Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 95

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

2011 Brisbane Floods

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we need an adult in 2011_Brisbane_Floods before someone deletes the emergency contact numbers and evacuation center locations for an ongoing natural disaster. 2011Floods (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

As much as I grieve for the affected people in Brisbane, we must remember that this is an encyclopedia. Let us wait for consensus before changing anything.TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 17:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

A proper article about the incident is already being worked on at 2010–2011 Queensland floods Active Banana (^bananaphone 17:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

2011 Brisbane Floods is now a redirect and protected, 2011Floods has been indefinitely blocked as a sock. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Carnegie Hall vandalism

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It's been fixed already.

<advert> I've recently discovered the script User:Anomie/previewtemplatelastmod.js, which adds extra stuff to the "Edit" page listing all the templates used by the current version of the page being edited, with their most recent edit date, editor and edit summary. Armed with this you can go straight to whichever template has been vandalised! </advert> -- John of Reading (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that tip John! --Kudpung (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Assistance request regarding repeated page text deletion resolution and edit war

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have posted well-documented historical information that is being repeatedly deleted by at least 2 users (24.164.172.76 and Art portjervis) and now I find myself in an edit war for which resolution assistance is sought. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Port_Jervis,_New_York&action=history

Although I did reach out to user Art portjervis with talk, there was no response and the alternate user again deleted my contribution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Art_portjervis Please see this talk for details.

Apparently due to the edit war I am now unable to similarly reach out to the user who did the most recent deletion.

The wikipedia text that I am trying to include with related document links follows: Thank you very much.

                                         <<<>>><<<>>><<<>>>

One of the most shameful events in the history of Port Jervis was the widely witnessed and well-documented 1882 lynching of an African-American man by the name of Robert Lewis, whose murder was in the end dismissed by an Orange County grand jury for a lack of evidence. A strong Klu Klux Klan presence remained in Port Jervis until at least the mid-1920s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.203.201 (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd think for a start that user:Art_portjervis may have a conflict of interest here. This needs further investigation though. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and should be first discussed on the article's talk page. I notice that both you and IP 24.etc are reverting essentially without discussion. Please keep the three-revert rule in mind; the talk page is the place for content disputes, not the page history. Also, verifiability does not mean that a source must be immediately verifiable to anyone; articles behind paywalls and books are perfectly good sources. --Danger (talk) 06:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The sources are WP:RS (two are the New York Times) and support the assertions. I think this is a significant (if unpleasant) part of the town's history and deserves inclusion consistent with standards such asWP:WEIGHT. I don't think the proposed language unbalances the article. I will post something at the talk page in hope of also getting a conversation started there. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Jonathanwallace - Thank you for offering such a speedy assessment of the issues as well as for sharing useful reminders and insights with a wiki novice. I had tried to initiate talk with usr IP 24 but seemed to be blocked from doing so which was when the edit war warning was noticed. The initiative taken to start discussion between this writer and usr IP 24 is likewise much appreciated.96.238.203.201 (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Just an FYI, you were unable to post on 24.etc's talk page because it had not been created yet and you are not a logged in user. Only logged in users can create pages. Although it isn't necessary, I suggest getting a username. And then we won't have to call you 96.etc. ;-) --Danger (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

sharp-shooter

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I misstitled the page. The game name is "SharpShooters" No hyphen, would not let me do that, but I accidently made it sharp-shooter instead of sharp-shooters. (Figured it was close enough in name to the game. If it is fixable or if you have suggestion on how to fix it, please let me know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharp-shooter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pagigostra (talk • contribs) 20:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I had noted the page was incorrectly titled. The page was moved to Sharp Shooters (game). — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

page was deleted....why?

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have spent a considerable amount of time revising an existing page for a post-secondary vocational school where I happen to be employed. This was done after local secondary students working on a group project informed us that the information on our existing listing was incorrect. I changed the information to bring it up to date and the next day the page was deleted!

I then reviewed other pages for similar schools and built a listing similar to those so that information would be available. This page was then deleted before I could get a chance to finish doing the citations and references!

The former page was entitled AVTEC and the new page, reflecting current information was titled AVTEC, Alaska's Institute of Technology - the official name of our school. Both of these listings were deleted before I could finish.

The information I put on the page was merely information about the school's name, history, and what training is offered. It was not an advertisement and contained the same information as for other schools such as the Culinary Institute of America and Universal Technical Institute. Why was the listing I spent many hours on delted even after I posted the 'please wait' listing at the top of the page so that your moderators would know that it was being worked on.

Please help me create a listing so that students will be able to find information.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpaperman (talk • contribs) 23:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This was explained to you on your talk page! You do not seem to have responded there. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

We would help you create an article because the school is a noteworthy topic that had recieved significant coverage by third party reliable sources. But we are not here to create a web presence to attract students to your school. Does your request fall into category 1 or category 2?Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The article was deleted as: ‎ spam, collection of links to courses. Wikipedia does not have 'listings'. Wikipedia is not a directory. It is unlikely that an article with the scope of AVTEC took 'hours' to compose. Mainstream high/secondary schools and fully recognised and accredited degree awarding colleges and universities are considered notable, but there are exceptions. Links to instructions for making new articles and how to correctly sign messages are in the welcome message on your talk page. You should consider read WP:COI before taking any action, and then WP:WPSCH/AG if you decide to rewrite the article. Kudpung (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Vienna New Year's Concert and the Anschluss

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

In the article on the Vienna New Year's Concert, the editor Jahwohl attempts to introduce material about the Austrian Anschluss and Clemens Krauss's career prior to 1939 which in my opinion is an attempt at coatracking and irrelevant to the article about the Vienna New Year's Concert.

I have contacted the editor on his user talk page and raised the matter on the article's talk page, without any response. The listing of this matter at Wikipedia:Third opinion has been declined because of Jahwohl's lack of engaging in a discussion. The declining editor suggested this forum.

I'm looking for assistance in either persuading Jahwohl to engage in a discussion, or for stopping Jahwohl from adding this material, or for persuading me that that material belongs into the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, it looks like Jahwohl added some not entirely encyclopedic commentary to Clemens Krauss as well, which I've just removed. I've also watchlisted Vienna New Year's Concert but it would be useful to hear from other editors as to the best ways of dealing with this. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The current revision as of 07:08, 9 January 2011(my time) by User:Bbb23 looks fine to me. The now reverted additions to Vienna New Year's Concert by User:Jahwol were not coatracking, but were inappropriate and irrelevant to this article. I suggest that any further controversial edits should be first discussed on the article talk page where they have not yet been addressed, before taking the matter to any more notice boards or help desks. WP:Forum shopping is not a good idea.--Kudpung (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Coming to this one a little late, but what exactly is the rationale for deleting well sourced historical context for an event which began during the Nazi era? A sentence or two in the whole article does not offend WP:WEIGHT. I suspect we are enforcing the WP:NICENESS criterion here which (as you can see from the red ink) does not exist. Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's the actual text that was added and removed: "This first concert took place not long after Austria was annexed by The Third Reich on March 12, 1938. Clemens Krauss, a friend of both Hitler and Goering, became a prominent German conductor first at The Berlin State Opera in 1933 and then appointed as its director in 1935 due to Fritz Busch and Erich Kleiber resigning, respectively, their positions in protest over Nazi rule." The problem with the material is that it does not really give historical context for the event. Instead, it implies nefarious origins to the event by connecting the beginning of the event with the annexation of Austria and labeling the conductor a Nazi-sympathizer. Now, if there were reliable third-party sources that criticized the event for these reasons, that might be relevant to the article. But in these circumstances, it's all subtextual without establishing a real connection.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I posted something on the Talk page and would be happy to carry on the discussion here or there. I will also take a hack at sourcing this and revising it better. I don't think it should be deleted. For an article that IMO deals fairly with its subject from Nazi origins through today's marketplace, see Volkswagen. Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23: suggest we carry this on on the talk page, where i have responded further. Jonathanwallace (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no policy that governs 'niceness', but I don't think niceness is what it's all about, I think Bbb23 has well paraphrased what I intended to mean. I welcome the suggestion to take this back to the talk page, and I believe an intelligent discussion there will reach a consensus one way or the other, and the 'losers' will just have to grin and bear it. I will recuse myself from it, but I hope my comments here will have helped. Kudpung (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Two comments regarding Kudpung's remarks further up (for the record):

— "… should be first discussed on the article talk page where they have not yet been addressed" – I raised the matter there before bringing the issue to WP:3O and to this forum; it is not my fault that user Jahwohl did not engage in a discussion.

— "WP:Forum shopping is not a good idea" – I describe my course of action not as forum shopping but following the processes of WP:DR and the advice of the 3O editor. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The proposed deletion of the article "Bruno Osimo"

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Bruno Osimo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I have created a short article about an italian author and translator scholar, Bruno Osimo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Osimo He is the author of several books and of a translation course published in 10 languages and widely studied. My short article is not perfect, it deserves to be developed, not deleted. I don't understand why the proponent of the deletion, Ttonyb1, pretends to delete it without submiting the process to a vote on a page created for the purpose. THank you for helping to solve this disagreeement--Adumoul (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The proposing editor has not 'pretended' to do anything and has acted perfectly within his capacity as a New Page Patroller (which any editor can do). He is not able to delete the article unilaterally, but he has expressed legitimate doubts about the article by applying one of the three standard 'proposals' for deletion: WP:CSD, WP:PROD, or WP:AfD. They can be contested by carefully following the instructions on the template and in the advice message on your talk page. This is not a matter for dispute resolution or a help desk. Hope this helps. --Kudpung (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

How can I free up an article name from being redirected to another one?

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There's a company that's being redirected to one of its subsidiaries that deserves an article of its own and I would like to create that article.Grmike (talk) 04:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)grmike

Do you mean that the name you want for the article is currently a redirect? In that case, just write the article on the redirect page, making sure to delete the actual redirect code, which looks like this: #REDIRECT [[Redirect target]]. --Danger (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks I did it, I just wrote the entire article Great-West Lifeco. The company should have had its own not redirected to a subsidiary.Grmike (talk) 08:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)grmike

I just had to say that I'm really impressed with that article. Writing about businesses is, I gather, rather difficult, but you do it very well. --Danger (talk) 12:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the compliment! I want to get Canadian companies more exposure, a couple years ago there wasn't a lot of information about them on wikipedia (it was common to find Canadian companies with a market value bigger than 5-10 billion dollars without even an article while American ones were mostly covered). your advice was very useful.Grmike (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)grimke

Image on Pirates versus Ninjas

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The embedded image at Pirates versus Ninjas is not necessary for describing the content, and features a blog URL in it for promotion. I feel that it should be removed from the article. Is that correct? Would I be right in thinking that it should deleted from Wikipedia altogether, particularly as it will be unreferenced after removal from that article?

One other thing; the websites section of the article features sites that probably have high user counts but are unlikely to have featured in the development of the meme or impacted it in any way. There certainly aren't any secondary sources available to show that they have. I feel like zapping the section but I'm worried that it would pointlessly ruffle feathers (particularly as it probably could be argued that RealUltimatePower had a lot to do with the development of the meme). I would appreciate any input on that issue. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 09:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, cleanup templates have been added and there are no images now. If you wish to sort out the article, there are pointers there. Perhaps you should consider starting a discussion on the talk page - that is what it is there for. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

12th Planet (disambiguation)

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am looking to add 12th planet (who is a DJ/producer) to wikipedia. Currently searching 12th Planet forwards you to Stitichin's page, but I think 12th Planet as a DJ meets your notability criteria and should therefore be added as a disambiguation to the "12th Planet" wikipedia search. Or as 12th Planet (DJ). He meets the wikipedia music notability criteria under the following numbers: 1. 12th Planet mentions in Big Up Magazine, URB.com, Music Video play through Scion A/V and MTV2, and on wikipedia pages such as HARD (music festival), Electric Daisy Carnival, and on GetDarker.com, a dubstep centralized website used as a major reference for the dubstep wikipedia page.

