Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 116

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

Georg Andreas Böckler

Resolved

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Was trying to find a place to point out an article problem I don't have time to deal with, but couldn't actually find anywhere for that sort of thing. This was the closest I could find. Anyway, the birth and death years are inconsistent on Georg Andreas Böckler and de:Georg Andreas Böckler. I think I can see why (the en-version is an earlier, 'years active' range and later research has uncovered the more precise dates in the de-version). But I'm not 100% sure, so leaving it here so others can see what they think. I suppose I could have posted this at the article talk page, but that might not have got a response. Carcharoth (talk) 01:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, the article talk page is the right place. Here, we generally give advice to editors about what they can do. You could also try contacting other editors who have contributed to the article(s. You can find out who the contributors are form the article history here. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The article creator edited twice in 2011 (may be more active on the Dutch Wikipedia). See my notes left here and here. Is there really no general noticeboard to request help from other Wikipedians with article questions? I'm actually willing to work on the article, but was trying to find someone to help with that. I often spot problems or mistakes, and if I don't have time would love to drop a note off somewhere to ask others to have a look. Is there nowhere for that to be done? Carcharoth (talk) 10:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Content editing and improvement is very much up to the people who have created, edited, or seen the article - Wikipedia is the encylopedia any one can edit. The article is not tagged for any glaring issues, so if you unfortunately don't have time to address the birth/address problems yourself, you may wish to leave a message drawing attention to them on the relevant section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I've done that. Hopefully someone, somewhere, will eventually pick up on this. I think you are still missing my point. There should be a general central location to point out things like this. Talk pages (decentralised) and wikiproject pages (centralised by topic) are all very well, but there are people who use (i.e. use, not edit) Wikipedia daily as part of their working day (e.g. looking things up), and spot problems, but don't have time to fix them. There should be an easy way to point out such things to a group of people who are willing to follow up and try and help out. I could easily supply about 2-3 such instances a day. Sometimes when I get home I have time to fix them, sometimes I don't (and sometimes I'm not quite sure where to start - identifying a problem is not the same as identifying a solution). Sometimes I leave a note about it, sometimes I don't have time even for that. If I spent my entire time following up such things, I'd have little time for anything else. The logical thing is to hope that others are willing to help out if someone takes the time to make an initial report (and no, I'm not going to use article tags to 'report' such things). The main problem is that such a service would soon be overwhelmed. Possibly a mailing list or off-wiki forum would be a better option. I have in the past sometimes pointed out such things in passing while asking questions at one of the reference desks, which sometimes does see the article fixed by someone who know something about the topic area. Carcharoth (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, but as a sysop and a former arb,and with over 60,000 edits to your credit, you probably have far more experience than most of us - at least on this help desk ;)

I'm not exactly inexperienced myself, and one of the concerns I have expressed in the past is that we have too many different hep desks and noticeboards - a new user can't see the wood for the trees. My suggestion at one time was to introduce a standard ticketing system (we use something similar at OTRS) where someone forwards the inquiries and suggestions to the right people, or the right people pick of the right enquiries. But change and improvements, as I'm sure you've also noticed, are very slow. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, though it is also easy to lose track of where things are and where to go, even with the experience of years of past edits to draw upon. One thing is for sure, the wiki doesn't stand still and things change over time. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC) I'll also raise this on a mailing list for meta discussion.

Before one can have a central location to report article issues, one must first have a corp of editors who are willing to service it. Without that, it is about as pointless to complain about it as it would be to complain to Oxfam that they are not doing enough to feed the hungry. Do you know of such a corp or how to recruit one? Editors generally tend not to want to edit any old article that is thrown their way, but only those that are within their field of interest. The best places to find such editors remain article talk and the wikiprojects. I know that is not the answer you want, but it is a fact of life of volunteer projects. Unless of course you are willing to offer money, or other rewards, in which case attitudes might rapidly change. Spinning Spark 17:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we're complaining about anything - just making suggestions, and it's good to see so many admins posting regularly here at EAR which is not strictly an admin territory per se. Each noticeboard already has its core of 'resident' operators - for example, here at EAR is where I reside (and occasionally at OTRS), and I very rarely stray into others, not even as an admin to AN/I for example. The problem is the plethora of noticeboards/help desks with which the less experienced user is confronted. Perhaps a central ticketing point would get its own core of regulars - OTRS works quite well, where the agents pick and choose what they want to answer, and can subscribe to lists of particular kinds of enquiries. Agents also farm the enquiries out to the right departments. There is also a stock of template replies. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

By setting up a ticketing system, you are declaring to the world that all tickets are going to be actioned in a reasonable time. Are you sure there are the editor resources available to service it? In my opinion you need to get a large group of experienced editors to commit to it before going public, otherwise it will merely disappoint and discourage those who try to use it. Spinning Spark 17:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Huh? I was neither declaring anything, nor being sure of anything at all. It was a mere suggestion. If I felt strongly enough about it I would propose it at RfC to test the climate. I haven't. That said however, we have plenty of users who have committed themselves to working quietly away in the background at OTRS - an endeavour, furthermore, that gains neither laurels nor recognition for anyone. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this conversation still going? :-) Probably best carried on somewhere else. I've sorted out the original request, by the way, with a bit of help from others. Carcharoth (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Please review new and improved section

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I took the section "Main Themes" in the Six Million Crucifixions article page and edited it to address the issues raised, namely neutral point of view and more and solid resources. Can an editor kindly take a look at the page now? If OK then please remove the warnings on top of the page. Thanks! Esautomatix (talk) 00:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I have taken a look and checked the sources. I still do not see how the sources support, in depth and number, the criteria for books at WP:BKCRIT. Please also take another look at WP:RS. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Kudpung. I commend you for your eagerness to hold Wikipedia articles to a high standard. What troubles me, however, is that for some reason the Six Million Crucifixions article seems to be held to a much higher standard than many other articles about books. For instance, the article originally made reference to many comments made by well-known scholars, but were removed because the critiques or comments were sent to the author and published on the book's back cover instead of being published in reputable journals. Yet many Wikipedia articles about books reference the books themselves, their web sites, or flaps or back covers. The article was also criticized for not having enough or good enough references. However, this appears to be a double standard as doing a cursory perusal of some other books in the same categories as Six Million Crucifixions shows many books whose notability can also be questioned (based on the criteria you quoted) and which have few or no references. Some even reference their own web sites, blogs or even their Amazon page as reference (which are apparently all unacceptable and were all reasons used to excise previously used references in the Six Million Crucifixions article).

See the following examples:

Denying the Holocaust --> no references

The Paradox of Anti-Semitism --> 1 good reference; 1 broken reference

The Politics of Anti-Semitism --> 2 references pointing to the same book

Eichmann in Jerusalem --> 1 good reference

Under His Very Windows: The Vatican and the Holocaust in Italy --> no references

The Zookeeper's Wife --> 1 reference

Pave the Way Foundation --> 28 references, of which 7 point to a page not found and 12 point to their own web site

Most of these articles, and I'm sure I could give many more examples if I searched a little more, are short and provide little useful information and as noted have less valuable references than Six Million Crucifixions. Therefore I respectfully suggest we either do a major cleanup of all articles about books in Wikipedia, or we use the same standard for the article in question here. In any case, I searched some more and added some more information in the Critical Reception section that gives it a more balanced perspective, including two new references. Hopefully in light of all this we can finish the article by removing the label on top. Thank you. Esautomatix (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read other stuff exists. There may well be far more terrible articles, but they have no bearing on the one being discussed here. You are welcome to start a cleanup campaign on book articles if you have the time to spare. Spinning Spark 18:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely concur with Spinningspark. We urgently need help with many book articles that may have escaped the critical eye of our more experienced editors. Books are notorious for wanting to promote themselves through Wikipedia. (I have taken the liberty of linking the pages that have been referred to). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

About to attempt a merger proposal. Need to clarify if it is necessary?

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I previously nominated Ell & Nikki deletion because from my opinion I felt that it wasn't necessary to have an article about them because they are not really a group but just 2 separate artists who collaborated together for a song, "Running Scared". Also they now have two separate articles, Eldar Gasimov(Ell) and Nigar Jamal(Nikki). My main purpose for creating an AfD was to create a discussion between many users about my opinion. Unfortunately, the deletion discussion didn't turn out as a planned. All I received instead were responses from users telling me that it was a waste of time and I should be reviewing WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E instead before it was closed. I admit that it was big mistake and I should've just taken this to the talk page of the articl instead.

Since no one replied to my input in the discussion I asked the non-admin to re-open it and hopefully get users from other Wikiprojects involved but this also failed and I was told that I was going against consensus. But I still had doubts so I decided to create a new section at the Notability (music)'s talk page. Thankfully other users manage to give me the response I wanted and suggested that I should propose a merger for Ell & Nikki to the "Running Scared" article.

So do you guys think that a merger proposal would be necessary? Bleubeatle (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

First off, this isn't really the venue for complaints. That said, there was a clear consensus to keep, and informed editors were among the voters, so I would be inclined to let sleeping dogs lie. If every kid who was a runner up in (Your country) Has Talent or X Factor now gets away with having their own page, I'm pretty sure that the winners of Eurovision should have one, and I think you should be guided by CT Cooper's comments. Don't let that dissuade you from continuing to edit and create great new articles. If I were to get perturbed by something like this, I would have retired 20 times by now ;) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Um I didn't really intend my post to be a complaint but I'll take it that you don't think that its necessary then? Also I kind of understand what you are saying but the main reason why I had this doubt was because while I was looking through the List of Eurovision Song Contest winners I realized that the winning song of 1994 was sang by two artists. So this sort of gave me some doubt about Ell & Nikki if they were even a group or just a collaboration(like Kanye West & Jay-Z, Brandy & Monica) and if "Running Scared" was sang as a duet or by a group. I know that each winner deserves their own article but I also believe that these two people (Eldar Gasimov and Nikki Jamal) deserve to be recognized as solo artists who collaborated together to win and not just as members of the group. Bleubeatle (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

They are recognized as solo artists via their separate articles covering their solo careers so I dont really see your point. Anyway I think that the discussions so far has provided a clear consensus of keeping all three articles.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Haven't we gone through all this several times in the past now? How many times and how many people has it to take for the message to sink in? A consensus was built to keep the article. The user cast several assumptive allegations at many users, stating people where "out to get him" and "not being able to read their comments", and was told by admins not to do so, and despite that the user still continued to accuse people of all sorts of ridiculous tittle-tattle. Furthermore, the user always stated that they have "no intentions" to have an article deleted, and yet in their own words posted above has contradicted themselves by saying "unfortunately, the deletion discussion didn't turn out as a planned". If anyone has no intentions to have something deleted, then why would they nominate for deletion in the first place? Doesn't a nomination clearly demonstrate every intention to have something deleted? This discussion about Ell & Nikki was dead and buried a long time ago, and I fail to see why the user just can't take the advice that has been repeated numerous times from a plethora of editors about letting it drop and move on. Wesley☀Mouse 19:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that a similar discussion was held at Wikipedia_talk:ESC#Ell_.26_Nikki_-_nomination_for_deletion_discussion where Bleubeatle received several informal warnings about his behaviour towards editors. Wesley☀Mouse 20:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for withdrawing this remark. Though for future reference, if you wish to withdraw comments after other users have responded, please ~~strike them~~ instead per WP:REDACT.

I am actually somewhat open minded about the proposal for a merge; it was the way it was done that bothered me. I would be happy to have another discussion on the issue, although to be honest, the way things went with the previous discussion means that opposition has hardened and won't be dislodged easily. The only place that a consensus will be reached for a merge is at Talk:Ell & Nikki, with the involvement of all interested parties - neither this page or any other can be a substitute. So if you wish to start the discussion on a merge again, you should open a new thread. Personally though, I would wait a bit longer (maybe a month or two more) to allow the dust to settle fully first. CT Cooper · talk 20:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you CT Cooper for understanding my true intents. That's why I was asking this here. I'm not sure if its ok or not, to go ahead with this yet. Bleubeatle (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Please note that the issue involving this discussion above has been moved to Wikiquette assistance's page. Bleubeatle (talk) 08:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper straw poll

Stale

– peren. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Users Andreasegde and ip 99.251.125.65 are attempting to disrupt a discussion here. Some admin assistance would be greatly appreciated. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

No admin action necessary, and if it were, this would be the wrong forum to ask for it. Perhaps someone ought to write to a former (the) Beatles or to a former Beatle or to their agent and get the whole issue clarified once and for all. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

If someone isn't too busy could they add this issue to any dispute forums it is not included in yet? I think it is only in 12 so far. We must have many more than that. Or you could just email Rolling Stone, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, agents, members, etc. If 3/5 match go with that format?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Emotional_reasoning

Request unclear

– Isolated POV. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, a better (more relevant more obvious more commonly experienced)example of Emotional_reasoning is overeating/eating unhealthy

it feels good to eat but it is obviously unhealthy

obesity is a more relevant more obvious more commonly observed form of Emotional_reasoning — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.121.57.10 (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

George Dantzig's Students

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you help me understand why so many of George Dantzig's students are commented out in the HTML? Including me?

Thank you for your assistance,

Robert Entriken — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.69.12 (talk) 03:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

According to the documentation at Template:Infobox scientist/doc, the usual rule for these lists of doctoral students is that only those with Wikipedia articles should be visible to the reader: "If a student does not have a wiki article, then comment the name out". This rule was followed when the list was first added in 2009. Other editors since then have not been so careful. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Misleading information

Stale

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The following subject is presented on this page after failure of having any resolution on the matters involved - and which I first posted on a Dispute Resolution Board (about a disputed wording of a certain sentence). My post on Dispute Resolution was later transferred by a Wikipedia Editor John Carter to Reliable Resources/ Notice board, giving it a new title of his choice, appearing on the index of RS/N as 4."Riverdale Press blogspot". A lengthy and circular discussion about the subject took place and it was was futile to have any result in sight. In addition, there was apparent avoidance from all Wikipedia Editors (and who barely participated in the discussion) - to give an opinion about a raised by me matter regarding a ceratin source dealing with a court case in the subject, and which was misleadingly presented in Wikipedia article Soka Gakkai. For these reasons I believe it is justified to present the matter here asking for assiatance.

The location of the subject in concern is the following: On Soka Gakkai page, section: Perception and Criticism, the following sentence appears: “There has been controversy about the degree of religious tolerance[87] and proselytizing[88][89][90]practiced by some of Sōka Gakkai's members[91].” This is the sentence of dispute. As I mentioned, the dispute was as if put under carpet, and with no conclusive opinion and was ignored both at the Dispute Resolution and later at the Relibale Sources Notice Board.

/1/ The first part of the sentence makes doubts about ‘religious tolerance’ through employing as a supportive source: [87] http://www.ocweekly.com/content/printVersion/932823/ . This source gives an information published in March 2011 about a court case of a staff in Soka University who allegedly claimed discrimination because of her age, and also because of her religion. The Court, however, dismissed the case in April 2011. The involved editor Catflap08 who posted the misleading sentence knew that his information is half true but he criticized the court’s decision (on the RS/N) and refused to delete his accusative and unsubstantiated allegation about 'religious tolerance'. In my consistent enquiry I was asking whether it is within Wikipedia Policy or Guidelines to give a misleading information about a court case, by treating the accusation as a valid argument to support a sentence in Wikipedia article, and knowingly ignoring the decision of the legal system in the matter. No one could answer this question. Editor John Carter completely avoided this importnat matter first through giving my enquiry a different title and then by not answering any of my question about catflap08 disregard to the Legal System on Wikipedia pages. This is unresolved matter. I request a decisive resolution to delete the false claim about 'religious intolerance' supported by a disregard to the court's decision!

/2/ The second part of the sentence speaks about ‘proselytizing’ giving 3 sources. I have no objection to the book or PDF based sources (which meet Wikipedia guidelines), but I objected to other sources which are tabloid type of rumor spreading news. The two sources which I believed that they do not meet credibility requirements are:

(a): http://riverdalepress.blogspot.de/2009/03/ps-24-parents-call-for-principals.html

(b) [89] http://www.culthelp.info/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=5600

The first source (a) has now disappeared from the disputed sentence (but the editor involved, Catflap08 mentioned that it will return, regardless). The title of my Enquiry at the Reliable Sources/Notice board (being: 4 Riverdale Press blogspot) was borrowed from that particular source and which is now only temporarily withdrawn. [A side note here: Please note that the first matter concerning the court case was also put under this title: (4. Riversdale Press Blogspot) and kept there simply burried with no attention to its contents].

The article of source(a): http://riverdalepress.blogspot.de/2009/03/ps-24-parents-call-for-principals.html is an article which admits that it is treating a rumor – and that’s why I objected to its usage.

The other source(b) mentioned above is a copy-and-paste TV news taken from the source (a) about the rumor. This source(b) still exists in the second part of the disputed sentence. Its origin or replica (being source a) was temporarily withdrawn, but the same information about the rumor still exits now in source(b), which clearly acknowledges that the investigation has not finished yet. Why would Wikipedia Editors accept a rumor based story which was under unfinished investigation, as a reliable or credible information?

My enquiry was whether it is proper to use a source - considered by editor John Carter as reliable – but which acknowledges that its information was specifically dealing with a rumor. The word “rumor” was repeated twice by the writer of the blog. Other sentences in his article acknowledged that the rumored story "had no credence". This quality of references (a) and (b) were/are effectively put on a Wikipedia article in a sentence treating the rumor as a fact, and supporting rumor based accusation regarding ‘proselytizing’, and which is apparently unsubstantiated. My question here on whether it is within Wikipedia policy to agree on using a source - even if it was a reliable published journal – but which speaks about a rumor, as a reference to validate (or support) a claim as if the rumor was about a valid fact, in a sentence in Wikipedia article.

Finally: my disagreement with the Editors Catflap08 and John Carter who could not come to a conclusion about the two mentioned matters (explained in /1/ and /2/) is now presented to your evaluation and taking decision on what to do. Regards. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Note for other editors: Please note also User talk:John Carter, User talk:Catflap08, User talk:SafwanZabalawi and the mentioning of the issue in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and in the archive of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard as well as Talk:Sōka Gakkai and on a related matter in Talk:Nichiren Shōshū. Thank you.--Catflap08 (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)--Catflap08 (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Note for other editors: I request that the focus will be solely on the subject under the title "Misleading Information". Welcome to view the background which I initiated at the RS/N (and which failed to produce any result). However, the focus here is not on individual matters but on Wikipedia guidelines concerning /1/ disregard to a court case decision as mentioned above, and /2/ on spreading rumors through Wikipedia as mentioned above with background, evidence and direct links.

