Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 104

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

Talk page/editor problems

Resolved

– it appears that the behavior mentioned has stopped, at least on the part of Wikiwatcher1. Danger (talk) 05:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a very odd problem on the Strauss-Kahn Talk page. I've been trying to ignore it, but it doesn't seem to stop. Essentially, FightingMac posts messages to the Talk page. Wikiwatcher1 perceives that parts of those messages constitute personal attacks on him and removes them replacing them with {{RPA}}. Interestingly, I don't think FightingMac has protested these removals, even though he would be the logical person to do so. The reason I raise it is because it's become disruptive to the flow of the Talk page. Every time, Wikiwatcher1 removes material, I end up looking through the diff to see if he removed anything of significant value, and I've gotten tired of doing that. Plus, I'm not sure he hasn't removed substance rather than perceived attacks because even when reviewing the diffs I don't have the patience to review them carefully.

Here are a few sample diffs: One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight. (The first three I added, and the last five Wikiwatcher added by subsequent edit of this post.)

I don't want to take sides on the merits. I just want it to stop. Either, Wikiwatcher1 is right and FightingMac should be counseled to stop attacking him, or Wikiwatcher1 is wrong, and he should be counseled to stop altering the Talk page.

After I finish writing this post, I'll notify the two of them about this topic, but that may cause a flood of argumentative posts from both. I'll do it anyway because it's only fair, but I'm much more interested in other editors' views on how to handle this. I can't think of anything but requesting administrative action, but I'd rather avoid that if possible.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

An administrator has already contacted Wikiwatcher1 on his talk page about this issue. His view is that some of the remarks I made were personal attacks but that most of the remarks Wikiwatcher1 has been reverting weren't. My own view is that most of them were simply embarrassing to Wikiwatcher1, for example this diff pointing out a newbie bite of his. The issue arose first over a long ultimatum I issued over his libelous Taubmann edit. Very briefly Michel Taubmann is the official biographer of SDK who published his biography May 5th and which devotes its last chapter to the Tristane Banon affair, essentially dismissing her allegations as a fabrication. Banon was consulting her lawyers about the issue when the New York affair blew up. Wikiwatcher1 wanted to cite a heavily disclaimed CNN article quoting Taubmann's opinions as fact. Every reference to Wikiwatcher1 I made in my ultimatum about this edit was subsequently redacted by Wikiwatcher1, whether it was an attack or not. He hasn't attempted to reintroduce the material since. I'm comfortable in my mind I've never attacked him along any of the lines indicated in WP:NPA#WHATIS but I've always made it quite clear that I think he is engaged in WP:CRUSH editing and I think it likely that some of my irony, what he calls 'sarcasm', was wounding - well indeed. I'm afraid I don't have the time and certainly not the inclination to go through all his redactions and challenge them. That's his problem and not mine and I'm not interested. Presumably he has other recourses if he feels he is being attacked. Regarding the SDK article I have now made all the contribution I would wish to given the extremely limited terms of reference you suggest and insist on (frankly I can't see the point of the article in the circumstances or that it can any have future - of course it was started by Wikiwatcher1 as a POV fork for his naive advocacy of DSK) and it's unlikely I will want to add further content. But I will continue to monitor Wikiwatcher1's edits to the article. Thank you for your time. FightingMac (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I have the feeling that you might be talking about me, since I'm the only post I see about it on WW's page. I'm not an administrator, though I did post on WW's talk page after some of his earlier redactions. I never properly followed it up, since by the time I looked at his talk page again the DSK page had moved too far to make reversion simple and I was too busy with other stuff to come up with a good solution. I did not notice any further redactions until now, because I haven't been stalking my watchlist enough. I am still really confused though about why WW would feel the need to, among other stuff, redact every single mention of his name, redact "I ask you to quote me fairly in future." and "But in one of his "trimming" edits Wikiwatcher". That, and a bunch of the other redacted stuff, is clearly not of a WP:NPA nature. Kevin (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Kevein. Well you can look at this morning's edit of mine on the talk page. It's pretty direct stuff I would be the first to admit but not a personal attack I think. Just an attack ;-) His redacted version is here and you can see he's taken great chunks of it out that really can't be construed as personal attack, including the bit where I've asked him not to redact my comments. That's a personal attack too it would seem. I'm not sure what brought this on. I do frankly wondered if he was formally warned by the Wikipedia Foundation over his Taubmann libel, which was an undoubtedly serious matter. I mean a really really serious matter as anyone who understands the issues involved will confirm. Or perhaps he's just merely very very extremely pissed off.

My only position here is that while I'm very committed to the cause, and I'm prepared to spare whatever time it takes, I am beginning to sense a certain resolution here and that this particular user has, so to speak, been 'terminated'. I'm content to declare enough is enough. But I do dispute I have engaged in any really significant personal attack of the sort I understand from WP:NPA#WHATIS and I repeat I simply can't spare the time to challenge his redactions. Thank you for taking up my case with him. Appreciated. FightingMac (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to add, here's the diff on my Taubmann ultimatum which beginas as follows

Concerning Wikiwatcher1's Taubmann edit, I intend to cut it because his use of the CNN source is not representative of the source and a violation of WP:QUOTE as documented above. If it is restored, either as it is presently or in any similar form, I will balance it by remarking that Taubmann said he was tormented by the Banon allegations and devotes the final chapter of his book to them. If then further weight is added to Taubmann's opinions, especially with a comment such as 'a great seducer but not a raper', I shall add as a balancing edit Anne Mansouret's statement, noted in a disclaimer in the source and a subject of another news article by CNN, saying Strauss-Kahnn did attack her daughter. Should that subsequently be struck out, or the edit otherwise reverted to an earlier unacceptable form, I shall elevate the issue.

Wikiwatcher1 redacted every instant of his name, including the one above. I've been through the whole edit and there's nothing there that can be represented as a personal attack. There are a couple of remarks "The fact is Wikiwatcher1 knows absolutely nothing about this book" and "Wikiwatcher1 is plainly contemptuous of Banon and her mother Anne Mansouret ..." which are critical of him but they are not attacks.

I'm sure he was basically worried about his Taubmann libel and was trying to extricate himself. But, of course, it's pointless: it's on record and it was up there for more than a week. You can view a brief history of it here on my user pages. When I subsequently added a balancing reference to Banon's mother's testimony (as did the CNN source in its disclaimer) he retreated to the extent of deleting all reference to Banon but kept Taubmann's 'not a raper' remark. At that point I noted on the Talk page that the edit was disgraceful and I would deal with it after the weekend and subsequently posted the ultimatum above.

Be quite clear about Wikiwatcher1's Taubmann edit. It was not merely contentious but an outright libel, my efforts to balance always disrupted.

I hope this helps and I don't have to spend more time over Wikiwatcher1. These redactions are his problem and not mine and I don't see why I should get involved.

Regarding the article I would say it's quite pointless within its current limited terms of reference as set out by Bbb23 and apparently supported by consensus. I should have liked to have added an ongoing history of the events of the affair but my edits are constantly attacked. I think it should be deleted. It should never have been allowed to continue and when it was put for deletion it should have been noted that its originating contributor (Wikiwatcher1) had form for disruptive editing, Twinkle abuse and BLP violations, including in the Roman Polanski article where he had edit warred over his insistence that he shouldn't appear in categories such as 'sexual offenders on the run' and the like. FightingMac (talk) 09:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Rendering preview PNGs for SVG images fails with Sinhala Script

Stale

– Image experts? Danger (talk) 05:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I uploaded an SVG [:http://si.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Geoz_wb_si.svg file] to Sinhala Wikipedia using UTF-8 script. The SVG contained Sinhala script. When the file is viewed in full resolution at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/si/1/13/Geoz_wb_si.svg, it looks OK. But the rendered previews of the file does not look so. It fails to render the Sinhala letters. I do not know if this problem exists for other asian languages as well. Please see if anyone can help me. Sampath Sri Sitinamaluwa 13:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sampathsris (talk • contribs)

You should probably ask this at the Sinhala Wikipedia, Jezhotwells (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SVG Help will probably provide pointers. --Jezhotwells (talk) 13:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I tried to upload it myself but seem to have messed it up - it may be better to use a png. --Jezhotwells (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing issue

Resolved

– Temporary resolution; page still needs watching. Danger (talk) 05:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

A newly-registered editor added a couple dozen names to the foregoing page. Diff. Because they were nearly all redlinked, and the claimed Jewish connection completely unsourced, I reverted the additions. The author restored them, arguing that the journalists are all well known in France, that they all have articles on Wikipedia:fr, and their Judaism is well sourced.