5. Released songs through record labels such as Dim Mak, Mad Decent, Trouble & Bass, Scion A/V, and more. 7. 12th Planet has often been referenced as one of the major contributors of dubstep in the Los Angeles area.

Apart from the notability criteria, 12th Planet has produced remixes and tracks for/with the likes of Rusko, Villains (Electronic Music Group), Le Castle Vania, MSTRKRFT, and Skrillex, all of whom have wikipedia pages. He has performed at Fabric in London, toured in Australia and New Zealand, and played American music festivals such as Together As One, Electric Daisy Carnival, SXSW, and more. This is apart from the hundreds of tour dates at various nightclubs across the US (Avalon in Los Angeles, Webster Hall in NYC, to name a few). He is also represented by AM Only, one of the largest electronic music agencies. I have now completed a mockup of a new page for him, which includes all of this information and a complete discography in a true and unbiased format. I have removed any and all previous information that could be considered soapboxing. All of the information used has valid references all of which I have marked down. If I can email this to you or you can create a disambiguation page where I can place it that would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dambuleff (talk • contribs) 23:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggest you create a draft in userspace first, at User:Dambuleff/Sandbox, then ask at WP:FEED for other editors to take a look at it before it is moved to the mainspace. – ukexpat (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Do take note of the comments by Dougweller on your talk page. You can also ask me directly on my talk page - but please remember to add a link to the page, and to sign your post ;) Kudpung (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, created a mock up with all references in my sandbox. I'm not exactly sure how to upload pictures on there, there's plenty to use but beats me how to get them on there. Let me know if any changes need to be made. Dambuleff (talk) 05:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)dambuleff

Images are more complicated. You must first establish if the images can be legally used under Wikipedia copyright and free use restrictions. You may not use copyrighted or non free images in your user space but you can create a link with a colon as a placeholder like this [[:this_image.jpg]] so that it won't display. For complete uploading instructions and image usage advice, go to Wikipedia:Image use policy and when you have done that, simply click the 'upload file' link in the side bar, and again, follow the instructions very carefully. However, User:Active Banana has reviewed your article and my own review confirms that your article may not meet our notability policy per WP:BAND, WP:RS, and WP:V. As such, it would probably be deleted. Kudpung (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand wikipedia's concern with notability, however I am a bit confused as to why there are other various electronic artists with wikipedia pages who have significantly less resources and seem to not fit under your guidlines of notability either. For example, if you search Le Castle Vania he has half the resources that 12th Planet does, half of them being the same ones I used. There are plenty more artists on wikipedia with similar situations as the one I just mentioned as well. The URB article I used is a magazine interview with 12th Planet, which works under your criteria. The quote of wikipedia on the other Big Up article is not used as a reference at all. It's the interview with the artist that is used as a reference. As far as the vimeo page is concerned, it's not really NEEDED as a reference, it was just videographic evidence of the existance of 12th Planets collaboration with artist Skrillex. Does changing the page to 12th Planet (musician) work as a solution to all this? And/or perhaps removing the questionable sources? Dambuleff (talk) 03:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

12th Planet (musician) would be a good title, check out the policy and guideline pages on your talk page, especially those relating to reliable sourcing. As to other pages, try reading WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion nominations DURING merger proposal by the same editor

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I recently noticed an editor who had proposed merger of several pages. Then when the merger proposal is going on he nominates several of the pages for deletion with the rational that the pages he nominated have most fo their information covered in the the ones he was to merge to. I had chimed in against the deletion proposals simply on the grounds that he was being impatient about the merger proposals which should be allowed to continue naturally, and that he was using the deletion nomination as a tool to get his merger. Then again perhaps he has every right to make two proposals for the same page at the same time? Should I remove my position against his deletion and judge it simply on it's merret ignoring the merger proposal? Mathewignash (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the best way to deal with the sort of situation you describe is to engage with the editor about their decision to make the deletion proposals in addition to the merge proposals. They are certainly in a better position to explain their position than anyone at EAR. At any rate, they ought to withdraw one of the proposals; it's not productive to have two discussions going about radically different actions on the same article.

I hope this reply is somewhat helpful; without seeing the actual situation, I don't know that I can offer better advice. --Danger (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a waste of time discussing anything with Mathewignash and he didn't even have the cajones to speak to me personally. Dwanyewest (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I posted my opinions, and you ignored them. Mathewignash (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, if assuming good faith and attempts at discussion don't work, then consider asking for a third opinion or raising a request for comment. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Well Mathewignash and I arguing about Optimus Prime and Megatron was going to a stalemate so I decided AFD would resolve these issues once and for all. Dwanyewest (talk) 08:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are admitting are using the AFD process to get a "merge" result. It seems like abuse of a deletion nomination when by your own action you don't beleieve an article deserves to be deleted. If you believe it should be MERGED, then you propose that and stick with it. Mathewignash (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I realize there is an indication that this question was answered but I would like to know of policy that allows a mid-stream change, without consensus, with a possible cause or not (especially from editors involved), that could be seen as subversion or some other disruption. I have not looked at any of this, but only what was commented on here, and want some clarification so I will know. I "do" know that if a discussion becomes stagnant there are other options, a host of ways (two mentioned in the reply) of getting others involved. This could include arbitration because what I read could be viewed as one editor trying to force something a certain direction. Unless an article contains certain violations, that warrant immediate deletion or a speedy deletion request, I can not think of a reason why (again given the WP remedial process) this would be appropriate. A core and fundamental policy of Wikipedia, as I understand it, is consensus. Once an action has begun, and especially after discussion has started and most certainly if it is contested, then consensus "must" be used. If I am wrong or there are exceptions to this process please let me know. If not there is not a question of something being productive or not but a matter of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, which would, as it seems to me, dictate the removal of a second action, until a conclusion of the first. In my opinion (and certainly if I was involved) an action such as this, regardless of good faith intentions or not, would warrant some sort of review. I would like someone, if a reply is offered, to provide policy and not just some abstract discussion.

I would like to point out that the statement, so I decided AFD, is one of the reasons I am commenting. I want to make sure there is not just some confusion or that I am not mistaken. There is either actual excepted ownership of articles (first major contributor notwithstanding), superior power distribution (policy violations and admin actions notwithstanding), or maybe the answer was just worded to be nice, but the AFD request, under whatever pretense, still screams improprieties and possibly WP policy and guideline violations.

In my opinion, subject to change with supplied policy directives, the editor that started an AFD (after a merge request and comments) should remove, or ask to have the AFD removed, as a mistake, and follow the proper channels (such as noted above), to resolve the on-going issues per WP:Consensus. My response is because the initial questioned was not, as I feel, answered to a possible solution. I would withdraw my position (my part of a consensus) if it was not important, if otherwise convinced I was wrong, or after a decision by consensus. I would not change my position if I felt I was being bullied. WP:NOEDIT; But no editor may unilaterally take charge over an article or part of an article by sending no-edit orders.. Since a decision to make changes without consensus by superseding a merge request to an AFD, in effect seems to do that, I would present grounds as such. Telling others that a page should not be proposed for deletion, when this may be doubted by others can be reversed to include the opposite. I hope a peaceful agreement can be obtained, or the next steps followed (WP:Dispute resolution if needed), but those involved remember we are all entitled to our opinions. Otr500 (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit dispute: a clear misunderstanding of the meaning of "assuming good faith"

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

My edit was reverted on "aide memorie": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Names_of_large_numbers#aide_memoire I posted a comment on the talk page. The reverting editor, Black Yoshi, explained the reversion as "assuming good faith", which makes no sense, unless he means that I should assume that his reversion was made in good faith. The editor has already been flagged for edit war, so I hesitate to get too involved on my own. The text is clear, and if there is some problem with what I posted, I feel that a reversion was not the appropriate method to fix it. ( Martin | talk • contribs 02:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC))

For what its worth, I don't understand what he means either, unless its that "you made your edit in good faith, and I'm reverting it anyway, and you should assume the same good faith in my actions". Anyway, if you look at the edit history (click "View history" button at top of article page) the reason he gave there is: "The number of commas isn't necessarily needed to write big numbers -- many people write with spaces instead.". I suggest if you continue to disagree engaging user Black Yoshi in a discussion about it on the talk page and try to reach a consensus. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Angel Moroni

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I have been attempting to make changes to the page Angel Moroni, and my edits are constantly undone and I don't understand why. Could you please help me to understand why my research with supportive references keeps getting undone in the name of "Apologetics"?

How do I get my content to stay on the page?

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and much of the content included in this article is simply heresay with half truths and an agenda against the main purpose of an encyclopedia - to tell it like it is. The references are not complete, or are referring to a book by one individual. The angel Moroni entry is obviously something that belongs to the LDS church and not to some individual that keeps removing my edits. I think that I have made plenty of verifiable references, and I need to know why the content is being removed, and what I can do to keep my edit.

Thank you for your assistance!

Sincerely,

63.248.22.54 (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I have just read the articles concerning warring and the 3 edit policy thing, and it seems to me that my content is being pushed aside due to someone disagreeing with the fact that it is coming from someone that has some "real" knowledge and references concerning the subject.

P.P.S. If you need to reach me by e-mail, please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.248.22.54 (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The main reason your edits are being removed is that they are written entirely from the perspective that Mormonism is true, and that is not a valid perspective for an encyclopedia to take. Wikipedia does not take that position with any religion. Please review and understand WP:NPOV, and consider that it is probably very difficult for you to be neutral with respect to the question of whether the Book of Mormon is true or not.—Kww(talk) 03:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add that in addition to the perspective issue the tone of the writing was also not entirely academic. This line in particular: "To help you to understand and to not be confused". I have to say that I was impressed by your knowledge of the topic and that I think you should use the article's talk page to see if you can convince others of your particular point of view. I myself know very little about LDS doctrine so I don't know if you are right or wrong. I reverted for the perspective and tone issues already mentioned. BrendanFrye (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It's important to understand that no external entity has the right to control Wikipedia articles. There only sense in which the article "belongs to the LDS Church" is that it is about an aspect of the Church. --Danger (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Top Ryde City

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The Ryde Chamber of Commerce initiated monitoring of dangerous road saftey practices during construction that resulted in some contracts being terminated.^[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.23.139 (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I add this referenced and seemingly NPOV and another editor keeps removing it. Please clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.23.139 (talk) 05:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www.rydechamber.com.au/echo/echo_mar_2008.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.23.139 (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

A PDF file isn't really a reliable source. You'd have to provide a link for where it could be downloaded, at absolute minimum. I'd try to discuss this on the article talk page first though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Small fyi to Andy: when assessing pdfs, you can often see right away where the file is hosted by looking at the url. In this case, the url is for the Ryde Chamber of Commerce. Also, many documents have attribution within them. Sure enough, this is a newsletter put out by the Chamber, and could, if it's a reliable source, be cited even without the web link.--Danger (talk) 08:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Danger, and believe it to be a reputable source, even if I disagree with the POVs being included in the actual article because the comments are second hand and not very weighty, certainly not enough to justify skewing the neutrality of the article. -danjel (talk to me) 09:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Further to this, the article clearly needs attention - can someone else take a good look? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record, my problems with the content ([[1]], [[2]], [[3]] and [[4]]) that the IP is trying to introduce here is that it is decidedly not neutral. This is reflected in the message box I put at the head of the page. More at the talk page for the article. -danjel (talk to me) 09:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Just because you don't like it or may not in your opinion be a NPOV is not a good reason to delete edits without some discussion. I have accepted that some aspects of the content needed rewording. However, the statement that - The Ryde Chamber of Commerce initiated monitoring of dangerous road saftey practices during construction that resulted in some contracts being terminated - with what seems a valid and reputable source should not be subject to repeated deletion.

