Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 118

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

Huberman violin

Request unclear

– Appears to be a request for advocacy with respect to an article's subject. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

just saw the bio on huberman and his strad/violin stolen by a fellow musian at a concert in ny.why wasnt the recovered strad returned to the huberman family.recovery of the instrument stolen should go to its original owner/survivors ..family huberman had.merchandise stolen shouldnt be sold or resold .isnt that the way we do business ..the strad didnt have the the proper paperwork to be sold in the first place..everyone who touched the strad knew it belonged to huberman and anyone with ethics should return the stolen goods ..your comments..the chain of deceit should be broken ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.136.21 (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for the purpose of assisting those who are editing or who wish to edit Wikipedia articles. If you wish to edit the Bronisław Huberman article, please feel free to do so, but only if you can substantiate your edits via third party reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia. If you need help making those edits, please say more clearly here what those edits may be and the reliable sources which you have for them, and state more clearly what it is that you may need help with. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox error

Resolved

– Initial problem with infobox fixed. Article ultimately sent to AfD and deleted for notability issues. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Please, can someone fix infobox error at Stanislava Pak Stanković? I really dont know why is it not working... --WhiteWriter^speaks 12:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Spinning Spark 12:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Before I mark this resolved... what exactly was wrong? Were those not standard spaces in the infobox or something? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It looks like... I thought that space is automatically overriden... --WhiteWriter^speaks 15:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

They're   characters. I fixed them by pasting the infobox into another article (Lady Gaga in this case to see how she liked it) in preview and when it worked there pasting it back. Obviously, the copy and paste action stripped out the non-breaking space characters. By the way, why is this person notable? I am inclined to AfD it at the moment. Spinning Spark 17:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't appear notable to me - I would support deletion at an AFD.--ukexpat (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Oo, there is a lot, lot more, article was just created. Leave it until it is expanded, you will see then! --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

In that case, WhiteWriter, I would urge you to get some better indicia of notability in the article until expansion happens. At present the article looks like little more than a CV. You've been around long enough to know how these things go; even if everyone here holds off on pushing for deletion, there'll be someone else who stumbles across the article in the meantime. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, dont worry, its not that important anyway... :-) i will expand it with more data. --WhiteWriter^speaks 15:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, it is not a matter of adding more data. It is a matter of providing sources that discuss the person in her own right (not just her doing her job and giving press statements). Now posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanislava Pak Stanković. Spinning Spark 18:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Photographs used without my permisson

Answered

– Issue not on Wikipedia's end; may have been resolved at Facebook's end. Either way, does not appear to be anything more we can do. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Good afternoon, I recently went onto my husbands facebook account - his name is Mark Chase. When I typed in his name I clicked on a page named Mark Wayne Chase & realised that the page belonged to someone else. I was horrified to see photographs of my family on this page. It stated that all the information had come from Wikipedia as Mark Wayne Chase is a public figure. I would like these photographs deleted from this page immediately as there are photographs of my 7 year old son. I wondered if they had been taken from my Facebook page (Trudi Michaela Chase) by mistake - but as I said - I want these photographs taken down, I have not given mine or my husbands permission for these to be used. Please remove them immediately. I look forward to hearing from you. Kind regards, Mrs Trudi Michaela Chase 86.160.137.132 (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The article, Mark Wayne Chase does not have any pictures on it at all. Facebook took the pictures from somewhere other than Wikipedia. GB fan 18:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Searching for the name "Mark Wayne Chase" and "Mark Chase" the only result seems to be Mark Wayne Chase. Would this be the page in question? If so, there are no photographs present on this page and there have not been any for at least the past two years. If the photo's are present on the Facebook page there is little that we can do. Wikipedia's license allows its content to be used elsewhere provided that attribution is provided and the content is licensed under the same license as Wikipedia uses. Facebook uses this license to redistribute the Wikipedia's on their own site; However, the facebook version in no way linked to Wikipedia's content and can thus have been altered outside Wikipedia. If the facebook page contains images i can only advice you to contact Facebook directly with this inquiry as there is nothing we can do about it. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Nothing on Facebook as of now. Maybe this has been handled already? If so, I'm guessing OP simultaneously contacted us and FB in case she got the wrong one. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Cleaning up List of Touhou Project characters

I think List of Touhou Project characters is in need of serious cleanup. I am a fan of the series, but clearly not all of them need to be listed. Many of them have had only minor appearances in the work, and there are also separate Touhou dedicated wikipedia to help catalogue the entirety of the characters. I want to limit the list to only the most major characters and make it more wiki-appropriate, but I do not want to get into an edit war. What is the best way I can accomplish this goal? ChaosAkita (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this on the article talk page, invite major contributors to the article and the associated projects. Wait for some responses. If nothing after a month or so then proceed with your proposals cautiously. If you get responses, listen to others' points of view and work to achieve consensus. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Avoid mentioning pa... *knifed* —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy delete an image I uploaded

Resolved

– Image deleted per G7. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

File:The Soup Dragons - Hang Ten!.jpg

How do I add a request for speedy deletion of an image I uploaded and is no longer used in an article? Robcamstone (talk) 11:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Done I have deleted it based on this request. In the future you can add {{db-g7}}, that will tag it as a creator request. This only applies if the creator is the only ssignificant contributor. GB fan 11:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi GB, Thank you for doing that I have bookmarked {{db-g7}} for future reference and use. Robcamstone (talk) 11:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Alternative Medicine

Answered

– Requester counseled that WP:MEDRS covers alternative medicine, that customer reviews are not acceptable sources under current policy, and that proposals to expand such policy should be taken to the relevant policy pages of WP:VPP. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

After posting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Alternative_medicine section I have realized that the issue is actually out of the scope of WP:MEDRS. The issue is not necessarily as to what additional sources may be considered reliable in regard to alternative medicine articles, but rather developing styles of wording that would allow to use unreliable sources for unproven claims. It's especially useful for cases whereby many people are practically using an alternative medicine for some health issues yet the official research is absent. There are many people who has agreed that there are gaps on the Wikipedia in covering alternative medicine.