I understand that the focus on this matter here is what comes under the title of "MIsleading Information". One of the reasons why the subject came here and failed at RS/N - going into circular comments - was the diviation fron facing the centre of the matter, through mixing issues, confusing subjects, and criticising the messanger. Catflaps above invitation to add and mix with other pages, completely unrelated, such as a suggestion to confuse the current focus with - a completely unrelated - Nichiren ShoShu or whatever personal matters he may have - this is only to diviate far from the focus. Let's face the reality of the mentioned 2 matters with clarity in light of Wikipedia guidelines. RegardsSafwanZabalawi (talk) 23:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Duplicated history section

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The article East Sahuarita, Arizona appears to have the entire history duplicated from Sahuarita, Arizona. Is there a copyright concern about possible missing attribution (cut and paste)? Should the history be removed from the East Sahuarita article with a link to the other article? Raymie (t • c) 09:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I see no cut and paste content between the articles at all; no history duplication. Maybe you're taking this from the fact that the articles were created at the same minute of the same day by one user? If you look at those two creations (1, 2), it perfectly confirms much easier than you can for most articles that there was no cut and paste move as the content of each is tailored; the user prepared these offline each with different content and clicked save page in succession.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Whoops. That was my first impression though. Raymie (t • c) 18:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

ERROR ON YOUR POST

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

:

Hello my name is greydougz their is an error on one of your info regarding the lists of asian countries RUSSIA is included on the list of asian countris.. I have copied the ling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Asian_countries_by_GDP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greydougz (talk • contribs) 15:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Most of Russia is on the Asian part of the Eurasian supercontinent.

See? It's the northern-most country. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the Caucasus Mountains range is the demarcation. Correct me if I am wrong.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Waratthaya Wongchayaporn

Answered

– Northamerica1000

Could someone please help me to remove the "|-" at the bottom of the page? There must be somewhere redundant markup, but I was not able to locate it. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ‎Spinningspark--Ymblanter (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Upon reviewing the article, it appears that this user's request for assistance has been fulfilled (by another editor). Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Edit Policy Question

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

I am new to Wikipedia and may not be up to speed on the editing policy thus asking for assistance. I got a message from Ground Zero indicating that my article are not in compliance. First, it would be helpful to give you a background. I was looking at a wikipedia page that relates to Puntland and Somaliland dispute. I want to give a historical background on the region and highlight the context. My suggestions are getting reverted back. Also, the editor is asking for user authenticity. I live in the United States and believe like any other user I can provide feedback. My understanding is that pages can be enhanced. Can you please check my latest changes and let me know where I fail in proving my point. I appreciate your time and assistance. My username is Somalilander21 and the article in question is Puntland and Somaliland dispute.

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somalilander21 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not a policy, but the page that will be most helpful to you here is WP:BRD. In essence, you should now discuss the issues with the other editor on the article talk page. By the way, it makes it much easier for us to answer questions like this if you provide a link to the article in question and a diff to any particular edits to be discussed. Spinning Spark 17:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Rowan Robertson: Subjective Editing / Editing Based on Personal Preferences / Editing Based on Erroneous Semantic and Language

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm writing with respect to the Rowan Robertson article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowan_Robertson). I used to be fairly active on Wikipedia and every now and then check articles of interest. When I notice substantial changes to some articles it raises red flags. One user in particular, and his edits on this particular page raise concerns. The user is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:L1A1_FAL. I'm glad to see some of his edits have been undone and corrected but fear this editor has been credited with too much authority and agency for his or her judgment. Here are the edits that I feel are of concern:

(cur | prev) 21:35, 8 May 2012‎ L1A1 FAL (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (14,631 bytes) (+4)‎ . . (→‎Reunion with Ronnie James Dio unrealized) (undo) (cur | prev) 21:34, 8 May 2012‎ L1A1 FAL (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (14,627 bytes) (+3)‎ . . (→‎Lock Up the Wolves) (undo)

Given everything below - I'm perplexed as to what editing took place here with these two items above.

(cur | prev) 21:33, 8 May 2012‎ L1A1 FAL (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,624 bytes) (-607)‎ . . (→‎Career: think we can divide this as dio years and post dio - no need for a heading for every obscure band) (undo)

Thinking one can do something should result in a suggestion - not a decision based on a subjective view. If each section for each band could be elaborated on and fleshed out - why is this person taking the initiative of whacking it out of the article?

(cur | prev) 21:27, 8 May 2012‎ L1A1 FAL (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,231 bytes) (-2,098)‎ . . (manually paste large edit due to edit conflict with bot edit (date, spelling format, italicize titles, overlinking and more)) (undo)

This person is overriding bot edits - few editors take the liberty of doing this or do so without substantive scrutiny from other editors... this is troubling.

(cur | prev) 20:54, 8 May 2012‎ L1A1 FAL (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,302 bytes) (-636)‎ . . (→‎AM Radio (2001-2004, 2006): remove entire paragraph that didn't say anything of value - just speculation and original synthesis) (undo)

"didn't say anything of value" and " speculation"??? Where does this person get off editing facts as speculation? Has anyone else had issues with this editor?

(cur | prev) 20:48, 8 May 2012‎ L1A1 FAL (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (17,938 bytes) (-8)‎ . . (→‎With DC4: delink - no page exists for either album) (undo)

If the page doesn't exist, an editor should take the time to research the subject and create the page - not hack content away: this is one issue with Wiki editors - it's quite easy to edit articles from the point of view of hacking things out rather than from the point of view of writing them. This is one reason I stopped wasting time here... we're supposed to continue building this as a resource for information, not sit and comfortably lacerate the work done by others. DC4, as far as I can tell, is an established band that tours and has produced two or three albums. All the band members are well established and recognized within their ***genre*** (a word this person struggles to understand).

(cur | prev) 20:47, 8 May 2012‎ L1A1 FAL (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (17,946 bytes) (-38)‎ . . (→‎DC4 (2006-Present): redlinks and cut crap) (undo)

This person has made a subjective decision - they think something is 'crap' and they proceed to remove it?

(cur | prev) 20:45, 8 May 2012‎ L1A1 FAL (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,984 bytes) (-462)‎ . . (→‎DC4 (2006-Present): again, genres are not proper nouns, remove peacock phrases, cut irrelevant crap. Article is about Robertson, not DC4) (undo) (cur | prev) 20:38, 8 May 2012‎ L1A1 FAL (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,446 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎AM Radio (2001-2004, 2006): genres are not proper nouns) (undo)

This person does not understand the meaning of "genre" and this is a huge concern. A genre is a category or type of thing. This person has deleted important content based on this disturbing misunderstanding (it is this type of mistake that results in some people taking Wikipedia as lightly as they do).

(cur | prev) 20:38, 8 May 2012‎ L1A1 FAL (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (18,446 bytes) (+7)‎ . . (→‎Reunion with Ronnie James Dio Unrealized: CN tag, and UK spelling for materialise, since Robertson is an Englishman) (undo)

The subject's nationality bears no relevance in the type of English used in the article. The only detail of importance is consistency.

Could someone please address this? Could someone please restore the items this person has hacked off this page and allow a pool of editors to discuss the merit of the items? For the love of God! Wikipedia has turned into an ego trip for people with too much time on their hands rather than an endeavor to add information and research things thoroughly. This person's taste for this *** genre *** of music is not enough for them to do this. I will be checking all the pages they've worked on in a few weeks and will continue to question similar actions. It's my hope the Wikipedia community will take the time to do something about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoreBigBrotherThanYou (talk • contribs) 02:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - forgot to sign, it's been quite a while folks...--MoreBigBrotherThanYou (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

An easier way to view the edits you're discussing would be giving a WP:DIFF. I believe these are the edits you're talking about.

The largest amount of material was removed in this edit, this edit, this edit, and this edit.

The spelling variation was fixed by another user, and it is a human error, not some grand crime, for L1A1 FAL to have used a barely different variety of English.

Regardless of your opinion about the edit summaries, he was removing material that did not meet this site's guidelines, such as WP:Verifiability and WP:PEACOCK, and material that was just bad for the site, like (red) links to articles that do not exist. You really had no basis to speak against his calling certain material crap, because you don't know what he removed, and you don't know why he removed it. Also, he said that genres are not proper nouns, which is correct. Genres do not name an individual and unique object or being, such as Jupiter or King George. Genres are adjectives describing a type of noun, either music, movies, books, etc...

Here at this site, we assume good faith with other editors, which means trying to work things out with them (in a civil manner), instead of talking about them behind their backs. What L1A1 FAL's taste in music are does not matter, so there's no point in you bringing it up. Don't be so paranoid over edit summaries, try taking a look at what he did before criticizing him.

And before you criticize Wikipedia, maybe you should try being a part of it, instead of pretending to be some savior against imagined corruption.

If you wish to contest his division of the article into Dio and post-Dio years, Talk:Rowan Robertson would be the appropriate place do to it. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Message from Ippocratus

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Ippocratus. was very difficult and tiring for me to create that page, since English is not my language. I assure you that I treated the character, is well known in France and Italy. He is without doubt a personaghgio public, as it is for example your Dan Peterson I know because many years ago he participated in several television shows in my country. But I assure you that today, apart from the entry relating to him on Wikipedia, or news articles about him in Italy if they are not, perhaps because no one considered it appropriate to include them on the internet. But this does not make him a character that does not exist, but he is just a public figure known to the other culture. I thought that the purpose of Wikipedia was just that: remove cultural barriers. I'm sorry, but apart from the books I mentioned, I have not found in English more. My character has participated he, like Peterson in numerous television programs, and programs of cultural studies, by us, I repeat, is well known, but I do not know how to show these programs or make you see the newspapers and weekly magazines that talk about it. Accept the photo? This page was created by me, not promotional, it mentions only one method. Surely now is incomplete, but I was hoping to perfect it over time (certainly not in 8 days) and with the help of other people seeing it, have contributed to it, also adding to their personal knowledge, in a spirit Wikipedian, where everyone gives a little of themselves to the universal knowledge. Basically this is the difference between the old encyclopedias, and our dear multimedia encyclopedia. My work commitments and the upcoming summer holidays, do not allow me to dedicate myself to improving the page, for weeks and perhaps months, only yesterday I found time to devote to it. Again, it does not advertise anything and not bother anyone, I hope you do not erase it, because it is a matter of general public utility, not a product with references on where to buy it. I hope that reading my message, do you know the right choice, and in any case, I salute you and thank you warmly. Long life to Wikipedia!

sincerely, Ippocratus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ippocratus (talk • contribs) 09:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't know what character you're talking about. What page did you try to create? Did the page have reliable sources (as defined here) so the page would meet the notability guidelines (as defined here)? Ian.thomson (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

If your concern is for Positive Self Talk Against Panic, the instructions on how to proceed to save the article are on your talk page. Spinning Spark 18:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Misha B requires her own page

Resolved

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Misha B was a contestant on X factor UK in 2011, her career and coverage has moved on positively to warrant her own page, but it keeps getting removed.

How many areas of notability are required for an internationally known music artist (inc. an artist from a national televised music competition need for their own page?)

Does Misha B have enough notability to warrant her own page.

1 Has been placed in rotation nationally by a *major radio* or music television network [Home Run, released in 3 days, is already on the, BBC radio 1, BBC Radio 1 Extra and many major independent UK networks].[YES]
2 Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources. [Both her F64 for SBTV and her mix tape Why Hello World received lots of reliable internet music press coverage]*[YES]
3 Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. (Lots of internet music press stuff)[YES]
4 Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture. [UK Soul, Hip Hop, Grime and others][YES]
5 Has received lots of reliable internet music press coverage[Home Run and her unreleased material have received lots across the music websites in the UK, US and other countries]*[YES]
6 Has won or *placed* in a major music competition. [X factor is probably the best known music competition in the UK, she came 4th][YES]
7 Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network. [X factor finals for 9 weeks] etc etc [YES]

Zoeblackmore (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

An artist in a group would need more, but she needs to have only met one of those criteria, provided there is sufficient independent in-depth biographic coverage in multiple un-related reliable sources. Not the same thing covered by BBC1 and BBC2 (related). Not press releases (promotional). Not copies of her official bio in multiple places (Self-published). Not her publicist, social media, blogs, fansites (not reliable sources), name drops in other coverage, or directory/track listings (not in-depth).

To address *6, from above:Win (1st), Place (2nd), Show (3rd), Napoleon's 'everything else'. Dru of Id (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

issue resolved Zoeblackmore (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Propriety of "autobiography" tag

Resolved

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thes article is autobiographical. (The only other major editor is the subject's spouse.) The subject seems notable. The article is well sourced, and, while it may be a bit thick with detail, appears to be largely free of the sort of puffery and self-promotion that often finds its way into self-authored articles. That’s all to the good and I think that the author has done a creditable job of maintaining a neutral tone. Nevertheless I tagged it as an autobiography because – well, it’s exactly that. “Neutrality” and “autobiography” seem to me present an inherent conflict. Plus I figure that even if there’s no obvious neutrality issue, there may be non-obvious ones (see WP:Autobiography). To my thinking, readers who come across this article are entitled to be alerted to the fact that it is self-authored and may – emphasis may – not be neutrally presented. It also alerts editors who may know something about the subject area (I sure don’t) to review and assess the article to if it needs revision.

The principal author and subject has asked, quite politely, if I would remove the tag. (Begins here.) I agree that as autobiographies go, the article is pretty clean, and I want to be fair to the author, who is acting in good faith and appears to be striving for neutrality. So I’m putting the question to a larger group to see if a consensus emerges. I’ve alerted the author to this discussion and hope he participates. JohnInDC (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Friends,

I am the autobiographer in question. JohnInDC graciously admits that I have done "a creditable job of maintaining neutrality." I'd go further (naturally) -- if I hadn't more or less openly signed my edits, no reader would have suspected that the piece is autobiographical. I'm hoping that a consensus emerges that agrees to remove the tag that marks my entry as autobiography. Such a tag, I think, will almost always be seen as a kind of lethal scarlet letter by the average reader.

Sincerely, Bill AdlerIllbadler (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

John, before I read the article, do you have any specific concerns related to neutrality? But with regards your basic proposition that editors have a right to be informed the article is an autobiography, I actually disagree, since that practice is not followed anywhere else. Few would entertain putting a disclaimer on George W. Bush that the article was written by Democrats, nor would we put a disclaimer on List of UFO sightings that it was written by a skeptic (just examples; I don't know if either case is true). Now obviously, we would put disclaimers on those articles if they were non-neutral. To me, this follows the general principle that articles are meant to stand on their own merits and those of their sources, rather than those of their authors. Readers who wish to know more about the authors have always been free to read the history. And now I go to read the article...Someguy1221 (talk) 02:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no specific concerns, no. I do take issue with your analogies, however. I would expect a disclaimer if the sole or major contributor to the George W. Bush article were an employee of the RNC (no matter what the article might say) or on the UFO article if it had been written entirely by someone who prominently claimed to have been abducted by aliens (again no matter what it said). If as you contend, all tags reduce to neutrality or the manifest absence of it, then why do we have autobiography or COI tags at all? They'd be completely redundant. Part of the problem, as I see it (consistent with WP:Autobiography too) is that neutrality can be compromised by what is not said, as well as by what is said. And where the subject of an autobiography is not that well known, the only person in a position to know what is in or is out, without researching the issue, is the (inherently interested) autobiographer. There is really no good way to tell by just looking at an article whether it's in keeping with NPOV; and even assuming that the article is fine today, it may not so fine tomorrow - and remain untagged because in one iteration it bore no obvious flaws. I think that when the only person who cared enough or knew enough to contribute to the article is the article's own subject, readers and editors should be made aware of the fact so they can appropriately adjust the credit they'll give the article. JohnInDC (talk) 02:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I've now spent a bit more time with the article and would like to revise what I said earlier. I do have some specific concerns. I'd alluded to a bit of "heavy detail" in my original posting, and now as I am giving the article a closer look, I think some of the material need to be pared down. Just by way of example, the "Mouth Almighty Records" section contains a good deal of (meticulously sourced) material about the CDs released by that label and the artists, but little or nothing about the subject of the article. I'd reduce that section to a sentence (and take out the CD links to Amazon). Other material, such as the "Christmas releases", at the end, border on the trivial. Several of the references are, upon examination, simple assertions of fact or elaborations on the text, with only passing and perhaps tangential references to actual 3d party sources. (See notes 18-28, 52.) There are also a lot of refs to off-line articles, and while that is proper, it does make it hard to check the article against them. Again I am not suggesting that the subject is not notable, that the article is hopelessly infected with self-promotional language, or that the author has acted in anything but good faith. Rather I am concerned that one's understandable enthusiasm for one's own work and accomplishments can color or slant an article in ways that it would not be, were the article written in the first instance by a disinterested person. And I think that has happened here. But all that being said this remains a matter of judgment and I am not altogether comfortable diving in and removing material that is not manifest puffery, given too the obvious effort that the author has put into it. I think the article needs some work. I do not feel qualified to undertake the task, except on a fairly superficial level, and thus think the tag is appropriate in the meantime. JohnInDC (talk) 14:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

John, You're welcome to edit down the Mouth Almighty section yourself, although I'd argue that if all the detail about individual CDs isn't ABOUT me (the subject of the article), it all REFLECTS on me as the founder of the label. Also, nearly all of the CDs on Mouth Almighty were by artists far more notable than I. Writing about them in my entry allowed me to link to the (more substantial) articles devoted solely to them, which is, I'd say, a service to the reader.

On the subject of a "disinterested" writer or editor, I'm not sure such a person exists. Writing and editing are hard work and there's not much money in it. (And, of course, in the case of Wikipedia, there's neither money nor a byline in it.) Accordingly, I believe that most people don't bother to write about subjects about which they don't feel passionate -- pro or con. Given that passion, the first job of a writer for a encyclopedia must be to mask his passion in the guise of "neutrality." I agree that that's a good idea, but I have no illusions that Wikipedia's writers are not only anonymous and unpaid, but disinterested as well. Were you right to flag my entry as autobiography on general principles? Yes. Would you have flagged if you hadn't seen how similar my username is to my actual name? I don't think so. Why? Because, like virtually all of Wikipedia's contributors, I was able to mask my passion for my subject.