Can anyone explain in what way the statement is biased to such an extent that deletion is justified?

110.174.23.139 (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Since this is an article content dispute, I will comment on the article's talk page. --Danger (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

How to post an edit?

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I need to add a short paragraph to an article. First-time effort - so any help is much appreciated.

TP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.225.66 (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like you've succeeded, if this is the edit you planned. One thing to note is that there's now two "Development" headings, so you might want to trim one of them out. You could also consider moving part of your addition into the later section headed "Reception". Other editors may disagree with the length of the quote on the grounds of it possibly being undue WP:WEIGHT, but since the existing "Reception" section is completely unsourced, extremely short and blandly positive, your material definitely adds something compared with the previous state of the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Peter Fincham

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Peter Fincham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Peter Fincham did not read Music when an undergraduate at Churchill College, but English. This can be checked by enquiry to Churchill College. I was his Director of Studies when he was reading English. He had a brother who read Music at another college. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim Cribb (talk • contribs) 13:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

An "enquiry to Churchill College" would not be a reliable source. Can this be confirmed by some other means? – ukexpat (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, in fairness, I took a look at the source cited for the paragraph. It doesn't say he studied anything in particular (it says he attempted and failed a musical career, but that's not the same thing). I've removed the reference to studying music entirely until and unless something reliable that says it can be found. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Image Requests

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to request images for the films: Norma Jean & Marilyn (starring Ashley Judd and Mira Sorvino), Different for Girls (British comedy film), Celestial Clockwork (directed by Fina Torres), and for the French film "The Chambermaid on the Titanic" with Olivier Martinez. I have images for all of these but I don't remember my username or password and I had trouble uploading photos last time I tried. I would also like to know if there is a basic email address for Wikipedia, for basic questions and requests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.47.95.93 (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If you know the email address that you used you may able to retrieve your account details and reset your password, but only if you know the user-name. If you remember which articles you edited you may be able to work out the user-name for the history of those pages. If not then you will have to register a new account. More details at Help:Logging in. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Parasol unit for contemporary art

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasol_unit_foundation_for_contemporary_art Hello I have a COI and would like to request someone neutral to become involved in editing this page, for an organisation based in London, UK. I am new to Wikipedia so please assume good faith in previous edits! Thank you. Umbrellaki (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Umbrellaki

Its a bit of a brochure but not terrible, compared to the worst WP:PUFFERY seen here. Can you be more specific about the changes you are requesting? Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

If you are looking for editors to watch the page and work with you on making changes in order to avoid conflict of interest issues, I suggest posting this notice on WikiProject Arts, WikiProject Museums, and WikiProject London talk pages. There you will find editors particularly interested in that article who might be happier to help over the long term. (Some of these project pages aren't well-watched, which is why I suggest posting at all three.) --Danger (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd really like to know how to edit this using iPad

Discussion moved

– to WP:HD#Editing without the human verification words Jezhotwells (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Everytime I submit an to the main page, for example to southgate transit centre it asks me to put in the two words again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seaniz (talk • contribs) 19:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC) seaniz (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

This was also posted at this Help desk section and is being dealt with there. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

generating dab articles

Resolved

– Answered at WP:VPT--Danger (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a good way to find pairs of articles "X people" and "X language", to verify that "X" is a dab page rather than a rd to just one? Thanks — kwami (talk) 10:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This looks tricky. Maybe Village pump (technical) would be a better place to ask? -- John of Reading (talk) 11:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Will ask. Thanks. — kwami (talk)

Does WP:CATI help? – ukexpat (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

If the articles were categorized properly, but many are stubs with inadequate categorization. But thanks. — kwami (talk) 00:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

SANGA AS A RACE

Request unclear

– Danger (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sanga is a Local government Area in Kaduna State as well as a race. This group of people are said to have migrated from the Central Africa. The dialet spoken by the people is Sanga. Over the years,interaction with other inhabitants has had the original dialet adulterated :the northern part is speaking the original dialet with less infiltration of Hausa language while the Southern part is greatly affected with Madam language.This had led the imminence of a Dielet address as Ninzo (a coined out word from Hausa language Na zo translated as "I have come" ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.200.125.78 (talk) 12:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to improve the Sanga, Nigeria article in any way you can. Please make sure that your edits include references to reliable sources so that readers know where the information has come from. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you probably mean 'ethnic group', rather than 'race'. In any case, as John of Reading says, we need to cite reliable sources in articles. I'll take a quick look myself, to see if there are any obvious changes that need to be made to the Sanga article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is about a 'local government area', rather than an ethnic group, so discussion of this would be a little misplaced. The only reference I've found to the sanga language/dialect is on the nigeria-planet.com website (I can't link, as it seems to be blocked by the WP spam filter), but this doesn't reveal a great deal. In West Africa generally, questions over languages, dialects and ethnicity are always complex and often contested (but then they are also contested elsewhere, so this isn't saying much). I'd think that possibly the talk page for the Languages of Nigeria article would be the best place for this to be discussed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Toy line article

Is is appropriate for an artcile about a toy line to include mention of what toys were produced as along as that list it cited in a reliable source? If so in what way? Perhaps a second "list of XXX", or in the main article written in a paragraph, or whatever. Thanks! Mathewignash (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Given the lack of specifics of your request, you will have to forgive the vagueness of the response: Maybe, it depends Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm specifically wondering about the Star Wars Transformers article, but this is also in reference to how I may write future articles. I originally wrote it with a list of the toys included in the article. Someone else deleted it saying it was against Wikipedia policy to have "toy catalogs". When writing an article about a toy line, is it appropriate to have a list of the toys if you cite a reliable source? Mathewignash (talk) 00:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

In the Star Wars Transformers i am not seeing anything that appears to qualify as significant coverage in third party sources. ToyArk appears to be simply a forum - there is no "about us" to know who is running it and the qualifications and reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Bensworldoftoys is the same except that we know it is run by Benson Yee who fails to meet Wikipedia's qualifications of a recognized expert as he does not have an article of his own. Business Wire justs regurgitates press releases it recieves. The Toyfare magazine may meet WP:RS, but there is just one line of information from there, it does not appear to be "significant" coverage.

In more general terms you would want to ensure that your article topic meets WP:N and that the content within the article is presented to accentuate its encyclopedic value, not just list the names of toys that were made. Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The article as I wrote it had signifigantly more sources (look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Wars_Transformers&oldid=407540283 ), but the guy who cut the article also cut my sources. This action was a bit suspect to me since he also unsuccessfully nominated the article for deletion. After he failed it delete it, he cut the heck out of it! Mathewignash (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

NB first and second talk-page discussions, the former including input from WP:TO. --EEMIV (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

possible error

Answered

– Danger (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

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

In reading the article about Portlandia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portlandia- i thought that the attribution of rights to copyright use of the statue might be wrong. When I clicked on the reference link, it indeed lists the rights holder as Kaskey, not Graves.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.162.203.168 (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I've fixed it. Note that it's absolutely fine to go ahead and fix such errors yourself. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

sodium glycolate

Request unclear

– Danger (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:Search/Sodium_glycolate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.202.239 (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

A quick Google search shows that (a) Sodium glycolate exists, and (b) it is used in cosmetics. Wikipedia doesn't have an article on it though. What editorial assistance were you asking for? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Need vandalism fixed

Resolved

– Vandalism fixed; vandal warned. Danger (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Stumbled upon a badly vandalised page but I don't know how to fix it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifa_11

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by BroderickAU (talk • contribs) 17:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, had to go back a bit deeper. --CliffC (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I've posted a warning on the Talk page of the editor who vandalized the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Ha, thought I'd fixed that one, guess you beat me by a few milliseconds. It gets confusing around here sometimes! Best, CliffC (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean. The same thing has happened to me and it's not until I look at the history that I realize that another editor beat me to it. At least we're all on the same side. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

How to edit

Answered

– Basic query, answered. Danger (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

HOW DO I UPDATE AN EXISTING PAGE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EFPWolfe (talk • contribs) 19:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I've left some introductory links on your talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Carl Hewitt article

Discussion moved

– to WP:BLPN#Carl Hewitt Jezhotwells (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

When searching "Carl Hewitt" in major databases like LexisNexis & etc., one finds a limited number of articles (like four or five) from the world's major news sources.

Apparently this individual is an M.I.T. computer scientist who had a dispute with Wikipedia of some sort, which is outlined in these press reports. This would seem the only aspect of his career deemed notable by major press outlets, according to results of a simple search.

When I've added this material to the article (which concerns Hewitt's apparent achievements as a computer scientist), an administrator shuts down the article & I get unpleasant messages on my personal page.

Alternately, when I merely list them on the article's talk page, the same administrator removes the material, shuts down the talk page & I receive more unpleasant personal messages.

A very limited number of regular contributors to the page form a "consensus" suggesting that including the most obvious sourcing available is inappropriate according to various Wikipedia policies, which on their face would seem not relevant.

To ignore the most widely available information regarding this individual would certainly appear somehow disingenuous to any modestly informed reader. Yet this seems to be the insurmountable "consensus" of 3-4 editors/administrators.

Calamitybrook (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You've already got a thread open on this at the BLP noticeboard, which is the appropriate forum. If you would like to request wider comment, an article request for comment is probably the way to go. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The BLP thread attracted regular editors in question.

Am seeking wider comment.

Dunno about bans on "forum shopping," yet it seems a tiny group of administrators is following and etc., and question doesn't really come up before uninvolved group.

Perhaps I'll take your advice and go elsewhere.

Yet it seems the question is a rather simple one concerning available and obvious sourcing.

Calamitybrook (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

See the discussion on BLPN. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Problematic code in the John Moore article

Resolved

– Fixed by Orangemike 20:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems the 1st chapter of the article John_Moore_(British_Army_officer) is somehow mangled. The last visible sentence does not make sense and if you look at the code, there is text that is not displayed. I do not really know how the ref tags work or if some text has been lost in edits, so maybe someone more experienced with these things could look at it? -- D64 (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

International distribution - linking to non-English Wikipedias

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

An editor has been changing links to a Japanese TV network from the English to the Japanese Wikipedia. See, for example, here. My reading of Wikipedia:Link#Non-English-language_sites is that the English Wikipedia link should be used. However, I haven't reverted the editor's change or any of the other changes made to other articles. I thought I'd ask here first.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If the English Wikipedia has an article then it's definitely preferred, but it doesn't in your example with AXN Mystery. Inline links to other Wikipedia languages are sometimes made in such cases although I'm personally not a fan of it. See Help:Interlanguage links#Inline interlanguage links. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, for some reason I thought the link existed - I guess I missed it. Someone reverted the change anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no advantage in providing links to, and/or using as reference, non English language sources for plainly English language articles in the en.Wiki about topics and subjects located in the native English language regions. To do so could under certain circumstances, be considered as disruptive or tendentious editing. Although it is technically possible because the site software permits it, all external links should generally not be placed inline. Their preferred location is in an 'External links' section. BTW: in the article mentioned, the flagicons should be removed from the table per WP:MOSFLAG. --Kudpung (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

First, thanks for the TB on my Talk page - how I wish we had the ability to watch sections - it was considerate of you. Second, with respect to the flags, why do I so frequently find Wikipedia guidelines so unsatisfying? I read the guideline, and I was struck foremost by the fact that it has this large section on "inappropriate use" and absolutely no section on "appropriate use". You have to read through the "inappropriate use" part to find inklings of when it's okay to use flag icons. Even the main section above that is generally about the use of icons has a tiny appropriate use section and a large inappropriate use section. To make matters worse, the inappropriate use section in the flag part of the guideline doesn't really address the issue of these kinds of tables - at least I didn't see it.