My question is: In what venue all the issues regarding covering of the alternative medicine can be established and standardization can be approved? As WP:MEDRS is dealing with reliable sources and how to use them to cover proven claims, this policy should be dealing with sources that an unreliable per WP:MEDRS and how to use them to cover unproven claims. Thank you. Ryanspir (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Unreliable sources are not acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia, not just with regard to medicine. One of our core policies is verifiablility, and verification can only be done with reliable sources. The place where you are already discussing this is the right venue for the debate unless you are looking to change core policies, in which case WP:VPP is the right venue to start, but in my opinion you would be wasting your time. It is ok to say that a source claims such-and-such about an alternative medicine product (if indeed they do) but it is not acceptable for Wikipedia to make such a claim unless that is the consensus of reliable sources. One must also consider the requirements of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE in such cases. Spinning Spark 14:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Stating as per Ryan's example that 200 out of 250 people who commented on amazon say positive result is undue weight and even if correct will not be allowed either. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Alternative medicine is exactly within the ambit of WP:MEDRS, and in fact is one of the major reasons the guideline was created. As my learned colleague Spinningspark rightly states, you can absolutely address the claims that a specific source makes if you identify them as claims made by that source, and such viewpoints are adequately balanced with the mainstream perspective (which generally will meet MEDRS). Hope this helps. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. So would it be ok to write in D-mannose's article: "Very high number of people who has posted feedbacks on amazon has indicated that d-mannose resulted in miracleous cures for bladder infection." Ryanspir (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No. See WP:SPS and what Doc James already said above. a13ean (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

And how about the position of Mendaliv? Ryanspir (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Al3ean is right. WP:V (a policy this time) would prohibit such a source (specifically through the subsections WP:QS and WP:SPS). Amazon reviews lack meaningful editorial oversight. Moreover, looking at these reviews, and deriving a statement about the quality or efficacy of a particular product would qualify as original research, which is also prohibited. Honestly, even if you were to find a source that was otherwise reliable and stated essentially the same information, I would be against its addition because such a source and claim do not merit an exception to the WP:MEDRS guideline. It is precisely because of such problematic claims that MEDRS was adopted: to ensure that we do not give undue weight theories that are aggressively marketed online despite being unsupported in mainstream scientific literature. We could look at this as a special case of systemic bias and attempts to counter it, insofar as Wikipedia is prone to prefer online, easy to find sources, whereas scientific journals, studies, and the like are slower to emerge, more difficult for many to read, and harder to find. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you retracting your previous position or have I misunderstood you?

Also, if we will consider WP:V as a law, may we consider "Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as an encyclopedia, a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge." as the constitution? IMHO the goal of Wikipedia is "to benefit the readers". From this perspective, if I'm a reader and I would like to know about specific alt med substance, I would appreciate Amazon reviews (or their balanced summary) inclusion with a proper attribution that the information is related to unproven source being Amazon reviews system. Ryanspir (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

A reader who wants to see Amazon reviews (with all the good and bad that may come with them) can go to Amazon and read them. JohnInDC (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

A reader who wants to read an encyclopedic entry can go and buy Britannica? :) There are thousands of readers who are interested in alt med articles. When I want to know about a new substance, that's what I usually do: read wikipedia first and then go to read the reviews on amazon. The summary of the information gives me a good clue. However, sometimes there are 200+ reviews and take a very long time to read them all. If there are some editors who could do that and post some information including summary of all the reviews, I would be extremely thankful. Ryanspir (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

"A reader who wants to read an encyclopedic entry can go and buy Britannica". That is not a very mature or relevant response. Britannica costs in excess of £1000 for the full 32 volumes and one has to wait for it to be delivered whereas Amazon reviews and Wikipedia are free and can be read straight away so it is not a reasonable comparison. There seems to be a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT here so let me say it a bit louder; Amazon reviews ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE AS SOURCES in any way whatsover. That is what our policy says. If you want to change policy you are on the wrong page and need to go somewhere else. Spinning Spark 17:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hehehe, isn't there a Britannica online? And let's assume that a person gets 70$ per hour. How many hours would it take for him to read 200 reviews? And what if he wants to know about several dietary supplements? That would be around 500 reviews or more. Multiply hours by 70$ and that how much we would have saved him would we have such an option. What you are right is that here is not the venue to discuss it :). Ryanspir (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