Best, BillIllbadler (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Clean up request

Answered

– Northamerica1000

Hi, can a more experienced editor assist me in cleaning up an article I recently created? I can't seem to get the logo I uploaded to appear in the infobox. The logo itself needs attention too, as I'm not sure I've applied the correct license tags. Thanks in advance : Surinaamse Brouwerij Parbo Bier Logo — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianAdler (talk • contribs) 14:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Upon reviewing the Surinaamse Brouwerij article, the logo is in place. Furthermore, the Media data and Non-free use rationale at File:Parbo Bier Logo.png appears to be in order at this time. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Ahmad Ladjevardi

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to write about a person by the name of Ahmad Ladjevardi, the founder of the Behshahr Industrial Group, who was a successful pioneering investor, producer, and distributor of a variety of consumer goods in Iran, at a time when centralized conglomerates of this nature were rare. However, immediately after the Islamic revolution, the Behshahr Industrial Group, among others, was nationalized by the government. Because of the failure of the now government-run companies, including Mr. Ahmad Ladjevardi’s Behshahr Industrial Group, the Iranian Parliament sponsored research into the strategies and the methods adopted by the Ladjevardi family in their business enterprises. Subsequently, a book was written by the University of Tehran Publication Center (College of Social Sciences) on the successful management of the family’s business-related endeavors. I request your permission to write about the efforts of this family in Wikipedia. Thank you. Lmohajer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmohajer (talk • contribs) 21:46, 13 July 2012‎

Please see WP:FIRST; there is no need to request permission to start an article. Instead, you must ensure the topic is notable. In this case, you would have to make sure the article passes the criteria found in WP:BIO (essentially, attention in multiple reliable, independent sources). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

AIDAN Southall obituary gaps

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I have just read the wiki obituary on Aidan Southall and I am surprised at the comment that he had no impact on anthropology because he was an Africanist! Where do anthropologist who count work? Why is his extensive work on the State not acknowledged when it has been widely discussed by Indianists and Meso American archeologists? His interests in Madagascar are totally ignored. Lastly he was not born in an impoverished family but the family became impoverished by the death of his father from cancer.

Please contact me if you have further questions.

Christine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaworie (talk • contribs) 08:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the article (not an obituary as such) doesn't say that: what it says is 'Despite being relatively unknown in the world of anthropology, Southall's work is more “diffuse than that of some more prominent British figures”, as he spent most of his lifetime in Africa', quoting Anthropology Today. I think that the wording is a little unclear though - it might be worth checking the context of the quote, and clarifying it. The article appears to be well sourced, but if you have further sources, feel free to edit it yourself (citing your sources), or if you prefer, raise it on the article talk page: Talk:Aidan Southall. Meanwhile, I'll see if I can get access to the Anthropology Today article myself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Edmund Kemper

Resolved

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Kemper. Under Reference Books, the link to the author Don West in his book, Sacrifice Unto Me, is the incorrect Don West. The author is my uncle, now deceased -- born 17 April 1928, died 13 August 2004. I don't know how to delete the present link of the incorrect Don West. See, also, http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Don-West-former-Examiner-bureau-chief-2732257.php for source material. 184.61.224.166 (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Morgan Freeman on Wikipedia

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI morgan Freeman starred in the movie Guilt By Association released in 2003. The movie is not listed in his filmography. i just watched it on Hulu. It is a good movie which i believe needs 2 be cited. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustJai58 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not IMDb; we make no effort to have complete filmographies for performers here. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Dissociative Identity Disorder page needs editor help

Unresolved

– EAR is not DRN, and is not the place to carry on an argument. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Can some unbiased editors please help on the DID page. Thank you ~ty (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I am pleading now! I need some unbiased help. Editor WLU (t) is calling for his extreme POV friends to attack me soon. Please read what he wrote this morning. I don't want a battle. I just want an unbiased page on DID. I am totally open to help from unbiased editors! See his last note under Howdy on his talk page. This man has so many friends on WP and so much power it's been impossible to work without being completely micromanaged by him in the past - so much so that I don't think I have actually ever even had one edit stay on the page until now. In this paragraph titled "Howdy" he plays victim, which is so far from the truth it's insane. Those that oppose him usually get banned from the DID page or give up and go away. This might be the wrong place to take this, but the admin board is where many of his friends hangout. Please give me advice! ~ty (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I echo the opening statement in this section, but this might be better moved to the dispute resolution noticeboard. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that this is where you buddies are and where you get people banned or pressure them to leave - if they try and work on the WP page without your micromanaging every edit. I know I am mostly alone in this and you have lots of friends WLU. I am pretty sure you will me banned, simply for wanting to improve the DID page, like you probably have others and did so with editor TomCloyd. ~ty (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup - it looks as if unbiased editors are what is needed. Along with Tylas reading WP:NPA... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but how is it I doing the personal attack, when WLU is using his talk page to call forth his friends? These people do have a strong POV which they strongly express. The problem is that the page is balanced and I have done nothing wrong. In the intro is a note there is controversy and there is a large section about such controversy. Daniel Santos came and helped me with those things that should be corrected and I immediately did them. ~ty (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Tom Cloyd left wikipedia voluntarily. I can't ban you, and I can't get you banned. You can do that to yourself however, by continuing to accuse me of bias and hostility while ignoring my rational for editing and constant citation of policies and guidelines. The only person who can get you banned is you, by treating this as a personality contest and assuming you know THE TRUTH and I'm doing this out of spite and lies.

Incidentally, I'm not a member of the FSMF, I've never been a member, and trying to document the ongoing debate between iatrogenesis and traumagenic positions in a way that complies with our policy on neutrality does not make me a member. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I did not say you were a member of the FSMF. I said you have that POV - which you do. TomCloyd was banned from the DID page and thus left WP totally. You WLU swear at me, attack me, revert every single edit (if one slipped in I am sorry, but I think it has been every edit) I have ever made until now. That is not helping me do anything! That is downright attacking me! Other editors offer help and I love that! I want help! I just don't want an extreme POV pushed on this page which is what you have fought to keep.~ty (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

So the link to the FSMF website wasn't supposed to indicate that WLU was linked in any way with the organisation? Yeah, right... Frankly, if that is the way you behave, I'm not surprised that people swear at you. Meanwhile, you've provided no evidence whatsoever that WLU is pushing a POV at all. I suggest that if such evidence exists, you raise it in the appropriate place, in the appropriate manner - and without the insinuations about 'friends'. Meanwhile, the article is currently a mess, and more editors getting involved would definitely be a good thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it's to show the POV he wants on the DID page. I have no idea if he is a member and don't care the slightest. What I care about is his POV that he pushes on the DID page. Simply look through the DID edits and talk page to see what WLU's POV is. He does like both sides on the article, but the problem is that both sides are not equal and it should not be presented that way. The comments about friends is not an insinuation - please look on his call for those to help him on his talk page under the heading of "Howdy". Yes, I would like unbiased editors there to help. The article is not a mess. It was a mess before I was allowed to finally work on it. ~ty (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

So you think that posting a link to an organisation that WLU isn't a member of can somehow "show the POV he wants on the DID page"? That is just plain stupid. Anyway, your continued unsourced allegations regarding WLU are doing you no favours, and you've attracted the attention of new editors. I suggest you put an end to this nonsense, and concentrate on the article in question, rather than on attacking others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, if you say I am stupid, but what I am trying to show is his POV, not that he belongs to some organization or not. I would love to concentrate on the article Sir! I would simply like some unbiased help. Not a fight! I don't want to fight!!!! Thank You. I will go back to working on the article, but I still feel the threat of attack from WLU calling for others to prove his POV or however you want to word that correctly. :) By the way - thank you Andy for helping me make clear my attention. It is not a personal attack on WLU. ~ty (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrong Honours Luis Suarez ( footballer)

Answered

– OP notified. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear dispute resolution board,

In the article Luis Suarez I've removed under the subject 'Honours", eredivisie 2010/2011. I did it several times but another editer says it should be under honours and placed it back. The problem is Suarez was transferred in the januari transfer window. So when Ajax, his former club, became champions he was already gone. Now the editor cited to 2 articles who said Suarez recieved a medal for winning the eredivisie. Thats true, because he was important for the club. But it doesn't mean it should be in the paragraph 'honours' of wikipedia. That would mean that every player that played for a club, and left before the end of the season should be mentioned under the paragraph honour. For example last season Anelka played for Chelsea but left in the winter. Chelsea became Champions league winners in the same season. That would mean that Anelka would get Champions League 2011/2012 under the paragraph honours. Thats wrong. I know what he means but it isn't correct.My request is that the paragraph honours stays correct and true.

Yours faithfully,

fixi88Fixi88 (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not the dispute resolution board. Please read the instructions before posting anywhere on Wikipedia. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Size of Picture

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that the picture of Don Juan is too wide. It covers part of the text. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_juan 20rdj04 (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I added 200px to the image line. You can play with that number to suit, edit war over it, get all involved blocked, and then seek consensus after all blocks expire. I think that is the normal en:wp procedure.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Jonathan Drubner Wiki

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I am constantly editing Mr. Drubners wikipedia page and it is always removed. I am told it is because it is copied from another site, his employer ESPN, media site. Which is not true. I represent and work for Mr. Drubner and we want his Wikipedia page to work. I am very upset because I am trying hard to get this done. Please let me know how my prior edits violated rules and which specfic edits did so so I can fix it and we can make Mr. Drubners article more informative. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanLacrosse1729 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If you wrote the copy vio text then I would think that you should be allowed to have it used in the article or seek permission from those that have the copyright. Most editors will accuse you of being COI. You should suggest changes on the talk page, not include fluff, promotion, etc. I hope this helps and you all seek consensus on what should and shouldn't be included. If it doesn't then follow the 'normal' procedure I mentioned above.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

How to handle ownership issue. How to deal with an editor who is reverting 100% content since last three months any discussion on talk page.

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Many editors are working to construct Ujjwal Patni but one senior editor is removing each and every content without any explanation. Multiple request made by other editors on article talk page and user talk page are ignored with incivility. After careful observations, i feel that it is deliberate attempt to take the articles towards deletion. i have presented the facts below. Kindly advice , what to do.

Behavior indicative of possible WP: OWN and against WP:CIVIL, WP:BOLD by User : Rhode Island Red

Between 2012-04-12 to 2012-07-10 in 3 months, this article was edited 105 times by one single editor. Interestingly he was not the primary contributor to this article. The 105 edits were strictly confined towards reducing the article by removing a content, placing a tag, to undo other editors(100%) or towards small fixations. Even after careful study, I was not able to find a single new citation added during 105 edits to strengthen or to construct the article.

In last three months, almost 100 % contributions by different editors are reverted by the same editor repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version

There was no edit between 16 May to 22 June. On 22 June TRANSASIA tried to be Bold by adding an award. [ see (talk | contribs) revision 498874984. His addition was reverted on the same day and immediately through 17 revisions, the major content of the article was removed. The situation becomes more complex as nobody in last three months was allowed to add anything to article a particular version was protected by the same author. It is necessary to see revisions from 06:12, 11 July 2012‎ TRANSASIA (talk | contribs) to 14:33, 13 July 2012‎ TRANSASIA (talk | contribs). Today my multiple contents were removed that were prepared after extensive hard work without a single discusses on talk page. Pls guide , what to do.

Mahaveerji (talk)

Given that the article as it stands fails to provide evidence that the subject of the article meets Wikipedia notability requirements, and given that the material being removed is largely vacuous puffery (as in this entirely legitimate removal of a paragraph 'sourced' to a website that makes no mention whatsoever of the individual, and to another that merely mentions his name in passing, in relation to an event which has nothing whatsoever to do with his claim to notability [1]), I see no evidence that what is going on is 'ownership' - unless you mean by the various 'contributors' (or one contributor with multiple accounts?) who keep adding such nonsense. If Patni meets Wikipedia notability requirements, it should be possible to provide the evidence in reliable sources that show this, without filling the article with ridiculous hype and puffery. Do you really think that the fact that the name of a book that Patni wrote appears amongst a list of similar publications on the last page of a few syllabuses for courses at the National Institute of Technology Raipur is useful information to give our readers? [2] [3] That supporters of Patni are attempting to establish 'notability' by such methods seems ample evidence that no such notability exists - and on that basis, the logical way to prevent any problems over 'ownership' is by deleting the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear Editor, It was a real hard opinion however i would request you to see the following reputed sources before making an opinion that show various aspect of his achievement. The link that you quoted was included by mistake. Ujjwal Patni is an author of more than 6 books in 10 languages. Being an Indian i know his achievements and mass popularity due to multiple languages. I am working on Jain personalities, Jain saints and Jain pilgrimages. Being a Jain, i know well about his credentials. I can cite multiple Hindi reputed media sources...and in the process of learning...how to do so. Deletion shall be done on the basis of merits and any wikipedian is ready for that... but i feel that some amount of discussion is required before extensive deletions. That is my only submission.

http://www.flipkart.com/search/a/books?query=ujjawal+patni&vertical=Books&dd=0&autosuggest%5Bas%5D=on&autosuggest%5Bas-submittype%5D=entered&autosuggest%5Bas-grouprank%5D=0&autosuggest%5Bas-overallrank%5D=1&_r=ksab4WVixfyxFIAYkFSBhw--&_l=BeFSI0lZqBC4MJ94PL7coA--&ref=91bccede-e263-480e-a53e-f94351c88eb2&selmitem=

http://www.onlineprnews.com/news/238521-1340137375-india-today-recommends-power-thinking-by-top-trainer-author-dr-ujjwal-patni.html

http://www.diamondbook.in/catalogsearch/result/?q=BESTSELLER&x=0&y=0

http://www.jainsamaj.org/magazines/ahimsatimesshow.php?id=117 (New publication section)

http://www.helloraipur.com/persondes.php?pid=58

http://www.rungtacolleges.com/Advisory-Board.aspx

http://mtcglobal.org/page.php?id=30

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050919/asp/jamshedpur/story_5242939.asp

Can post multiple other links , but request you to see the talk page of Ujjwal patni from 13 April where continuously links were presented. I don't wish to make it a talk page again...if i won't succeed then i would prefer to resign from this article.

Thanks for your worthy opinion

Mahaveerji (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that there are insufficient sources to justify an article on Patni under Wikipedia notability policy - your personal knowledge regarding the subject and his 'credentials' being totally irrelevant of course. I shall shortly be nominating the article for deletion - unless you would prefer to do this yourself? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

edits

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you,

WellbornIdeas (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Orangemike (talk · contribs) has left you some messages at User talk:WellbornIdeas. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The only people who 'approve' edits and/or content on Wikipedia are Wikipedia editors - and that means anyone, or any consensus of editors who correctly interpret and implement the policies. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

History of BBC television idents

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I started the article back in 2005, but since then it has become something of a controversial collection of fair use images. It has been through the deletion process twice (the second nomination was my own) and been kept, but I'd like some opinions from uninvolved editors on how the article should progress and what the best course is for dealing with the images. Cloudbound (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:IUP and tag the images as appropriate. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Appearance of long tables.

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Sample: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_hosting_services

Such tables should have first row fixed, so when information is scrolled, an quick overview of "what column was that?" is always visible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.50.204.88 (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables, and if appropriate, don't hesitate to express your concern on its talk page. Thanks.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Removing multiple issue notification

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

G'day there, Now that I have responded and addressed the multiple issues St Johns Wood, Queensland, how do I have that notice removed? I have asked the editor that I beleive put it there, but have received no action or reply. I fear that if I remove it I will suffer the wrath of this editor. Would also appreciate some advice on whether I have actually addressed the majority of issues and if it now warrants removal. Thanks, Ben

Benwebboz (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You have done a magnificent job of cleaning up the inline citations. The article may need some cautious additional Wikifying, and perhaps the images should be checked for correct copyright permissions and/or FUR. I have removed the maintenance templates. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The Royal Society of Canada and La Société royale du Canada

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi there,

I would like to please request assistance to edit the Infobox on the French page of the RSC: La Société royale du Canada so that it matches the Infobox on the RSC English page The Royal Society of Canada . I would like to make the Infoboxes on the English and French pages for the Society exactly the same (of course with the content in the appropriate language). I understand that templates must be used for the Infoboxes, however I have not been able to find a template in the French Wikipedia that is the same as the English. The following is the code for the English Infobox:

I am hoping to have assistance to match these two boxes exactly so that the pages are consistent in each language. It would be great if someone could explain the differences in the code and provide instructions as to the appropriate way to edit these boxes. As you will see from the code, I have attempted to alter the fields to add in new sections, but when I previsualise or publish the page - these changes unfortunately do not show up.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Jorden Johnson, July 18, 2012, 11:02 EST — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.209.146.42 (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read the instructions before posting on help desks. I have moved this request to a more appropriate location from the top of the page and removed the images and code. The English and French Wikipedias operate independently of each other and have their own Manuals of Style and formatting rules that are generally compatible with their own language cultures. As changes can have far reaching consequences, templates such as infoboxes that are used on many articles should not be modified without discussion and consensus. Please go to the French Wikipedia to make any suggestions for changes to the French Wikipedia. Our en.Wiki InfoboxOrg is unlikely to be changed or modified any time soon. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The en.Wikipedia RSC uses our Template:Infobox organization; the fr. article uses their Infobox Société. Templates will only recognize fields included in the template parameters; to get the templates to have the same parameters, and in the same order, you'd need a long discussion on the talk page of both of the template talk pages, or on one and linked from the other. You would probably need to first identify which fields they currently share, and which ones are unique to each side. For your purposes, there may be some which are unnecessary or not the same, but almost so. Dru of Id (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The fr.Wiki uses Modèle:Infobox Société which you can find here. It is indispensable that you discuss your suggestion with the French developers on its talk page because it is used by over 9,000 pages and for that reason it is edit protected so that it may only be modified by admins. It is necessary to understand that the infobox mark up that you see on the article page in edit mode is not the code that makes it work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I am trying

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

to improve an article, Jenny Eakin Delony, which probably needs to be here but which seems like mostly cut & paste. I am working through it. But in looking at the editor's other work I discovered this image File:Sam Lay in Chicago.jpg at which the editor claims to have Sam Lay's permission, and in fact to be Sam Lay's agent. I am wondering what there is to back up that claim? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it would need OTRS unless uploaded by the copyright holder.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It does need WP:OTRS permission. File tagged WP:F11 and uploader notified. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Wolf's Rain

Resolved

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Can I get someone else to look into this? Basically, this guy added a whole heap of unsourced stuff to the article. It was poorly written and looked to me as if it had just been run through Google Translate (including the phrase "desperate fights huge walrus"). He's repeatedly accused me of "vandalism" for reverting the changes, despite extensive explanation on my part. Right now I don't feel like getting into it further by reverting again because I know he'll just revert it once more. I'm off to bed, but if someone else can look into it and either take action or advise me on what to do, I'd appreciate it. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. I went ahead and reverted again. This could get interesting again soon. (O frabjous day!) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I have semi protected the page for a while. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate that, and it should help. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Content and references

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Dallascisco/David petrou

I would like some expert advice on the content of this potential article and what information would need references.

