Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 February 6

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

February 6

Anyway to get templates to automatically link to their contents

I'm trying to find a way to get a template to link to all its contents and appear on the respective pages, but I wanted to know if there was a faster way to get it to work take Template: Florida House of Representatives for example, I would like to find a way to the make these links attach to their pages without having to manually go and add them to the respective pages.--Jack Cox (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing for it but to edit each page. If you're going to do a lot of this, you might consider applying for permission to use AutoWikiBrowser. This which would allow you to make each edit with fewer clicks and keystrokes. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Isn't there any bot that can do this? I do believe that I can remember that any bot on request will do such tasks (in case the Jack hasn't enough experience with AWB)... mabdul 12:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Alexandra Powers

Hi! Would it ok to upload a photo of Alexandra Powers from this link: http://www.fandango.com/celebrityphotos/alexandrapowers_p57553 or this link: http://www.whosdatedwho.com/tpx_47108/alexandra-powers/photo I think her page needs a photo. But that's just my opinion. Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I would imagine, since the subject is still alive, they would fail the WP:NFCC, as a free alternative could feasibly be produced. Rehevkor ✉ 00:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

how i enter the new information in wikipedia ?

Hello Wiki !

i want to enter the new information in wikipedia , but i dont know that how i can do it ?

Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.102.30.50 (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Try looking at Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia:Tutorial.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for WP

Hi,

My suggestion is to have definitions of the words used in links to other pages. For instance if I look up scientific matter like quantum physics I, as a layman, end up more confused than when I started. The links may lead to other pages that explain, for instance, fermions, but the original page may be much easier to read when high lighting over hyperlinks also displays a brief definition of the word in question.

Thanks for your time,

Roy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.68.20 (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

If you create a free account then you can enable Navigation popups under "Gadgets" at Special:Preferences. This displays the start of the linked page (which will often contain a definition or introduction) when you hover over a link. Hovering over fermion gives me:

"In particle physics, fermions are particles that obey Fermi–Dirac statistics. They are named after Enrico Fermi. In contrast to bosons, which obey Bose–Einstein statistics, only one fermion can occupy a quantum state at a given time."

I can then hover over each of the displayed links while still remaining on this page. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Summary style

I haven't been able to find an answer to this, when doing an article in summary style, what length should the summary section be?

In the Burger King article I have the History of Burger King section summarized with 5 relatively short paragraphs. Each paragraph summarizes a section in the spin off article, which is not yet finished but is at 58kb as it stands now. I think the summary is an appropriate length because it summarizes a pretty long article in a rather small section, while others have commented that the summary has too much detail.

So, what is the proper standard? Is there one? --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:49, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

Circular reference for Hibernate Query Language (HQL)

HQL and Hibernate Query Language (used as links in many articles) redirect to Java Persistence Query Language; section Hibernate Query Language in that article has some information. In that section there is a link to Hibernate (Java) (section "Hibernate Query Language (HQL)"). In that section there is a link to Hibernate Query Language (HQL) - that redirects as described in the beginning of this paragraph.

Thus, there is a circular reference. How can it be resolved? One way could be to decide the section in Hibernate (Java) is THE place for HQL (it seems to be the most natural place when there is no separate article for HQL). The section in Java Persistence Query Language could be dissolved into some other section as a passing mention and the content merged with the content in Hibernate (Java). The redirects (HQL and Hibernate Query Language) should then point to Hibernate (Java) instead of Java Persistence Query Language. What do you think?--Mortense (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Java Persistence Query Language could be merged into Hibernate Query Language section that is in Hibernate. Steps for the merge can be found in WP:MERGE. ~ Elitropia (talk) 10:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Isn't a merge a rather drastic step to take? --Mortense (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, not in this case. JPQL is based on HQL and HQL is provided by Hibernate. The section of HQL is existing in both articles in JPQL and Hibernate. From the merge page: "Reasons to merge a page include the following: unnecessary duplication of content, significant overlap with the topic of another page, and minimal content that could be covered in or requires the context of a page on a broader topic." Also, we don't directly take the step, we propose it first as it is told in WP:MERGE. But, mine is just an offer of course, since you asked about the ideas. If you think this is drastic, the other solution could be that the link of HQL in Hibernate could redirect to Hibernate Query Language in Java Persistence Query Language instead of the main article itself. But still confusing. ~ Elitropia (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't intended as a rhetorical question, I just have mostly done copy-editing up to this point. --Mortense (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