These are all arguments that you may wish to make at WP:VPP or WT:V. I can say with the utmost confidence, however, that at least under current Wikipedia policies and guidelines, there is no way that Amazon customer reviews are acceptable sources, and conclusions drawn from such reviews, either individually or collectively, cannot at present be part of a Wikipedia article. Respectfully, continuing to argue the contrary here is a waste of your time. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not retracting my prior position at all. I never said that unrealiable sources could be cited. Consider the set of all possible sources. The set of those included by WP:RS is necessarily smaller than that, and the set of those included by WP:MEDRS is both smaller still, and a subset of those included under WP:RS. You can probably argue an exception to WP:MEDRS in some cases, but it is extremely unlikely that you'd be able to argue an exception to WP:RS, especially for this topic. And with respect to Amazon reviews, WP:V is pretty clear on this. Policy arguments aren't going to be persuasive here if what you want is to change a sitewide policy. You may be better served by asking for advice at WP:RSN (if you have a particular source in mind) or WT:V (if you want to discuss changing policy to allow Amazon reviews). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Didn't you say: "Alternative medicine is exactly within the ambit of WP:MEDRS, and in fact is one of the major reasons the guideline was created. As my learned colleague Spinningspark rightly states, you can absolutely address the claims that a specific source makes if you identify them as claims made by that source.." Ryanspir (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Amazon is not a "source". It is a place where individuals of unknown, probably unknowable and in any case widely disparate qualifications and reliability (in the colloquial sense) post their personal comments, observations & opinions. JohnInDC (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

When I said source, I implicitly meant reliable source of course, not some unverified nonsense or wishful thinking from an anonymous retard who wouldn't know a scietific trial from the label of a bottle of snake oil if it jumped up and bit them on the arse. Please don't misuse my statements like that again. Spinning Spark 22:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

And even if one of us had actually said that Amazon reviews were useable as sources on Wikipedia, that doesn't change the fact that they most certainly are not, and does not estop other editors from removing them. We're not setting policy here, we're describing what present policy is. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

draft_of_BAFFC_article

Answered

– Notability issues explained, editor advised that some greater indicia of notability, as well as improvement of the article's tone woudl be required. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I have just finished a draft of my first Wikipedia article. It is for a bar association for which I do not work and am not a member, but I have done consulting work for them. I looked at the article for the American Bar Association to get an idea of how to describe the association appropriately. But because it is my first article and I have some connection to the bar association, I wanted to ask for feedback before making it public.

My first impulse was not to write the article, but I was surprised that, although it is referred to by at least several other articles, it had no entry of its own. I thought it would be helpful to have this article to link to those references. Mistyfarris (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

After a quick scan, the biggest problem seems to be that the sources do not establish notability, which is required for an article to exist. Please read WP:N and WP:ORG. Most of the sources are connected with the subject so don't count towards notability. The rest give only passing mentions which also don't count. But I may have missed something, I only took a very quick look. Spinning Spark 08:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Finding sources is unfortunately hampered by the fact that most mentions on Westlaw and HeinOnline are just authors' affiliations with the association, rather than any substantive discussion of the association. The best source I could find on Westlaw was this:

Tigar, Michael E.; Tigar, Jane B. "Where to Appeal: The Twelve Circuits and the Specialized Courts of Appeals". Federal Appeals Jurisdiction and Practice (3rd ed.). West Publishing. § 4:7. (admittedly, just a one-paragraph description of the organization and basic facts about them, but it's part of an overall section on the 5th Cir.)

Even assuming this subject is notable, the encyclopedic tone of the article needs to be addressed, especially with respect to the lead section, which at present reads much like an advertisement for the association. I'm not suggesting that was anybody's intention, but that sort of directory listing type entry is explicitly outside of Wikipedia's scope. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You're right that I was struggling with sources. The best information I had came from a founding member who is still alive. Of course, Judge Clark has died, as have virtually all the original members. Because it's a nonprofit members organization, it doesn't generally seek out or get much news coverage. I hoped it would be okay to look more to the organization's website because it seemed that was the primary source for the American Bar Association entry. Like any bar association, they are important entities that belong in an encyclopedia, but they are not generally newsworthy and they don't tend to keep great archives. What if I could find announcements in the news of CLE programs, and delegate nominations, etc. I will also check with the exec director and see if there are more historical documents available. And of course, I can rewrite the lead more carefully. Thank you for your input. I'll make some changes and see if it gets better. Mistyfarris (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It's perfectly ok to use an organization's own website as a source, they are a reliable source of information about themselves. Just be careful to use only factual material and not inject their POV into the article. That's not the issue, the question is whether the article should even exist. The yardstick for that on Wikipedia is notability, specifically notability of organizations. Evidence of notability cannot include sources associated with the subject of the article. Trivial mentions and routine news announcements are likewise not enough. Substantial discussion of the subject in multiple reliable sources is required. By the way, information obtained through personal contacts is not considered a reliable sources unless it can also be verified by a RS. Spinning Spark 21:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

