk page that he should re-establish the article. How can I best go about the re-create this article. There are thousands of less notable articles on Wikipedia. Appreciate your help. Thanks --Shorty23sin (talk) 08:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orchard Towers. Please continue the discussion there and be careful you don't engage in canvassing. – ukexpat (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Note the article has not been deleted, but has only been nominated for deletion at this point. It looks like recent improvements in the article will likely lead to a "keep" decision. Diannaa ^TALK 22:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Will discuss on the article page. --Shorty23sin (talk) 06:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

George Alan Rekers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Resolved

 – User is currently blocked. Diannaa ^TALK 04:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This biographical article has been contentious from the start. The current editing conflict needs help - here's the status quo at the moment. I've never filed one of these before and am quite new at this so I hope this doesn't get me in trouble.Panthera germanicus (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC) So - instead of undoing his fourth or fifth undo, I'm requesting help.

1. (cur | prev) 22:31, May 19, 2010 Nomoskedasticity (talk | contribs) (34,607 bytes) (here as well -- the sources provided don't actually say this) (undo)
2. (cur | prev) 22:26, May 19, 2010 Nomoskedasticity (talk | contribs) (34,614 bytes) (→"Rent boy" allegations: change to reflect what is in the source) (undo)
3. (cur | prev) 21:47, May 19, 2010 Nomoskedasticity (talk | contribs) (34,621 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 99.38.208.30; No thanks. (TW)) (undo)
4. (cur | prev) 19:39, May 19, 2010 99.38.208.30 (talk) (34,870 bytes) (→"Rent boy" allegations: clarifying what constitutes a naked massage) (undo)

ThanksPanthera germanicus (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What I see from these diffs is an editor User:Nomoskedasticity who is insisting on well sourced material in this volatile WP:BLP. Discussion is happening on the article's talk page and the article itself seems in good shape. Could you be more specific as to what assistance is required? Thanks, ----Diannaa ^TALK 00:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Answered

 – Diannaa ^TALK 04:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Within the Social Justice page I attempted modify the page multiple times only to have them removed by a user named Sxeptomaniac. I am concerned that this individual is politically motivated and not interested in providing factual information. In one case I attempted to add the following text "Instead of an economy based upon the trading of value; social justice is a term used to describe the redistribution of wealth based solely upon a governing bodies decision to reward or punish a particular group of people." in another I attempted to change the word "human rights" to "group rights" for the following sentence since taking from one individual to give to another is NOT a human right.

"Social justice is also a concept that some use to describe the movement towards a socially just world. In this context, social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution.

Thank you for your attention to this matter! Chip Cameron Rhcameron (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried talking to the other editor on the talk page of the article? See if you can get a discussion going there and reach a consensus as to content of the article. -- Diannaa ^TALK 01:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Cameron is pushing an ideological agenda in his edits to that article, and the consensus of those watching this article is to revert them as clear-cut NPOV violations, since he is unwilling to compromise. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Again I suggest discussing this with one another on the talk page, rather than reverting one another and writing edit summaries only. It sounds like tempers are rising. You will have trouble commmunicating if you don't, er, communicate. Diannaa ^TALK 14:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Rhcameron, I am willing to discuss changes to the article on the talk page, as Diannaa has recommended. I gave what I feel are good reasons for reverting your changes in the edit summaries, but you are welcome to respond to my arguments on the talk. If, after some chances to discuss things, you still feel I am being unfair, I have no problem helping you find the appropriate dispute resolution processes. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 18:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Answered

 – Diannaa ^TALK 02:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What kind of info box should I put on this article? musical artist, actor, or person? She is a Playback singer. Diannaa ^TALK 14:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess that musical artist is as close as you will get. – ukexpat (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay. It looks like she made an album, too, so Musical Artist it is. Thanks. Diannaa ^TALK 19:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Please help move page

Answered

 – Diannaa ^TALK 02:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Mcr0005/David B. Williams (edit | [[Talk:User:Mcr0005/David B. Williams|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have created a page that needs to go live and also have a name change. The name of the page is User:Mcr0005/David B. Williams. The page needs to be changed to David B. Williams and it needs to be posted to the site. Please advise.