Dallascisco (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Dallascisco

There is no way this would pass muster. He was a gopher on a well-known movie? So what? He is in some of the more obscure "Who's Who" books: who isn't? The article reeks of resume-padding, with lots of irrelevancies that violate WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS. It's also laden with peacock words, and fluff that does nothing to convince us that he is globally notable in any way: we don't care about his "coveted Silver Sow Award". --Orange Mike | Talk 17:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hundred_Years'_War massive deletion

Resolved

Someone deleted about half of the Hundred_Years'_War article. i have no idea how to go about restoring it and neither does the person currently working on it and commenting in the talk page. 76.26.142.108 (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It appears to have been restored again to a stable version. I have semi-protected (registered & autoconfirmed users only) the page for a short while. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

article USS_Alligator needs fixed

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I cant find what I want on the contact page so Ill post it. There is an error on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Alligator_%281862%29. It states top speed of the USS Alligator is 4 knots in one place (stat area) and 7 knots in the article. It can only be one. The info from Military History can be found here >>>http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/a7/alligator-iv.htm stating top speed about 4 knots. If someone can change this or send it to the appropriate people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.249.130 (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed with this edit. If the source says four knots then that's what the Wikipedia article should say. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Saw this on another users talk page: Harassment?

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello!

So I was about to leave a comment on User:Tholden28's talk page when I saw these two comments from an anonymous IP. These seem threatening to me, and I wasn't sure whether it constituted WP:HARASS or not, and if so, how we proceed. Bkissin (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Edits by an anonymous user (an IP), made in April. The IP hasn't edited since 11th April. They may be a little forthright, but there's really no harassment there per WP:HARASS. In any case that IP has more than likely been allocated to someone else by now as it's a dynamic IP address from a rather large pool. Forget it, move on and don't worry about snippy comments made over three months ago to another editor with no apparent response. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Name misspelled on semi-protected page 'Pheromone'

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Submitted edit on Talk page for semi-protected page error; thank you for your attention. Page is 'Pheromone'

Please correct a spelling mistake in the content of this page, by changing Culter to Cutler (the correct name spelling for Winnifred B. Cutler, author) within the content and the citation #26 (see content below)

Further evidence of a role for pheromones in the modulation of sociosexual behavior comes from two double blind, placebo-controlled experiments. The first, by Culter, had 38 male volunteers apply either a male pheromone or control odor and record six different sociosexual behaviors over two weeks.[26] This study found that there is an increase in sexual behavior in the pheromone users compared to the control group.[26] The study by McCoy and Pitino was similar to the Culter study...

Gouldsix (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Done -- John of Reading (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Maria Sachs

Resolved

Maria Sachs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm a new editor to wikipedia and I would really appreciate guidance on the wiki page above. It has had a COI banner on the top for almost a year and I'm not sure how to best resolve any COI dispute so we can remove the banner. I am the daughter of the said wiki page profile, but because I identified myself as such while initially editing the page, in good faith, the profile had had the COI label on it. I have not made any edits thus because I thought at this point it would be best to bring in a senior editor for further review. In 2010, I had originally contributed to the "Personal Life" section, parts of the 'Career' Section and I provided the references in 'Veterans and Nursing Homes". I have been trying to research how best to rectify any outstanding issues with the profile but would also call upon any senior editor to review the page and remove anything that could be construed as COI so that the page can be returned to normal. This candidate is currently in a campaign, and the COI banner will have a negative effect on her campaign. Since I had identified myself as a family member while editing the page, I would hope that I could ask for guidance here to get the profile up and running again normally. I very much appreciate your help in reviewing this wiki, and would be happy to work with any editors to make sure the site is made better. Natasha Bambola1242 (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

This appears to have been resolved, per the discussion on the article's talk page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

69th Infantry Regiment (United States)

Resolved

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. this article keeps being reverted to 69th Infantry Regiment (New York), by an "outside" user who doesent understand how the linage and honers system works, this user keeps copying the the new york page and pasting it on the federal page. (creating two of the same page) can you lock the federal page? thanks Brian in denver (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Done by OrangeMike. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

wikiepedia's Somalia map (request to add Armo town)

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Firstly I want to thank you for your valueble work in general and specially on Somalia, I am hereby requesting you to include your Somalia maps an important town named Carmo (Armo in english), which is 100KM south of Bosaso city of Puntland, Somalia,on the road between Bosaso and Gardo, the town was nearly founded in 1995, but has been rapidly gorwing and became an official distirct capital in 2003. by now it is well-designed large town,also it is home to UNDP sponsored Armo Somali Police Accademy, which is the largest in Somalia. the town had been on your maps of Somalia since 2009 and 2010, but after that you did not include it on your maps, could please include it again. I can understand that your maps show as much as possible of the towns and the villages of Somalia, but I think that Armo/Carmo town deserves to be shown on yours maps according to its relatively large size and importance.

Hopping you would accord the necessary attention to my request, please accept my heart-felt greetings.

sincerely Yours,

Ahmed Yusuf

Somali Journalist,

Netherland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.169.203.151 (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Map updates may be requested at Wikipedia:GL/MAP. Alternatively, by clicking on an existing map you will be taken to an information page that includes information on the map's author. You are free to contact him directly with your request. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The Hall Affair, Gosport

Resolved

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia editors,

I wrote an article THE HALL AFFAIR, GOSPORT, which has now gone on-line, but with a request (I think from Matthew Vanitas) for on-line references and a correction over over-capitalisation of initial letters. I have made these corrections to a Word file I created directly by clip-boarding the article, and they are clearly tracked. However, forgive me, at present I am too dumb to make these corrections to the article itself. Is there someone to whom I could email the Word file, and who could thus put these corrections in for me? That would be very helpful.

Thanks, Bastions (writing from Prague, Czech Republic) Bastions (talk) 11:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Pasting the article into Word is not really a practical way of going about editing it. Frankly, it would be easier to start again. If you want to use an external editor you need to copy the marked up text from the edit window. After working on it, paste it back into the same place. I would also recommend using a plain text editor rather than Word to avoid confusions arising from Words own formatting.

If you are struggling, it might be better just to leave the formatting issues to other editors to fix. A much more important issue that only you are in a good position to put right is the lack of inline citations. Again, don't worry too much about getting the formatting right - there are plently of other people here who can fix that - the important thing is to get the information into the article of what bits came from what sources on what page numbers. Spinning Spark 12:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed the headings and wikified the early part of the article. It needs a lot more work, particularly on tone (it doesn't read as very encyclopedic) and referencing. See WP:Referencing for beginners for more assistance.--ukexpat (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Stalking and abuse by an editor

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see the following discussions:

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_13#File:Original_casting_from_the_bronze_doors_made_by_Lorenzo_Ghiberti.jpg

2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_13#File:Panel_from_Lorenzo_Ghiberti.27s_bronze_doors_for_the_Florence_Baptistery.jpg

3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_13#File:Panel_from_Lorenzo_Ghiberti.27s_Gates_of_Paradise_bronze_doors.jpg

4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_13#File:Ghiberti_components_of_the_doors_to_the_Florence_Baptistery.jpg

5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_13#File:Now_and_Later_wiki.jpg

6) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_October_13#File:Farley_wiki.jpg

These have all been flagged by Stefan2 as 'possibly unfree' based on what, I don't know. The last two seem to be flagged out of spite and vindictiveness.

The net result will be a reduction is the quality (particularly the comparison of poor copies to the original works on the Florence Baptistery doors) of the Wikipedia, based on what? I haven't gotten a straight answer yet.

It really seems as though this guy is stalking me, combing through my edit history to find images to flag for insubstantial reasons.

He has now flagged 6 images of mine that I KNOW I photographed, waited cumulative HOURS uploading on a dial-up connection, and spent hours of pre-upload time tailoring and cropping to make them suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Now, I'm supposed to wade through the red-tape and mystery processes to get them un-flagged, or just watch them be deleted?

This is abuse. Marshmallowbunnywabbit (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You are writing that you don't know why the files were nominated as possibly unfree. This is explained clearly in the initial posts at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 October 13.

If you really did take the photos, then how can you explain the following screen output?

$ wget 'http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ef/Panel_from_Lorenzo_Ghiberti%27s_bronze_doors_for_the_Florence_Baptistery.jpg'
--2012-10-14 02:10:08--  http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ef/Panel_from_Lorenzo_Ghiberti%27s_bronze_doors_for_the_Florence_Baptistery.jpg
Resolving upload.wikimedia.org (upload.wikimedia.org)... 208.80.152.211, 2620:0:860:ed1a::b
Connecting to upload.wikimedia.org (upload.wikimedia.org)|208.80.152.211|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 98022 (96K) [image/jpeg]
Saving to: `Panel_from_Lorenzo_Ghiberti\'s_bronze_doors_for_the_Florence_Baptistery.jpg'

100%[================================================================================================================================>] 98,022       245K/s   in 0.4s    

2012-10-14 02:10:08 (245 KB/s) - `Panel_from_Lorenzo_Ghiberti\'s_bronze_doors_for_the_Florence_Baptistery.jpg' saved [98022/98022]

$ wget 'http://www.artic.edu/aic/exhibitions/ghiberti/images/splash_img.jpg'
--2012-10-14 02:10:14--  http://www.artic.edu/aic/exhibitions/ghiberti/images/splash_img.jpg
Resolving www.artic.edu (www.artic.edu)... 198.40.31.1
Connecting to www.artic.edu (www.artic.edu)|198.40.31.1|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 98022 (96K) [image/jpeg]
Saving to: `splash_img.jpg'

100%[================================================================================================================================>] 98,022       158K/s   in 0.6s    

2012-10-14 02:10:15 (158 KB/s) - `splash_img.jpg' saved [98022/98022]

$ diff -s Panel_from_Lorenzo_Ghiberti\'s_bronze_doors_for_the_Florence_Baptistery.jpg splash_img.jpg 
Files Panel_from_Lorenzo_Ghiberti's_bronze_doors_for_the_Florence_Baptistery.jpg and splash_img.jpg are identical

Hm? --Stefan2 (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't explain what I don't understand...I have no idea of what point you're trying to make with the above...it's gibberish to me.

All I do know is that I went to the Chicago Art Institute for an exhibition of original panels from the "Gates of Paradise" doors that (I don't really remember if they were about to, or had, or if some had and some hadn't, undergone restoration. The cast head looks like it still needs work, the others looked pristine). I do remember being particularly interested in the backs of the castings, as they were mirror images of the fronts, not solid blanks.

The museum was well lit, and it was probably there that promotional pictures were taken as well, under the same lighting, in the same setting, and possibly with similar camera equipment. I took pictures, uploaded a few into ArcSoft PhotoStudio 2000 for editing and to convert to JPEG file type. This is all that I know.

How about you explain why the sudden interest and flagging of ancient photo files of mine, literally years old? Hm?

Marshmallowbunnywabbit (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

This is the wrong forum anyway for such issues (read the instructions). You should discuss this on your talk pages or the article/image talk pages first. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I did attempt to talk about it, didn't seem to get anywhere, so went here.

That's really the whole issue though, someone goes around flagging stuff to build up an edit count but doesn't have to justify himself. It's like Hoover using the IRS to beat up on ordinary people, we have no recourse if we don't know the system. They count on that, and ultimately, the Wikipedia suffers from their bullying behavior.

Marshmallowbunnywabbit (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK Stephan2 is quick to tag images, perhaps sometimes a tad too quick, but he knows his stuff and he's always amenable to discussion about it. Perhaps you should not be so quick to accuse people of bullying behaviour though - we're all ordinary people here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It's all very simple:

File:Panel from Lorenzo Ghiberti's bronze doors for the Florence Baptistery.jpg is a copyright violation because it has been stolen from [4] and is identical to the file on the artic.edu website. There is no evidence that the artic.edu website got the photo from the uploader. If it were a different photo, there would have been a few minor differences, such as different light or a different resolution or a different angle.
File:Now and Later wiki.jpg is a copyright violation because the uploader didn't design the packaging and because the packaging was first published less than 95 years ago.
File:PhantomRing wiki.jpg is a copyright violation because the uploader didn't make the ring.

Similar reasons for all of the other images. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Marshmallowbunnywabbit, no two photographs are as exactly alike as the case of the bronze doors pictures. Please stop wasting everyone's time by trying to defend the indefensible. The "Now and Later" picture might be usable if you add a fair use rationale, and you really did create it yourself, but the article it is in already has numerous pictures so this may still not count as "fair use". See Mars (chocolate bar) for an example of how such pictures should be licenced. The "phantom ring" picture, is a problem on Commons because pictures of 3-dimensional art are the copyright of the artist in some countries. Hope that helps, Spinning Spark 11:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC).

The ultimate problem here is stalking and abuse.

Stafan2 is exhibiting a burgeoning God-complex and bullying by combing through random images of mined and flagging them.

I don't really care about the images, I KNOW I took them. The Phantom Ring for one example was commissioned by my company for promotional purposes relating to the Billy Zane Phantom movie. We paid for the design and production of the ring.

What really irks me about this whole fiasco is that just because Stafan2 got into a royal snit over my pointing out that his own, whatever, programs?, showed that the files I uploaded were in fact different than whatever he was comparing them to, he then went on to flag other random files of mine for weaselly reasons. And the rest of the Wikipedia bureacrats quickly closed ranks to support him.

I have learned that even though there is a 'process' in place to dispute the flagging of a file, it doesn't in reality, work. So those files are history.

Perhaps I should point you all to photos uploaded of the Jay Pritzker Pavalion in Chicago's Milennium Park? Legally, that is a 3 dimension work of art, less than 10 years old. Should all images of it be flagged? Sounds like a quibble to delight all of you.

So to recap the mess above: I took all of the photos flagged above. The Phantom Ring is owned by me. The Now and Later Box and Farley image were created by me to show the unique, no longer used, packaging designs for those individual companies, from their pasts (much like showing the changes in the Michelin Man over time). Saying there are other images in the article shows that the article wasn't actually read...the article is about multiple companies over a century of time, not one company. Marshmallowbunnywabbit (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

This page is for getting editing advice. We have given you editing advice - if you don't like that advice we don't care. This page is not for furthering your dispute with Stefan2, nor is it for complaining about Wikipedia rules or getting them changed. See WP:DISPUTE for the first and WP:VP for the second. Whatever problems there are with other people's photos is irrelevant, see WP:OTHERSTUFF, this discussion is about your photos. Spinning Spark 12:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

If you are claiming that you are the copyright holder of the ring, then you need to follow the procedure at WP:IOWN. However, if the ring was created on behalf of a different company, then the copyright might be held by that company or some other company instead; your company is not necessarily the copyright holder to all things produced by the company. See Work for hire#Law in the United States. Also, the ring may be a derivative work of an earlier ring copyrighed by someone else, for example Lee Falk's heirs. In that case, you also need permission from the copyright holder of the underlying work.

About the images in the article Jay Pritzker Pavilion, see s:United States Code/Title 17/Chapter 1/Section 120. You are free to take photos of buildings. On the other hand, you are not free to take photos of certain other things, such as statues. I would argue that the photos mainly show the architectural aspects of the pavilion, although it could maybe be disputed for a few images. I do not see any immediate reason to delete the photos of the pavilion. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I have not gotten any help with reporting an abusive editor. I am being abused, and apparently the abuse will continue until I stop saying the kings middle managers don't have any clothes on.

I do own the ring, the ring was designed by a firm we hired to produce product molds for us. It is made of a fired ceramic material that emulates the look and feel of metal. The actual inspiration for its design was the ring worn by Bela Lugosi in the file "Return of the Vampire" (bonus points if you can name the character he played in that movie).

But anyway delete that file, whatever other file you want. If this is about some kind of pettigrew 'winning', you must feel like such a winner. Does it make you feel really powerful to randomly select photos to 'dispute'? What's that like, I'm curious? Just remember that I still own the ring, the pictures, and most importantly, the experiences that I tried to share with everyone.

Getting back to the original point of my disputes, once a file is flagged, it gets deleted. A file apparently gets flagged randomly and then the owner is asked to do what? The 'what' is never made clear. How do you prove ownership, in my case ownership of the rights to the ring, rights to the other photos that Stefan2 has apparently been flagging? Proving ownership of the ring would require me to provide personally identifiable information, something I am loathe give Wikipedia, a shoe-string operation with unproven security (unlike Facebook).

So, keeping on point, how do I report an abusive editor? No one has come up with the answer to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshmallowbunnywabbit (talk • contribs) 12:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

One more time, with feeling, you are not being abused by anyone. As to your other question, see WP:CONSENT for the process to notify Wikimedia that your release the copyright on acceptable terms.--ukexpat (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

IP user personal attack

Resolved

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

One of you may wish to trout-slap this IP editor for making this edit to my user-page. Der yck C. 21:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

You appear to have the necessary tools to deal with this yourself. Even if you feel it is not appropriate to use them in this case, you surely know this is not the right venue. Spinning Spark 23:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed I don't want to do it myself for obvious reasons. Since WQA is now obsolete, I really have no idea where to ask! Der yck C. 19:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have done the right thing already Deryck. I have that user on my watchlist now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. There's a point where non-involvement is necessary, but then again, common sense prevails always.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 17:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

would appreciate guidance on resolving problems with article about Jason Shulman

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

Here is the link to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Shulman

I’d be grateful if you can help me understand the perplexing and alarming notices appended to the above bio.

The person who researched and wrote this entry was Zack of wikipediawriters.com. He is the only contributor. On behalf of Jason, I had found him through the internet and commissioned him as an independent writer to produce the entry – so that it would be as objective as possible.

What appears today is exactly as written by Zack with no input from anyone else. These are entirely his words. Nothing has been added or deleted.

In fact, I found it remarkable that he had gathered together so much material. He told me that all of it was publicly available.

Can you tell me the basis of your concern so that this can be resolved and the notices removed?

with thanks, Sharadha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharadha Bain (talk • contribs) 21:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Paid Editing is absolutely discouraged in Wikipedia and articles thus created are seriously scrutinized. The tags were put on the article by the editor A. B.. You may contact the editor on their talk page for removal of the tag. --Anbu121 (talk me) 22:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

...but removal probably will not happen unless and until an editor not associated with the subject reviews/works on the article. This could be some time in a community of volunteer editors where there is no scheduling of work. Spinning Spark 22:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The article has been deleted for not conforming with Wikipedia policies and/or notability guidelines. Having reviewed the deleted content, I concur with the tagging editor and the deleting admin. The article can be recreated if references are provided that assert notability. That said, this is not the forum for this discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

John Jones (Los Angeles politician)

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The above article should be deleted and redirected to John Jones and Doria Deighton-Jones. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You do not need to have an article deleted in order to turn it into a redirect. Any editor can do that. See WP:REDIRECT for how to do it. Spinning Spark 14:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Next step?