This notability thing confuses me. Why then do the Dallas Bar Association, the Chicago Bar Association, the Washington Bar Association (among others) have pages that make no references to secondary sources and seem to have a narrower scope that the association of a federal circuit court? Maybe I can find a biography of Judge Charles that discusses BAFFC since it was founded at his initiative. What about the fact that several other Wikipedia articles make reference to it? In a quick search, I found that Robert G. Pugh it makes reference to his being the "second president of the Bar Association for the New Orleans-based United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals." Tucker L. Melancon's page says he had a role in "Bar Association for the First and Fifth Federal Circuit." Admission to the bar in the United States contains a section on Voluntary and private bar associations that includes references to Wikipedia links to city, ethnic, and other voluntary bar associations. There are also Wikipedia articles for attorneys who played a significant role in founding or leading the BAFFC--articles that should include a reference to the association. I'm sorry if I sound snippy. I don't mean to. I just think it is an important organization, but it doesn't commit scandals. Generally the news coverage consists of attorneys claiming membership or offices and information about their CLE presentations, etc., but I understand that's not enough. Maybe I need to go to the references in other articles to correct the name and add external links, at least until I can find more outside sources from biographies or other sources. I'm also getting access to the archives and they might have copies of articles or other published material about the organization. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistyfarris (talk • contribs) 04:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF which will explain the situation. Also, the criteria for metioning something in an article is a lot lower than that for having a page on that subject. I don't doubt that this is a fine organization, but the bottom line is that if it does not comply with WP:ORG or WP:GNG then any one of our thousands of editors might decide to nominate it for deletion. Up to you if you want to take that risk. Spinning Spark 07:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help. Mistyfarris (talk) 04:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of page...of a Notable Person

Answered

– Article was at Melissa J Woodside, speedied per A7. Editor advised to make use of process. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

178.108.36.109 (talk) 08:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Melissajwoodside was deleted ...under the terms speedy deletion. Can this matter be resolved please 178.108.36.109 (talk) 08:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

No page with "Woodside" in the title has been deleted in the last few days. Thousands of pages are deleted every day, we will need more information to be able to find it. Information that would help are the exact title of the page, the date it was deleted, the account name of the editor who created or worked on it, or the name of the deleting administrator. Spinning Spark 09:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The page was Melissa J Woodside. Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Instructions, beginning by contacting the administrator who deleted the page, Jimfbleak, to discuss the matter. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Help forestall a threatened edit war (at BLPs Carmen Ortiz & Aaron Swartz)

Stale

– OP has not edited since starting this thread. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

David in DC & MarkBernstein have long been squabbling with Dervorguilla about some alleged WP:QUOTEFARM or WP:BLPGOSSIP material taken from an op-ed by Harvey Silverglate and reprinted at Aaron Swartz and Carmen Ortiz. On 7 Feb 2013, long-term user Ocaasi comes in and makes a couple of authoritative edits, which seem to resolve the dispute; MarkBernstein seems to concur (“Nice.”). Ocaasi then disappears, most likely to carry out his newly assumed duties as an admin. Ten hours later David in DC reverts. Dervorguilla restores much of the Ocaasi alteration step-by-step, giving each step its own, wikilawyered edit summary and Talk commentary. After enough of this provocation, MarkBernstein makes a bold revert. The material is swiftly restored by Dervorguilla and swiftly re-reverted by MarkBernstein. David in DC now asks, is Dervorguilla “trolling for another block?” If you can help her figure out the answer, please do! Requesting aid with behavior, not content. (Dervorguilla is using her alternate account here; she’s not out to provoke any editors that happen to be tracking her regular-account contribs). --J.K.Herms (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, you may wish to take this to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, which is likely to be a better venue. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Interac (Japan)

Stale

– No progress evident from WT:COMPANIES thread. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Interac_(Japan) KeroroGunso (talk · contribs) & Laevatienn (talk · contribs) have made arguments on the talk page about the nature of the article, as it is mostly made up of union-related-labor-dispute content that echos the types found on Tozen, General_Union and Unfair_Labor_Practice_(Japan). The result here is a lack of depth or breadth in dealing with Interac as a company, which lowers its quality score in WP:Japan and WP:EDUCATION. Looking at the edit history seems to be a lot of work by Ckatz (talk · contribs), Statisticalregression (talk · contribs),Nihonjoe (talk · contribs) and others. KeroroGunso, Laevatienn, and myself recognize the NPOV issues in the article as it is made up of union-related-labor-dispute content. Discussion about this has been made on the Talk page, but no response has come from anyone with a different opinion. Attempts to remove this reverted time after time, and I believe that it would be more appropriate for a reference to be made to the union-related-labor-dispute content and have that content on the pages of the relevant parties or topics, such as Tozen, General_Union and Unfair_Labor_Practice_(Japan). What is needed from an editor here is for someone to have an unbiased look at what is related to the company as an organization, and what is related to the union-related-labor-dispute(S). Advice on how to make the page stronger as for company-related content to move it more toward NPOV, and advice on how to realign or move union-related-labor-dispute content to their appropriate areas or pages. The union-related-labor-dispute content is well-stated on the other relevant pages, and editor help is needed to bring the page more toward a description of Interac that would serve a new person visiting Wikipedia for the first time.Taurus669 (talk) 10:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies might be a good place to raise a discussion and solicit informed independent advice. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Some editing problems