I also saw your message on the White Collar Talk page about it. I haven't removed the flag icons myself, though, because, honestly, it gives me pause. I haven't been able to find one other article about a TV series with a similar section (in table format) that doesn't use flag icons. My guess is they all clone each other, and there probably are articles out there somewhere that omit the flags, but even if your interpretation of the guideline is correct, it hasn't been applied that way. I don't suppose you could find something more definitive, either somewhere else or perhaps something I missed in the guideline (I confess to not always having the patience to read every word of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I work in a diversity of areas on Wikpedia and Wikimedia and must have read at least half of the 1,000+ policy and guideline pages by now - that's why I also work here at EAR. I'm expectd to implement the rules, although you can be sure that there are some I do not wholly agree with - and I say so too! I do however agree with the guidelines about the use of flagicons and I find they look messy and are unnecessary in long tables. I don't generally remove them when I see them, but I rely on regular editors of the concerned pages to reconsider. The good thing about Wikipedia is that it is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, but we expect them to read the instructions first. The downside is that most of them don't, and very few of them were trained in the golden rules of page and web design :) Happy Wiki Birthday! --Kudpung (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If you've read over half of Wikpedia's 1,000+ policy/guideline pages, then clearly you need therapy. Indeed, the fact that you even know how many there are is probably a symptom of some deep-seated mental illness. :-) More seriously and more to the point, I have two questions for you about the flag/icon guideline: 1. What part of it makes it wrong to use them in these international distribution tables? 2. In what circumstances, is it acceptable to use flag icons?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

MOS:ICON is the relevant guideline. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Blue Army - Poland

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I have had some very disagreeable and salacious interactions with an Editor who goes by the name Faustian. He obviously has a racist agenda and continues placing highly negative and damaging material on Wiki-pages/ articles where his view seems paramount. He quotes selected and trimmed down sources to make his point, but when confronted by multiple sources against his opinion, he usually gives up but returns using other angles. He has already had to accept one of my corrections as factual, but since then, has altered the site on the Blue Army, changed my additions which were properly documented, and recently renamed the new section I had created, to suit his needs. By renaming the section, he has changed the point I was making and this allowed him to continue to spew his venom.

Is anyone REALLY watching these pages?

As a historian and writer, I take a high disdain for individuals who push their political agenda and blatantly are racist and demeaning to suit their needs.

I am new to Wikipedia and have tried my best, but if this continues, I surely won't accept it and will share my experiences with my students and readership.

Hallersarmy (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, the article in question is Blue Army (Poland). I don't know enough about this issue to comment, so beyond suggesting you try discussing this on the article talk page, I can't really help. From what I can see, this definitely needs looking at closely though. Any volunteers? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

He shouldn't be uncivil by falsely accusing me of being racist and demeaning. Not good. See discussion on the article about the changes I made: [5]. User:Hallersarmy, whom I suspect of having a conflict of interest with respect to facts involving Haller's army (the actual military unit) is trying to keep reliably sourced information off that he doesn't like. Faustian (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hallersarmy, If you begin an enquiry here with even mildly inflammatory tones, it does not bode well for reducing any incivility past, present, or future, whoever made it. EAR is not the place to continue a dispute that hasn't even properly germinated on the article talk page where it should be.

Faustian, perhaps you could take a good look at the material and references that have been placed on the talk page, and discuss there why you oppose them.

Kudpung (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Lobby group editing page

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

A lobby group that opposes polygamy in Canada has posted a biased interpretation of a letter from Saskatchewan Attorney General Don Morgan on his Wikipedia page. I work for Mr. Morgan and would like to remove this misleading material. Here's the problem: no one in the current provincial government has made a public statement on polygamy so there are no references I can cite to counter what this group says in their post. The public discussion of polygamy in Saskatchewan consists of this group's blog^[2] and their comments on various news web sites. What is the best way to proceed?

Thank you.

Canoe67 (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence in question, as internet blogs are not reliable sources for articles (and especially for statements about living persons.) As you have a connection with the subject of the article, the best place to add your input would probably be at the article's talk page. Some other parts of the article seem a bit one-sided as well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I try to stay away from editing/commenting on the page because that might look like I was trying to censor comments that didn't make my boss look 100% wonderful. There are some other references that could be added to the page and I'll post those on the talk page.

Canoe67 (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The Cult

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

On The Cult artcile, an IP editor has been constantly adding "(Black Sheep)" next to the The Cult as well as the heading of a section within the article, argueing that the album was refered to as Black Sheep. After searching, I could not find a reliable source that backs it (only one that says the Black Sheep is a metaphor) and reverted the edits. This has resulted in an edit war with the editor replying "knock it off, and stop editing random subjects that you have no interest in at all" in their edit summary.

I tried explaining the issue on their talk page (though it is a shared IP). I asked for a reason for its inclusion, a source and tried to divert them to the article's talk page with no luck. They continue to revert with the same reply as above. I was wondering if I could have some assistance, before going to an admin. HrZ (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The IP editor was unacceptably rude in his edit summary. However, you both should be aware of the three revert rule WP:3RR.

A Google search for "Cult black sheep" shows that the album is regularly referred to by this name on fan sites and the blogosphere, for example, "The Cult wanted to get back to basics with a self-titled sixth album — title overruled! The Black Sheep record was also renamed for its cover art." http://monkeygoggles.com/?p=685 While a blog would not be WP:RS for an assertion about an incident in the life of Ian Astbury, for example, it probably would be considered reliable for an assertion "The self-titled 'Cult' album is commonly referred to as the 'Black Sheep' album by fans of the group'. If you want to pursue this issue further, you could post something on the Reliable Source noticeboard WP:RSN. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That certainly would be better than "the band released The Cult, also called The Black Sheep album" and would have no problem with that source while it would be more accurate also. But what of the additions of Black Sheep to both to heading and the discography? The same paragraph mentions both the Alice in Chains and Pearl Jam self-titled albums (Tripod and The Avocado album), neither are mentioned or added to the headings/discographys of either articles, only on the album articles themselves. Also I completely forgot the three revert rule in this situation, will not happen again. Thanks for your help. HrZ (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

How to reference "the only"

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The particular issue is solved, and I don't want to bicker, but as a general question or thought: What references does one need to prove that something is "the only XYZ". I received the concern that the ref I had given was from 1983 and something might have happened since then; fair enough — admittedly, 1983 is quite a while ago.

However, the general notion always holds true, and one can say "well, your source is from 2010, so it could've changed yesterday." In fact, somebody could just show up and say "I saw another XYZ yesterday, prove me wrong." This when it gets hairy, since the other XYZ's non-existence can hardly be proven. On the other hand, it could mean that claims of "the only XYZ" are never acceptable.

Thoughts?

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Are "XYZ is the only" claims necessary, i.e. encyclopedic, or just trivial? If exclusivity is a defining characteristic of a subject, I imagine coverage in third-party sources will make the claim, and it can be cited appropriately. Phrasing along the line of, "As of [this date], XYZ was the only" might be useful. Absent that kind of substantiation, I thin, in general, "XYZ is the only" claims are interesting but ultimately trivial; asserting XYZ's exclusivity solely by asserting the non-existence of other XYZs would be hard to cite and ORish. --EEMIV (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

In that case, there'll be a lot of clean-up to do. Before I posted here did a search for "is the only", and found a quite few that make this claim... "unreferencedly" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Requesting uninvolved editor

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I am requesting a uninvolved editor to please revert this. It's not particularly controversial, but we are supposed to be discussing the article's content, not the users involved. Tedder collapsed it for probably that purpose, and the user that placed the edit it is extremely upset that a COIN is in progress regarding her and the article that is being discussed for deletion. I don't know what the warning is referring to when Tedder supposedly "Gave false options" according to Anarchangel. But that defense has been used already at ANI and COI, and I'm certain that it does not need to be in a third place. Phearson (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion is here regarding edit on the talk page [6]. Phearson (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This would appear to be a matter for WT:Articles_for_deletion, not this request board. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Question about an administrator

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I recently had a problem with a particular administrator, User talk:Favonian, who seemed impatient and heavy handed.

I am unclear on the community rules here or the hierarchy of administrators, but I would appreciate someone reviewing this administrator's status because it seems like their talk page is heavily biased toward negative interaction with others.

I have a PhD in economics, I do research on transportation, and I am interested in history and have often made helpful yet simple edits without problems. Most of my edits recently have been without logging in, because of time and frequency of changing computers. This seems to upset some administrators, like the one in question. This is the first time I have had a negative experience with the Wikipedia community; this episode is very discouraging.

I am not disputing the final result, only the way this administrator behaves. I suggest that some further review of this person's status be considered or at least a comment to him/her that the purpose of administrators is not to scare off contributors. I get the impression this is the administrator's goal from his/her user page. Thank you for your time. Michael (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the discussion. I can't find anything on User talk:Favonian. Have you notified them that their behaviour is under discussion here? Jezhotwells (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Could you please provide more specifics, most helpfully diffs, of just what you think is wrong here? When I look at his talk page, it doesn't look all that unusual. Any admin that engages in anything remotely controversial will have a talk page full of complaints (check my archives if you don't believe me!). I don't see him lacking civility in handling them, or engaging in any other type of misconduct. Another thing notably absent from his talk page is you bringing up your concerns with him before bringing them to a wider forum, or at minimum inviting him to participate in a conversation that involves him. I will remedy the second of those shortly.

As to the rest of what you said, certainly anyone's contributions are valued and appreciated, but they will also be subject to scrutiny. I realize from my own experience that this can be a difficult process, but it's a critical part of what makes the whole project work. There is no "hierarchy" of administrators. We do review one another's work (as can editors, as well), and call attention to something that may be erroneous, but here, I'm failing to see anything that's out of line. In egregious or persistent cases of misuse of administrative permissions, the Arbitration Committee can place restrictions (up to and including desysopping), but I don't see anything here even coming near that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I was was not logged in. I have no idea why this administrator didn't take time to explain himself, and I was clearly in the wrong, but he seems to be quite heavy handed. When I posted a comment on his talk page he deleted it under the name, "rubbish." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mthomas1776 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I am concerned not with the result, but with the fact that the administrator is assuming bad will. I don't think I have the type of history that suggests I am a vandal, but this word seems to be used without much reason (see admin's own admission on his user talk page) Michael (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The only recent exchange that Favonian had with an IP that tracks to Utah State Univeristy is this one. If that was you, he was in his right to do what he did. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I know that you seem to think this is clear -- a matter of right -- but that dose not help me understand. What precisely did I do that can be considered vandalism? Michael (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You insisted on removing the Shared IP-notice from the talk page. You were asked not to do so more than once. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It is unclear to me that my University IP address is common property, it is also unclear that changing a user page (with an IP where my own edits were the only ones) is vandalism. Not sure that the admin made the case without just asserting authority. Michael (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Another editor was kind enough to alert me of this thread. Michael appears to be 129.123.120.99 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). If memory serves, I was drawn to his activites by an AIV report regarding incivility directed against Sottolacqua. I did not find sufficient cause to intervene but did tag the IP's talk page using {{sharedIPedu}}. For some reason, the editor removed this, which goes against WP:BLANKING. I reinstated the tag and left a message explaining why. He blanked again, and I issued a final warning. When he blanked again, I blocked for 24 hours as this was clearly disruptive. Just prior to this, he had left this line at the end of an old thread, with no explanation and no signature. This I admittedly reverted with the impatient "rubbish" as summary. Finally, the editor blanked the talk page, deleting the shared IP tag, and I revoked talk page access.