On the other side, you can always start a discussion in the talk page of these two articles which is best to do. Then the watchers of these articles could provide opinions, too ; ) ~ Elitropia (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You mean merging is difficult? I carried it out once. You only follow the steps in the merge article. If it comes to that point with these articles you mention, I could look out, help. But as I said earlier, discussions on the talk pages also would help to get more opinions. ~ Elitropia (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Protecting Page.

Sir

I am unable to protect my page Rattan Hose from Editing. Please let me know in simple detail.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slaich2000 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Simple detail: it cannot or will not be done. This website is designed to allow anyone to edit pages. You explicitly agreed to that when you entered the page text and clicked "save". DMacks (talk) 11:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The page Rattan Hose has been deleted as it appeared to be advertising or promotion for the company. You state at your user page "Rattan Hose in an Indian Company and needs the information to be protected against outside public to avoid external editing". But I'm afraid it doesn't work that way – this is Wikipedia, and with very few exceptions, any page can be edited by any person. No-one owns a page. If you want to re-create the page, you should first read Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest, and then I would suggest you use the article wizard which you can access from this page. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Foreclosure

Hello, I got a letter from the city council I will have my house foreclosed, I have no money to pay my debts. What can I do? I don't want to end up homeless. Suzette Marguerette Peters, Bethesda, MD. Tlph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.111.7 (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

We cannot offer legal advice. Please see the legal disclaimer. Contact your lawyer. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Agave. A plant with many uses.

Has anyone in the Wikipedia familly any experience of any variety of Agave used in Bioenergy development? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.197.135 (talk) 11:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a mention of Bioenergy in the Agave article, so you could start by reading the works mentioned in footnote 7. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan Aritcle

I'm not sure how to let you know when there is a spelling issue in an article. In the Ronald Reagan article there is a line with what I think is the wrong word.

Reagan joked, the producers "didn't want them good, they wanted them Thursday.

Isn't this supposed to be thirsty? If Thursday is correct then I think more context needs to be added because it doesn't make much sense.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.185.225 (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The quote's sourced to this Washington Post article, and Thursday seems to be correct. The context seems clear to me - the producers didn't care whether the B-movies were any good, they just wanted them to be made extremely quickly. I'm not sure how producers could want a movie "thirsty". Karenjc 14:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyright question

I read the image use policy but didn't understand it, so am asking for a "copyright for dummies" explanation please. If you take a photo of a painting or a sculpture, is it okay to use this on wikipedia?--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

When was the painting "published" (first authorized edition placed on sale, sold, or publicly distributed by the proprietor of the copyright or under his authority)? Was it prior to January 1, 1923? When did the painter die? Was it more than 70 years ago?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a specific example in mind I'm afraid. The context was that I was advising an editor at WP:Requests for feedback about this article: Bobbi Mastrangelo. I wanted to suggest adding some pictures, but then realised I was totally confused about what would be allowed. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

This stuff is not easy and not easily distilled to simple rules. As best I understand it (and you might want to get a second opinion at WP:MCQ) if the painting is of US origin, and is in the public domain, then a photograph of the painting is not copyrightable under the doctrine of originality of expression (at least in the U.S.) and so you can ignore the fact that it is a photograph of a painting, and just look to the copyright of the painting, if any. Turning to that inquiry, if it was published (and with paintings I believe the language I quoted above regarding publication is the applicable standard) prior to January 23, 1923 in the U.S., then it's public domain. If you don't know the publication date, then you have to look to the artist's date of death--more than 70 years ago for the U.S. (more than 100 years ago for many other countries). The inquiries to determine whether a work is public domain are different if the country of origin is different. See :Commons:Licensing. Take a look at {{PD-art-US}} and its talk page for more on this. If the work is not in the public domain (or not freely licensed and with a license compatible with ours), then you have to turn to fair use—using copyrighted media under a claim that the use is fair under certain circumstances, despite copyright persisting. See WP:NFCC for more—another area that has many complexities. That's about the best I can do and I can't guarantee that everything I have said here is correct in all particulars.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the specific artist, now that I've looked at the article, since she's still alive and all of her works are post 1923, they are all presumed copyrighted. So in order for us to use them, they would need to have been released into the public domain by the copyright owner or be compatibly freely-licensed. If not, fair use is the only route.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed response :) --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