Answered

– Editor advised that discussion should take place at relevant talk pages. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I have been editing several linked pages dealing with Spanish history in the 16th century, particularly as regards the Catholic reconquest of Granada and the subsequent revolt of the Moors (or Moriscos) in that area.
I have just published a book - "Bubión - the story of an Alpujarran village" - for which I did a considerable amount of research into sources - including Spanish 16th-century chroniclers and other works in Spanish, French, English, including some Arab works in English translation.
I find in Wikipedia several overlapping sites, several of which are not well-informed, relying on secondary sources.
I have concentrated on "Morisco Revolt", which I found to be the most complete. However, it should be renamed "Morisco revolts in Granada": I cannot find how to change a title.
"Battle of Granada" or "Fall of Granada" is unsatisfactory, and all its information is contained on other pages. In my view, it should be deleted: again, I do not know how to do this.
Other sites on which I have worked are "Emirate of Granada", "Treaty of Granada" - no major problems here.
A separate technical problem relates to "Poqueira", where I tried to put in a better photo than the existing one: the name of my picture appears but not the photo, and I could not handle this.
Help appreciated!
Bergerie (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Concerning remaming the article. Could you please start discussion at the talk page of the article. If nobody objects within some reasonable time, it can be renamed. Technically, it is not really difficult, somebody would help you.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the photo, let us continue at Talk:Poqueira.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality v. Bias in Jimmy Savile articles.

This debate has been opened on numerous other pages and is also currently at WP:ANI. No need for it to be here as well. Spinning Spark 18:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jimmy Savile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jimmy_Savile

Has Savile, a dead man with a "clean" criminal record while alive been treated fairly in the press and by Wikipedia??? I would like a licensed criminal solicitor or barrister in the UK to weigh in on claims made in the article. A space for a third party review has been created on the article's talk page. Thanks.johncheverly 7:31 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Wikipedia does not employ solicitors or barristers to check article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Are there any editors that also are UK solicitors or barristers???johncheverly 02:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have read the article. And I do question the neutrality, just the same way I question the whole way the English media has handled the Savile affair, as I would call it. For 50 years the English media delighted in the guy. Four women make unsubstantiated allegations against him in a documentary a year after his death and suddenly he's the devil himself. When I start pointing out media that is favorable to Savile such as a woman's claim that she had a 40 year off and on relationship with him and refuting the paedophile claims http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2069358/Jimmy-Saviles-secret-lover-Sue-Hymns-talks-VERY-unconventional-life-together.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koueH9D04yg I am told that The Daily Mail is not a reliable source, even after the article uses a Daily Mail source in an attempt to accuse Savile of paedophllia through speculation and hearsay. Also, the article does not use BBC and other news reports that exonerate Savile: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xrp6cHjets. That particular video features an Assistant Chief Constable on the West Yorkshire Police force stating that it does not have any evidence nor reports against Savile, let alone any criminal charges against him.

I think this is a witch hunt. All it is is a bunch of posthumous he said/she said stuff.

Compare the Savile Article against the Joe Paterno and Penn State Child Sex Abuse Articles and there is no comparison. Wikipedia is like the English Court of Public Opinion, out for a witch hunt that the facts do not substantiate.johncheverly 02:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

As an editor, I approach articles as a disinterested NON-editor. The whole approach to the Savile situation in Wikipedia, let alone the British press, does not pass the Jack Webb test: JUST THE FACTS. What do we KNOW about the Savile affair??? He was questioned by police twice during the last five years of his life. As the English say, "Savile assisted police with their inquiries." SAVILE WAS NEVER CHARGED WITH ANY CRIME DURING HIS ENTIRE LIFE. HYPOTHETICALLY, IF the ALLEGED sex crimes did occur, what responsibility do the Metropolitan Police Service and the West Yorkshire Police --in whose jurisdiction most of the ALLEGED crimes were SUPPOSED to have occurred-- bear for allowing an ACCUSED sexual predator to remain on the loose for 50 years without incident??? AS a READER of Wikipedia, I am extremely DISAPPOINTED by the lack of facts and neutrality surrounding its collection of information and publication of FACTS surrounding the whole Sir Jimmy Savile OBE affair.johncheverly 16:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, since you are clearly incapable of complying with WP:NOTFORUM, I shall be reporting the matter at WP:ANI, and asking that you be blocked from editing until you agree to conform with policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2013

(UTC)

I have summarized my criticisms.

Whatever you think the significance of all that might be, it seems irrelevant to improving the content of the article. All this correspondence was discussed before Thatcher's death, and is mentioned under "Public image and friendships" in his biography article. What changes do you think should be made to the article? Ghmyrtle (talk) 5:32 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

I definitely think there needs to be some quotes from Sir Jimmy Savile OBE's mistress Sue Hymns that "There's absolutely nothing there. People make those things up."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koueH9D04yghttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2069358/Jimmy-Saviles-secret-lover-Sue-Hymns-talks-VERY-unconventional-life-together.html

Also, his neice, Amanda McKenna, also has refuted the scandalous stories.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koueH9D04yg

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-saviles-family-reveal-their-outrage-870828

And she tells how she was hurt over the years by false rumours about her uncle. BBC’s Newsnight even began an investigation into unfounded allegations relating to under-aged girls.

She says: “Uncle Jimmy always said, ‘People were looking for the big secret about me but the big secret is that there isn’t one’.”

Any mentions of his posthumous AUTHORIZED BIOGRAPHY??? Why not???

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/features/leader/9806293.The_real_Jimmy/

Also, of the over 40 people that claim they were "molested" by Savile in the West Yorkshire region of England, NONE ever reported the incident to the West Yorkshire Police, and there is no evidence of any criminal behavior by Savile.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xrp6cHjets

Paul Gambiccini's Claims??? Why are they even included in this article??? Listen to all 11:30 minutes of this interview:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DutNY63LqO0 Complete bullshit there. This motherfucker has no concrete information. It's all a bunch of hot air by a has-been that never made it.