I stand by my actions, but I'll soon retire for the night, this being the Central European Timezone. Favonian (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the complete story. In short, Michael, you were given the link WP:BLANKING. Did you read it? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I read the link, but I don't agree with it (again, my user talk page related to an IP address for my computer). I don't understand the claim of incivility or of vandalism -- I find the abuse of administrator privileged to be a much bigger problem for the community than removing a line of code which was in dispute in the first place. On what grounds do you assert that the IP address is used by more than one person? Michael (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It is registered to the University. Therefore we assume that more than one person could use it, as is the case with many institutions. This is not meant to be some sort of Cain's mark, it is to help people understand why they might get messages that refer to something they didn't do (it is unclear, btw, why you take issue with that). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you stand away from this before you dig a big hole. It is common practice to tag IP talk pages of shared IPs, and such notices should not be removed. You can avoid this by always logging in. It takes only a few seconds. And if you have an issue with any other editor it is common courtesy to discuss first on talk pages. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Mike, the IP address 129.123.120.99 is in fact registered to Utah State University. See here. When you say it is an IP address "for my computer," I'm assuming that you use the university to access the Internet and that the University then assigns you an IP address. It is not your IP address. Thus, as others have already told you, Favonian's tagging was normal practice at Wikipedia. As for the use of the word "rubbish", Favonian already acknowledged that he was "impatient" at that point. You were wrong and you had pushed fairly hard, and editors and admins are human.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems that marking the box with information about vandalism is precisely the thing you say it is not (Cain's mark). Sorry, there seem to be some inside terms that I just don't follow here.

Is threatening language common Jezhotwells? I had no idea that wiki was getting so influenced by bullies. I did bring this up on the talk page and it was deleted, see above. If you want to threaten people, just kick me off the site, actions like yours destory the community.Michael (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, I started this thread in good faith. I am getting the impression that questioning administrators is impossible. I think the original admin was acting hastily and not making his actions very clear or thoughtful. I simply meant to bring this to the attention of the community. I don't think there is a case for much else to be said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mthomas1776 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to see this from your perspective, Michael, and I can somewhat sympathize; however and yes, especially administrators, and especially administrators as active as Favonian are subject to harrassment — esp. from IPs w/o account. Maybe we are influenced by bullies. On the other hand, you could check what your students are doing when you think they're taking notes on their laptops during your lectures; a lot of IP-pages from Educational Institutions are full of warnings because students think it's cool to post anything from "John is cute" to "motherfucker" on random pages. We're trying to deal with that, and that's what the Shared IP note is for. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me understand this CHoyool, the simple fact of the matter is that no unusual activity has every come from this IP address before I flagged a user for reverting suspiciously and made a comment on their page. Again, I don't disagree with the box being there, but I do disagree with administrators making demand and asserting things that are factually inaccurate. Before this interaction the only edits that are made from this IP are on obscure articles that I was reading and noticed errors, hardly seems like the work of an IP shared by undergraduates. Michael (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Posting "Threatens users" on a user's talk page is hardly engaging in constructive discussion. No wonder it was deleted. Remember to sign your posts and assume good faith. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Saying threaten's users when there was a threat, is a factual claim, not incivility. 00:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Look, I am usually on you guy's side. I am not a wiki whiz, but I edit when I understand how to make an improvement. I have been wrong before, and I am wrong about removing the box, but now that I have seen how the administrators deal with issues, I am under the impression that some of them need naps. I am very disturbed by this whole interaction and did not think that it should pass without making you aware of the impact these actions have on users, sometimes editors. Michael (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bring it to our attention. As a member of the community who has (purely coincidentally) also had contact with Favonian within the last 12 hours, I have reviewed Favonian's behaviour in that regard :) and, rather than being impatient and heavy handed, I viewed them as being swift and effective in dealing with the concern that I raised. One imagines that administrators deal with a lot of events like this, and although I'm sure it's always possible to find new ways to be patient with what seems to be disruption, I think you are being unreasonable to expect that Favonian's level of explanations and patience towards you, should have to be orders of magnitude better than the level of explanations that you provided to them. Wikipedia policies may seem arcane and illogical at first, but if you read back over the above, don't you think you've rather over-reacted? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I can go as far as "over-reacted" -- It seems that my claim was that the administrator should be a bit more careful, that I was not disputing the decision, only the manner in which it was delivered. Maybe it is simply a weakness in the code, as you have pointed out. Wiki can be a strange place with very strange quirks. The project is bigger than the jargon and silly games that have to be played in order to regulate it. Don't you think that there should be a way to communicate that is not heavy handed and threatening. I honestly didn't know how to find out more about the situation after the admin blanked my comment. It took me an hour to find this page and start the thread. I am mostly too busy for this, but that shows you how upset I am. Michael (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

So it's this that you objected to: "Please don't delete that template at the top of the page. It's is one of the few things prohibited according to WP:BLANKING.".

Or something else? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

First -- It is unclear to me that the IP address is shared, it is a .edu address, but that does not logically mean that it is shared, looking at the activity prior to this conflict seems to prove otherwise. Second, the box currently reads: vandalism and threatens reports to the university -- this is very dramatic language, and hardly describes me blanking an IP address in attempt to annoy an admin who seems to be a little short on investigation. Could you let me know if I need to talk with the IT personel at my University. If action is going to be taken, or if I am going to be subject to threats, I would like to know that up front. Michael (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

>OH, one of your main concerns dawns on me now; naw, no-one's gonna report anything. That kinda stuff is for the hardcore kiddies who've had a history of posting stuff like "I know where you live and I'll kill your mother" over several weeks. :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Whatever the ins and outs of the dispute, I feel you may be misinterpreting what's meant by "administrator". Admins aren't (and aren't intended to be) in some way "better", "wiser" or "more prone to turn the other cheek" than anyone else. We are simply editors like any other, but with a few more buttons to click (most notably "block" and "delete"). Certainly admin status may imply a greater familiarity with WP policies and guidelines, probably admin status may imply more experience with editing (which itself may imply a higher threshold of pique), but please don't get the idea that admins are in some way "special". We are, of course subject to the same WP rules as anyone else in our interactions. There is a specific noticeboard here to report administrators who allegedly have misused admin tools (such as inappropriate blocking). Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts is a good place to report breaches of Wikiquette, by admins or anybody else. Regards. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Michael, I think that Favonian is well aware of the situation. We generally presume that institutional addresses are shared, as they almost always are. That's a natural consequence of network address translation, and it would be unusual for a school to have a setup so that every user of its network would have a unique IP. Not impossible, but unusual.

For the rest of it, I don't see any further action needed. Michael, instead of putting "threatens users" on someone's talk page, make a clearly worded post indicating your concerns. Favonian has already stated the "rubbish" edit summary was made from impatience, and well, we're human. I wish I could say all of our editors and admins act with perfect patience, but unfortunately, that's unrealistic. I don't see any need for anything but the two of you to shake hands and walk away. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I am not attacking Favonian, I think that the point has been made. Frankly, I have learned some things through this conflict, which is good. I didn't know about the three strikes rule. I didn't know what an administrator was. I still don't know the process for getting extra "buttons" but I do know that the process is a bit counter-intuitive. My point was to remind people with the extra buttons what we lowly user-editors see. Thanks for that opportunity. Michael (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you've learned more about the community and I hope this incident doesn't scare you away from Wikipedia. Happy editing! Zachlipton (talk) 08:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Article on Gravity Brake needed?

Stale

– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I searched for an article on Gravity Brake and got a page telling me that there was no article on it. The page suggested contributing such a page, however it would be relatively short and the guidelines appear to discourage short pages. Essentially, a page on Gravity Brake would just refer to two usages, a type of check valve and an elevator brake mentioned in the movie The Towering Inferno. Should I build a wikipedia page with a short paragraph on each of these two usages and references to the appropriate Wiki pages, or not? TundraGreen (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know much about this stuff, but perhaps you could look at the article Elevator and see if you could work it in there. You could also discuss the issue on the Elevator Talk page first.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Maybe it would be more suitable for Wiktionary? Jezhotwells (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If I understand everything correctly, this term is used as a synonym for a type of check valve and is also referenced in a movie, but the movie object isn't a real thing. If you were to create an article, it would be a disambiguation page linking to check valve and The Towering Inferno. Disambiguation pages don't have any novel content, but are navigation aids so that a person who searched for "gravity brake" would be able to find which use they were looking for.--Danger (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Up to you, really. If the article meets the criteria required it'll stay, otherwise not. The applicable criterion might be this, which describes a "stub" article. Basically a stub "should contain enough information for other editors to expand upon it." The usage in The Towering Inferno, as I [http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/t/towering-inferno-script-transcript-mcqueen.html recall], is about 9 words ("we've activated a gravity brake on that outside elevator") with no further explanation which isn't really enough to expand upon. The usage in check valve seems enough in itself. There's also a patent for something that seems to describe what they used in the movie (but published in 2000, 26 years after the movie was first screened), and something rather odd here. Possibly a disambiguation page might suffice, mentioning (and linking to) check valve and the movie (though the usage there is so minimal I'm not sure there's any point). You may have found a research topic here - take a look at WP:N, WP:NEO, WP:RS and WP:V. Cheers, Tonywalton ^Talk 02:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The only reason I suggested a disambig is that I can see myself watching the movie, hearing that line, looking up "gravity brake" and thinking "this doesn't have anything to do with elevators". So the disambiguation gloss would be "A fictional device used in the film..." Perhaps just redirecting to a subsection in check valve would be more appropriate than a full on disambiguation page. --Danger (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, though that 2000 patent looks as if life has imitated art somewhere along the line. I watched the movie recently (shown on UK TV around Xmas) and decided that "gravity brake" meant "fictional thingy that conveniently stops lifts (elevators) plunging to the ground with the loss of all passengers".Tonywalton ^Talk 02:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a disambiguation page would be appropriate. I'll generate one. TundraGreen (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

A gravity brake is actually any type of devise that slows and or stops the decent of an object against gravity. You are actually on to something that has several names to include any free-fall brake such as the wet-type multi-disk brake used on winches (http://www.kobelco.co.jp/english/ktr/pdf/ktr_27/058-062.pdf., or an Emergency stop mechanism found on material elevators (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4359207.html), to the foolproof automatic braking system invented by Elisha Otis in 1854 (http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi279.htm), that began the use of elevators in almost everyone's life. The name gravity brake, obviously not coined at the time, probably would not have had preference to the words "foolproof automatic braking system". I am not sure of your actual intent or desire but you certainly have words that actually have meaning but that can use disambiguation, clarification, or association of some kind. The word "automatic" would remove the necessity of activating a brake so I guess the producers weren't using an Odis Elevator right?. The fact is that a "gravity brake", by whatever name it is called, is not a fictional thingy that conveniently stops lifts (elevators) plunging to the ground with the loss of all passengers, and any type of such devise would certainly be a gravity brake right? The one mentioned in the movie, while certain not known by that name, is still a stopping device or "brake" to prevent gravity free fall.