The articles do seem to exist. Most claim Jewish ancestry of some kind or another for the subjects, but the assertion does not always appear to be sourced. I did not review them all. Given that articles on these folks do exist somewhere, and the religious claims are not entirely made up, I left the additions in place and added a template notation to the effect that the section needs better sourcing. Still this does not seem like quite the right resolution - the "journalist" section has doubled in size and is mostly redlinks now, and without rather laboriously going over to :fr and checking each and every new name, it's really hard to say whether the additions are appropriate.

I don't care one way or the other, beyond wanting to keep the article within policy. Any thoughts from this experienced editor crew on the subject? JohnInDC (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, all List of 'X' Jews categories are supposed to be confined to persons who are Jewish by faith, rather than by ethnicity, and WP:BLP policy states that any assertions about faith must be self-declared for living persons. So unless the source provided states that the person has self-identified as Jewish by faith, they cannot be included on the list. Unfortunately, the various List of 'X' Jews articles are frequently misused, by people unaware of the requirements. Furthermore, Wikipedia:fr is self-evidently not in itself a reliable source for anything (for the same reasons that Wikipedia:en isn't), and proper sourced evidence should be provided for the inclusion of individuals. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

About the notability in a list of french people. These french journalists are notable in France and the french-speaking world. It would not be legitimate to ask for them to be notable internationally or in the english-speaking world (like in the US, Australia or the UK). As it would not be for all the journalists on List of Jewish American journalists to ask for them to be famous outside of the US (all the people on this list are red-linked on other wikipedias).
Some of these french journalists are red-linked, but the sames have full articles on fr.wiki (which applies strictly the criterias of notability). ie: Élisabeth Lévy/fr:Élisabeth Lévy, Michel Field/fr:Michel Field, Marc-Olivier Fogiel/fr:Marc-Olivier Fogiel etc, these articles are not stubs and these people are famous and notable in the said country.
Asking for french people to be notable in the US would be a cultural/national bias.--Elias545 (talk) 09:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump is getting closer to my concern - while this long list of individuals may each have an article on :fr, and their Jewish faith (thanks for the clarification) may or may not be properly described and sourced in each of those articles, there's no indication of any of this in the redlinks, and even the fairest and most culturally sensitive Anglo-centric editor working to keep the article clear of cruft is forced either to 1) guess at the possibility of articles elsewhere and 2) laboriously track down and review each one, in perhaps an unfamiilar language, to see if the individuals in fact are suitably included. The list is, to all practical purposes, unsourced here. As for "bias" - well, no. Not here It'd be "bias" if someone were systematically to delete articles about these French notables here at :en on the ground that they are not notable in the English-speaking world. My concern is that there are no such articles. It'd be great if an editor with French cultural awareness and facility in both languages were to create suitable articles on :en, but so far the effort does not seem to be forthcoming. JohnInDC (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Is it a problem to have red links in an article? i though it was the point about them to show that the articles need to be created. Also, I guess it would not be accepted to directly link to the articles on fr.wiki for the red-linked names... I see no solution about that, red links do exist.
I do understand the concern about the sources, external sources should be added. I already did for some, so please don't delete what has already been done. And about the language of the sources, yes it will be in french. I mean that's a 'list of French' people, they speak french, they are notable in France, there are high probabilities that the sources will be in french... Sorry, but I don't know what i can do about that either.
And finally, about the question Who is a Jew?, it's a subject by itself and the different Lists of Jews apply the broad definition of the term as stated in the first article (based on either religion, ethnicity or self-identification). Why this article should be different on these matters?--Elias545 (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem isn't the redlinks as such but rather the addition, in a single edit, of a couple of dozen or more unfamiliar (to :en users) names of people who may or may not be alive, claiming a particular religious affiliation for them that is neither sourced nor accompanied by any obvious or easy link *to* a proper source. Particularly where WP:BLP issues may be involved, I think it is incumbent upon the contributing editor to source the entry rather than ask other editors to either take it on faith or go to the trouble of verifying each of the entries over at :fr. JohnInDC (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

A third editor has gone through the page and removed all unsourced names on the list, not just the recent additions - and while I'm sure the page will begin to reaccumulate cruft in coming days and weeks, this immediate issue appears to be resolved. JohnInDC (talk) 11:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Can I use myself as source?

Answered

– Danger (talk) 05:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm an Alioto. I know a lot of what's said about Joseph, Angelia, and other politicians are DEAD WRONG, from first-hand experience dealing with the Italian mafia (I'm not in it: I was "killed").

I'd like to correct some said facts: since it's mafia-based, I've no credit but my own eyes, and I've looked and looked: the mafia's fantastic at erasing all facts.

Is there a way I can CREDIT MYSELF as source; I'm a flat-out witness to it.

I really dunno how to use this site yet as a provider: BUT I want to correct information about some family members I know false with no evidence, except that I was personally there, and know it's wrong.

Is that a fair call on this website, or not? I don't wanna break rules, but I was THERE and know it's not true, as stated here. Can I post as a witness: if so, how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.144.169 (talk) 01:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You cannot generally cite yourself, doubly when it concerns a living person. The only way for the information you have to make its way onto Wikipedia is to write something and have it published by a reliable source, that reliable source could then be used to cite something here. It also may interest you that posting here without creating an account reveals your IP address which can be used to locate you. --Daniel 02:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Mispelling of Guy Leverne Fake in Title of article

Answered

– Danger (talk) 05:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I have been unable to edit the spelling of the title of the article on my grandfather, Guy Leverne Fake, which is shown as "Guy Laverne Fake." I am not autoconfirmed, and so cannot move the page. I have written to Judge Barbara J. Rothstein, director of the Federal Judiciary Center, which served as the source for your article, and advised her of the error in the historical record. This error also affects Judgepedia, and perhaps other divisions of Wikipedia. I hope you can change the spelling of his middle name to the correct "LEVERNE." (this was also my father's name and my brother's middle name.)

Thank you.

Phakr9

Unfortunately, until either the FJC or Historical Society of the US District Court [1] changes their records, we will have to go with them as the verifiable (and authoritative) sources for the spelling of the name, unless you can come up with an equally reliable and authoritative source saying otherwise. Note also that Judgepedia is not a "division" of Wikipedia, thought they may mirror our articles. Franamax (talk) 05:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Audiophile Audition page listed as a Stub

Answered

– Danger (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The page I put up some time ago for my publication AUDIOPHILE AUDITION - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audiophile_Audition - is listed as a Stub and it says it is incomplete and requires more citations. I thought the link below that is titled Official Site would take care of everything, but it appears not. I tried to make the short description accurate and without overly promotional tone. The content is nearly all verifiable just by visiting the site. Kindly inform me exactly what I need to add to get a more acceptable rating for my site which has 60,000 unique visitors per month and has been online since 1998. I see one of the other audio magazine pages - Stereophile - is also a stub, but their page doesn't have a big notice at the top concerning this as mine does. It also has a graphic on the right side with some details about the staff, which I would also like to have. - John Sunier — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.49.171 (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You need to provide third party reliable sources, as the notice on the article says. It has been assessed as a stub as it meets the criteria: "A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which — though providing some useful information — is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, and which is capable of expansion." Further as you have an obvious conflict of interest, you should declare that on the article talk page. Thanks for letting us know about Stereophile, I have placed an appropriate tag on that article. --Jezhotwells (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