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, if there is a dispute involving multiple editors across multiple articles, having already talked it out and going into a stalemate (in this case, film articles involving plot changes and issues with user conduct such as edit warring) what is the best thing to do? Open a DRN for each article or ANI? Thanks.--JTBX (talk) 11:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Without looking into the history of your case, the first step in a content dispute is to discuss the issue on the talk pages, which you say you have already done. The next step depends on whether you are in dispute with one or many editors and how open they are to compromise. WP:DISPUTE explains the options. Often, a productive way forward is to open a WP:RFC to try to get a consensus from the wider community. As for conduct issues, you should first warn the user, politely, that you consider their conduct unacceptable, along with a link to the relevant policy or guideline they are breaching. There are templated messages for most common situations, but a personal message may be better if established editors are involved. Only if this is ignored is it time to report to an appropriate noticeboard. You suggested WP:ANI but this is really for complex urgent cases. Simple cases of vandalism go to WP:AIV for instance, and edit warring goes to WP:ANEW, but again, try and resolve the issues with the users concerned first. Spinning Spark 14:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I have opened RFCs for the respective articles but the discussion in my view, is not going anywhere, the same editors patrol film articles and revert changes across them. Veyr briefly I will list the problem: I was involved in a dispute for Shawshank Redemption which resulted in me getting a 24 hour block, I have tried to discuss but the main other editor involved has not responded to my recent changes and I believe he is ignoring me but I do not know, as he is still active on Wikipedia. I have reopened an unresolved dispute on the Godfather which was a major one months ago, and I am trying to put forth changes on The Road (film) and wish to rengage with the No Country for Old Men page, which has some serious issues that bring shame to what should be an encyclopedia, which I believe I have rights to. However the same users keep reverting me, giving me very vague two sentence responses in an insulting and derogotary manner. I have not seen any user actually engage and look at my proposals for plot drafts and I am trying to be as civil as possible. I feel bullied, isolated and alone, unable to discuss against this group. Their hypocritical and WP:OWN violating behaviour has also been pointed out by other users who have come across them. I have opened RFCs and now I am at a loss... do I still try to talk it out? as it involves editors across multiple articles, should I open a DRN for each? Thanks.--JTBX (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

This summary of events is so deeply dishonest and insulting I scarcely know where to begin. A simple look at the editing history of the articles linked above will show that JTBX is giving a decidedly one-sided version of recent events. He plays the victim well, but the fact is, he has received numerous responses on the respective talk pages and has, thus far, refused to listen to the arguments of other editors. And yet, he persists in making the same arguments over and over again. If anyone has been "insulting and derogatory" it is he. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I had seen your RfC at the Godfather talk page and wondered if that was part of the issue. My reading of the progress of that RfC is that it is pretty much going unequivocally against you. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, which means at times one has to compromise. You may write a piece that you think is the best thing since the invention of printing, but if no one else agrees it is time to move on to something else. Still, you have only just opened the RfC, let it run on for a couple of weeks and see how it shapes up as more people contribute. RfCs are offered by bots to random participating editors so most likely more uninvolved editors will chime in—provided people are not put off contributing by bad-tempered rehashing of previous disputes. Spinning Spark 16:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I did feel it was my impatience as well, as with waiting for dark to respond. I will wait for it, but the thing is the discussionis not honest if I am going to be rejected by the same editors from other articles who will no doubt have a biased view against me, I simply feel they are doing this out of vendetta and not actually looking at changes I have brought forward. No one else has weighed in on The Road and it is only Jacobite reverting me, so I might take that to DRN. --JTBX (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

As per Jacobite, the editor portrays themselves as a victim bullied by the Thor-like force of other editors rather than a lone antagonist (at Shawshank Redemption at least) unwilling to listen to the input of multiple editors. It's not the place for the discussion but I'm not happy that this discussion is opened without anyone elses input and portrays the other participants in the discussion, all opposing the users changes, as the bad guys. His changes have been discussed and entertained far more than they should have been and under normal circumstances it would have ended there, but all other users are wrong apparently. Oh, and everyone who disagrees with him has OWN issues as well. I'm fairly sure the user has learned "derogatory" from me as I recently used it against HIM for his derogatory and defamatory actions.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. I can only talk about what was said/done one The Shawshank Redemption page. Yes there was a few changes made by the above editor who eventually started to engage in an edit war over content that was previously several months ago discussed on the articles talk page and a consensus was reached then. The discussion was then reopened recently over the same/similar changes, although what could've changed in a couple of months is anybody's guess. Summaries have not been as he has above described and I for one have not seen any behaviour that has been insulting and derogatory or in violation of any wiki policy. For Shawshank at least, the changes were discussed in full and a consensus was reached. Twice if you count a couple of months ago. It is of this editors personal opinion and it is meant out of love in an attempt to stop this editor continuing what could be constituted as Disruptive editing that JTBX is throwing his toys out of the pram because his views/contributions are not echoed by other editors and his consensus aren't met. I know this may toe the line a little of a Personal Attack but a similar thing happened to me when I first edited on Revolution (TV series). I threw a bit of a hissy fit and I convinced myself that the whole of wikipedia was against me. I think I even came close to tears at one point until I realised that something had to give. Someone needs to step aside and not worry about going over an already agreed plot synopsis and find other ways in which to edit. JTBX My advice is move on buddy. No one is against you. No one has made any personal attacks against you. If you feel this is the case you need to go and report them on the relevant admin board and RESPECT THE FINAL DECISION and not bring up the same issue a few months later, like you did on The Shawshank Redemption page. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 18:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

No one is against me, which is why when I tried to edit film articles completely unrelated to the Shawshank dispute, I was reverted. Which is why the reverters have had admins and editors point out their behaviour. Right. I understand you. --JTBX (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The only bullying going on here is that the OP is trying to bully their version of several plot sections into various film articles. The OP has somehow misinterpreted WP:FILMPLOT to mean that any plot point that they feel is vital to understanding the film MUST go into the article. In that pursuit the editor has ignored wikipedia's policies regarding edit warring - for which they received a block Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive198#User:JTBX reported by User:Masem .28Result: 24 hours.29 - and canvassing User talk:Gothicfilm#The Godfather. After receiving feedback that the OP's posts to the plot were not an improvement they have moved on to WP:WIKILAWYERING by opening this thread. I hope that the OP will take MisterShiney's sage advice and move on rather than continue to play the victim. If not I would advise that JTBX avoid ANI as a) nothing that has occurred meets the criteria for posting there and b)WP:BOOMERANGs tend to cause more editing frustrations. MarnetteD | Talk 19:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

This is my personal request for assistance, not a dispute resolution board. I don't know why everyone has followed me here, but I would like to add that I wrote this before darkblake responded to me on shawshank, so I really don't have a problem with him as long as he is engaging with me.--JTBX (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

When you make bad faith accusations against other editors (for which you provide no evidence) they are, naturally going to respond. You have received good advice from various editors here and in other places. Before you proceed further you will want to read WP:FORUMSHOPPING as that is the course that you seem to be taking. MarnetteD | Talk 23:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Proofreading my edits

Resolved

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I plan on editing hyperbolic discounting over the course of the next weeks. Since English is not my first language, however, I would feel reassured if someone could help me a little. Would it be possible for someone to add this article to their watchlist and proofread my edits? Ideally, this person would give me some feedback regarding any non-idiomatic phrasing or grammatical mistakes and maybe answer language-related questions.

I hope I am posting this to the right place – I didn’t ask in WP:Adopt-a-user because I’m neither new nor inexperienced (I have edited articles in German before). --Allion (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit: Resolved – I was contacted by someone. --Allion (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Transcreation is inaccurate. inaccurate article regarding Transcreation

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

The Wikipedia entry for "Transcreation" at Transcreation is inaccurate.

Under "background" the article says the term is relatively new, from the 1980s.

In fact Transcreation was coined as a phrase by my father, Bernard Silver, in the 1960s when he owned an Ad agency called Silver Advertising.

Until last year, the registered trademark for Transcreation belonged to my company UPS Translations.

Regrettably our Trade Mark Attorney died and we weren't informed the 10 year registration had lapsed - when we came to renew after it had lapsed, the Trade Mark body judged the phrase has now entered the public domain so was no longer suitable for trademark - whereas if we'd just renewed on time it would remain our company's registered trademark.

My father invented the phrase, and subsequently developed a specialist process for translating creative copy. This process has been refined over the years by my company UPS Translations and we guard our confidential process carefully as it's one reason we have so many well known Ad Agencies as clients.

If you would like to discuss any of the above please contact me on the number below or a generic e-mail address which will reach me is available on our company website www.upstranslations.com .

In the meantime, my request is that you please kindly update the article as it is currently inaccurate.

Many thanks and regards

Justin Silver UPS Translations 111 Baker Street London W1U 6RR England

T:<redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.12.190.230 (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a source referenced in the article that supports the claim that the phrase may have originated in the video game industry in the 1980s. Everything in Wikipedia is based on independent reliable sources. If you can point to further sources that the article editors might want to use to improve the article then please make a note of them on the article talk page. What is acceptable as a reliable source may be read at WP:RS. If the term did indeed start off as a trademarked neologism in the 1960s, it may well not have been until the 1980s that it gained any popular currency outside of its use as a trademark. Spinning Spark 21:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I have indulged in a brief Google search and found two reputable-looking references to its use as a trademark from 2000 to 2010 as described above, so I have amended the article accordingly. I didn't find any reference to its earlier use so I didn't put in anything about that. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is my problem

Resolved

– Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 20:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, now our problem. I am editing at Talk:Depictions of nudity and I would like it is someone knowledgeable could go to the page and archive all the discussions prior to 2008 because (1) some editor started adding new sections at the top of the page and it is (opinion) too weird and (2) none of the issues being discussed 4, 5 & 6 years ago matter much today, but there are points being raised now that are likely to get lost. Does this make sense? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 05:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I've relocated the recent threads to chronological order. That's seems to be all that needed to be done., there's not so much old stuff that archiving is necessary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

guidance on best approach in regard to article based on synthesis/OR

Open source (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The article has a long standing issue with a lack of sources, with general statements not sourced, and the sources that do exist is then only supporting specific narrow cases. The issue is likely caused from open source and open source software having no distinct difference when used in literature, and media. Talk page discussion has not brought forth anything (neither discussion nor edits). Same goes for the article template since June. Thus, the question is what to do next. The options I can think of is: a) do massive deletion and re-factoring of the article to only include what can be verifiable and then wait and see, b) Suggest a renaming of the article to a more specialized field like openness and shred anything that doesnt specifically talk about it, or c) suggest a merge of the article into open source software, and avoid the issue brought of separating the two articles. Am I missing something, and what would be the most optimal approach? Belorn (talk) 10:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

What to do depends on whether or not you believe that open source is a valid article outside of open source software. If it is (and I suspect that is the case) then your option c) should be ruled out no matter how bad the article currently is. Otherwise merge, or even deletion, would be the right thing to do as we do not want parallel articles on the same subject. Massive cleanup is certainly in order, but personally I don't believe that material should be removed solely because there is currently no citation. This can be destructive. Rather material should be removed when it is suspected that it is incorrect or if it is unencyclopaedic. Spinning Spark 13:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for a reply, through I am still left with the open question on what to do. To answer some of the above questions, I am personally very split on how valid an article it is. For example, has open-source governance anything in common with open source hardware? Should anything with the name open be included? the list at is a long one with many conflicting viewpoints (see some of the discussion here). Two concept, both named "open", both saying to be "open source", sometimes has completely conflicting viewpoints. The open source article has already a lot of essay style synthesis (see lead), trying to find "mostly" common denominators of all many different concepts like open source hardware, open source government, Open-source journalism, and all the open areas like Open access, Open content, Open communication, Open data, and so on. Of the few books that do try to define what open source is in the concept of say open-source government, one said openness, and the others said "open source software development, but put into the context of government". Neither makes for a great source to build an article of. Thus, I am split. Its obvious people do use the term open source outside open source software, but there are no sources that actually describe how or in what context of if they have any shared concepts. The only sources are the facts that there are something called for example open source government. If that's enough to build an article on, how should cleaning up such article be approached? Belorn (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Operation Uphold Democracy 1994

Sirs, I am Richard C. Rosser, retired U.S. Marine Corps Colonel. My team authored the International Police Monitor Plan for Haiti, in September, 1994 at the U.S. Atlantic Command, Norfolk, VA. Admiral Miller was the CINCUSACOM, Major General Michael Bryon was the G5, head of plans and both recruited me to be the lead. I had a force of 1200 International Police Officers from 29 countries, and deployed from a base camp in Puerto Rico to Haiti right after the invasion at 2200 hours on 20 September. My support was the 10th Mountain Division, and Special Forces teams that parachuted on to Haiti at 2200 hours, 20 minutes after Carter, Nunn, and Powell made a deal with Col. Cedros.

Today, out of curiosity, I was looking up on google," UPHOLD DEMOCRACY" and found your site with a request for further information:

"This article needs attention from an expert in Military history. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article. WikiProject Military history or the Military history Portal may be able to help recruit an expert. (January 2007)"

I am sure I can be of help to fill in and update the details of the mission from the onset. I was in Haiti at my headquarters in Port-Au-Prince overseeing the return of Bertrand Aristede to his Presidency, and the ouster of Col. Cedros. I am available anytime by email or phone at my home in Colorado.

Regards, --65.128.11.183 (talk) 18:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Richard C. Rosser Colonel, USMC (Ret.)

Sorry, Richard, we don't work that way. What we need are suggestions of how to find verifiable, published information from neutral reliable sources which can be mined for information to improve the articles. Personal recollections, unpublished journals, and the like cannot be used here; and we don't have the people or money to call you for further information. (I've redacted your phone number to protect your privacy.) --Orange Mike | Talk 19:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your offering to contribute to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is a tertiary source and cannot perform interviews, which qualifies as something that is termed original research. As a tertiary source, and like most encyclopedias, Wikipedia only summarises claims that have already been made by secondary sources, like newspaper articles or books, or other tertiary sources. Wikipedia was not designed as a publisher of original material, and has no internal process for it. However, if your experiences are published in a secondary source, which meets our guidelines, it can be used on Wikipedia. Your desire to contribute is sincerely appreciated. I hope that helps,--xanchester (t) 19:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Rebrands and Wiki best practice

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess the options are to create a new page about StepChange Debt Charity with a link from the Consumer Credit Counselling Service page (the latter page would also be edited to reflect the name is now past-tense), or create a straight redirect from Consumer Credit Counselling Service to the new StepChange Debt Charity page (that might be a bit adrupt), or something else.

Peer Lawther (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The correct way to deal with this is to move the article to the new name and to add a sentence or two (with reliable sources) to the article explaining the name change.--ukexpat (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

John P. Reese

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm writing in reference to John P. Reese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The subject, John Reese, is the author of the book The Guru Investor, which refers to his investment strategies as "Guru Strategies". I'm wondering whether the word "guru" is getting flagged as a peacock term even though it is simply a word in the title of his book and a word in the title of his strategies; the article itself is not offering any subjective judgment as to him being a "guru".

Thank you.

Cjjj1 (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I see you actually created the page. I have reviewed the article and I see no objection to the use of Guru in context. However, the page has remained tagged for several issues since February 2011. Although the page does tend to read like a vanity piece and lacks some important inline referenced sources (eg. education), and personal biographical background, it is well written and reasonably neutral. iI you would like to address these issues, you may remove the ugly templates. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Disabled editor needs help periodically

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I'm too sick from Still's Disease plus misc to work these days, but on good days when I can I edit Wikipedia to keep my skills up in case I get well enough to work sometime, plus I just like reading Wikipedia and editing in general. However, most often all I can do is point something out and say thanks in advance, most recently at Talk:Leigh Valentine.

So if you're looking for stuff to do from time to time, please check out my contributions. I'll type on a Talk page when I can, but sometimes after making a simple edit and seeing a complex one is still needed, all I have the energy left to do is add something to the edit summary. Annnd, I'm horrible about checking back. Sorry about that! If I had the energy needed to follow up on things, I could still work! So TIA here, too, and I hope some of the things I point out are helpful, because it is helpful for me to keep trying.

--Geekdiva (talk) 09:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You may wish to help out by controlling new pages for us. There is a lot of reading to do but generally the operations involve clicking on buttons to apply template messages. To know what this process is all about, please read WP:NPP, and then learn all about deletion policy at WP:DELETION. If you need any help don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Whitman links

Resolved

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I am doing research on Walt Whitman, and I recently added links to The Whitman Archive on many pages dealing with Whitman or his work. An editor promptly removed these links and warned me not to spam. I fail to see how a link to a page dealing with the subject material being discussed is spam.

I am writing this in hopes that someone can shed some light on this as it is confusing to me. I have read the External Links policies, etc., yet I am still struggling to see why a link to The Whitman Archive on pages dealing with Walt Whitman couldn't be considered useful.

I all respects, I was actually surprised that there weren't links to the archive already present!

Any help in this would be greatly appreciated.

129.93.54.108 (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem is the apparent indiscriminate addition of the external links. For example, what relevance does this addition "The Whitman Archive--contains all editions of Leaves of Grass published in Whitman's lifetime, including text and page images." have to the Walt Whitman Bridge article and several of the other articles where you added it?--ukexpat (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) It is unfortunate that we get a lot of people coming to Wikipedia with the sole purpose of adding links to promote some site or other. This leads to a tendency to "shoot first" and not spend any effort looking into the case. A new user doing nothing but adding links to the same site will set off immediate alarm bells with editors like User:Hu12 who specialise in removing spam. You need to understand that external links are a very small part of what we do here—we are much more interested in writing the content of our own articles. To be honest, external links cause us more grief than help.