Maybe, providing there is interest, you can find something to build on or even, as suggested, find a way to integrate this in an existing article such as Elevator. By the way, a "check valve" would infer some type of hydraulic (fluid or water) system and elevators (passengers) have been electric since the 1850's. This would mean that an interrupt switch (or other safety switch) would be needed for electricity, that would obviously activate a locking mechanism or "gravity brake". The reference to manually activating a "gravity brake" (lacking any explanation in the movie) could mean activating some devise that would lock an elevator to prevent fall (a brake or locking pins) in case of a catastrophe. If this would not be the case you have just stumbled onto an error, as a result of not having an elevator technician as a consultant, and not something that is fictitious. The statement, "You may have found a research topic here" is certainly plausible. I hope this helps. Otr500 (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed 100%, but the usage in the movie of the phrase consisted entirely of those 9 words, following some apparent re-wiring of an elevator by one of the protagonists (so the "gravity brake" appeared not to be part of the normal function of the elevator). Whether a full technical description of the mechanism of a gravity brake was intended, or whether a gravity brake was a plot device, is moot. Could you clarify how your reply above is helpful to the original poser of the query, please? Tonywalton ^Talk 23:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Improving layout of an article

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi : In order to improve the layout of an article Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I moved some existing content under the new subheads created - however even though I did not make any changes to the content (only moved it to other sections) the changes were marked as "vandalism" Refer User Baseball Watcher entry: # 19:15, 16 January 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:WikiCpa ‎ (Caution: Vandalism on Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. (TW)). I think user Baseball Watcher acted in haste without looking at the edits or seeing the result of the layout. Please see my edits. In particular the article needs improved layout and content and has been tagged for improvement. How do you expect improvement if you dont allow improved layout ? With his rolled back edits the page is a mess again with redundant headers which should be sub-headers. Please advise. WikiCpa (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Your version has been re-instated. It looks as if Baseball Watcher (talk · contribs) made a mistake in this instance. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt action.WikiCpa (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually it was Fuhghettaboutit (talk · contribs) who restored your changes. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Roy Jones, Jr.

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Ubertoaster (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The page for Roy Jones, Jr. and related pages are constantly being edited by 69.136.103.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), distorting the facts to show Jones in a more favourable light. This user has had warnings in the past, but it seems the person who posted most of them has now retired from Wikipedia. 69.136.103.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) now appears to have deleted all the warnings from their talk page. I've tried to work out the correct course of action from the various help pages, and ended up here. If this is the wrong place to post this, or I've done it incorrectly, just say and I'll move along.

Removing warnings doesn't mean they no longer exist. A user can still be reported for blatant vandalism even if they've removed warnings for it, though you may want to note in the report that they are removing warnings so that the reviewing admin knows to look at the talk page history. If the issue is not blatant vandalism but rather a dispute over content, you may want to consider asking the editor to engage in discussion on the article talk page. Continually making the same disputed edit and refusing to discuss it is an unacceptable form of edit warring. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The IP user appears to posts in bursts with many months pause in between. Bear in mind that the IP may be shared as most are. IP numbers can also change. This IP has not edited since 7 January, but if similar disruption begins again under a different IP number, it may be worth reporting. At the moment it's unlikely that a block is necessary.--Kudpung (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:PUFFERY full of phrases like "As one of the best pound for pound boxers of all time, Jones is also acknowledged as being one of the most physically gifted athletes in the history of the sport." Needs a lot of attention. Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2011 (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. Kudpung (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Just going to chime in again, before this gets closed or whatever happens. As far as I can tell, User:69.136.103.9 has made hundreds of edits to Roy Jones' page (making it the most distorted biog page that I've seen on here) and the pages of people he's fought, taking a break of a week (not 'many months'?) at most and deviating from this only to vandalise the user pages of people who undo his edits[change to user CarbonX][change to user Nlu]. I'd love to "fix" some of it (though I'm hardly the world's biggest boxing fan) but the fact is this guy will just overwrite or undo it like the edits of all the other people who've tried to fix those pages over the last few months. If what User:69.136.103.9 has done doesn't merit any real action, then what does? This is the first time I've really been wound up by someone on Wikipedia - it's caused me to be dragged into this. Sorry if there's a WP: about snitching, but - there you go. Ubertoaster (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The page has been copyedited and tagged for improvements. A summary has been left on the talk page. If 100% provable vandalism and/or disruptive editing by IP users persists, any editor can ask at WP:PP for semi page protection. Kudpung (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Updates to Jon Christopher Davis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Christopher_Davis

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I have just provided updates to the Jon Christopher Davis page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Christopher_Davis) and would like to see if the updates are good enough to remove the following warning:

"This article is written like an advertisement. Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view. For blatant advertising that would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic, use {{db-spam}} to mark for speedy deletion. (January 2010)"

Narciso17 (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Narciso17

You always can if you want, you don't have to ask permission. You've made a good start on it! I would have a couple of additional suggestions. First, kill or footnote the "puff" critic quote—that doesn't belong on the main text. It's enough to note that he was reviewed favorably by the source. Also, "JCD" should be changed to "Davis"—per our manual of style, a person should be referred to in an article by last name only after the first time they are mentioned in an article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Phares Oluoch Kanindo

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a new article about a Kenya politician apparently written by the subject himself. I know nothing about Kenyan politics, but the article reads like an election pamphlet. A quick look at Google doesn't tell me much except that this person exists. The article could do with a review by someone who either knows the political scene (where the subject accuses others of "maneuvering" certain events", which may, in itself be a BLP violation) or more about toning down the hype. Bielle (talk) 06:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Contacting WikiProject Africa and posting a message on the Africa-related regional board would probably be a good start to improving the article long term. Because this person seems to be somewhat less active now, having access to archives of Kenyan newspapers will be critical to sourcing the article. There are also several editors particularly interested in Kenya listed; it might be worthwhile to contact a few of them, provided they are still active. --Danger (talk) 07:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

There are also a number of useful tags which any editor can use in cases like these. See the tags I have placed on the article, in particular the WP:BLPPROD, and the kind of message User Danger has placed on the creator's talk page. --Kudpung (talk) 07:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

EDIT MY INFORMATION.

Resolved

– as per note below. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

MY NAME IS MISHECK LUNGU. AM A ZAMBIAN FOOTBALLER AND STILL ACTIVE. BUT SOMEONE WROTE THAT AM CURRENTLY A POLITICIAN. PLEASE EDIT THAT POLITICIAN PART. AM NOT A POLITICIAN. THANK YOU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.205.147.50 (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Any editor is free to challenge and remove unsourced information from a Wikipedia article, so I have removed those words.

However, if, as I suspect, you have been editing the rest of the article recently, please read this guideline and especially the section "If Wikipedia already has an article about you". -- John of Reading (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems to have been fixed, but please do not write in CAPITAL LETTERS. --Kudpung (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Louis J. Posner

This section has been blanked as a courtesy.

Suggestion of sock-puppetry not retracted after request.

Stale

– Horse has been re-beaten, death has yet to be confirmed.Danger (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

User: Cyclopia has made a rather thinly-veiled suggestion of sock-puppetry against me on the talk page of ejaculation,where he said after a few comments from an IP: "Hi DMSBel, what about logging in?" (this is at the very bottom of the current talk page [[7]]) - this follows from earlier accusations of trolling and other personal attacks which he has made and not retracted either. He is wasting my and other editors time. I have asked him on his talk page to take down his accusation, but he says he still thinks two IPs on that page are me. Regardless as to whether (as he now says) he does not think I am "maliciously socking", his comment gives that impression and it affects not only me but the IP he is suggesting I am using. I have made it clear to him that those IPs are not mine and as he is refusing to do anything to resolve the situation I am seeking editor assistance. DMSBel (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I think that WP:Wikiquette alerts might be the best place for this. Instructions there. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Have gone to WP:Wikiquette alerts about this editor in the past, he simply ignored the issue, and did not retract his remarks which were personal and intended to undermine me. DMSBel (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Did he ignore the issue despite general support at WP:WQA that he has a problem and needs to do something, or was there not substantial support for your claim that there is a substantive problem that he needs to address? Without pointers to previous discussions there so others can see previous attempts to resolve this by the recommended way, your attempt to bring the same topic up here is just forum-shopping. DMacks (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Cut the bull, I am fed up with this editor and now you are using the same claptrap as he does "forum-shopping"!!!. This is not forum shopping. I think there is a substantive problem. I can provide links. I am however coming here about his latest suggestion of sock-puppetry. You folks are so damn quick to accuse of forum-shopping when a link is missing. I post it here in a second. But I will damn well not stand for one more accusation of that against me. DMSBel (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Then I strongly recommend you spend a few minutes getting your own house together before asking for help--making a single posting with the relevant details, but delayed by a few minutes, won't hurt your cause. You're wasting our time reading a half-formed complaint that lacks sufficient detail to act on. DMacks (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Clarify a few things. The previous WQA DMSBel is talking about is this thread he initatied which, to my reading, ended in a nearly complete boomerang. The case in point is however different -DMSBel is contesting what seems to me a WP:DUCK case of he having failed to login, something he does often; whether maliciously or not it is not to me to decide and I assumed good faith; however now I'm not so sure if I should continue to AGF. Perhaps a SPI check is worth? If it comes out negative, then I gladly retract and everyone is happy. --Cyclopia ^talk 21:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Also: quite funny to say that I am wasting people's time when it's DMSBel only who keeps creating drama on my talk page and then here. Facepalm --Cyclopia ^talk 21:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

All the detail is there regarding his current allegation. He is the one wasting my time and yours with thinly veiled suggestions that other IPs are being my used by me. Cyclopia you could take that comment out and all this would not have had to take place, I have told you they are not my IPs. You should have requested an IP check first. You are wasting all our time.DMSBel (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The relevant WQA is Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive96#Cyclopia. The claim was dismissed as unsubstantive. DSMBel announced his intention to take the matter to Arbcom again if the WQA did not go zir way. [8](apologies for the excess diff, but DSMBel added a relevant part of the comment much later.) The previous arbitration request can be found here. The request was dismissed as a content dispute.--Danger (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

All you are saying here is rubbish Cyclopia, admit it, you are not AGF, you said so, when I brought this up on your talk page, did you care whether that IP was me or not? If you were AGF you would have accepted that it was not my IP and taken out your comment. One question I repeat: Did you care whether or not that IP was me when you made your insinuation? DMSBel (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I suspect that IP is you; apart from your declarations I see no evidence of the opposite. And of course I cared, I've seen a quacking duck. You used IPs too often and your styles are too similar to not suspect that. And also the IP commented suspiciously immediately after the last failed battle of yours about that page. The one and only thing I was going to assume good faith is that you didn't do it for explicit socking. Now, given your current behaviour I have doubts on this as well. Again, if there's proof that I was wrong (or consensus that the two editing patterns are indeed too different to justify my suspects) I will immediately apologize and retract, but not until then. --Cyclopia ^talk 21:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. If the IP was clearly DSMBel logged out and he is not using the IP to evade a block or 3RR or appear to influence consensus, this isn't remotely a case of sockpuppetry, it's a case of an editor not being particularly adept with his web browser. (It's not puppetry if there's no sock over the hand, so to speak.) Why cause unnecessary drama with sockpuppetry accusations (which are serious and should never be tossed about lightly)? Why cause unnecessary drama by arguing about it? The situation is already inflamed. Am I missing something? --Danger (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I only come here because Cyclopia will not take out what (given his previous allegations against me), I could only read as an further insinuation. He simply does not seem able to accept that there could be more than myself expressing the same view. DMSBel (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, he was discussing on a talk page so it appeared very much to influence consensus; also the IP suspiciously shutted up right after I pointed that it could be DMSBel forgetting to log in. I didn't accuse anyone of maliciously socking (even if I suspected that); I just asked the guy to log in. I was (and I am) quite on the fence. --Cyclopia ^talk 21:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Give it up Cyclopia, you are wasting everyones time, you didn't like the comments the IP made, because what? "They appeared very much to influence consensus", maybe? DMSBel (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