(e/c but long enough I'll post it anyway, and I'm no fan of reciprocatory article tagging either) Hmm, there are several problems here. As far as being listed as a "stub" article, that's true for both articles, and only means that they are of absolutely minimum length. Stub is our lowest grade of assessment. Let's look next at the other magazine you mention: first, it's often a bad idea to look for parallels in other articles, as quite often the parallel you draw is one supportive of your point, i.e. why aren't you comparing to a higher quality article such as Audio? People compare "downwards" enough that we have an essay about other stuff that exists here. And Stereophile is a published print magazine with a long history, which people can go to a library and check up on, whereas from the looks of it, Audiophile Audition is online-only, which is not the same thing at all - after all, I can set up an online audio-review site this afternoon, right? And visit it myself 60,00 times with a bit of scripting on my home PC. That's undoubtedly not true for AA, it's quite likely a respected source - which brings us to the most important point and the reason there is a banner on top: there are NO reliable, third-party sources that indicate this online 'zine is notable at all; there is no proof that anyone in the world has ever even heard of it. It runs close to being a candidate or deletion in fact, as it may not satisfy our notability guideline. We need reliable, verifiable third-party sources that discuss the article subject (the magazine and its history) to fill out the article. Otherwise it will stay as an unreferenced stub, with the notices in place. Your wording indicates that you may have a close connection to the subject ("my magazine") so you should read our guideline on conflist of interest, preferably register an account which makes its affiliation known (but doesn't use the actual magazine name), and place your additional sources and proposed revised wording on the article talk page. You can ask me at my talk page (or here) for help with any of those steps. Franamax (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Wiknic

Answered

– Danger (talk) 06:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Great_American_Wiknic_2011.png

Hi. I live in Las Vegas, NV, & I'm thinking that Vegas would be a great city to have a wiknic. Vegas isn't on the wikmap. I'd like to go to a Great American Wiknic were Vegas to become another city that hosts. Anyhow, how do cities get selected? I'd like to see a GAW in my city- it'd be interesting (to say the least), & it'd be good culture for us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.241.250 (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You just need to organise a group of local Wikipedians and add yuor Wiknic to the list - but you only have 3 days to get organised! maybe next year? Probably best to create an account first and then start discussing the idea at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Las Vegas. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Transformers protection - how to?

Answered

– Danger (talk) 06:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Because of the upcoming big budget Transformers movie the crazies are coming out of the woodwork, and a lot of the character articles are getting constantly vandalized, filled with rumors, and generally screwed up by anon editors. for instance the article on Sentinel Prime has to constantly be reverted. Where do I request the pages get some sort of temporary protection from nnon-registered users? Mathewignash (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't be this hard...

Answered

– Danger (talk) 06:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I recently created this account for my new name... I was autoconfirmed last time and remember uploading images, but now I have less privileges. UGH. I have looked around on how to upload a NEW version of a file and can't find it anywhere. Commons wouldn't work since I am not uploading a new file, just a new version of another file. Could you push this edit through for me, by uploading this image as the newest version? The file is just a simple edited copy of File:Miley_Cyrus_in_Rio_de_Janeiro_1.jpg... it has a really huge color cast and as the main picture for her at moment, I thought it needed to be fixed. My edited version is at [2]. Licensing for the original file is free use for Wikipedia and such I believe... the image was obtained via a bot, licensing for my copy... I don't really know. Last time I uploaded an image (years ago), the same image now says "I, the creator of this work, hereby grant the permission to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. Subject to disclaimers." and "This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0." It shouldn't be too hard to guess what those were is it? Well thanks for reading and (hopefully) adding it! TinyEdit (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but am noting that you are trying to do something that you didn't do last time....namely DELETE the image that you are replacing. Probably something you can't do without special permissions/tools, like an admin has. North8000 (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You don't need an admin account to upload a new version of a file under the same name without deleting the old version from the file history. File:Miley Cyrus in Rio de Janeiro 1.jpg shows that the file is stored at commons:File:Miley Cyrus in Rio de Janeiro 1.jpg. Do you have a link at the latter saying "Upload a new version of this file" right above "Edit this file using an external application". If not then you should get it 4 days after your account is registered at Commons. You don't have to make edits there. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I went there too and no, there is no upload new version. On Wikia I was quite active until they changed the layout, and I remember how to upload new versions. It has been 4 days though at Wikipedia and there is still no link to upload the new version. Or is it 4 days from now since I first logged into Commons now? Honestly I don't care who uploads it... just give me credit or such in the comment. Just want it uploaded if anybody can expedite it. TinyEdit (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

If your Wikipedia account is autoconfirmed (at least 4 days old and 10 edits), you can opt for global login to all Wikimedia in your user preferences, at 'Manage your global account | View global user info'. This will give you access to this Wikimedia Commons page, where you will see the 'Upload a new version of this file' link. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

There are some incorrect details in this article Rehana a village in district Haripur, Pakistan

Resolved

– Orange Mike took care of it.

Rehanathe article on village Rehana omits certain basic facts, but mentions petty details about persons who have never resided there or are not worth any attention what soever.

For example it refers to a person named Mahmood Ahmed Khan, this fellow never lived here, except owning some land in this village, he lives in Haripur district, which is about 10km from Rehana, he is one of the controvercial figures from this area. He is of course 'notoriously' well known for numerous unlawfull activities.

Any person worth mentioning in article would correctly be named as Mohammed Ayub Khan late president of Pakistan(1958-1969)Sardar Bahadur Khan(prominent leader of Pakistan Muslim League at the time of creation of Pakistan, later minister of communications, Ali Gohar Khan a career diplomat,who all have passed away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1fgktareen (talk • contribs) 14:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Glen Beck

Answered

– Danger (talk) 06:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Glen Beck's page is the most ridiculously slanted page i have EVER seen on wikipedia. It was obviously written by someone that does not like him and has the intentions of making him look bad. I cannot edit it because i dont have an account. Can you please edit it so that it is a non biased look at him, not a liberal criticism that belongs in the huffington post — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.108.190.85 (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

If there are actually substantive inaccuracies or biases in the article, then there is nothing to prohibit an anonymous editor such as yourself from bringing them up on the talk page of the article for others to correct, providing (of course) that you have references from reliable sources). Just saying "OMG some people don't love Glenn like I do; how wicked!" is not going to help the situation. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I am having a few issues with editors modifying my biography page and I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong...

Resolved

– Username issue has been sussed out; offensive comments too stale at 6 months old to deal with. Danger (talk) 10:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I am actually Elisabeth, my team set this account up a while ago - the page in question is my personal bio page on Wikipedia. I attempted to bring the page up to date and neutral, and in no way meant to pack it with personal propaganda. However, my changes were met with being immediately reverted by an editor named Badger Drink, leaving comments like:

Reverted to revision 399671606 by Bongomatic; in fact, this version is overall much better, lacking in that nauesating self-aggrandizing tone. Joining the Red Cross doesn't make you an "activist" (and it's insulting to actual activists), and, true or not, this paragraph is nauseating fucking garbage that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.

Now, I have read and as best I can understand the tenor and requirements for wiki pages, I know it's not to be used for advertising or promotion, I just want to make it accurate.

I am, in fact, an actual activist, and having traveled the world helping people on behalf of a number of organizations that are well documented on Wikipedia, I think I should be able to list those. This is as large a part of my life as acting. How does "Badger Drink" personally define, for all of Wikipedia, who or what activists or activism is?

I was also quite taken aback by resistance to mentioning the death of my mother (a noted writer), more current information on my acting career having moved mainly from television to feature films nearly 6 years ago, opening a popular gym and working to bring awareness to general and women's health, and a few other items.

Now I have noted that Badger Drink has done a vast amount of great work on Wikipedia, but I think this is a bit harsh, and I would like to be able to safely update my personal bio with relevant information, and not have it implied that being in Maxim Magazine's list of "hot 100 women" in 2002 was some sort of career highlight, probably being the most superfluous of honors I've ever received.