information about bluetooth devices

i want bluetooth devices information which have a capacity of 50-100metres to send rays from it and with device cost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.108.203.170 (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried the computing section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Burki

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

REPORT User:Qwyrxian SITE: BURKI REASON: This is my tribe and much of our history is oral passed down from one generation to the next. This user has decided to become the policeman of our site having no ties to our tribe which begs the question: why is this person determined to delete info that can easily be verified on " notable personalities" on google? The two Olympians true don't have their own Wiki pages because not everyone wants such publicity. But all one has to do is google them and 1948 Olympics Pakistan and they pop up. The song clearly identifies Pir Roshan and yet it is also deleted. Why? I completely understand the need for accuracy and also recongize the importance of historical accuracy. This page is the only way to reach our tribe members across the globe and educate them on their lineage/family. Yet, Wiki "ambassadors" take it upon themselves for reasons one can only imagine to act dictatorial and thus limit the ability to disseminate information. Precisely what your site does not appear to aim for. I respectfully request that such self appointed "editors" be not givern carte blanche ability to act dictatorially (if this is indeed some sort of power trip) and thus successfully limit the transmission of free and accurate information. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virginiacity (talk • contribs) 15:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but any material added needs to be cited to independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a primary source, but rather, a encyclopedia that has articles based on secondary sources. I apologize if I've misunderstood, but it seems that your issue is someone removing your research from Burki. TNXMan 16:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Further to my message on your talk page, I've now looked at the article in more detail. We honestly don't want to remove the ability to disseminate information, but as you will understand, given that anyone at all can edit wikipedia, we need to be able to check that the information is true. Hence every claim, especially about living people, should be backed up with a reference from a reliable source (see guidelines on what's considered reliable). If you can provide these sources, then the material can be added back in. If you're confused about how to format the sources, then send me a message on my talk page copying and pasting the links, and I'll help show you how to add them. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

But please bear in mind that Wikipedia emphatically does not exist to disseminate information on behalf of any individual, group or organisation. It is not here to help you "reach our tribe members across the globe and educate them on their lineage/family". The article named Burki is not "your site". Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, containing articles about notable subjects. You are most welcome to contribute, but if you add information to it without providing sources, it is at risk of being removed again by any other user. That's how Wikipedia works. Karenjc 18:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't really have much to add beyond what is posted above. Note that it's not really me editing dictatorially,, its the rules and policies themselves acting dictatorially. It is actually a well-known problem that Wikipedia has systemic biases because it requires written sources, even though much information in the world is preserved orally or in ways that are otherwise don't meet our policies. Unfortunately, though, those policies do remain, and all I'm enforcing are the rules. Let's discuss this on the article's talk page; maybe some of the information does have written sources, but just needs to have those references properly formatted. I'd rather not just keep having to revert that information, because then the article isn't improving at all. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Something I've noticed...

Why is it that so often when someone disagrees with another editor over the contents of a page, he/she acts like there was a worldwide conspiracy out to just get him/her? JIP | Talk 17:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

This forum is for asking questions about how to use Wikipedia. Perhaps you should try the reference desk, under the heading "Life's Paradoxes", subheading "Wikipedia". Another possible area for further research would be the heading "Psychology 101", subheading "Worldwide Conspiracies". If you disagree with my suggestions, .--Bbb23 (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