What should I give up? It is you who is stirring nonsensical drama here. If you just had commented on that talk page "Ehm the IP above wasn't me" I would have probably gladly retracted. All the unclaimed, unrequired noise you're making now only confirms my suspicions -why screaming so much for such a bland remark (you having possibly forgot to log in) if you really have nothing to hide? --Cyclopia ^talk 21:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Asked you to take the comment out, you refused, asked again, you still refused. Could have been resolved ages ago, even now it could be resolved. Do you like prolonging matters?DMSBel (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not at your orders. I will retract it with lots of apologies if there's consensus or proof that the comment is wrong; until now it seems there's quite evidence that it is right, so it stays. We'll see. Bye. --Cyclopia ^talk 22:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Protonk (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Simple - do an IP check. DMSBel (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I have told Cyclopia the IPs are not mine, He is refusing to accept this. The comment as it stands sounds like Cyclopia is insinuating new comments on that talk page to be from me. If he won't accept what I have said and remove his comment (which could have been done very easily), his claim to have been AGF seems very disingenuous. He says he thought they were still me not logged in even after I made my complaint on his talk page. DMSBel (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser doesn't exist to prove innocence, as it were. The best solution is to just let it slide. Ratcheting up the rhetoric over what you see as an off base accusation only makes things worse. If those IP addresses aren't yours then the accusations are off base and Cyclopia is making an ass of himself. Its that easy. There isn't really a mechanism for you to seek to have your honor restored, as it were. Protonk (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok I'll let it slide. DMSBel (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser doesn't exist to prove innocence ?? - well then it should. Run Checkuser on this DMSBel guy ASAP and stop this stupid arguement now. What a total waste of time for a project which has much more important work to do. -- Myosotis Scorpioides 22:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

so waste the time of a group of less than a dozen active editors with better things to do? That's a smashing idea. and checkuser has never been there to prove innocence. Go start a request to IP check an account in order to "prove" it is not linked to an IP address and see what happens. The request won't go past the clerks and it shouldn't. Checkuser is a very narrow technical tool which is appropriate for a small sliver of issues. Protonk (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a little notice that the Wikimedia Foundation has recently suggested that sysops on the English Wikipedia enforce WP:NPA more tightly, so I would like to remind everyone to watch their tongue / fingers... --Der yck C. 23:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you happen to have a link to that suggestion handy? Protonk (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to be sure: what attacks are we talking about? I see no PA from either side. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Ethnocinema

Resolved

– Danger (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Editor,

Please embed a redirect from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocinema to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETHNOCINEMA. Previous redirection from ethnocinema to ethnofiction was incorrect as these two terms are distinct.

Thanks, Smaque (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a free host. If you are not prepared learn wiki markup and to do the above edit yourself, then please do not try and publish your essay here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The article has already been moved to Ethnocinema, since this is consistent with the Wikipedia naming conventions. A quick Google search shows that "Ethnocinema" is the more usual capitalisation outside Wikipedia as well. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect labeling of a photograph

Resolved

– Danger (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I was looking at Donny Osmond's page and there's a black and white picture (File:Donny Osmond 1973.jpg) that says it's Donny performing in Hamburg 1973. In fact it's his brother, Merrill Osmond, on the guitar. In the background is his brother, Jay Osmond, on the drums, and his other brother, Alan Osmond, is to the left. Donny Osmond isn't in the photograph at all. So, it should either say "Osmond Brothers performing" or it shouldn't be on his page at all. I just thought it'd be nice to keep things as accurate as possible on Wikipedia :) Thanks. Vepiro (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)vepiro

You don't have to ask permission to make an edit, you really can go ahead and do it. Though you might want to be prepared to back up how you know that if anyone challenges it. I honestly can't tell. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I've edited it. Donny isn't in the picture - he played keyboards with the band and would be on the far right, if I recall how they set up on stage. That's definitely Merrill out front. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Tut tut. Elen engages in WP:OR of the most blatant kind. Send for the WikiCops! ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Replacing an article that was removed in 2008 with a new and current article on the same subject

Answered

– Danger (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I serve as the Director of Certification and Accreditation for the International Society for Performance Improvement(ISPI). In checking wikipedia I see that at one time there was an article for the International Society for Performance Improvement but that it has been removed. I cannot interpret the codes to determine why it was removed. My question is, can I submit a new article to replace the one that was removed if I ensure that I am following the publication guidelines? My e-mail address is ^{[details removed]} or my phone number is ^{[details removed]}

maurie colemanMauriecoleman (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"G11" stands for advertisement/promotional tone. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. For more, see my answer on your talkpage. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed your contact details to protect your privacy. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

You can start the new article in your user space or in your sandbox, and ask an editor (such as me, for example) to review it for you when you think it is ready for main space and conforms to Wikipedia policy. --Kudpung (talk) 09:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Jonas Brothers Article Incorrect Geographical Location

Answered

– Danger (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The article states "From the shore region of New Jersey", but Wyckoff, NJ (close to where I live) is in the Northeast corner of the state, far from the shore. Ksajdera (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

That's probably a better subject for the article talk page, and you may want to bring it up there. Do keep in mind our guidelines on original research. I also do not find any mention in that article of Wyckoff, NJ. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Actor Don Knight

Answered

– Danger (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Don Knight was my father and I own all rights to all of his career since his passing in 1997.

Some goofball linked "Actor" with "Politician" and as a result I cannot touch it, correct it or edit the links. Two very different Don Knight

Mark Knight Knightrec

Candidates for the 2011 steward elections are asked to submit their nominations by January 28. <--NOPE!

http://www.knightrec.net/ <-- YES! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightrec (talk • contribs) 00:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Mark. I'm not sure what you're asking here, but are you sure you have the right article? There are several listed at Donald Knight, Don Knight (actor) may be the one you're looking for. You seem to be looking at Don Knight (politician). Neither article seems to be protected so you are free to edit it. But please be aware of our guideline on conflicts of interest and verifiability. Rehevkor ✉ 02:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm also unsure what you mean. Don Knight redirects to Donald Knight which mentions several people of that name. This seems sensible. If there is a specific page which mentions your father but links to the wrong article then please name the page so we can fix it. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't generally refer to our editors as goofballs, and very often the complaints of this kind by Knigtrec who didn't sign his post, are due to not doing enough research in Wikipedia in the first place. The Donald Knight page is a disambiguation page - all Knightrec needs to do is click on the entry for the page about his father which anyone can edit. However, Knightrec needs to read up on the WP:COI policy, and to bear in mind that he has no ownership over the contents of any page on Wikipedia.Kudpung (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Need editor to take this over - BradHerzog

Resolved

– Danger (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I am the publicist for an award-winning author, who also happens to be my husband. A conflict of interest, perhaps. But I am a legitimate publicist and he is a legitimate author who should be represented on Wikipedia. Can I get an editor to take over the article I submitted about him for approval? I posted it for editor review on Sept 25, 2010 but it was removed by someone. It is under user:Amyherzog/BradHerzog. Can someone advise how we can get this up on Wikipedia please? Thanks so much! AmyherzogAmyherzog (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Amy. One of the reasons the review was removed was because you did not correctly follow the review procedure [9], you needed to submit the article, not just your user name. One of my primary concerns with the article is that of sources. There are WP:BLP issues, biographies, particularly those of living persons, need to be properly sourced. The vast majority of the information in the article is not attributed to any sources, if you are unable to source this, you should remove it from the article. Personal experience cannot be used as a source. Wikipedia articles should always rely on secondary sources, these are sources one removed from the topic, rather than personal blogs etc. You will need these sources to support the article and satisfy any notability concerns. You also need to be familiar with our conflict of interest guidelines, as this will help make sure the article is neutral. I have rambled on a bit here. I am, alas, not prepared or familiar enough to address the article itself. But I hope the above will assist in doing so yourself. Rehevkor ✉ 21:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

"legitimate publicists" are particularly inappropriate editors for articles of their clients. WP:NOTADVERT / WP:COI / WP:NPOV all come into play. Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Nor does Wikipedia give anyone representation or presence. If he is notable and sources can be found to demonstrate that he is (the ones in the current draft are insufficient) then an article about him is appropriate. – ukexpat (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The article reads like what it is: a publisher's promotional essay about one of its upcoming authors. I have recast it for encyclopedic style and neutrality. However, notability must be confirmed through first-class third party sources per WP:BIO, WP:BLP, WP:AUTHOR, which must be verified per WP:V before the article is moved to main space. Kudpung (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Request dispute resolution regarding page on Temperance Flowerdew

Resolved

– Danger (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The page on Temperance Flowerdew has notices on it dated July 2010 (disputing neutrality of article) and November 2010 (criticizing the introduction). There are a number of comments on the Discussion page for the article, but nothing has been added to the discussion since October 2010, when it was complained that Temperance Flowerdew was not a sufficiently notable person to have an entry in Wikipedia -- an objection with which I have some sympathy.

I have made a lot of alterations, starting 15 Jan 2011. I would appreciate it if the article could be reconsidered in its current state. If there are still objections, or if the dispute remains active, I will be happy to remove all my changes and revert the page to where it was on 15 January 2011. Applephile (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the tags from the article page because their purpose is served already by stimulating interest among editors to improve the article, and I have removed one short sentence that is a contributor's personal opinion. It appears to be well referenced, I am not sure if the subject's historical importance is sufficient to assert notability, but as we are dealing with an innocuous article about a deceased person, and not a BLP, there is no reason for anyone to begin anything that needs dispute resolution. Try to resolve the issue by means of the talk page, but only if absolutely necessary - months seem to pass between messages. If you really feel strong enough about the notability issue, send it to WP:AfD. --Kudpung (talk) 08:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't "really feel strongly" about any of it, although it's been interesting researching it. Have reverted my changes as it was not my intention to cause annoyance. Applephile (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's much risk of contentiousness here. The article doesn't appear to be very active. It was a bit overwritten, however, with a lot of extraneous information that made it very hard to sort out the biographical details of the subject (there are actually not that many) and I whittled the article down a bit to make that task easier. It should probably be thinner still. I noted these changes, and my reasoning, on the Talk page. (I agree that the few historical references to her may well not warrant an article at all and an AfD might be appropriate.) JohnInDC (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Worshipful Company of Curriers

Answered

– Danger (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello I have an image of the Worshipful Company of Curriers for uploading which is free for public use but seem unable to get it uploaded on to the relevant page, ie: Worshipful Company of Curriers! Many thanksMabelina (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You do not fully explain the problem. Just saying 'seem unable...' is not very helpful. Upload a file using the 'upload file' link in the 'Toolbox' section of the left hand side bar of this page. Follow the instructions carefuly making absolutely sure that you can comply with the copyright and/or fair use requirements, otherwise the file will be deleted. Putting the file on an article page is a seperate operation.