I'm happy to rephrase and list verifiable information on the various aspects of my life so that the page is accurate, but what am I doing wrong? I see plenty of pages loaded with ridiculous propaganda and self-promotion, and all I'm trying to do is explain the films and social endeavors that I spend my time with, and am written and quoted about every month.

It's quite disheartening to be a public figure trying to simply make wikipedia better with a more accurate page, only to be told I have a "nauesating self-aggrandizing tone" and that what I'm most proud of in my life and a main focus of mine is insulting to actual activists" and "nauseating fucking garbage that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia". I mean, I get it - if I was packing my page with rewritten history or promotional copy for anything other than non-profit organizations I'm closely tied to and have been documented working with, I'd agree, but I think I was quite mild.

I didn't want to go straight to disputes as maybe I'm doing something wrong and as a novice I need a little advice. Appreciate your help!

Steventrilmore (talk) 08:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The comments you're referring to were grossly insulting. They should never have been made to anyone, for any reason. But they were made five months ago, so I'm not going to see whether the perpetrator was warned at the time, let alone warn him myself. However, if something like this happens again, do please report it quickly.

Thank you for being candid about your identity. But please do read "WP:COI". It's better to make suggestions on the article's talk page and limit your own edits to the article to correction of factual mistakes.

Wikipedia is based on verifiable facts, not truth. If something about you appears in a newspaper or similar, then it can be added. If not, it can't.

Yes, Wikipedia indeed has plenty of articles that are "ridiculous propaganda and self-promotion". When I see one, I'm ready and willing to deflate it or have it deleted. But they're like cockroaches: for every one that you see, there are plenty you don't. Meanwhile, the existence of ridiculous self-promotion does not license mild self-promotion.

So again, please make suggestions on the article's talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 12:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, if you are going to use this account from now on, no one else should use it. Our policy is that user accounts are for a single person and they will be blocked if there is evidence that they are shared. GB fan (talk) 13:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Also this user name appears to be the name of a real person, but not that of the person using it. That is also not permitted. – ukexpat (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

UC Berkeley Campus Seal

Answered

– Danger (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Please read this discussion and advise: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CASportsFan#Berkeley_Seal Hh73wiki (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Please consider a third opinion or rasing a request for comment. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Dispute on what a source claims.

Answered

– . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

After correctly reading the following source: http://www.wrestlingnewssource.com/feed_results-380-WWE_RAW_Results_%2852%29.php, you will note that by searching the name "Cena", it states in the article that "John Cena comes on to the scene and tells Rock that the WWE Title will be on the line between them come WrestleMania 28. The Rock says "Just Bring It!".

It does not declare anywhere that "John Cena confronted The Rock and declared his intent to keep the title until their match.", which is what Nascarking is claiming. I've attempted to correct this many times now but I've been put down as a troll or been told it's vandalism and earlier, I've been told by Nascarking that that souce is actually a blog and is not a useable source. However, many articles use that website as a reputable souce. I understand I do not have an account, however, I am merely trying to get the Wikipedia article corrected. I would appreciate a third party to view the situation.

Gorlack36 (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Gorlack36

Hi. Strictly (assuming that you are User 89.100.20.87) you should both be blocked right now for edit warring and you both probably will be if there's one more revert. You haven't exactly helped matters by refusing to sign your posts for one thing, and then taking the bait when you were called a troll. Seems the behaviour on the talk page and in the edit history is worse than the behaviour in the ring! The article can only report what has been proven to have been said in reliable sources. You all need to take a calmer view at this and really understand what WP:RS are, and that YouTube isn't one, and wrestlingnewssource wouldn't get my support as one either. FWIW the article seems to be WP:CRYSTAL anyway. I'm glad you've now registered, because the page has such a huge history of edit warring, page blanking, and vandalism, that I'm going to protect it again. I'm going to warn the other editor involved in the 3rr, and let's hope things cool off. If they don't, I suggest you try at a dispute resolution board (see the notice at the top of this page). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Update: As I was typing the above, it seems as if another admin has already blocked you both. Please understand that that block applies to you editing under your new registered name, and that you must disclose your editing as an IP user in any dispute resolution process if you want to avoid an accusation of sockpuppetry or block evasion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, there. Yes, unfortunetly, several people have actually been using the IP, also. Hence, my making an account. I understand I should have just requested a third party right away rather than get into an edit war. However, you pointed out that both myself and the other editor are now warned; does that mean we were both given the same punishment?

If you don't mind me asking, about the WP:RS, why exactly would wrestlingnewssource not count? I was under the impression that is fine to use as it has been used both for other articles aswell as the other editor saying it's both a reputable source but also it's a blog (it was considered a blog when I attempted to use it as my own source, despite the exact same link already used as a source). Gorlack36 (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists? --Jezhotwells (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, there. I think I understand what you're trying to tell me Jezhotwells but I'm still greatly confused as to how the source is claimed as valid when used to prove a point against me but when I pointed out the error (as in, it was misread from the link), it somehow becomes a blog and is no longer valid. However, the source is still linked as valid and used incorrectly (as the source does not claim what's written in the article). So I'm unsure exactly why it is/is not a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorlack36 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Blogs are not acceptable because they can be written by anyone who can sign on for free blog software, and comments can be added by anyone. Generally the only blogs that are accepted at Wikipedia are those of the established print media and where their editors' contributions are subject to the same audit as their print media articles. See WP:SPS, and if in doubt, make an enquiry at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. And please, once more, do try to learn to sign your posts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about the signing, I am forgetting that a lot.

Well, the problem with blogs is that while I understand blogs are not to be used as a source or a reference, that blog in particular that I linked above has been used several times and is currently listed as a source for the article so I'm grealty confused as to how that is allowed. Gorlack36 (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It isn't allowed, but as the Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit not everyone knows the policies as well as the regular editors and admins. So nobodyy knows until an issue is brought here or to another help desk and the article gets more closely examined. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

So, the Wrestlemania article should be edited to include an official source rather than the blog that is currently listed as a reference? Gorlack36 (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. But as I mentioned before, the place to find out for sure is at our reliable sources noticeboard - I think we've done all we can here at EAR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Article on Deportation in 1954 has been vandalized

Answered

– . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback This article appears to be modified by someone with an agenda. Direct quotes from the NY Times were edited and references to ethnic cleansing were added.74.89.199.138 (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The NYT quote is sourced. I removed the ethnic cleansing sentence as unsupported by any inline source. We can't accept a sentence like that based on the possibility of some non-inline source supporting it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Repeated addition of non-NPOV material

Answered

– . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

On the page Directly elected mayors in the United Kingdom the user ElectMayor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps adding pro-elected mayor material. It's been deleted in various guises five times. I've mentioned it on the article's Talk page and (along with another user) on ElectMayor's Talk page, but he's done it again. In the past he's also edited a lot of articles on villages in Staffordshire with the same material, but now seems to be concentrating on Directly elected mayors in the United Kingdom. What's the best thing to do next? Pjbeef (Talk) 00:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The petition material they added to a vast number of Staffordshire settlements has since been reverted by other editors. Material added to Directly elected mayors in the United Kingdom has also needed some heavy editing especially for tone and style. ElectMayor appears to to be relatively new to Wikipedia. I have left a message on their talk page about making edit summaries, and it may be best to give them a little more time to discover their talk page and to react to some of the messages. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

HELP with editing

Answered

– . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I need help with the editing of information that I am posting for my church's page. I am creating a biography for the Sixth Mount Zion Baptist Church, and I just need a little help with the editing. Thank you. Walter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinsonwc vul (talk • contribs) 01:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Your draft at User:Robinsonwc vul/Sixth Mount Zion Baptist Church has no content at all yet. See the message I have left on your talk page and let me know when you have added some. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Posting Information

Resolved

– New article is at AfC. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I am interested in adding additional information on this but there is no article associated with it. Could you provide the next steps I need to take? Thank you.