However, in this case, I personally think that the link is beneficial. So what to do about it? There is no "higher authority" to appeal to here. If you want to challenge this, what you need to do is start a discussion on a suitable talk page (maybe Talk: Walt Whitman) and try to gain a consensus amongst editors for its insertion. Hopefully, that is a busy enough page to attract some comments, but if not come back here and we can advise how to get wider involvement. Spinning Spark 19:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI, the IP is associated with whitmanarchive.org. Secondly, repeatedly adding links over multiple pages is Linkspamming, and third it violates WP:EL with respect to section Advertising and conflicts of interest, which states that you should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent. So WP:EL, WP:COI and WP:SPAM are relevant. Additionaly, Mass spamming links is NOT considered "doing research on Walt Whitman". see WP:NOTREPOSITORY. --Hu12 (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

the IP is associated with whitmanarchive.org. It is? I am not getting that from a WHOIS query. Spinning Spark 01:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I'll take this to the Talk: Walt Whitman page and see what happens. For the record, I never stated that adding the links was part of my research, I said I am doing research on Whitman. This is a useful link, it makes sense that it would be included. Honestly, I still fail to grasp why this is even being approached in this fashion. I really thought that adding the links would be beneficial to those that were using Wikipedia to do their own research as well. I will say that the bridge and monument were overkill though, I got a bit overzealous there. Again, thanks for the help, and hopefully this can be resolved soon. 129.93.54.134 (talk) 16:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not jumping on you here, but only addressing your statement about failing to grasp the reason. The point, at least not so far, isn't really the quality of your link but the fact that you added it to so many pages at the same time without editing them in some other substantial way first. The problem is that the vast majority of the people who do that do so for no reason other than to spam Wikipedia. When challenged, a great number of them have the ability to cause huge amounts of drama alleging just exactly what you've alleged here: "My links aren't spam, they're beneficial." As a defensive mechanism, the community has come to the decision that we'll just not allow such mass additions and require anyone who wants to add a bunch of links to ask to do it, by suggesting it on the various article talk pages, or by showing that they're a good faith editor in general first by doing a lot of beneficial, non-spammy editing. I, like 'ol Spinner, think that yours is probably a pretty beneficial link, but we need you to jump through the hoops so others who aren't so altruistic don't get an opportunity to cause drama. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, I totally understand now that I have worked with the Wikipedia system for a bit. I've started the hoop jumping process...we'll see how it goes. 129.93.54.134 (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Using Petitions as Resource Dispute

An ongoing controversy at Green Mountain College has landed on their Wikipedia entry. The content of the subsection, currently titled Oxen-slaughtering controversy, is under dispute. Lengthy conversations have been held on the Talk Page, and a Dispute Resolution has just failed. A compromise has nearly been reached, however questions of sourcing have gone unanswered. At least one editor would like to see language from a petition that's located on a currently blacklisted site included as a "rationale" for protest, however this clearly relies on a Primary source, as well as a blacklisted source, as no reliable sources have yet provided a rationale for the protest beyond the want of "retirement," which is disclosed in the existing paragraph. Not all editors agree that an expanded rationale is necessary for this subsection. There are several editors involved, who would likely wish to make comment during this conversation. The latest proposal from the Dispute Resolution reads as follows:

“The college's decision prompted opposition from townspeople, animal rights supporters and tens of thousands of online petitioners worldwide who signed a petition stating that the two oxen, after working for 10 years, deserve to retire in a sanctuary.”

Emphasis on new language.

As stated, this may be a suitable compromise, however I feel that the sourcing issue must be addressed. The petition in question is cited in several reliable sources, however the above rationale is not summarized in any secondary source. Thank you for any insight you can provide.

The editors involved in the Talk and DR are as follows:

(Apologies for any errors in formatting, I am relatively new to Wiki editing.)Kingsrow1975 (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that in this particular case, as long as the language of the petition is in quotes (as it is not in the above wording) to make crystal clear that this is a quote from the document and not a position of Wikipedia, and that the language in question is reliable sourced, that it could be used for this limited purpose. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

As stated, there are some editors who do not think that this language is necessary at all. Is there a way in which we can invite them to this discussion? Also, do we await the comment of other impartial volunteers? Thank you for your patience, this is very new for me.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

This page is not dispute resolution 2.0. That is not what we do here and we do not encourage editors to debate content disputes here, so there is little to be gained by inviting other editors to join in. In any case dispute resolution only works if both sides are prepared to compromise and listen to the mediator. I have to say, I find it quite surprising that an acceptable compromise cannot be found after so much effort. Formal mediation would be quite over the top for such a relatively small issue. Spinning Spark 00:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Heavyweight Yoga editor expertise concerns

The article HeavyWeight Yoga has been through two rounds of review and it is now being rejected on the same grounds as initially. I have satisfied Cerebellum (editor here) that the "advertisement" language of the article was removed. Now CharmlessCoin has another opinion about the writing. It still sounds too much like an ad.

I'm a writer for a living, and I'm struggling to find out what will satisfy a better-versed editor about this article. I don't want to be disrespectful here, but couldn't a yoga expert be contacted somehow? I think I've got a young editor here with articles on a science fiction role playing game and the high school where there attend. With all due respect, is there another way to get this article reviewed elsewhere, since it's already passed one editor's muster?

Thanks for the consideration. It's my first time to contribute to Wikipedia, a resource I believe in enough to contribute to its funding drives.

Ronseybold (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: Here's the entry at Articles for creation: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/HeavyWeight Yoga. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

At this point, your best way forward is to discuss the issues with the editor who rejected the article at AFC. There is a message from them on your talk page. I have to agree that the intention of the article comes across as wanting to promote HeavyWeight Yoga rather than present an encyclopaedic article, although not overtly so. Trailing instructional DVDs in the lede paragraph kind of gives that away. Even the title, HeavyWeight Yoga, gives the impression of a commercial venture, capitalised as it is in CamelCase. I would not expect a style of yoga to be capitalised. On the other hand, if this is the name of a commercial venture then the article is highly misleading. Spinning Spark 08:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Recipients of the Banner of Gold (Bolivia)

I am not versed enough in this, but could some one have a look in the above mentioned category? Wonder if that honour/medal even exists no article seem to show proof of that.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Recipients of the Banner of Gold (Bolivia) is a subcategory of Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Bolivia which contains Banner of Gold. I don't know how common the English translation is but the article has Spanish references and a Google search on "Bandera de Oro" gives many other sources. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Editing one's own userpage

I have noticed that many editors have beautifully organized user pages, and I have tried (by cutting and pasting) to set mine up to be more pleasing.

I have failed.

Can someone point me to an article or some resource so that I can properly organize my user page?

Thank you.Movieresearch (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:User page design center. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Also note it is considered polite to let people know if you are copying things from their user page. Spinning Spark 20:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Really? I've never heard of it being considered impolite to simply snag good wiki code, since no one owns it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Mmm. There's The Rules, which, as you quite rightly say, mean that only the Foundation owns wiki code, and there's a thing called good manners, which means it's polite to give the creator of some good wiki code the kudos for creating it. In my view. I'd also say that time spent creating a super-wonderful userpage might have better been spent on doing what we're meant to be doing here; creating and maintaining an encyclopædia. In the final analysis a user of the encyclopædia is interested in the content, not in how beautiful your userpage might be. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am personally concerned, people can have whatever they like off my user page as long as they don't misrepresent me in any way, but I have seen others get extremely upset when it is done without permission. As Tony said, you don't have to be polite, but it can't hurt.

By the way, I'm not sure that it's right that the Foundation owns the wikicode on user pages. This is released by the user under the CC licence, same as any other contribution. The copyright ownership remains with the original contributor and the Foundation has only those rights inherited via the CC licence, same as any other reuser. Which means you are obliged to credit the original author in the edit summary when you paste it back in somewhere else. Spinning Spark 10:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember which elements of my user page I might have nicked from other users. The thing called good manners I agree with too, which is why I asked -- until Spinningspark mentioned it, it would not have occurred to me that propagating cool user page markup would be considered bad manners. I had assumed (possibly incorrectly) that the cool markup was not created solely by the user whose page I see it on, but propagated and refined from other users in a natural developmental cycle. Then again, my page is pretty vanilla, so perhaps I haven't really looked at or considered propagating any of the more intricate constructions that would be more likely to upset people if copied without thanks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Research by the Institute of Studies (i.e. stuff I made up) suggests that 90% of code on user pages was probably "borrowed" to begin with. Яehevkor ✉ 12:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Transfer from Spanish wikipedia

Stale

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not a new editor but is there any problem in translating a spanish article ie San Jose (Almeria) to english and making an english article.REVUpminster (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome. There's shouldn't be a problem, as long as the article has sources. Go ahead and do so!--xanchester (t) 17:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate for advice on the correct way of going about this, particular with respect to the need to preserve attribution to original authors. Spinning Spark 18:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I struggling with the infobox in my sandbox as i adapt existing ones. I may be some time.REVUpminster (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I have started it but have not included the history or film section as they are not referenced. I have a reference for one 22 episode syndicated TV series Queen of Swords. I'll have look at the other language versions shortlyREVUpminster (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I have gone as far as I can to create San José (Almeria) but omitted what I could not cite from the spanish article because it had no sources there. I think this can be archived. REVUpminster (talk) 12:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Someone else has taken on the editing and seems to have made it a personal advertising especially in puting a credit against the photographs. should these photos be taken into the commons. They have also done it to Cabo de Gata-Níjar Natural Park citing there own website I think. REVUpminster (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Le Samouraï: an established fact may be dubious

Stale

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I have left a comment in the Talk section, but it's dead as a dodo so I hope it's OK to come here. In Le Samouraï's infobox, it states that this French film was based on "Joan McLeod's novel The Ronin (uncredited)". Because it's uncredited, I thought it was necessary to find a citation that officially confirms the link. As it turns out, the novel doesn't exist. I checked every source that catalogues books in every possible language and found that each has no record of Joan McLeod's The Ronin.

I thought perhaps it was an unpublished manuscript, so I checked books and essays about the film and the director, and almost all just state "Joan McLeod's novel The Ronin" while citing other film books as sources. The earliest mention I could find is in an AFI (American Film Institute) article, published in 1972, and it doesn't cite a source. I checked French sources and the early works don't mention the author and the novel while the later works do, citing film books as sources. I think film authors and journalists relied on each other without actually checking whether the novel even exists.

I checked variations of the author's name: Jean McLeod, Joan MacLeod and Joan McCloud. No luck. Screenwriter Georges Pellegrin, writer-director Jean-Pierre Melville and producers Raymond Borderie and Eugène Lépicier are unfortunately dead, but none of them had directly mentioned Joan McLeod or/and the novel in any interviews (French, English and Japanese). Actor Alain Delon, who starred in this film, is still alive, so I got in touch with his management agency. Today, his publicist has replied that Mr. Delon doesn't recall mentions of the novel during pre-production and the filming. In fact, he apparently didn't realise it was based on the novel (obviously, I can't use this as a source as it's way too informal.)

As far as I can tell, the novel and its author don't exist. Not in the records at the Congress of Library (US) and the British Library, not in the World Catalogue Index, and not in any usual copyright databases. Yet it's mentioned in well over 40 film books and essays since 1972; all with no mention of publisher and year of publishing, and the majority cites each other. The question is, should we keep the mention of the alleged novel in the film's info box to keep up with all these film books or remove it, seeing that the original source is an 1972 article journal by the AFI with no citation? Thanks. 0zero9nine (talk) 08:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd just get rid of it, leaving a note on the talk page and possibly a hidden message on the main page. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll remove the reference and leave a note in an edit to check Talk page for an explanation. What's a hidden message on the main page, though? Many thanks. 0zero9nine (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I use that in the infobox itself or on the main page? Sorry for trying your patience on this. Thank you. 0zero9nine (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I just found Wikipedia's page about hidden messages. Sorry for not checking first. Many thanks for your help. Cheers! 0zero9nine (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Criminy. What a mess. Removing the reference is the right answer, even though you have what you could call reliable sources attesting to it. Definitely an IAR moment. The best thought I would have is that "The Ronin" could be a translated title... from what language, I don't know. "Le Rônin" and similar don't give me anything useful. Of course, depending on when and where the book was published, it might be entirely reasonable that you can't find it. If it's a pulp novel, for instance, with a limited distribution... perhaps written by one of the production members' friends... that might explain why it's not mentioned anywhere. Plus in that case, it likely didn't have an ISBN, which makes getting it in computers all that much harder. It could be worth seeing if the AFI article author is still around.

Anyway, that's a lot of speculation on my part. Cool mystery. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

REinstate removed part on Lincoln article by CSAcitizen

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Bold textYou have a message that you removed my addition to an article that was not correct on Lincoln, so I added a tiny sentence to correct it. -that is if truth is what you want. So I Added a tiny bit to correct it. I'm a truth historian for over 45 years now, and I notice every time anyone tries to correct anything on Lincoln, it is deleted. REinstate the addition you removed, unless truth is not what you want on Wiki. You stated "references" well I am one reference but if you want a list of them, there are many - too many to list in an article. YOu can find the truth on Lincoln from any truth history books - you will never find them in the Federalist govt texts they have put out since DC never wants anyone to know the real truth about Lincoln. Other references: "Red Republicans and Lincoln's Marxists" and "Lincoln's Marxists" - both books by Walter Kennedy and Al Benson. "Everything YOu Were Taught About the Civil War is Wrong" by Locklainn Seabrook and he also has the history book - "Abraham Lincoln - a Southern View" Then you can also find it in the over 29 history books by DiLorenzo. And "War Crimes Against Southern Civilians" compiled by Walter Brian Cisco and written by those who lived it. And "Facsicst Socialism in America - Something to Think About" by William M. Knight - on CD in 2009 and hardcopy in 2011.. The list in endless for truth in history if anyone reaslly wanted to know about it instead of the fabrications they have been fed by DC Federalists in their Un-Constitutional "schools". What little I added to try and correct the bad report on Wiki on Lincoln, is the least the readers have a right to know. I think the public has been lied to and fed fabrications long enough, don't you ? DC has its reasons for hiding the real truth about Lincoln ! That is why they totally made up the Lincoln they force the public to learn about - THAT (fabricated) Lincoln never existed. Vertually everything in "American history" that has been put out as 'fact' - is a lie. DC gets to say what "history" will read like and what is written to be called the "official" facts. Too bad it's been all fairy tales they have fed the public.

CSAcitizen — Preceding unsigned comment added by CSAcitizen (talk • contribs) 00:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

None of your edits cited reliable sources. You are not a reference, we don't care about your conspiracy theories, nor your fringe revisionist history books. We do not tolerate being here to "right" what they imagine are "great wrongs". Ian.thomson (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the wrong forum (see the instructions at the top of this page). Please either discuss the issues on talk pages or take the argument elsewhere such as to Dispute Resolution. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Robert Pastorelli

Resolved

– Foo. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Your partial reversion looks good to me but I will decline to speak myself to Cuz-Pastorelli, they may be a relative and I am not especially known for my tact. The only point I would raise is that the claim that Pastorelli was a murder suspect in his girlfriend's death is sourced to a Fox News article. This article does not claim that Pastorelli was a suspect, only that Inside Edition made such a claim. However, there seem to be plenty of other news sources carrying the same story. Spinning Spark 21:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you; I've slept on it and done my best. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Gail Riplinger

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Ian.thomson Is constantly removing evidence from the article (the publisher of the subjects materials) Which is also a primary source as they are mentioned in her books & lectures. He has not demonstrated this not to be the case. He continues to remove the evidence, and as he has stated it's because he does not agree with the views of the Publisher from his point of view. I have made several vandalism reports but he is just going into the article & deleting them! What am I supposed to do now? AnthonyMark00 (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm undoing your spam, which you incorrectly claimed was the official site (while also accusing others of being shills for rival publishers). You did not cite the link at any point, only linked it, claiming it was an official site. As I have pointed out over and over and over, if you actually read the Chick Publications website, they say "Visit Gail Riplinger's website at http://www.avpublications.com" which indicates that Chick publications is not the official site. The site in question, Chick publications, is full of fringe claims and not reliable as a source anyway. Once again, you need to learn to assume good faith and quit treating Wikipedia as a battleground. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You discuss the issue on the article's talk page, you do not litter the article with vandalism templates.--ukexpat (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Two other things: Vandalism means something very specific here at Wikipedia and a mere dispute over content is not it. Continuing to falsely accuse someone of vandalism can get you blocked from editing. Second, there are very few things that you can do here which will cause regular editors to discount your arguments so quickly as typing in ALL CAPITALS as you have frequently done on the article talk page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

And finally, this is the wrong forum. . Please take the argument elsewhere such as to Dispute Resolution. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Determining a date of an event

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Most mainstream newspaper articles reported the date of a night-time incident as Sunday 17 October, but the incident took place between 1AM and 3AM (Sunday night/Monday morning), so shouldn't it be Monday 18 October? Too pedantic? Is it still OK to cite a report/article if the date in the report/article is incorrect? Thanks. 0zero9nine (talk) 11:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Pretty sure that qualifies as a IAR situation. Change it if you know the articles are wrong. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

IOP Publishing (talk page)

Stale

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I posted a message on IOP Publishing's Talk Page (Talk:IOP Publishing) on 22 November 2012, asking for advice from editors but have not heard back from anyone yet.

I work in IOP Publishing's Public Relations department and I'd like to make some factual changes to the IOP Publishing page and its associated pages. However, as I have a conflict of interest, I'd like to first ask editors for advice.

Can anyone help?

Thanks Physics114 (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It appears that you've received a response at that talk page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

How do I perform "citation needed" on an unsupported assertion?

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I've read the brief instructions on editing. I still do not understand how I can select a text stream, and reference "citation needed" on an unsupported assertion. Thanks for any help.

Filbertosis (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

In edit view tag it with {{cn}} (unless you mean something by "text stream" other than "the text of an article"). Don't be surprised, however, if it remains tagged for a long, long time. Feel free to delete the assertion if it's not been corrected within a month or so. But remember that the preferred thing to do is to find a citation to support it if you can. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 01:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: also answered at the Help Desk and on my talk page.--ukexpat (talk) 02:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Working with fellow editors,

Resolved

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I have began contributing to Wikipedia in earnest 6 months ago, mostly on the above page. Over that time I have many disagreements with other editors relating to content on the page itself, the talk page and various Wikipedia boards. One editor 'S' in particular seems to repeatedly zealously remove whole chunks of my good faith contributions , very rarely adding new content themselves. I have read the Editor Assistance FAQ, especially My edits keep getting reverted. What should I do? sometimes I understand/agree the reason, but not always. Is it normal for fellow editors to be so ruthless. We have had so many disagreements it is often hard to see the good intentions in many of the edits and brief comments. Due to bully experiences in my work life, I may mistakenly feel victimised. I ask this question to put my mind at ease, to help support a believe in good intentions of another editor....Zoebuggie☺whispers 05:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

This is the wrong forum for resolving such an issue. That said, there's really not much more you can do than continue the discussion on the article talk page or on the talk pages of the individual editors. As a last resort if all that fails, the place to go is WP:DRN. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, yes I was not sure whether to ask here.