Talk about payoffs, don't you think you ought to add info from this article???http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/savile-to-cost-bbc-insurers-millions-8590981.html

Show me the fucking money=30 million pounds worth.

Also, what's the statute of limitations on the charges against Max Clifford, Freddie Starr, Rolf Harris, Jim Davidson, etcetera??? These guys are in their late 60's, early 70s now.

Is there anyone on Wikipedia that can give some kind of context of the English Legal system??? Were the laws the same in the 1960s and 1970s as they are today???

These are the things that are nagging me and that I come me to Wikipedia for wanting to read FACTUAL ANSWERS ON.johncheverly 17:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CarolMooredc threatening bans/accusing me of being libelous

Resolved

– Handled at ANI, with thread subsequently closed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I hope this is the right forum in which make this complaint! I am new to Wikipedia (have been here 17 days) and I feel as if most of my additions to the community have contributed positively to it. I am concerned about the conduct of user CarolmooreDC. She recently accused me of "libelous" conduct and threatened me with bans here, writing "given your biased edits and admitted strong Negative POV and the fact your PhD advisor recommended you look at these people for your dissertation, you really are getting into an area where you could be banned from editing these related articles at all under this this biographies of living people-related arbitration." (elsewhere on my talk page she implies that my getting banned is "just a matter of someone being sufficiently motivated to present the copious evidence of your BLP violating habits to the proper venue", which I regarded as an attempt at intimidation.)

Her attacks re: "bias" stem from a personal admission of mine that I am studying fringe political groups for a Master's thesis, and don't like some of them; an *unprompted* admission I made in good faith when I was trying to understand WP's COI policy.

Her attacks re "libel" stem from my changing a sub-title of the Hans-Hermann Hoppe piece from "Allegations of Homophobia" to "Allegations of promoting anti-gay violence." As can be seen from the history page, this title was simply a paraphrase of text within that section -- CON text which had been accepted for weeks by editors as a fair characterization (she is of course entitled to disagree with the CON text and argue that it is WP:Synth, but calling someone -- particularly a noob -- "libelous" and threatening a ban for his/her simply paraphrasing accepted CON text in a title sub-section is, in my judgment, extremely inappropriate. This follows a broader history of demeaning, insulting conduct and personal attacks she has leveled against me. She has formed a sort of tag team to attack me with commentator S. Rich, who previously accused me of "bad-mouth[ing] the various people you are writing about in WP" based on a "subtle" motivation "to preserve the work you are doing on your thesis" (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Steeletrap/Archive_1). His comments have not been quite as egregious as Carol's, but given his history of personally attacking me, it is also a cause for concern.

Thank you for hearing my reply. I apologize if this isn't written in the proper format! Please let me know if you want any more information surrounding Carol's previous comments to me or mine to her. Steeletrap (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

See WP:Dispute. Though persistant and/or flagrant violations of WP:BLP do go to WP:BLPN which is what I've been talking about but would prefer not to do all the work of documenting the numerous incidents. I'd pref you just read and learn WP:BLP. Note that a warning about taking one to a notice board is allowable and do include diffs of all your allegations :-) CarolMooreDC🗽 19:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Quite a backhanded qualification about me – my comments are "not quite so egregious..." Indeed. But, it seems I have a "history" of making personal attacks as to Steeletrap. I ask that s/he lay out that history. Here is a link that will explain how to find and post WP:DIFFs. – S. Rich (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Your "history" in is amply detailed in the comments mentioned above. (my phrasing does not imply continuity of blatant personal attacks on your part; just a "history" of it (similarly, if one of the kids I used to teach was caught cheating on two tests last year, she or he could be said to have a "history" of cheating). My feelings about your edits and behavior towards notwithstanding, your statements -- apart from the clear PAs mentioned above -- are sufficiently weaseley to avoid indictment. With that clarification having been made, I ask that we do not divert from the question at hand.) Steeletrap (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Please go somewhere else to argue between yourselves. If you actually want some editing advice then state clearly what your question is. Spinning Spark 21:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

there is no question. I posted this to the wrong forum (have since posted it to the right one). Sorry. Steeletrap (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Vito technology

Resolved

– page has been deleted. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Could you please capitalize "T" in the word "Technology" in the article title? Or can you advise how I can do it. Thanks, Nastya Yurkina (talk) 07:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Mohamed Zairi

I have come across an article about Prof. Mohamed Zairi. It seems to be very promotional and lacking of RS/citations, and also includes alot of "unnecessary" information, such as a _long_ list of books he has published. I am new here a wiki so I don't really know if I'm in the right place to raise these concerns, so if I'm wrong in posting this here, please forgive me. Amlaera (talk) 11:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to start cleaning it up yourself. A common solution to over-long bibliographies is to cut them out on the aeparate page and just leave selected works in the article itself. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies#Author bibliographies. Spinning Spark 13:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I'll try to clean it up. Thank you for your reply. Amlaera (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

See also Mohamed Zairi Bibliography, which Amlaera created as a staging area, and which is now being reviewed at AfD. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

User page and user needs some kind of attention, not sure what

Resolved

– Userpage speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G11. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Lashawn Antonio Covington (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Here we have a brand-new user whose only edits are to his own user page, most of which appear to trumpet the user's own criminal associations. In addition, this registered user would appear to be the same person as IP editor 98.243.47.45, whose only edits have been disruptive ones, generally adding the name of this user to various Michigan-related articles. Even if I could figure out a suitable template, I'm not sure that this editor really has much interest in editing the encyclopedia. Suggestions welcome. JohnInDC (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like some kind of spam to me so I have tagged for G11 speedy.--ukexpat (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

And now deleted.--ukexpat (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. With a little luck that'll be the last of it - JohnInDC (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Navbox in mainspace

I think this needs an admin to 'really' fix. Popped up on "Check Wikipedia".