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

Bobble From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Look up bobble in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. Bobble may refer to: A brand of reusable water bottles with a carbon filter.

--Bsq220 (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

If there is no article about that brand, then we wouldn't put it on the page. What evidence do you have at presence to establish this product as notable? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

If I could provide links to notable articles such as the New York Times would this be sufficient? Now the mention no longer comes up in the search. Does this mean I can create a new article?

--Bsq220 (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggest that you start an article in your user space and then ask for WP:Feedback. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Tareen article problems

Resolved

– All names have now been removed from the article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear All I am a researcher and have been editing some articles from time to time. At present Im working on an article as above that has many problems with it and will take time to fix, gradually. However, each time I do make some amendments some people keep on changing it by adding their own names or long directory-type listings of their friends and relatives. Now, while these people may well belong to this tribe/ethnic group, I feel they are not sufficiently renowned to be mentioned here. I havent been able to trace most of these people, and those I have and tried to contact dont seem to respond at all. I dont know if this is really a dispute or conflict issue, since there seems to be no academic or similar material or point of view involved-- its just some people using this page as self-promotion or vanity notice/s. What should I do please? Could you kindly help me, as Im at a loss? Thanks. Khani100 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khani100 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Unless these people are notable in their own right and can be sourced and referenced per our policy for biographies , they must be deleted per lists of people. I have removed some and the others should be removed. Do however avoid getting involved in an edit war. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Are You Being Served

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

In this fine comedy show, the editorial people do a great job. Yet, it is noticed that many of the descriptions contain spoilers, making it not enjoyable to watch the episodes. One such example, of many, is "Wedding Bells". Perhaps all episodes can be carefully re-edited as to be careful to not include spoilers. We cannot find other TV shows which include important spoilers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellevue2010 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Spoiler and Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles are a couple of policies that explain why spoilers are common in Wikipedia articles and why you get so specific warning. HiLo48 (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Chickasaw Mudd Puppies

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The entry for the Chickasaw Mudd Puppies is misleading and incomplete. I tried to update it but someone went in and changed it back, added an addendum at the bottom (which is both in the wrong place, has misinformation and incomplete). How can we fix this?

ceci reynolds — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecireynolds (talk • contribs) 14:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Your edits were reverted because they were a copyright violation of this. Wikipedia cannot accept material that violates copyrights. In addition, the tone of the added text was, as you would expect because of its source, completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia - it was marketing-speak. – ukexpat (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

gilpin county colorado

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

In your article about Gilpin County Colorado, you state that "Gilpin County was formed in 1861, at the time of Colorado statehood." This is incorrect. Colorado achieved statehood in 1876, not 1861. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.61.20 (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. Orange Mike has corrected the error. In the future, know that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, even you! If you see an error in an article, you can correct it yourself by clicking the "edit this page" tab on the top of the page. Danger (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Alterations to an article on C.Diff

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

My name is Jerold Crawford and I have been a contributor to Wikipedia for years. I had an issue with an article on C. Diff. I went to ad that a problem overcoming the use of a procedure called stool transplantation was the fact the "ick or Yuck" factor by patients. As I was trying to clean up what I wrote, it disappeared, I reentered it and it disappeared. I found I was issued level two and three warnings by EEKSTER and GIANTS27. I have included the note at the bottom of this correspondense.

I am an RN and a former Infection Control Practitioner certified by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology. I added this last night as I was dealing with a woman whose daughter had a problem with C. Diff and rerused this procedure due to the Ick factor. This is well documented in the literature. Do a google search on this and you will come up with a number professional articles from well respected journals on this.

I guess that am complaining about the time of the reviewer who censored and deleted this entry. I do not appreciate being accused of vandalism as I take Wikipedia seriously, It is the greatest thing on the internet and am always striving to make it better. Could someone look into this for me and review what I wrote and the response it received.

Jerold Crawford - Tampa, FL USA (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Clostridium difficile, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Clostridium difficile constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Giants27(T|C) 01:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

As a medical professional, I was trying to expand on the problems with stool transplantation to the use of this effective treatment. I resent the use of the term vandalism. As you can see, I have improved a number of articles over time. My reason for including this was that I just dealt with this issue with a family member today and this has come up before. Please consider rewording my statement if necessary, but it is a valid issue we medical professionals face with this procedure.

Jerold Crawford RN BSN

Hello - The deletion of the edit I made under Clostridium Difficile which you called vandalism was insulting. I am a medical professional and wanted to contribute my experiences in dealing with the nature of this particular issue of stool transplantation to cure this disorder. The Yuck or Ick factor (which you have a listing for) is a problem that we face trying to deal with this problem, even though it is an effective cure. This a major impediment to this procedure. Please reconsider the deletion.

Jerold Crawford RN BSN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeroldc (talk • contribs) 02:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The comment in the article was hardly appropriate and certainly wasn't sourced. Eeekster (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain that a bit better to me. I certainly can source it from some medical journals. I can not see how an issue that would prevent someone from accepting a valid medical treatment would not be appropriate to list. I really am at a loss to follow your logic on this. This is an issue that I have had to deal with as a medical professional and as a formerly certified infection specialist from the Association for Practitioners in Infection Control and Epidemiology . May I put a sourced statement here for you to consider? I do not understand the concept of the sandbox. I thought I has some valid things to say in the past, but this sort of harsh treatment makes me want to reconsider whether I should contribute any more to the project. I really am quite insulted and hurt here. I thought i was adding some valid information and was treated like a vandal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeroldc (talk • Jerold Crawford - Tampa, FL USA (talk) 02:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)contribs) 02:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

May I please have a contact for your supervisor Jerold Crawford - Tampa, FL USA (talk) 07:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Erm...Wikipedia doesn't pay editors. Otherwise to get in you'd have to have a job interview, wouldn't you? Island Monkey talk the talk 07:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC) (I did not appreciate this unrelated person chiming in and being so flip with me - it was not necessary)

Were your additions supported by verifiable and relaible sources? It also appears that the language was not very encyclopaedic. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article entitled "Yuck Factor" which "Ick Factor" rolls over to. I do have references and they are well documented but when I tried to upload them, the articles had already been removed. I am not a terribly skilled user and usually make several changed before I get a final that looks good. The vandalism charge really hurt me to the quick. Finally this morning, I got the mails about it. I take great pride in Wikipedia and in being responsible only to have this happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeroldc (talk • contribs) 19:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, just a comment on the articles yuck factor and ick factor - they have redirected readers to wisdom of repugnance since 2007 and 2009 respectively. IMO, your edits don't look at all like vandalism and have value, but using more encyclopedic terms than 'yuck factor' and providing at least one solid citation will help them "stick". Leaving an edit summary will also go a long way toward avoiding such misunderstandings. Best, CliffC (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

LISTING COMPANY

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Dood day

I was searching through your "list of companies in South Africa". How do I get my company name "listed " on your site. It is a registred company that has been operating for 6 years, own website etc. I get the impression that only big corporate companies are being listed - is this so? Kindly assist me in this regard.

Yours truly

Jean Massyn — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScaleStop (talk • contribs) 08:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at <redacted>. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 08:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If your company is notable, then undoubtedly someone will write an article. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a trade directory. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

<redacted> This is the last place we should be referring people to - we are here to build an encyclopedia, not generate search engine rankings. The OP should read WP:BFAQ, WP:CORP and WP:COI. – ukexpat (talk) 13:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

List of Political Parties in New Zealand - Our NZ Party

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm having problems with people accusing me of NPOV bias. I didn't even write the offending sentences, I just explained why it was changed. A left-wing blogger is not the best source of information.

The problem is the first change exactly summed up the party in two sentences, whereas the change identifies some policies, most of which are not prominent policies.