I wanted to ask for guidance in a support/guidance forum with less emphasis on actual disputes...Zoebuggie☺whispers 13:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

'S' explained their edits in the edit history. They were generally removing repetition, redundant sources and an unsourced announcement. It's hardly 'zealous'. Sionk (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes to my mind some of your edits over time have seemed (rightly or wrongly) abrupt and zealous to me. I received good guidance on my talk page and was wondering whether to approach you with my problem. I know I have problem in RL trusting people and realise I maybe mistaken. Least you know (however daft you think I am) the reason i get upset sometimes, when I dont understand your removals. I raised my issue here for guidance...Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It is completely normal for ones work on Wikipedia to be edited by others, sometimes with major surgery. The correct response if you disagree is to talk through the issues with the other editors. There are more formal steps one can take in dispute resolution here if agreement cannot be reached, but they are rarely necessary if everyone is reasonable, which the vast majority of editors usually are. Spinning Spark 00:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me understand ;) ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 01:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

USS Constellation

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm interested in the provenance of the frigate Constellation that resides in my hometown, Baltimore Maryland. I'd like to make major edits to the current article (USS Constellation 1797) and contribute the verifiable sources that I feel are missing. Thereby strengthening the article. Given the contentious history of its provenance, I'd like to work within your guidelines and wikipedia etiquette as I edit. Please advise how I should proceed.

This is how I would edit the first paragraph:

USS Constellation was a 36-gun frigate (Lardis, Mark 2008. Oxford: Osprey. p. 31.), one of the six original frigates authorized for construction by the Navy Act of 1794, She was distinguished as the first U.S. Navy vessel. Launched in 1797, Constellation was rebuilt several times including in 1853-54 (National Archives: U.S. Navy Annual Report of 1852-1858, Records of the Boston Navy Yard 1839-41; ‘Ingersoll of the Atlantic Fleet’, The Baltimore Sun, 28 FEB. 1943). According to Senate requested Navy Annual Reports which included budgets, the Constellation was rebuilt and not “broken up.”

Finally, I would appreciate any suggestions that you might provide, as this is an important article. Maxwell404 (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome to go ahead and improve any of our articles. I do however, hava a few comments on your suggested contribution. First of all, I think you need to read WP:LEAD, which explains that the opening paragraphs should be a summary of the rest of the article. The existing lede is not very good, but your version is not really much of an improvement in that respect. You have removed the only thing the lede currently says about the fighting history of the ship (first US warship to defeat an enemy). Perhaps you have left it out because it is not true, I don't know, if so you should correct the facts in the body of the article first.

I note you have changed the number of guns from 38 to 36. This issue is discussed at length in the Armament section and the attached note with multiple sources. Again, the body of the article should be addressed before the lede summary. There is also some discussion of this issue on the talk page. The etiquette here would be to reach consensus on the talk page before modifying the article.

Citations in the lede are usually not necessary. This is because the lede is supposed to be a summary of the article body which should already carry the required citations.

I note you are using in-text Harvard style referencing. Most referencing styles are acceptable on Wikipedia, but any given article should use a consistent style throughout. Editors are expected to follow the style already established in an article unless there has been a consensus amongst editors on the talk page to change it.

"Broken up" does not need to be in scare quotes, it needs referencing, and the argumentative tone should not be in the lede. The current article gives a decommissioning date. Presumably she was decommissioned, sunk, or otherwise came to an end somehow and the date should remain in the lede. You seem to be suggesting that there is some kind of controversy here. If there is, it should be clearly explained in the article and we should indicate the mainstream view of scholars, if there is one, or that they have no consensus. Hope that helps, Spinning Spark 01:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Proper usage of [sic] in article

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The page International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2012 has a very large number of [sic]'s after the word "American." There is a disagreement between other editors and a specific one as to whether this is a correct use of it. It is detailed on the talk page [5]. I am really trying to avoid an edit war on this and another topic (Shaman predictions) within the same page but I'm at a loss given the continued undo edits etc. Any help will be appreciated. Coinmanj (talk) 01:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The disagreement should be brought to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, or other forms of dispute resolution. At DRN, uninvolved editors will assist in resolving the dispute.--xanchester (t) 02:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

DR is for AFTER having tried to resolve conflict. Coinmanj has done no such thing. He made 1 comment, then immediately reverted and thinks he made an attempt to resolve by then accusing me to "stop" when there was no discussion because it disagreed with his world view.Lihaas (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The point is that EAR is not a forum for content or conduct disputes. There was a discussion starting in November on the topic, and this dispute seems to be a continuation of that discussion. Either way, it is true that discussion should occur on the talk page beforehand. --xanchester (t) 13:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

You are right that the dispute over whether the correct demographic term is American or U.S. should be taken elsewhere, but littering the article with multiple (sic)s after every mention of American, especially in the face of so much opposition on the article talk page, is merely disruption to make a point and should be treated accordingly. Spinning Spark 14:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Lusitania

Resolved

– No discussion required. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to ask everyone who is interested and has time to add RMS Lusitania to his or her watchlist. There have been some recent edits that smell of WP:OR and possible POV pushing to me. Thanks. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Removing Long-Term Unsourced Material is Edit Warring?

I recently moved a large chunk of unsourced material on the Synchronous motor article to the article's Talk page. The article had been tagged for needing sourcing for well over six months, and to the best of my knowledge no attempt had been made to provide references.

Another editor promptly re-inserted the material. I proceeded to re-remove it as, again, no sources were provided. Effectively this editor just violated WP:BURDEN.

A third editor has now re-inserted the material, calling my removal "unconstructive" and giving me a warning for edit-warring.

I would appreciate feedback as to how I am supposed to address long-term unsourced material then, given that removal is, to my understanding, a valid means of dealing with it (and at that, the material is still available on the Talk page), and I am not in a position to reference the material myself. I've always been under the impression that leaving unsourced material in an article indefinitely was not considered desirable.

Thank you for your input. Doniago (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou for your work in improving articles, and in adding sources.

No, sorry, you didn't.

What's the difference between an outright vandal's blanking of half an article's content, and your edit? Just a few excuses made via Talk:. Neither is a 'positive step towards adding the sourcing that this article certainly needs.

This is not a good article. Much is misleading or even wrong. Yet you didn't go for those parts. Instead you blanked the most obvious statements in there, stuff that is trivially sourceable. Yet you don't seem to do that sort of task, you just blank stuff. Helpful, not. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I would think a vandal wouldn't leave edit summaries, much less move the material to the Talk page. Since you asked. As it is, I think I gave interested editors a pretty fair shot at improving the material and moving it back. I'd also note that if a "vandal" is removing unsourced information, then they may be committing "vandalism", but they're also acting within the bounds of Wikipedia policy.

How exactly is simply throwing the material back in without sourcing it a positive step?

Since you feel I went for the "wrong" material, perhaps you could take steps to improve the article yourself, to enlighten me as to what I "should" have done? Doniago (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

My own practice is to leave material in the article text, even when unsourced, and even after tagging it as such, if it is plausible and uncontroversial. I reason that, sometimes it's hard to find actual sources for run-of-the-mill, general, background-y sort of stuff; and further that if the information were flawed in some fashion, that the act of tagging it as unsourced, even if it didn't result in a proper source, might well tease out any controversy that may exist. If I felt really strongly about its not being sourced, I might take a shot at finding suitable sources myself before removing it, particularly if I were removing a large swath of text (versus e.g. a detail in the middle of a sentence, or a sentence or two). I guess - sometimes the absence of a source is a technical, rather than substantive, issue and in the former case I tend to be a bit more forgiving. JohnInDC (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

In this case, the article itself had been tagged since March of this year. Invested editors had that long to make any changes, which suggests to me that nobody cares (enough) to do the work of bringing the article up to current Wikipedia standards...or no reliable sources exist, which would be an even larger issue. In this case the information is technical in nature (Synchronous motor), but that doesn't mean the information should get a free pass on remaining unsourced indefinitely...if anything, to me it suggests that it is more imperative that the material be sourced so that readers can verify its accuracy. As Andy noted above, there are apparently a lot of inaccuracies in the material, but how is a reader supposed to determine what is or isn't accurate if no sources are being provided and editors can't take valid actions to minimize the lack of potentially inaccurate material without being accused of edit-warring for it? As near as I can tell Wikipedia policy supports an editor's right to remove the material under these circumstances, yet now I'm apparently at risk of being blocked for doing so? That doesn't seem right. I'm just looking for some clear guidance here that will lead to an outcome that will ultimately improve the quality of the article rather than a situation where nothing will be accomplished. Doniago (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

You're not at risk of being blocked for removing the material but for (obstinately) removing it again in the face of objections by two separate editors. My advice would be 1) discuss it at Talk if you meet with resistance and / or 2) fix the problem yourself. At the very least, raising it at Talk would permit you - as a synchronous motor novice - to identify the portions of the article that are factually dicey, so that those provisions could be selectively tagged or excised. Blanking whole sections because - and as best I can tell, merely because - they have been tagged for several months seems kind of pointy to me. JohnInDC (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I raised the problem at Talk when I moved the information there. Editors preferred simply reverting me to discussing the matter, it would seem. I also raised the issue at Andy's Talk page, where he replied with roughly the same tone he's exhibited here. The other involved editor has now replied at the Talk page with a similarly unconstructive tone. I'm unable to source the material myself as I lack the knowledge and resources to do so, so how else would you suggest I fix the problem? Given the stipulations of WP:BURDEN I don't know what I'm supposed to think that there's no suggestion that the onus is on the editor(s) adding the material to provide sources. I apologize if I'm being a bit curt here, but I find it very frustrating that editors claim they want to improve the article, but thus far their approach appears to be to not make any changes to it. Doniago (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that the material isn't sourced, what about it troubles you? It is wrong, dubious, controversial, questionable - any of those things? The material you took out reads - to me - like routine background information, nothing unusual or confusing or awkward about it at all. The only problem so far as I can see it is that the editor(s) who put it in didn't bother tying it back to a reliable source. Yes, WP's policy is that everything needs to be sourced. But not everything is, you know? And when it comes to improving the encyclopedia - making it a more useful and reliable tool for people to come and read and learn from, I think that editors' efforts are better directed at material that's sketchy or maybe not quite right somehow, rather than tracking down material that is (to all appearances) just fine except for the lack of sourcing. Sure, editors who insert information are responsible for sourcing it. But by the same token editors who want to remove longstanding, uncontroversial and apparently routine material from an article really ought to offer up more of a reason than "it does not adhere to policy". If nothing else, that would lend itself better to the ostensibly collaborative effort we have here. JohnInDC (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced material doesn't have to be removed. It is not the case that all material has to be referenced. Only that material "challenged, or likely to be challenged". The question is, are you challenging the material? Do you really believe it might be wrong, or are you merely bureaucratically applying some perceived rule? If the latter that can certainly be seen as disruptive. Deleting correct material is hardly constructive. It is also wrongheaded to expect other volunteer editors to drop everything to service a {{cn}} tag. A quick search on gbooks yourself will usually quickly establish whether or not the material is dubious and needs citing for such well known and widespread pieces of technology as synchronous motors. Spinning Spark 23:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Look fellas, this article has been tagged for months so Doniago isn't exactly being unreasonable here by moving the content to the talk page. It's a fairly technical article that isn't exactly expressed in layman terms, and the sort of stuff that is allowed to go uncited is the type of information that you would acquire from a normal high school education, such as which country London is in, how many moons the Earth has, what 10+10 is, and so on. Now Doniago has signalled his intent, you should really find the sources to go with it if you want to restore it. It's rated a "high priority" article by the electrical engineering project, so someone should be able to set aside a bit of time to find sources for it. Obviously everyone will probably be busy with other things at the moment, but I am pretty sure Doniago will be reasonable about this and give you some time after Christmas to sort it out if you are willing to track down some sources, after all another month or so won't hurt. If you aren't prepared to do that then it would be his prerogative to file an RFC if he chooses to press the matter, and we all know what the policies are on sourcing so the outcome would be inevitable. There seems to be quite a few sources on Google Books preview to get started with, see [6], [7], [8]. Betty Logan (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't care whether the material stays or goes. I was unaware of the article until this discussion. Doniago asked why his conforming an article to policy might be challenged as edit warring, and I offered my opinion. Going forward, I am sure it is defensible - even proper - as a matter of policy to summarily remove unsourced material that has lingered with a tag for several months. It seems, however, more constructive to supply sources if they are as easily tracked down as Betty's experience seems to suggest. JohnInDC (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It is certainly not proper to remove material where one has searched for sources, discovered it is easily citable, and then removed it anyway because of some misconceived idea that someone else should be doing the work of providing the referencing. If you know it is sourcable, or even think it probably is, the proper thing to do is just leave the tag in place - someone will deal with it eventually. Removing material in such circumstances is, in fact, disruptive to the task of building an encyclopaedia. Spinning Spark 13:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't consider this so much a discussion of policy as I do one of constructive and collegial practices. I agree with Spinningspark that deleting this material because - and again only because - it is not properly sourced degrades rather than improves the encyclopedia. The correct thing is not always the right thing. JohnInDC (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, it's a technical article and referencing it may not be as simple as hunting down a few sources if you are not from an engineering background. I found a few useful sources, but I would not feel comfortable adding them in when I don't fully understand the principles. I'm going to leave a message at the Engineering project and see if they will look at it. Betty Logan (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, the first sentence of the material deleted by Doniago says that a synchronous motor has a stator winding which creates a rotating magnetic field. If you cannot confirm that that is true within 30 seconds of searching gbooks then you should probably not be editing any electrical engineering article at all. Without reading all the disputed material in detail, the rest of it seems to be in much the same vein - simple elementary stuff. We do not generally delete stuff because it is unreferenced. Rather we delete it because it is unverifiable. Please try to understand the difference. Spinning Spark 17:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Familiarity with an article's material or the ability to research it has never, in my experience, been a prerequisite in order to edit an article. If an article has been tagged for six months and nobody has bothered to address the issue, I don't think it's an unreasonable for an editor to assume that those invested in the article haven't provided sourcing either because they can't (in which case the information should be removed) or because they won't, in which case there may be deeper issues with the article. We've already had one editor claim there are numerous inaccuracies in the article, and yet said editor, knowing the article's currently under a spotlight, has made no efforts to address those inaccuracies. You claim that if someone can't confirm a claim then they shouldn't be editing the article, but I think there's a case to be made that if someone can't confirm the claim then they have good reason to assume that it's inaccurate. You make reference to "general practice", which isn't even what policy allows for, while disregarding that the article was marked for a serious problem (violation of WP:V) that has not been addressed.

I am removing the information again as a legitimate challenge to it as defined by WP:MINREF, and because sourcing was requested six months ago and was not provided. Note that the information is still available on the Talk page for anyone who wishes to see the information included and can find reliable sourcing. Anyone with problems with this is welcome to open a WP:ANI filing; in fact, you can open it as part of this one if you'd like- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive deletion of content. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Familiarity with a subject matter area is certainly not a prerequisite to editing an article, but as a matter of sound editing practice, when an editor knows too little about a subject to tell whether material in that article is elementarily true, or questionable, or controversial, or outright wrong, the better practice is to leave the article alone, because such an editor can't tell whether they're making the article better or worse with their edits. Even if they are bringing it into technical conformity with sourcing policy. Indeed in such cases it's hard even to have much confidence in the inferences one might draw from a lingering tag. Maybe the sources are hard to find; or maybe editors with experience the field regard tagged information as so self-evidently true that their time is better spent shoring up other articles. JohnInDC (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I have to weigh in on the bureaucratic / know-nothing side of this discussion. Unsourced information can be removed per WP:BURDEN by anyone who cares to do so and WP:AGF says we don't have the right to delve into their motivations, at least not short of substantial behavioral evidence that they're pursuing an ongoing WP:COI or WP:POV agenda. Their removal of it is their challenge of it. Yes, finding sources for the information or tagging it and leaving it in place for some period of time is the best practice (the instructions of the {{fact}} template recommended a month once upon a time, but that recommendation was removed long ago), but merely removing it is acceptable. Similarly, for the same reasons we don't get to judge the qualifications of someone removing technical material: if we can't look at their motivations, we can't look at their qualifications. Such purely bureaucratic removals are, I admit, distasteful, but they're fully supported by policy. While there are many articles here which contain massive amounts of correct and valuable, but unsourced, information we are not serving our audience adequately by allowing that information to remain here indefinitely without providing our audience with proper sourcing. The best way to fix that deficit is to provide the sourcing, but due to the possibility that some of the unsourced information may be incorrect then we cannot object to allowing it to simply be removed, either. If you object to Doniago's removal, then you find a source for the information and replace it, don't criticize him for removing it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks TransporterMan. It may be worth noting that a discussion involving a similar issue was recently raised at the Administrators' Noticeboard - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive deletion of content. Doniago (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Given the pushback I am encountering at the article's Talk page, I will be opening an RFC shortly. Doniago (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Before doing any more such deletions, I would ask Doniago to consider who he thinks this corps of editors is who are supposed to respond so rapidly to tagged material. Don't know the answer? They are all editors like you Doniago. Sorry for the sarcasm, but what I am suggesting is that you ought to make a cursory search yourself before deleting. I would also like to thank you for misrepresenting some of my comments. I never said that "familiarity with an article's material...(is) a prerequisite...to edit". I gave an example of a fact that could be easily verified by anybody. My suggestion was that if you cannot be bothered to check to even that cursory level then you should leave it alone until someone else comes along who can be bothered. I also never said "that if someone can't confirm a claim then they shouldn't be editing the article". In fact I think just the opposite, if someone has made their best effort to confirm a claim and come up empty then that is good grounds for deletion, or at the very least, opening a discussion. Facts for which sources cannot be instantly found in elementary texts are the sort that do need referencing. Spinning Spark 18:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for in turn misrepresenting the situation, then. This isn't me asking for a "corp of editors" to "respond so rapidly to tagged material". The material was tagged over six months ago. If nobody was either able to or cared to provide references for the material in that time, and presumably some of those people are more familiar with the subject and invested in the article than I am, it seems reasonable to assume that it isn't a situation that could be resolved quickly...or nobody cares whether it's resolved. If it was an article that I cared about, I would take the time to find proper sourcing, especially given that the article was tagged, so clearly it was a concern that someone cared about enough to note it.

I also feel that it's disingenuous to claim that the material is being deleted. It's on the Talk page. Anyone who cares to can easily plug in the sources and paste the information back into the article.

You say that if someone can't be bothered to do cursory research then they shouldn't delete unsourced material; I say in turn that if there's been ample time for multiple persons to do cursory research, then the material should be deleted until such a time as someone takes the time to do the research.

You're claiming the info can be found in an elementary text, a claim that I can neither confirm nor deny. Why not provide a source then? Because this discussion is more enjoyable? Doniago (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's a few thousand books verifying the first sentence. Spinning Spark 20:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

...and here's a quote from the policy, WP:V, which you have endlessly cited: "When tagging or removing material on these grounds, make it clear that you have a concern that the material itself is unverifiable. If instead you think the material is verifiable, it is better to try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." Spinning Spark 20:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Feel free to add the appropriate citations then, if having the information included in the article is a concern for you...or you can provide the link at the article's talk page so that other editors, possibly editors in a better position to utilize it, might take advantage of it. Also, as I'm sure you're aware, what you quoted is a recommendation but not a requirement. Many people tag articles precisely because they believe other editors may be more qualified to address concerns than they are. As an example, I've seen editors tag plot summaries for being longer than guidelines recommend, but not make any effort to reduce the length; I assume it's because they're not comfortable doing so or are unable to do so, and am happy to step in when that occurs.