Mcr0005 (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Mcr0005

Requests like this are best made at WP:Requested moves. In any event I have moved it for you to David B. Williams (academic) as there is already an article titled David B. Williams. Please take a look at other biographical articles and at WP:MOSBIO - the article's layout needs to be conformed to Wikipedia standards and cleaned up generally. I will tag it with a few relevant maintenance templates. – ukexpat (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Now that I have started working on it, I see that it is a clear copyvio of http://www.uah.edu/president/documents/WilliamsLongBio.pdf - the university's webpage bears a copyright notice and Wikipedia cannot use copyright materials without a suitable release from the copyright owner. The article has been tagged for speedy deletion. – ukexpat (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the Long Bio to prevent an issue of copyright. Please either suggest other edits that should be made to prevent deletion or proper documentation needed to add the long bio back to the page . This page is for informational purposes only. Mcr0005 (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Placing links to primary resources

Answered

 – Diannaa ^TALK 18:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Editor,

I hope you can help me resolve an issue.

I work in the library at Southern Methodist University. In the past, I have placed links to our digital collections, which contain only primary resources that are carefully annotated, scholarly in nature, and contain digitized objects of historical value. In one case (August 2009), I was a bit overzealous and the link was removed, which I understand. However, I seem to be banned from placing any links to our digitized primary resources. I have been told that my account will be frozen if I place any more links to our digital collections.

I have now read "Museum curators, librarians, archivists, art historians, heritage interpreters, conservators, documentation managers, subject specialists, and managers of a special collection (or similar profession) are encouraged to use their knowledge to help improve Wikipedia, or to share their information with Wikipedia in the form of links to their resources." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Non-controversial_edits

Again, this is precisely what I would like to do. So, how can I make sure my account will not be frozen if I place such links?

For example, I would like to place a link the digitized set of photographs depicting the days before and the aftermath of the 1902 eruption of Mt. Pelee (http://digitalcollections.smu.edu/cdm4/browse.php?CISOROOT=/lat) in the External Links section of the article on Mt. Pelee Mount Pelée (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Am I allowed to do this without having my account frozen?

Please let me know the proper procedure. I really appreciate any help you can provide in this regard.

Best regards! Digitaldomain (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)DigitalDomain

Spot checking shows that most of the links you placed in the past have been removed. The best place to ask your question is at WP:External links/Noticeboard. Diannaa ^TALK 01:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Additional categories

Answered

 – Diannaa ^TALK 18:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, sorry if I'm bringing this to the wrong place but I noticed a template requesting additional categories was left at the bottom of List of vampire video games. I can't find any likely candidates above the two already there, though that doesn't mean there aren't more (I have little experience with cats apart from the sort that scratch you). Any suggestions? Someoneanother 19:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless there's something along the lines of Category:Vampire-related lists, then I'd say that the two you've got pretty much cover it & the tag can be removed. It might be worth asking User:1234r00t, who added the tag if they have any suggestions. You could also ask them what specific "cleanup" they think needs to be done as they haven't elaborated on the talkpage. But if you think it's categorised enough, feel free to remove the tag.--BelovedFreak 19:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much the same answer as Belovedfreak, although I first took matter in my hand and removed the category. May be that 1234r00t is tagging pages according to some algoritm (<5 cats -> Improvement) rahter than from specific knowledge about the topic in hand. This happens frequently on Wikipedia, so indeed asking the editor to explain may result in agreement that the tag was irrelevant, or at least suggestion which categories may help. Arnoutf (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Although I wouldn't use the clean-up tag for it I know what is being asked for - writing and citing of the game descriptions, so I'll get on with that and remove the tag when the list's in better shape. I just wanted to check I wasn't missing something thuddingly obvious with the cat. tag, I had looked and couldn't see anything suitable. Thank you both for your help. Someoneanother 20:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)