I'd like assistance in this matter, because the other editors are using political bias against me. I need an unbiased opinion.Roalexx (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

What is the article in question? What is your connection to the subject matter? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This looks like something that could be usefully discussed at the new noticeboard: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The Amazing People Club - Recommendation

Resolved

– Continued on my talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam, I am technically challenged when it comes to editing/contributing to Wikipedia, hence this request for assistance. I am trying to recommend a new article for Wikipedia called THE AMAZING PEOPLE CLUB The Amazing People Club. I work for them as a consultant, however, am personally extremely impressed with their inspirational and unique offerings.

I feel strongly that their content is of a very notable standard and provides people with an engaging and entertaining way of learning about people who have made major contributions to our world. The Amazing People Club is an international digital publishing company distributed by The Hachette Book Group and is linked with very notable brands such as Ebsco, Vodomodo, Global Grid For Learning etc. The author, Dr. Charles J Margerison is a chartered psychologist, author and business expert. A keen historian, he created the series as an innovative education tool - a new way of learning and teaching history. He has also written 10 books on business management and is the co-founder of Team Management Systems.

People are always fascinated by interesting stories and the people that are involved. In the case of The Amazing People Club, it is not just the biographical detail that is interesting, but the innovative telling of an individual's story. The list of categories and famous names included is endless and would provide excellent references and be of benefit to Wikipedia users.

As mentioned previously, I am unable to 'create an article', add references/external links etc., so would really appreciate if any of the Wikipedia experts/contributors would be able to help in this respect if you deem it an appropriate proposal.

Looking forward to hearing from you, Kind regards, Marion Lenmar123 (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Marion. (Follow the blue links to the respective policy pages).

Before creating the article you should establish whether or not it breaches our policy on advertising - See WP:ADVERT.
Because you work for the organisation, you must read our policy on Conflict of Interest.
Establish WP:NOTABILITY according to sub section WP:ORG for companies, groups, associations, clubs, and insitutions.
If it meets the criteria, provide reliable, independent 3rd party sources that support the notability. See WP:RS for the kind of sources that are accepted. Blogs, and primary sources are not acceptable as major references, though they may in some circumstances be allowed for supporting some minor claims or details.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Bit of harassment/retaliation

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

SeaCliffRun (talk · contribs)

New user last night tagged the first ten or so articles listed on my user page. I have cleaned it up, but what's the best place to report this if it continues? Thanks, CliffC (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

A new editor's first edits are using Twinkle? Something's odd about that... DMacks (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd go straight to WP:AIV and report as a vandalism-only account, noting the user name and its singular purpose. No warnings necessary for that sort of things. Perhaps there is an even more direct way but I'd think that would work. JohnInDC (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, have posted at AIV. Cheers, CliffC (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

User blocked. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't get 'move' button to come up

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi ~

I tried to move a page (I really only wanted to correct the spelling in one word), and went to your page on how to do this.

However, when I went back to the offending page, clicking the top did not bring up the 'move' link.

The instructions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Moving_a_page)also show things (a symbol of TW) that does not show on the web page of the article.

John Reindl — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnReindl (talk • contribs) 18:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

As a new editor, with almost no edits, you are not yet "autoconfirmed" and thus do not have access to the "Move" button. ==Orange Mike | Talk 18:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for posting. After checking the references, I completed the page move. As OrangeMike says you have not made enough edits to be able to access this feature. See Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed#Autoconfirmed users If you find other errors that require a page move, you can ask at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Query re source formatting

Resolved

– Danger (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Editor,

Just need your assistance to verify the correct method of displaying sources and if so, have the notification box removed from the top section of the mentioned article. I have inserted in-line citations as requested and hopefully have met with all the necessary guidelines to have the notification removed.

Kindly provide guidance if there are any other adjustments to be made. Thank you.

PS: First time using this assistance request so forgive me if I did not follow any of the steps to post this request correctly.

Kreisler --PA KualaLumpur (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I think you need a few more citations, I have placed tags where they are needed. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:CITE provides all the instructions. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jezhotwells, I have placed the referencing as requested. Will this be sufficient? Kindly advise if more is required. Thanks.

Kreisler --PA KualaLumpur (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the banner and all of the citation needed tags, bar one, re his family. Jezhotwells(talk) 01:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Potential vandalism of an IP's talk page by the IP

Resolved

– Man, I hated the yellow bar prank when it was still allowed. Danger (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Secondly, I changed the page so it removed the "You have new messages" section and also the part about "articles I find interesting".

However, the IP posted a message on my talk page claiming it is not trolling.

Regardless of if it is trolling or not, shouldn't the talk page before communication only and not used as a User Page?Gorlack36 (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like you're looking for the WP:SMI guideline? DMacks (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be it! Thanks! Gorlack36 (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately the user at the IP still believes themselves to be in the right so I am now asking for an admin's opinion on it.

This IP is determined to both have a User page but not register an account, and is very persistent in keeping this material! I reported him at [WP:AIV]] and we'll see what happens, but he sure isn't off to a good start -- JohnInDC(talk) 16:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Surprised they've not been blocked yet, they've thrown and good faith out the window and don't see anything other thandisruptive editing. Rehevkor ✉ 16:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked now, says they'll create an account (which will solve the Talk page content but probably not the attitude issue - ) JohnInDC (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Same silliness on the registered user and user talk page, here and here. On the plus side the disagreement seems to have been narrowed to the propriety of a simulated "you have new messages" alerts at the top of the user and Talk page, which - when completely faithful as the user prefers them- appear plainly to violate WP:SMI. (Contrast the slightly altered example here.) I worry that we have a nascent disruptive editor here who needs to appreciate that editors need to remain within the bounds of WP policy, particularly a policy that gained him a block before; I also worry on the other hand that we may also have a somewhat more experienced editor (ahem) who's allowing himself to get caught up in something that, in the greater scheme, doesn't much matter. Another couple of eyeballs and / or opinions would help. JohnInDC (talk) 11:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The user has a blatant disregard to what people are telling him about WP:SMI - to the point of disruption - the only thing left now if admin intervention in my eyes. If he really "doesn't give a fuck" he shouldn't give a fuck if he loses the ability to edit Wikipedia at all. Rehevkor ✉ 11:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit War

Resolved

– as per note below. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SudoGhost keeps on deleting my edits in the above mentioned article.
How should I proceed to request a mediation on who edits are right?

UPDATE:
I would like also to challange SudoGhost's unfair blockage on my account that has led all of my user credits on wikipedia to be withdrawn.

Francisco luz (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

SudoGhost was removing copyrighted information that you'd persistently been adding to the Boleto page, and I just removed a bunch of material you added that came from another web site, apparently without permission. That is a copyright violation, which is unacceptable at Wikipedia, and which was the basis for your earlier block. JohnInDC (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I am also not an administrator, and I do not have the ability to block users. You were blocked byKilliondude for copyright violations and edit warring, and your block was extended the next day byElockid for "Abusing multiple accounts: Continued edit warring". If you continue to introduce the copyrighted information into the article, you may find yourself blocked again, if not indefinitely blocked. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and this is why your edits were reverted and revdel'd (I'm assuming that's what your "user credits" being withdrawn means) - SudoGhost ™ 15:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I used the so called copyrighted website as a reference, and my lastest revision is completely different, although still represents the same information, from the original website.

Second, your words sounds like a treat to me and does not resembles what Wekipedia should be about.