More seriously responding to JIP's philosophical question, I haven't noticed the phenomenon he mentions too much. More frequently, I've noticed that disagreements often become uncivil, unconstructive, circular, and disproportionately passionate. Too frequently, instead of discussing an issue, editors only argue. These arguments get out of control, and people say things they shouldn't and refuse to acknowledge any validity to others' points of view. Part of the problem is the environment of Wikipedia itself, which is mixture of democracy, anarchy, and very odd hierarchical bureaucracy. Exacerbating that blend is the fact that Wikipedia is an electronic medium, which allows for more misunderstandings due to sensory deprivation, and also permits people to more easily snipe at each other because one forgets there are human beings behind the user ids. Putting the final touches on this rather grim portrait, I find the endless policies and guidelines to be daunting, requiring immense amounts of time to absorb and attempt to put them together into anything resembling a cohesive whole. Maybe my flip answer was better. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It was :P But all good points. I've noticed it too - trying to reach NPOV does seem to descend disconcertingly often into "why do you want to suppress the free speech of jews/muslims/christians/conservatives/scientists/sceptics?" --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well, if you're going to edit those kinds of articles ... --Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that most people don't know how to argue. For example, very few people could name five or more fallacies or cognitive biases, much less refrain from committing them multiple times a day. Arguments are productive when they occur between people who know how to make logically valid inferences from the available evidence. Arguments between competent arguers have been the basis for human progress since the Age of Enlightenment. Arguments between people who don't know how to argue barely qualify as arguments, but are mere disagreements that often can only be resolved through force. --Teratornis (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: religion and NPOV: I think Wikipedia's neutral point of view is equivalent to blasphemy in the view of the more fundamentalist religions. To avoid blaspheming, the pious adherent must always take an in universe view of his or her religion's core assertions. For many sects within the Christian faith, there is no wiggle room about the assertion that Jesus is God. (Not merely that some people claim Jesus is God.) Being "neutral" about the divinity of Jesus falls short of the unwavering belief that is necessary for salvation, according to Christian doctrine. Similarly, for many sects of Islam, there is no wiggle room about Jesus not being God and Muhammad being the Prophet. It is not possible to adhere to the literalist factions of these religions while being "neutral" about their core assertions. There doesn't seem to be room for a true believer to pretend to be neutral on Wikipedia, either. The Great Commission does not say "Go ye into all the world and write neutrally." In contrast, (some) fans of sports teams and fiction are able to step out of their universes and write neutrally on Wikipedia without betraying their core beliefs. You can be a fan of, say, the Pittsburgh Steelers without having to believe fans of the Green Bay Packers are going to burn in Hell for eternity (where they might join some recently disgraced NFL quarterbacks). --Teratornis (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

For this reason, I think Wikipedia should discourage religious believers from writing about their own religions on Wikipedia, just as we discourage business people from writing about their businesses. Only a person who does not believe a particular religion's supernatural claims could hope to be neutral about it. It is obvious that WP:COI applies when people write about their own companies, or about themselves. Why would it be less obvious when people write about their own religions? --Teratornis (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

People who can write about their own religions neutrally are welcome. If they cannot, then they should avoid such articles. If they do not, then they are going to eventually run into problems with admins and ArbCom. Think through banning people from their own religions! Think about how impractical it would be to enforce! Think about how it would make us look.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

What is wrong with the pages?

I've noticed that after I rolled the navigator bar to the right, the Wikipedia page I was looking at immediately zoomed out. Now, whenever I'm looking at Wikipedia, all the text is tiny and I can't read it. Can you fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony414 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Somehow your ctrl key was pressed at the time you used the scroll wheel. There are a number of ways to fix this. You can hold down the ctrl key again and scroll; you can hit ctrl+zero (resets to default size); you can hit ctrl++ or -, or you can go to your browser's menu and hit view → zoom → zoom in or out. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Image doesn't show

I noticed on the page Aoba Island the main image from Commons doesn't show for some reason. Any help would be appreciated. --Turn685 (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed The parameter 'photo_size' was missing. I added it and now the image seems to show as intended. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Showing navbox by default

The Rugrats article has five collapsed navboxes. One is Template:Rugrats, which I think should be shown expanded because of its pertinence and the chief article's relative thinness. Is this possible? --zenohockey (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I've tweaked the template so that "state = expanded" works. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

How do I check my messages?