2013 in Singaporean football <- needs to be relocated to Template space. Thanks. Revent (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I've moved it to template space. It would seem to have got created because the nav links in template:2012 in Singaporean football go to mainspace instead of template space. This needs fixing by someone concerned with those articles (and probably other templates in the series). Spinning Spark 21:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the reason the nav links point to mainspace is because these navbox templates are supposed to have a corresponding mainspace article. See, e.g., 2013 in Singapore football. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Beersheba (1917)

Resolved

– Seems to be working. May be a connection issue combined with a very long article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Its been 30 minutes now since I hit save on an edit to this article and its still thinking about it. All attempts to access the article on a new window don't work either. Obviously, my computer and Wikipedia are in the meantime continuing to work perfectly normally. Help! --Rskp (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I can see an edit from you in the article at 08:00 UTC. Copy and paste your text from the edit window to a text file for safety and then cancel the operation. Then reload the page and see if it the change is there. You might get better technical help with your computer at {{WP:RDC]]. You can also go to WP:VPT to see if Wikipedia was having problems at the time. Spinning Spark 08:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't see the article though, as it looks like its still trying to save the edit. --Rskp (talk) 08:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I still can't get the article up, although I can access other articles. Via your link I've copied the text and notice there is a problem with a reference, which I would like to fix. --Rskp (talk) 08:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I can now edit it. --Rskp (talk) 09:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

All fixed. Thanks a lot, I really appreciate you being there. All the best, --Rskp (talk) 09:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Large Edit Recommended (ancient roman architecture)

Answered

– Editor advised to be bold! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

this article is in need of serious attention. it is somewhat biased, out of context at some points, and has only one citation. it also has unorganized sections, for example, the section arches and domes ends with an explanation of what an arch is. i strongly suggest a major edit, perhaps even a re-structure.Thetntm (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Please feel free to improve the article. I have posted some pointers about Wikipedia article editing on your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Most recent common ancestor

Answered

– Citing to paywalled and offline sources is acceptable. Editor referred to other means of verifying the cited material. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The article mentions a claim that within the last 10 to 5000 years, humanity as a whole has a common ancestor. The citation is a pay site. I strongly doubt the claim and put up a cleanup tag explaining why. Someone else toomk it off saying for me to see the sources; but, it's at a pay site as I said.

BTW:"THANK YOU for complying with these simple instructions" (on this page above) comes off as unpleasantly sarcastic. Richard Peterson199.33.32.40 (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Tagging an article because you cannot personally read the sources is not good etiquette and could be considered disruptive. The abstract is available and seems to verify the claim, but if that is not good enough you can ask the inserting editor to provide an exact quote. You can also ask at WP:LIBRARY. Spinning Spark 01:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

ok, thanks.76.218.104.120 (talk) 05:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I left a reply to your comment on the WikiProject Genetics talk page, and included a link to the full text. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I've also noted there and at Talk:Most recent common ancestor my understanding of the claim made in the Wikipedia article versus what's stated in the Nature letter. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Marisa Pavan

Resolved

– Image removed per WP:BLP, and renamed at Commons. Former filename redirect was deleted at commons. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia,

The photograph appended to the entry relating to MARISA PAVAN is not of her, it is of her twin sister PIER ANGELI. I know because I wrote her biography.

J Allen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierangeli (talk • contribs) 23:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I have left a note at the Wikimedia commons page for this image, also on the talk page of the uploader, Celest.ru. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Comparing google image results for Marisa Pavan and Pier Angeli I'm inclined to say the IP is right, especially this photo is from almost exactly the same angle. I'm going to remove it from the article and request a rename at Commons. Spinning Spark 13:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I've requested the rename, but this is going to need some cleaning up. It is has now been used on numerous language versions. Spinning Spark 14:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The file has now been renamed. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Criticism on Muhammad

It is, I believe, not a good work done by the editors to criticise Muhammad. He was a religious leader just as any other religious leader like jesus or moses. Simple biographies of these personalities should be provided by this site. If any harsh comment is done on them, then it can incite the anger of public. I request the management to look in to this issue and take a proper action against these irritating criticisms of westerns or other socities. Thankyou, Manny Abid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.109.40.194 (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. You may wish to refer to Wikipedia's policy on censorship. You may also wish to take note that we also have these articles: Criticism of Moses, Criticism of Jesus, Criticism of Buddhism. Wikipedia's basic goal is to document verifiable information, giving due weight to varying viewpoints. Respectfully, it serves to detract from the credibility of other commentary on Muhammad if we do not give due weight to criticism of him. Thank you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

How do the place marks get on location maps?