Third, this guy, SudoGhost is abusing his power as I have tried to contact him on his talk page and he simply deleted my request. Francisco luz (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

If you continue to introduce copyrighted material into the article, you may be blocked from editing. This is not a threat, it is a fact, unlike your comment on my talk page telling me to "watch out" (which was not deleted, by the way, it was archived by a bot after 14 days of inactivity). As to the "power" I'm abusing, I'm not sure what you're referring to. As I said, I am not an administrator, I'm an editor, I do not have the ability to "delete" talk page comments. - SudoGhost ™ 17:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I found at least two near word-for-word duplications in the most recent addition. I suggest going through and *completely rewriting* the subject text, no copy-paste at all. I am confident that if you reintroduce any verbatim material again, you'll be blocked. JohnInDC (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed the issued pointed out by JohnInDC on the discussion page. Nevertheless, sudoGhost persists on reverting my edits without supplying a reason for that. I believe that after fixing the issues thatJohnInDC has found, now there is no copyright violation whatsover. Please, I kindly request a mediator. Thank you all, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francisco luz (talk • contribs) 18:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: As a result of User:Francisco luz's continued insertion of copyrighted material and violating WP:3RR (as documented at Talk:Boleto), user was blocked by User:EdJohnston for one month. -SudoGhost ™ 19:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Changing headline

Resolved

– as per comment below. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I have recently created a page for my company named CGS Inc. yet when I choose to submit it, it has submitted the article with the following headline "User:CGS Inc./CGS Inc." Hoe do I get rid of it in order to leave just the following headline "CGS Inc" ? I have tried multiple ways yet none of them worked.

User:CGS Inc./CGS Inc.

Thank you, Liyah — Preceding unsigned comment added by CGS Inc. (talk • contribs) 13:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for coming here to ask your question. The immediate answer is that the page needs to be Moved to a page named simply, CGS Inc. But there are a few things that need to be sorted before that can happen. First off, Wikipedia is not a directory of businesses and companies cannot be added simply because they exist. Instead, they must meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, which usually means significant coverage by reliable and independent third party sources. I am not sure that CGS meets those criteria. Second, it's generally not a good idea to write about matters in which you have a direct interest - see the conflict of interest guidelines. Finally, usernames belong to individuals, not companies, and you're going to have to change yours. See WP:Username policy for tips there. Your current account will probably be blocked as in violation of that naming policy, but feel free to create a new one that is yours alone. And please don't take it too hard, or too personally, if CGS Inc doesn't (yet) satisfy the notability requirements. JohnInDC (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Article was moved to main space and is now the subject of an AfD discussion; user was blocked for username issue. This one is 'resolved' here. JohnInDC (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Cannot get rid of template messages at the top pf my article. HELP PLEASE!

Resolved

– as per comment below. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I created the article, Aaron Bay-Schuck. It is an unbiased writing of Mr. Bay-Schuck's accomplishments as an A&R Executive in the music industry. I have repeatedly requested feedback on this article and have received none. I also created a talk page and have not had any one engage me in a discussion about my page. I want to get rid of the template messages at the top of my article that read, "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" and "This page is a new unreviewed article" as soon as possible. Please tell me how I can do that. Thank you!Absatlantic(talk) 22:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The first tag is easy, at this point it shouldn't come off. You appear to have a conflict of interest. Your username makes it appear that you are Aaron Bay-Schuck because the initials at the front of your username are his initials and he works for Atlantic records, the end of your username.

The second tag I will take off in a little while. I will do a review of the article and update the tags on the article. I will leave a message on the talk page after I review it. GB fan (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a common misreading of wp:coi. Such a connection/interest would not not itself a wp:coi. If it is allowed to take precedence over the aims of Wikipedia, then it would be wp:coi. Sincerely, North8000(talk) 22:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the article has a notability issue as well. A couple of media mentions, brief interviews on industry web sites and a blog are the only refs. JohnInDC (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

In response to your first response. I am not Aaron Bay-Schuck, but sense there is no way to prove that, at what point could the template that reads, "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" come off? Also what other articles could be included to help the notability issue? Please give examples. Thank you for the help!Absatlantic (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any connection to him or atlantic records? We need to have reliable sources that provide significant coverage of him but they also need to be independent of him. Interviews, websites produced by him or Atlantic Records, press releases don't qualify. These can be used to verify info but not to establish notability. GB fan (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific as to what type of reference would suffice. My first reference is fromVariety Magazine which is a huge nationwide weekly magazine. I would think that would suffice. Please give me a detailed example.Absatlantic (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

A reference such as the first one would be good if it was about Aaron Bay-Schuck. The reference is not about him but about the label. We need to find an article about him from a source similar to that. I can't point to any specific reference because I haven't been able to find anything that works. Can you explain your username and what connection you have to Aaron Bay-Schuck or Atlantic Records? GB fan (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Vanity Fair is a reliable source, but Bay-Schuck is only quoted, twice, and there's no detailed coverage of him in the article. What would work would be a piece on him, not one using him as a source, one that covers aspects of his life or work. Also, I cannot help but note that you did not answer GB fan's question. Do you have any connection to him or atlantic records? We act on good faith here, so we expect honesty and openness about these kinds of issues. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you GB Fan and Nuujin. I believe a piece in Billboard should be running shortly on Aaron specifically, and I will add that as soon as it's available. Will also add other sources that fit what you're describing. To answer your question, I am an intern, but wanted the username to be something that relates to Aaron's name so that future interns can help maintain the page and add sources as they come. Right now, however, it's just been me editing this article. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do. I want to be open and get this page in proper shape. Absatlantic (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That was a smart idea about the user name but unfortunately it runs afoul of Wikipedia's user name policy (see WP:User name policy) in that every user name must associate to an individual, not to a company or to a position. My suggestion would be to come up with a user name for your own self, and permanently retire the Absatlantic one, which in addition to violating policy rather screams "conflict of interest" and is going to be source of constant confusion! Make this username change soon, because I think the existing name is at risk of being blocked - JohnInDC (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Having looked at the article a little more, I don't think that the subject of the article is quite there yet in terms of notability. When reliable sources writing about him (vs merely quoting him) begin to appear, and more than sporadically, then the issue should be revisited. But for now I think the article is pretty much just puff and promotion. JohnInDC (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The article has been PROD'ed and the user account blocked as promotional. For immediate purposes I think this item can be marked as resolved. JohnInDC (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleting of References in Michael Deibert article

Discussion moved

– To the BLP noticeboard. Danger (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I had posted references in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Deibert (as well as on the discussion page) which subsequently were deleted. I have used Wikipedia in different ways for a long time and never encountered such behavior personally and without any discussion. Maybe I was lucky and this is common, but it seems to go against policies to delete sourced material. I do understand that this is a biography of a living person and therefore only posted material that is sourced with references. Any advice? Context23 (talk) 03:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Some of those "references" were to blogs, trunk.ly links, and the like. Such "references" don't meet our standardsand are unlikely to last. Have you discussed this with MultiWorlds on his/her talk page? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes I have discussed this with MultiWorlds on his/her talk page. Links to blogs were posted by me in the Deibert article, but subsequently removed by me upon reflection that these are not appropriate, see edit history. I did however link to three newspaper and magazine articles [published in the U.S. and Haiti] these references (and the accompanying text) were constantly removed by Multiworlds with the claim of libel, without discussion as to why these articles could not serve as references or why they could be considered defamatory. In addition Multiworlds has taken to deleting content from my user talk page.Context23 (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

This is being discussed at the BLP noticeboard, probably a more appropriate forum. You've been given good advice by several experienced editors at the the article talk page. I suggest you listen to it carefully.--Danger (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

herb details

Answered

– Astray. Danger (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

优顿草/Clinathanus/Sabah Snake Grass — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhgh59 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

What to do about personal attack that's in a talk page?