I'm certainly not familiar enough with this subject to review the few thousand books you linked to in order to determine which are truly reliable sources; I'm also unable to access Google books from the location where I do most of my Wikipedia editing, which is one major reason why I tend to focus my energies in areas other than sourcing material. That said, I'd be happy to add citations myself if and when time permits me to...I'd be equally happy to see the information restricted to the article's Talk page until that time. Doniago (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not a recommendation, "make it clear that you have a concern that the material itself is unverifiable" is written as an imperative. Spinning Spark 21:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe the policy was worded that way at the time the article was tagged, which would serve as the first challenge to the unsourced material. The template itself clearly and unambiguously states that unsourced material may be removed, which would constitute the second challenge to the material.

In any event, given the fuss that's been raised over the article, but has so far failed to result in any sourcing of the material, if I wasn't concerned about its verifiability before, I most certainly am now. Doniago (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I have made you an offer to find sources for you on the article talk page. I don't think we need to keep a parallel debate going here as well. You have asked for editing advise and have received. You may not like all of it, but you got what you asked for here. Spinning Spark 16:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, especially as the matter's been escalated to an RFC in any case. Thank you for your offer; I've replied there. Doniago (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I'm sorry but when I made my response at EA, I was unaware that WP:BURDEN had been substantially changed on October 20 to include that "make it clear that you have a concern that the material itself is unverifiable" hurdle (it was initially stated somewhat softer than that, but was subsequently changed to its current form), or I would have mentioned it. My opinion stated above is, however, otherwise unchanged. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Transportation planning

Discussion moved

– To Talk:Transportation planning#Move. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The article Transportion planning was moved and renamed to Transport planning without any form of discussion whatsoever. I'm requesting that someone with the ability, move it back so a proper discussion could be had. This was a very controversial move IMO and should have been discussed. Thank you. UrbanNerd (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Has it been discussed now? I will move it back if you can point to a community discussion that has reached consensus on this. Otherwise it would simply be edit warring to do so. Alternatively, you can discuss the issue with the editor who made the move at User talk:SnrRailways. Spinning Spark 17:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I did't see any discussion either way so I moved it back (disputed, so WP:RM says need discussion/consesus) and left the mover a note about it. DMacks (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this. It seemed a straightforward and uncontroversial move at the time. Has it, in fact, been disputed, or is there simply a concern that it might be? I can't see a trail of any actual controversy or reasoned objections from which to initiate such a discussion....SnrRailways (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The use of AE and BE (and other English variants) is governed by the guideline at MOS:RETAIN. The guideline is clear and well established and there should be no need for discussion. The guidelines in Wikipedia are not overruled by 'I like/don't like it'. hence the default name for this article should be Transportation planning with no plausible argument for a change. I have left a similar comment on the article talk page.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

With respect, Kudpung, that does not seem to be quite the point - please join us in discussing on the article's talk page.SnrRailways (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Missing Images

Resolved

Sometimes I come across an article with a redlinked image. I want to fix these, but the right fix depends on the reason it's red. Is there an easy way to differentiate between the two most likely causes:

Image deleted (here or at commons), probably for copyvio.
The filename was corrupted by vandalism, or some idiot with a spellchecker.

Clicking on the redlink give me the upload wizard which is absolutely useless for this purpose. Kilopi (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

If the filename has been messed with then looking in the article history should show this up. It might be obvious from the edit summaries, but if not click back a few revisions and you should eventually get back to a version where the image is showing ok. Either undo the relevant edit(s) or copy the correct file name from edit view into the current article. To get more information on a deleted file you need to bypass the file upload wizard (which I agree is a pain for regular editors). Instead of clicking the redlink, paste the file name into the search box (including the namespace) and then click the "create this file" link on the results page. If the file was deleted on Wikipedia you shoud see a pink box with the deleting admins reason and a link to the deletion debate (if there was one). You can discuss with the deleting admin if it is not clear from that. If there is no pink box saying the file was deleted then it was probably a file deleted from Commons (even if it was originally on Wikipedia, it may have been moved to Commons at some point). You will need to go to Commons to get more information in those cases. Spinning Spark 16:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that SS, it cleared up a couple of gaps in my own knowledge ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Satan Apocrypha Sub-Section

On the Satan article page, there are several excerpts regarding Apocrypha related mentions and information. However, the edits regarding the Gospel of Bartholomew has become an edit war. The Gospel of Bartholomew provides details into several areas of Satan that are of historical value. Also, the final edit of this area was supported by two books and a society's homepage. It is reasonable to expect bias as it is a controversial subject, however, I believe this is a direct attempt of vandalism. If possible, I would appreciate the assistance of an experienced editor in this matter. Twillisjr (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Please do not accuse other editors of vandalism. That is reserved for people who write obscenities in articles and suchlike. You should discuss this on the article talk page, you have only just opened the discussion. In any case this page is not the right place to resolve content disputes. Spinning Spark 22:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As has been explained over and over and over and over, you must WP:Assume good faith from other editors. As I've also mentioned before, undoing your poorly sourced original research is WP:NOTVANDALISM. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/Bushmaster M4 Type Carbine

Resolved

I create the above editnotice for the page in hopes that between the editnotice and the semi-protection the article would stabalize somewhat, but for the life of me I can not get the editnotice to display when I go to edit the page Bushmaster M4 Type Carbine and its really starting to bug me. Anyone got any ideas on why I am not seeing it? I grant that it could just be me, but I've learned to always ask just in case. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The software doesn't understand the "expiry" parameter. Use one of the formats listed at Template:Editnotice#Expiry date. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It appears you have got this working, marking as resolved. Tiggerjay (talk) 07:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Moshe Friedman

Disregard

– already cross-posted over at BLP/N. Tiggerjay (talk) 08:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Moshe Friedman page on wikipedia - need help on the page. He is very controversial need help. 65.88.89.32 (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Removing image which has been accidentally misused through wikipedia for many years

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, i'd like to remove this flag from all the pages that is has been accidentally misused on. For an explanation, please see the discussion at commons here (i had previously posted on the wiki image talk page). The problem is there are so many pages to delete from - so i don't know how to do it efficiently, and i don't know how to centralise any discussion. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The Commons discussion does not seem to have unambiguously concluded that that is the case. If it had, I would say be bold and remove it from the articles. However, it seems to have come down to the Corre reference (quoted here) who says it may have been briefly used in 1920. I would therefore open a discussion first. It does not really matter where (but Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Syria might be a good place) and place a note with a link to the discussion on the talk page of all the articles using the image. WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology may also be interested in this. Spinning Spark 20:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Are sources that are written by the subject of the page reliable sources.

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Jacqueline Laing being the article in point here. All of the sources have been written or co-written by Ms Liang. I have looked in the relevant places but could not find a definitive answer as to whether those sources are reliable by Wiki standards. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 04:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The short answer is 'no' - so far as asserting notability is concerned. Technically this is an unreferenced BLP and reads more like a promotion for her work and works than a true biography - for which it would be missing other essential elements. The user is very new and appears to edit in a very narrow subject area. May need some help understanding our policies. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Would it be possible to talk to the main contributor and see if there is anything that I can help him/her with before putting it up for deletion? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 05:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Do it at their talk page: User talk:Waterisnotmedicaltreatment. Dougweller (talk) 11:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Tai Urban: Page deleted

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Tai_Urban#Updating_Page

Jennajjen (talk)jennajjen

You can ask the deleting admin to userfy the article for you so that you can work on it in your own userspace to bring it up to an acceptable standard. Spinning Spark 01:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Help improving an entry

Resolved

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm seeking help in improving this entry. Can anyone help in the process? Either by implementing actual changes or guiding me what is needed? thanks Yaelgo (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Two main problems: it needs more references to reliable sources and it reads like a resume or CV, see WP:NPOV and WP:SPAM.--ukexpat (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I performed a major cleanup here by removing spammy content about the company instead of what his individual accomplishments were, removed a lot of redlinks, excessive bluelinks, and incorrect wikilinks. Resulting in a 1800 byte reduction in size via this edit. It still needs better reliable sources and the career needs to be rewritten. Tiggerjay (talk) 08:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Management of baldness

Resolved

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, am working on Management of baldness extensively, and the table of contents is creating a huge blank at the beginning of the article with the contents columnated at the left. Is there a way to bring the text body of the article up? Or is it mandatory that the table of contents leave a large blank. Ramwithaxe 19:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The best thing to do would probably be to limit the depth (and hence length) of the TOC with {{TOC limit}} with a 1 or 2 parameter. Floating the text around the TOC is possible but is not recommended for accessibility and consistency reasons. Likewise, an image can be used to fill the space but is not a format liked by some editors. Spinning Spark 20:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Perfect. Thank you. Ramwithaxe 22:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Domestic Box Office

Resolved

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I was browsing the page for the Chronicles of Narnia films when I noticed a section devoted to "Box Office". The figures in it relate to Domestic, International and Worldwide Box Office. I worked out fairly quickly that in this instance Domestic meant US Box Office - but I felt this was wrong as (obviously) all other countries view their Box Office as the Domestic One. Given that I'm in Italy, the figures obviously don't relate to the Italian Domestic Box Office.

I'm not here to kick up a fuss - I am aware that there is something of a convention as regards reporting Box Office figures; one that has been in place long before Wikipedia ever arrived on the scene. However, Wikipedia is an International site, and, unlike Hollywood, it has an opportunity (if not an obligation) to classify these things so that they are accurate to an International audience. I have no problem at all breaking out US figures - but, if we want to be accurate, let's call them US, rather than Domestic. David T Tokyo (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You certainly bring up a good point, the term "domestic" usually refers to the location that the film was first released in. Such that a film initially released in the US calls its own sales domestic; while a film produces and released in Italy would consider it's own box office sales as domestic. Also you can simply lookup Domestic box office which redirects you to Domestic_box_office#Related_film_industry_terminology Tiggerjay (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Box office specifically addresses this issue and says "Avoid indexical terminology such as "domestic"". In light of that there should be no problem if you were to change it without discussion. Spinning Spark 20:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and advice - appreciated. David T Tokyo (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Avoiding COI on Audit Commission page

Resolved

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I've copied the current page to my sandbox and made some edits to reflect the changes - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jim-dcm/sandbox You'll see my edits if you view history.

As we're keen to avoid COI editing - I'd like some advice on whether you are happy for me to make these changes to the live page - I don't think I've altered anything controversial.

Also our logo has changed but as I'm not autoconfirmed I can't upload it. The new version is here if someone's willing to update it - http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/subwebs/AC-logo-139x55.gif

Jim-dcm (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Firstly thanks for asking here. I have uploaded the new logo. I have reviewed your proposed changes and see no problem with incorporating them. Everything seems to be adequately cited. Please leave a note on the talk page stating your connection to ensure transparency. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jezza - I've made the changes now and updated the talk page as requested. Thanks again for your help. Jim-dcm (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Squatting in England and Wales

Resolved

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi there

This page Squatting in England and Wales is a fork fom Squatting however the main problem (there are others) is that having forked the page, the new and mother page receive the same edits. What is best policy here to resolve this problem. As i stated at [the talk page]:

I'm scratching my head on this one. This page doesn't seem to be working out well - i created it as a branch from Squatting since that page was getting large, but now people are simply adding new information about England and Wales to the original entry here and here, resulting in duplication of information, which is not ideal. I guess the two solutions would be:

1. Move this page's contents back into Squatting and delete it.

2. Move the content currently on Squatting/England and Squatting/Wales over to this page.

I'm leaning towards 1, since 2 would mean continually having to transfer information from Squatting to here. Any thoughts?

With the further thought: On reflection i'm leaning towards 2 now, since i guess we could put a template or a lock on Squatting/England and make sure new stuff goes here. But also rename this page to England and leave Wales on the mother page until it becomes big enough to fork. I only made the page England and Wales because it's the same legal environment. An additional problem worth bearing in mind is that I already created Squatting in the United States a long time back, so we have another fork to deal with as well.

I guess the issues here essentially are do we fork along state boundaries and what is a good precedent?

Mujinga (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The usual solution is to have a summary in the main article with a link to the sub-article at the top of that section using the {{main}} template. This indicates to readers that further information exists and to editors that they should insert detailed information in the sub-article. Spinning Spark 01:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the comment. Yeah that's what I did, but it's not really being adhered to. Anyone else? Mujinga (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Indiana Jones

Resolved

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The article on Indiana Jones, the film character as opposed to the film, was nominated for Good article status. It's been sitting "On hold" since mid-December, with no action from the nominator or the Indiana Jones WikiProject. Would anyone consider taking this article on? I'd hate to fail it. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, there. I will help. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

AfC Copyvio

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

What should be done with an AfC submission that contains a large amount of text apparently copied and pasted from a copyrighted site without permission, but which nonetheless contains a residuum of non-copyrighted content, such that it doesn't meet the terms of db-g12? Blank the appropriate section (assuming there are too many intermediate steps simply to revert)? Db-g12 anyway? List at copyright problems? Take no action since it's not on mainspace? For an example see this diff, where everything in the "History" section seems to be a copyvio, although the lede is salvageable (assuming reliable sources can be found to demonstrate notability)? Alexrexpvt (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Known copyvios should always be immediately blanked. It makes no difference that it is not in mainspace. If it is a minor infringement (a sentence or two) then that is all that needs to be done, or possibly rewrite to make it acceptable. Serious copying, however, should be reported for admin attention so that the violation can be expunged from the page history. The editor involved should also be warned that this is not acceptable. Spinning Spark 17:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Alexrexpvt (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

My policy (which isn't necessarily other people's) in AfC depends on where it's copied from. If I can make a reasonable assumption that the author of the article, and of the copyvio'd content are one and the same, I blank and tell them they need to rewrite it in their own words. If it looks like a rip off, I'll tag it with {{db-g12}} and explain why it needs to be deleted ASAP. Also, when you warn about unacceptability, try to avoid biting them. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

incorrect deletion

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

This article was deleted because it was promotional, and would have been likely to be anyway, since the book was not released at that time. As an administrator, I can view the deleted content, and agree that the decision at the time was correct. Several years have passed since that, though, and it certainly may have gained notability since then. If you can write an appropriate article using reliable sources about it, please do! Since you are editing anonymously, you would need to submit the article at articles for creation, and an editor there will move it to mainspace so long as it meets the standards specified there. Also feel free to ping me if you need any help. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The first article was blatant spam for a non published book. The book has since been published by an established house, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, on 10/6/2008, ISBN-13: 9780156031233 and has received numerous routine reviews on various fora and blogs. However, this alone does not make it notable. For an article about a book to exist on Wikipedia, it must comply with the criteria for books at WP:NBOOK, which must be supported by citations to reliable, third-party sources (not routine booksellers' notes, fora, and blogs). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The article's been restored. It includes links to a few minor reviews, which I expect is an improvement; but other editors may want to go visit and decide whether the thing is notable now or not. It seems on the cusp to me. JohnInDC (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Challenge with Article being declined due to notations

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Specific feedback on article submitted for review and publishing would help. I am trying to get article published and keep being told need references and it to be notable. This is frustrating as they are in there and looking at competitors entries I am in line with there approach. Help ? Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Silk Central Rwetherill (talk) 10:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Your question is probably better suited to the Articles for Creation Help Desk, but having had a quick look through your references, at least this one appears to be from a reliable source. I'd have to go through and look through each reference in turn to check there are sufficient ones like this in order for the company to be considered notable and hence for your submission to pass. I'll also remind reviewers to leave more specific instructions to help new article writers. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Architectural Glass Concepts

Resolved

resolved at least as far as this page is concerned. - Jmabel | Talk 18:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm an experienced Wikipedia contributor (an admin, in fact), seeking advice on how best to proceed with something where I have an inherent conflict of interest. This may not be the ideal place to ask, and if there is a better place please aim me.

I'm on the editorial board of Architectural Glass Concepts, also known as AGC Magazine. It's been around for five years; started out as an annual, recently went semi-annual. The magazine is right on the line between a high-end popular science/architecture magazine and an academic journal. It's included in ProQuest and quite a few academic libraries now subscribe to it. Its scope has become much wider than the name suggests, and contributors have included numerous Ph.Ds from NASA, Boeing, etc. Besides architecture, we've run major articles on topics ranging from the cupola of the International Space Station to vitrification of nuclear waste; we also scored an exclusive interview with the normally very close-mouthed founder of Rayotek Scientific.

I presume that as a member of its editorial board I would not be an appropriate person to write about the magazine in Wikipedia. However, I think it has reached or will soon reach the point where it merits an article, and I'm wondering what, if anything, I might do to help move that forward.

Oh, and a tip of the hat to Wikipedia, because I first came to the publisher's attention partly because of my work here. - Jmabel | Talk 03:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd say you should start at Wikipedia:Requested articles. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Good thought, I'll copy this there. - Jmabel | Talk 18:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Help with Jason R. Holsman

Resolved

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I just need some cleanup help with the Jason R. Holsman page with the politician box, etc. I am unaware as to what i am doing wrong and can't clean it up myself. Cmichael.files (talk) 08:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I'm looking into this now. Tiggerjay (talk) 08:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The obvious problem I saw with the infobox was with the images. For the infobox you only need the image file name, not the File: prefix, nor the other wikitext. Tiggerjay (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!! Cmichael.files (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Genres

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

There have been some recent changes to the genre field at Led Zeppelin, and I'd appreciate it if someone proficient in the field of genre sorting-outing could take a look. Thanks. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The best place to ask for help with this is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Avoiding COI in Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture article

Resolved

– Discussion mv to user tp. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I am requesting editorial assistance in avoiding COI in this draft article that I have written on the Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture.

I have attempted to adhere to standards of neutrality and notability, but I am also an employee of the Kerr Center, and so request independent review of the draft.

Many thanks! Farm65 (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking into it... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

This article may need additional reliable 3rd party sources in in number, quality, and depth, in order to establish notability. Please see the requirements at WP:ORG and WP:RS. The article does not manifest any signs of Conflict of Interest but due to the number o of short paragraphs that begin with 'The Kerr Centre...' it reads like a brochure. The effort with an encyclopedia article is to write with more continuos prose rather than a list of promotional points. Check again that there is absolutely no close paraphrasing from any of the text of the Centre website. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll attempt to address these points and advise when done. Farm65 (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've revised text to avoid the brochure effect and close paraphrasing of the Kerr Center site, and incorporated additional supporting citations - would appreciate another look at this point. Thanks! Farm65 (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)