In edit mode on the article page enter: [[file:your-file's-name(with .jpg or whatever file type it is)|image caption that you want to display]]
Click 'preview'
If everything looks as it should, click 'save page'

If that doesn't work, ask me for more help on my talk page.--Kudpung (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Stopping IP's from editing

Answered

– Danger (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Australian rules football leagues in regional Queensland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There appears to be a problem with someone editing this article from what appears from the Whois to be from the same IP range. They are persistently making changes to the Bundaberg Wide Bay region, some of which have already been established on the talk page as wrong with citations, one of which involved the removal of a citation tag and the rest appears to be original research. I just need to know what to do in order to stop this from happening. Is there as way to block IP's from editing pages and if so what is the procedure? Footy Freak7 (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you can request semi protection at WP:RFPP, which will block IPs and non auto confirmed users from editing. This is usually only done in the case of actual clear cut vandalism or long term problems, however. If it's a content dispute (at least, if the IP is acting in good faith) you might try instead full protection to force the Ip to join discussion. Rehevkor ✉ 23:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Opposing material in Religious Toleration

Answered

– Danger (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

User:72.42.146.36 keeps deleting the following sentence from Religious Toleration, 3 times today so far: "In The End of Faith, a book expressing a scientific and skeptical attitude towards all religions, Sam Harris asserts that we should be unwilling, as individuals, to tolerate unjustified religious beliefs about morality, spirituality, politics, and the origin of humanity." I attempted to contact him on his talk page and he finally included an edit summary in his latest reversion, which says, "While an analysis is always appropriate, the works of Mr. Harris are not any more appropriate for this article than the works of Mr. Stalin. Wikipedia has an obligation to remain neutral." User's edit history reveals that he has a history of deleting well sourced sections in articles, especially religion-related, and has vandalized both Atheism and Great Britain through inclusion of insulting text. Aside from his editing history however, I thought I would check in here to see if anyone else thinks the Harris reference doesn't belong in the article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly related to the subject, and Harris certainly is not a minor player here. On the other hand, the section really doesn't say anything. Why are the people listed in the modern criticism section critical of the concept? Just saying they are doesn't do too much for the article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks--will expand the section. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

- and if you are quoting or referring to something an author says in his/her book, remember to reference it, preferably using the book ref citation template, and provide the page number(s). --Kudpung (talk) 07:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Repeat, unjustified requests for deletion of Hugh Darwen

Answered

– Danger (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Eight years ago I created the Hugh Darwen article. It has grown slowly and been improved, it is not perfect but it is informative, it is useful, it is referenced and it is by a noted author and technologist. For the last three months, user UKWikiGuy has been trying to get it deleted, with no reason given at all. He is now at his third attempt, and since he has been challenged in the article’s talk page, in the page on articles for deletion and in his talk page. Never a reason to delete given, other than lack of references — false, but even more references have been added since — and slurring the subject with being the author of the article, which is patently false given I was the creator and the subject has indeed done, independently, quite small cleanups there quite some time ago.

Should we have the deletion note removed (tried it already this time, it has been restored by someone who failed to answer my argument), the article protected from vandalism, or what?

— Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You must leave the AFD notice in place. Make your arguments for keeping at the AFD entry for the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed, you must let the AFD run its course. Looking at it so far, it seems that it's a unanimous keep. Don't waste too much wiki time worrying about it - the article appears "safe" and there are millions of other things that need doing on wikipedia. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 08:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I also think it's fairly safe. Kudpung (talk) 08:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Block socket master and sock puppets

Resolved

– Users have been blocked 16:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Block the users *Ulla* (talk · contribs · block user), E.G. (talk · contribs · block user), The Great Cucumber (talk · contribs · block user) and John Anderson (talk · contribs · block user) as confirmed sockpupets (and E.G. as master) (*Ulla* here on enwp is Ulla on svwp according to the respecitve users userpages. These accounts, and some more, have already been blocked from editing svwp and these are the accounts have edited on the same way here on enwp, by changing consensus by supporting each others actions. Please also block, for as long as enwp policys and you sees fit the IP 137.61.234.225 that has been used when this person has been at work, including changes from logged in users to prevent further sockpuppetry. As you can see the oldest account has been active since 2004 so it's not a new idea for this person to use multiple accounts. This IP seems to be a static one for the person in question and belongs to the Swedish Tax Agency and is not a dynamically assigned address that someone innocent could get at home. GameOn (talk) 11:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

We can't do that on this noticeboard. Plerase look at WP:ANI which would appear to be the appropriate venue. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I just followed the interwiki and didn't read up as much. Thanks for letting me know where I should go! GameOn (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You may also get quicker action at WP:SPI, the dedicated sockpuppet noticeboard. Kudpung (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought that one (which I used IIRC about a year ago) was for requesting a sokpuppet investigation. Work is under way by an admin. GameOn (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Spam in the Stairlift page

Resolved

– No further activity on Stairlift. --Danger (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

A poster repeatedly puts a hyperlink to a commercial wen in the text of the Wikipedia stairlift page.

The web it links to collects personal information in a web form so it can be sold as a sales lead. The other reason is that the poster is trying to get a free incoming link from the Wikipedia to enhance web page ranking.

This is not what the Wikipedia exists for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stairlift (talk • contribs) 09:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

At first glance, something is clearly wrong. Looking into it. --Kudpung (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The link is spam. However, the article has other issues: Notability as an encyclopedic article is not asserted; it is unsourced original research and the creator/major contributor may have a conflict of interest (same user name as page name). --Kudpung (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Jatt Sikh

Stale

– Danger (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Please can I have some assistance on this article. See the conversation so far here. It has got to the stage where I have been accused of being a Hindu hater. Thanks--Sikh-History 14:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems like you might need a healthy dose of third opinion. I am not familiar enough with the subject to comment myself, alas. Rehevkor ✉ 14:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The deleated article: People of Color Page

Answered

– Danger (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Please help!

I wanted to create a page that had a similar title, but different "content" from the existing page. I have asked the editors to clarify their positions...I am confused about where the problem lies... I would like help. Thank you.

Please consider my "sketch outline" for this article "people of color" page, as I would like to contribute it towards Wikipedia:

"People of color" (my article suggestion)

-Definition (American definitions, local usage and slang) - Global Definition (not necessarly American) -- (new section) Why Are People Different Colors? [Include information about Genetics, and Skin Pigmentation] -- (possible new section) The Difference between "Phenotype and Geneotype" [Why people may look different from their genetic expression...through plastic surgury, make-up ect...] --Pictures of "People of color"

I think my above outline is different from the current "Person of color" page which includes: --Definition -- History -- Cultural Significance.

I am confused. Are the editors objecting to my information (which would be from a scientific-factual approach, including information about genetics, and human diversity) or to the Title of my page? Do you find this article offensive? [In support of my article, it is inclusive of all people, "global," and I hope factual.] Although someone else is using the title "Person of Color" in a different way [A "political/cultural" way] should my article not exist? If I knew what part was non-factual, I would adjust my article, and possibly submit another (more factual) article. Am I wrong in respecting the cultural page as different (and just as valid as) a more scientifically oriented page? Please, explain...I hope you have read both pages. The editors seem to be suggesting that we include a "cultural" section with the (if allowed) more "scientifically oriented" approach. I don't think the editors are "Anti-Science," but, they have not responded to my point: Both articles have a different perspective (which should be allowed). In my mind, both pages should be allowed, it is o.k. to use a term in two different ways.
C-ritah (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Content forking. WuhWuzDat 03:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

To expand on that slightly, if your material is relevant then it would go in the existing Person of color article, or in related articles like Genetics or Race and genetics. Wikipedia doesn't have extra articles about the same topic just so that the topic can be discussed in a different way. You will need to work together with the other editors on the existing articles, and establish a concensus if there is disagreement about how the article should be structured or what information

is relevant to it. Of course, if you can establish that there is a separate completely different topic that needs its own article, then that could be created; but from what you've written above, that's not what you've been doing.

Also you should remember that if you are discussing scientific aspects of race then you will need to support what you write with references showing which reliable sources have made the points raised. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Having now read the deleted article and your questions in the AfD, I will add that the place to discuss scientific information about human genetics would be in the Race and genetics article and in articles linked from there, the place to discuss terminology and its history would be in articles like Person of color or Colored or Free people of color or Coloured, and an example of a photograph illustrating people of a particular ethnic group is at the top of the Coloured article but there may be resistance to including a wider variety of photographs unless it's clear what illustrative purpose they're serving. (However, see also the image at the top of Berber people which illustrates several notable individuals from that people.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

General Motors and Chevrolet History

Request unclear

– Jezhotwells (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

General Motors ? Ltd.,Holding. or Corp. and after reading General Motors of Canada: The Early Years to 1919. Who in fact, after the McLaughlin brothers of Canada who helped Durant put General Motors out of business in May 30 1916 with Chevrolet Stocks. Owned General Motors. Please review General Motors in Canada the Early Years to 1919. Thanking you in advance for your help in this matter John Jeffery — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnjeffery (talk • contribs) 19:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

If you have issues with edits to this article then please post them on the article talk page and notify other editors of that. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Not only that Jez, but the actual request is (for me anyway) unclear. There are no links to help us find the article in question without fishing through an editor's contributions, and the post was unsigned. --Kudpung (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, please provide a link to the article in question. Jezhotwells (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of source material by new editor

Discussion moved

– to Talk:The World Can't Wait#Editing_war Jezhotwells (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a new editor at World Can't Wait who seems to be personally vested one way or another in the subject of the article removing sourced material because he disagrees with it. I'm the "bad guy" now and I'm bumping up against 3RR. I've left him two messages on his user space and tried to be polite in summaries. If another, experienced, editor could intervene I would appreciate it. TomPointTwo (talk) 03:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

If an editor is deleting material sourced to RS, then 3RR is not an issue. Have you left warnings on the editor's talk page? Jezhotwells (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I know but I was trying to not edit war and be charitable to perspective of a new editor but now he's requested the page be protected and some admin actually did it. It's what I get for being nice I guess. TomPointTwo (talk) 05:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The dispute is about referring to the World Can't Wait organization as "communist" in the lede. And the source, the SF Chronicle, says, " the group was initiated in part by supporters of the Revolutionary Communist Party" but doesn't say what this is based on. And the Chronicle's aggregation page on the organizaton links back to Wikipedia, as do some of the other articles I found making this assertion. Plus many of the pages making this assertion are conspiracy sites like discoverthenetworks. Others are rival leftist organizations...which also link to Wikipedia. I'm thinking the bald statement "communist" is not supported by the Chronicle article ("in part") and it would be nice to find some more reliable sources that go into detail...and maybe move this out of the lede into a section of the article with any reliably sourced material other editors may present to the contrary.Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The group is identified as a "communist group" in the title of the article by the SF Chronicle. TomPointTwo (talk) 06:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Well it seems as if discussion has started at the talk page. If this does not result in consensus, then please consider a third opinion or a request for comment. If the reliability of sources is in dispute then try the reliable sources noticeboard. Jezhotwells (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

(I typed the following, saved it and got the "edit conflict" message. Decided to repost it here despite the immediately foregoing graceful message suggesting we take it to the talk page or WP:RSN. I promise this will be my last word on the subject here.) The Chronicle headline is contradicted by the text of the article. I've spent some more time with this now and found not one other reliable source, just a lot of speculation on blogs and conspiracy sites. I did find what is probably the source of the Chronicle's assertion: a FAQ on worldcantwait.net which says, "Supporters of the Revolutionary Communist Party helped initiate it." It also claims a lot of other people are involved. If this is all the evidence you have, calling it a "communist" organization in the lede is inappropriate. You might substitute a sentence, probably not in the lede, saying something like, "The organization acknowledges being founded in part", etc.Jonathanwallace (talk) 06:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I too will be moving future discussion to the relevant talk page. TomPointTwo (talk) 07:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

[Ryde_Chamber-1] ttp://www.rydechamber.com.au/echo/echo_mar_2008.pdf

[2] ttp://stoppolygamyincanada.wordpress.com/about/

[1]

[2]