Answered

– Danger (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't encountered this before, but there is a personal attack on someone named McPherson in the talk page of the Sons of Confederate Veterans article. I know it's not appropriate but don't know what I should do when I see something like that.Waltezell (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You did the right thing by removing it. Our talk page guidelines generally do not allow editing another user's posts, but in the case of clear personal attacks you may remove them. --Danger (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like that editor made similarly inappropriate talk-page comment on Talk:Pakistan Army. I removed that one and left a warning for the poster (69.1.38.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). DMacks (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. As I revisited the page, I realized this was not a tough call.Waltezell (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Lawsuits in wikipedia/general

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

What is wikipedia best practice regarding mentioning filed lawsuits in an individual's entry? They're unproven(as yet) in court, only an allegation - do they have to be mentioned, or is it unfair to individual. Or does it depend on context? - wjcohen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjcohen (talk • contribs) 12:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

If they haven't been mentioned in reliable third-party press reports, then they have no place here. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

it has been mentioned in a third party report - still, without any burden of proof, is it still acceptable? Seems potentially defaming until a verdict, no? - thanks! wjcohen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjcohen (talk • contribs) 16:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Depends on what kind of "third party report" we are talking about here. Allegations reported in the actual press are different from mere gossip on blogs and in the shabbier tabloids. We are always cautious about biographies of living people; but we are not subject to nonsense like the English superinjunctions. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent example: the Dominique Strauss-Kahn article deals with the recent charges against him, even though they have not been heard by a court. The allegations have been discussed in reliable sources so that's OK. – ukexpat (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Jupiter/Orbit

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

quote:

Jupiter's rotation is the fastest of all the Solar System's planets, completing a rotation on its axis in slightly less than ten hours; this creates an equatorial bulge easily seen through an Earth-based amateur telescope. This rotation requires a centripetal acceleration at the equator of about 1.67 m/s2, compared to the equatorial surface gravity of 24.79 m/s2; thus the net acceleration felt at the equatorial surface is only about 23.12 m/s2.

SHOULD IT NOT BE "CENTRIFUGAL" ACCELERATION ?? and NOT centripetal, as it clearly is a result of circular motion and thus reduces the net gravity by (quoted) ...

from my humble hogh-school knowledge of phycics

(Redacted)

Zeljko Novacic M.A. (linguistics) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.147.122.51 (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You should probably discuss this on the article's talk page where it is likely to receive a quicker and more knowledgeable answer. – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC) (M.A. (Oxon.))

To answer your question, the wording is correct, albeit confusing. In order for something to rotate at that tangential speed, that amount of centriPETAL acceleration is required to keep the gasses in a circular path. It is not the best wording, however, and should probably be changed. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 11:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Editting Restrictions

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I appear to be able to edit all topics that I enter except for the Murder of Meredith Kercher topic. I was just recently unbanned by Black Kite at the direction of Jimbo Wales. Have I been topic banned? If so, why? Gregmm (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)gregmm

The article is semi-protected. To edit the article you must be auto-confirmed or confirmed, see Wikipedia:AUTOCONFIRM. Until your account is able to edit the article, you may make an edit request using {{Edit semi-protected}} on the article talk page. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You need 8 more edits to reach autoconfirmed status. Have a go at this: List of common misspellings, M. Danger (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Help with Template:Virginia Military Institute

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

For some reason I can't seem to figure out how to make {{Virginia Military Institute}} such that every single one of the links on this template does not appear in Category:Virginia universities and colleges navigational boxes. Can someone fix this? Jrcla2 (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

There was a problem with where <noinclude> tags were placed on the page. It should resolve itself in a little while. Danger (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

And lo, it did not resolve itself, although 2 fewer links are in the category. I'm not knowledgeable enough about how the code works to figure this out. Danger (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You fixed the template. The job queue will automatically depopulate the category but it may take some time. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Need help formatting chart

Resolved

– Wifione _.......^{Leave a message}

Well, I hope I am posting my question/appeal at the right place, if not than I am sorry! I would like to change the appearance of chart "Population changes between Czechoslovakia and Hungary (1945–1949)" in article Slovakization to be equal with chart "The number of Hungarians deported to the Czech borderlands from South Slovakia" (the one with picture of its left side) but unfortunately I do not know how to do that... Is there someone who could do the necessary changes for me? Thank you for your help!--B@xter⁹

Which one would you like to be changed? Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 03:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The second chart in article Slovakization (the one with the title "Population changes between Czechoslovakia and Hungary (1945–1949)", and blue header. ( I would like to insert an image/map to its left side and with its present "encoding" I am unable to do this. Thank you!--B@xter⁹ 05:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Done and posted in your userspace. Hope that helps. Please check the numbers. Rest of this conversation, let's carry on at your or my talk page. Thanks. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 11:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest, What to do

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

As per the guidelines stated regarding Conflict of Interest,, I wanted to pose a question to the editors, and see what the response is.

I've been working with a startup company on a product, and we wanted to create a wiki page detailing the history of the product, current revision, past revision, future revision, etc. etc.

I've told them, and they agree, that we should do what we can to keep the information static and non-leaning, e.g. linking only to press releases, newspaper articles, etc. etc.

That said, looking through the COI page, I'm not sure what the best course of action is.

Furthermore, the issue of Company Notability, the fact that we are a start-up plays against us.

I can guess what the answer will be, but I wanted to ask the community anyways, at the risk of looking like a fool.

What would be the best course of action for a company that wants to put out onto Wikipedia a definition of what they are trying to do (more or less)

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.67.243.91 (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The basic issue is that Wikipedia isn't a place to "put out... a definition of what they are trying to do". If the company meets company notability guidelines and you wish to write an article, then I suggest using the articles for creation process to have your draft looked over before it goes live. Do note on the talk page of the draft that you have a possible conflict of interest and that the reviewer should be especially alert for promotional language or bias. If the draft is approved and the article goes live, use the talk page to suggest updates rather than editing the article directly.

If the company does not meet notability guidelines, then consider using WikiCompany to create a profile instead. If the company becomes notable in the future, it is always possible to create an article then. --Danger (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Note also that press releases are almost the definition of NON-reliable sources. Like other forms of advertisement, they are unlikely in the extreme to meet our standards of neutral point of view. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I have a COI. Assistance from neutral editor requested.

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

John Hanly Morgan is a notable Canadian activist minister. He is in the Canadian Who's Who 2010 Edition. He is also referenced in other Wikipedia articles, yet no biography currently exists for him on Wikipedia. I am a family member and have a clear conflict of interest. Nevertheless I have done my best to create a neutral biography based facts provided in the Who's Who entry. My draft is located on my subpage here: User:Fuzziehollis/Rev. John Hanly Morgan . I request assistance to complete this task.

Fuzziehollis (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I have taken a look at your draft and it's a good start, but you will need more references than just the Who's Who. Are there other reliable sources that support his notability? – ukexpat (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Roby Stahl

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like to be included in your Wikipedia. How do I go about doing so? My web pags are: (Redacted) and http://www.thestrikerschool.com. Thanks!

Sincerely, Roby Stahl (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robystahl (talk • contribs) 20:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you notable as described here? Looking at your website, it would not appear so. – ukexpat (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Help with Alabama Interstate Shields

Answered

– No issue apparent and requester MIA. Danger (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

So for the last few days I've been searching the WP:USRD page, the documentation to the Jct template, and everywhere else I could think of and I cannot find a solution to this problem: on exit lists for roads in Alabama (as opposed to other states that have the state name listed on their Interstate shields), whenever the Jct template is used for a junction with an interstate, it does not show the Alabama state name on the shield. For example, when it should show the image it instead shows . I have looked just about everywhere I can think of and simply cannot find a way to edit this grievous omission (for Alabama has, for as long as I can remember, used state-labeled shields). If needed, confirmation of this can be found here. Any help anyone can offer would be GREATLY appreciated.

71.207.194.131 (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be working at Interstate 85, make sure that when you use the {{Jct}} you add a parameter of state=AL to have the template use the AL version of the sign. If after adding that it is still not working, could you direct us to a page where the problem is occurring? Monty ₈₄₅ 01:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Film WILD RIVER (1960) Did Jo Van Fleet not win Best Supporting Actress for this film? Not mentioned in article.

Answered

– Danger (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Film WILD RIVER (1960) Did Jo Van Fleet not win Best Supporting Actress for this film? Not mentioned in article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.203.229.89 (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggest that you query this on the article discussion page. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you repiar the album section???

Answered

– Danger (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibel_Redzep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasperp (talk • contribs) 17:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be best to bring this up on article's talk page, Talk:Sibel Redzep. You should also explain what you want fixed. Just looking at the article I don't see anything glaring wrong with the section, but then I don't know anything about her. GB fan please tell me what you think of my editing 18:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)