I'm sorry, I could not find the answer to this simple question. I have new messages. I clicked on everything on my account page to find them and couldn't. Couldn't find the answer to this anywhere. How do I check my messages? Thank you.Lonewolf1380 (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Click the link that says 'My talk' at the top of the screen. In your case, it was just a note saying that User:Silverseren responded to your comments on Talk:Noah Ringer. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The "new messages" banner has a link to your talk page, and, for those cases where the last talk page edit is not obvious, a link to the diff for the most recent edit. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

FA in other WPs, FA in all?

I'm trying to clear a backlog of Unassessed Articles in one of the WikiProjects in which I'm a member. I came across an article that was made a Featured Article, and it appears all Wikiprojects were marked accordingly. THEN, an editor added another Wikiproject banner to the Talk page, AFTER the FA status was approved, though the assessment on the new banner was left blank. Do I...

• ...mark the unassessed WP as FA?
• ...mark it B-class?
• ...bring it to someone's attention?

I'd hate to commit a breach of policy. Thanks. Boneyard90 (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

FA class overrides all. Just add it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Roger. Moving to assess as FA. Thanks for the quick reply! Boneyard90 (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not a problem. If we did not do it that way, there is no practical way the article could ever take FA status in those Wikiprojects, unless it was demoted and then promoted again. FA status overrides all Wikiprojects, since the standards for FA are prescribed by the community.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, same question, but with GA and A-class articles. Boneyard90 (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

GA is similar since this is also peer reviewer by a neutral contributor from the community. A-stsus may differe between the projects...(at least that I do change at the time) mabdul 02:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Style guide reference for addressing the reader directly

What reference can be used when an article addresses the reader directly? Example, from VIRUSfighter Server: "VIRUSfighter Server is an ... so you are always protected, without slowing down your server."

There is

• Instructional and presumptuous language and

• Writing style, "Do not address the reader directly." (from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles))

What is the right reference for this particular case? --Mortense (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally I'd use the {{advert}} tag for this kind of thing, or change it myself if I had time. Will see what more experienced editors say though.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not, strictly speaking, a guideline, but WP:TONE covers this (second paragraph). There's a maintenance template, {{Inappropriate person}}, that editors apply to such articles when they don't have the time or inclination to rewrite the material themselves. Deor (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I was expecting Inappropriate person to be about a person who is, well... It's rather less interesting than I imagined.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Translate

Dear Sirs I read <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre> both in English and Portuguese. This article is about an important fact in Polish history. I am of Polish origin and live in Brazil (our language is Portuguese). Since I found the English article much better and complete than the Portuguese one, I would ask its producer permission to translate it into Portuguese and edit it in Wikipedia. Can you help me? Thanks 22:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldmtka (talk • contribs)

You don't need permission to do that, go ahead and translate it. CTJF83 22:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You might want to see this page on the Portuguese Wikipedia. -- Bk314159 (Talk to me and find out what I've done) 22:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Rewrote an article, it appeared to be posted, but when I returned, the old original factually incorrect article was there.

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

I am trying to figure out what I did wrong regarding posting an edit of an article. It appeared in the preview page just fine, I went back and hit "save page." and it was there. When I just returned to the same page, the old version was back.

Can someone tell me what to do?Cassidyboy (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history, you'll see that your changes were reverted several minutes after you made them. You said in your major change that you verified the rewrite of the article through the subject. That's not permissible generally - you have to cite to reliable secondary sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) It was reverted by User:Teapotgeorge, with an edit summary of "Revert unreferenced coi edits." Do you have a conflict of interest with William Atherton? Either way, all additions about living people need to be sourced, see WP:BLP CTJF83 22:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your major edits because they removed all the existing references and Wikipedia relies on reliable secondary sources rather than unsubstantiated "facts" I would advise you to find sources first and then suggest the changes on the talk page as you have a conflict of interest. regardsTeapotgeorge^Talk 22:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

And I have reverted your edits again. Please read conflict of interest and WP:BLP before reinstating your edits. You claim your edits are correcting facts, but without reliable sourcing no one can tell whether they are or you are just messing with us. Astronaut (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)