Resolved

– Problem was caused by use of px in a template that calls on {{Location map}}; resolved by helpful editors at Template talk:Location map. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, as I stated a year ago on Talk:Sorpe_Dam, the little red spot on the location mark is off by some 150 km. Nobody seems to have been able to do anything about it. How do these dots get inserted into the maps anyway? The coordinates are correct.--Cancun771 (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

In general, this can be done with {{Superimpose}}, and much else besides red dots. However, in the case of this article, it is called through infobox parameters. If you view the article in edit mode you will see parameters in the infobox specifying the co-ordinates in degrees-minutes-seconds format. You can adjust these to the correct values. It would be helpful if you also add your source for these co-ordinates to the article. Hope that helps. Spinning Spark 20:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

However, as Cancun771 states, the coordinates are correct (as checking a mapping program verifies)... just that the image on-wiki displays the dot in the wrong position. I've checked this visually and he seems to be correct. I'm not sure where the error stems from, however. The infobox's implementation of the mapping template seems correct, and does not appear to have been vandalized. It could be that the data the image uses is incorrect... but I don't know enough about this to answer. I'm posting about this at Template talk:Location map, which may be the proper venue for asking about issues with this functionality. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I fixed it by removing px from a parameter [1] and have suggested to not depend on this at Template talk:Location map#Possible error with Germany map? PrimeHunter (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Moving back the article

Resolved

– Moved.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I was undoing a move of the article Kamyanyets and incidentally misspelled the name and now, for the technical reasons, can't move it back. The same applies to the article Tower of Kamyanyec. Administrators' assistance is very welcome. What you basically need to do is replace "c" with "ts". Cheers. --glossologist (talk) 12:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. Please add both pages to the watchlist in case there are objections to the move.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. However, the talk page and the Tower of Kamyanyec article are still waiting to be moved. --glossologist (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

They can not be moved since non-empty talk pages exist. They can not be just deleted. If there is any specific info you want to transfer, you can just copy it manually, acknowledging the principal authors.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Raith Rovers F.C.

Discussion moved

– Back to WP:HD#Raith Rovers F.C.. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There's nobody replying to this on the help desk so I thought I'd post it here, does anyone want to give me an idiot's guide to editing the home shirt at Raith Rovers F.C. to reflect the new one shown at http://www.raithrovers.net/9017/201314-kit-revealed.htm or does anyone want to edit it to save the bother? (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC))

you might try at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab. GB fan 23:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Replied at Wikipedia:Help desk#Raith Rovers F.C. 31 minutes is far too little to wait before posting to another help page. Questions stay for days at the help desk. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

SPI not registered

Resolved

– SPI was malformed, has been fixed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi

At 13:23 I posted an SPI request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto. It has not yet (14:57 UTC) appeared on WP:SPI. Have I overlooked something?

Martinvl (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It's malformed so it wasn't "subst"ed. That's probably why it's not showing up. Have a look at your para 4, there's a spare opening square bracket before a URL which looks like it's messing everything up. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

So it was. Many thanks. It has now formatted itself and appears to be in the queue waiting for Big Ben to strike or for a bot to come round or something. Martinvl (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Your welcome. I would have done it myself but it looked like the template "autosigns" so it would have been my report, not yours. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Edits to University of Texas Medical Branch

Answered

– Editor advised to re-use edit request template to obtain a reconsideration. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I have a declared COI but requested some edits on the UTMB talk page. Editor CorporateM declined most of proposed edits. I asked for reconsideration on a couple of points via his/her talk page; CorporateM requested that I ask another editor. Is this the proper venue to do so?

To propose changes throughout the entire article, would a userspace draft be the best means? I'll try to point out errors vs. asking editors to compare versions, but in "being bold" I'm not sure what else to do. Any suggestions are welcome. Thank you. Myra McCollum (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Others may disagree, but I'd suggest just changing the {{Request edit}} templates on the points on which you want reconsideration back to their unanswered state (remove everything after "edit" except the closing brackets) and put a note at the bottom of the discussion that you are asking for reconsideration with CorporateM's blessing, with a link to the discussion on his talk page. Do not remove or modify any of CorporateM's other edits, however. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Myra McCollum (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Kitchener pages

Hello, I would like help. My family from my grandmother down have been kept out of all Wikipedia information. here is a link to a family tree site that will show you the real family tree http://cobboldfht.com I hope you can see that my cousin Emma Kitchener-Fellows is not the only ancestor of Lord Kitchener her father Charles had a a sister Kenya as well as the Knighted brother Henry. Kenya had three Daughter and the have had five sons between them as Emma has had one son. I am now the oldest of these Son's. I am trying to go over to Africa to make efforts to create reconciliation with the African's who are descendants of the people who suffered under the military campaigns led by Kitchener.

I have previously corrected this information on here and it has again been changed, This time it is very professionally done. Please can this be rectified. the integrity of wikipedia is accepted and this only makes it more damaging to my efforts. thank you, Duncan John Saunders — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Saunders77 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Assertions of this sort must be backed by reliable, published sources which are verifiable, not by amateur websites and self-published genealogies. I am also very unsure of what you mean by the sentence "This time it is very professionally done", but it sounds like you are making accusations against one or more of your fellow editors here. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Duncan: Besides what Orange Mike wrote, it appears that any previous corrections you have tried to make were done either before you registered a Wikipedia account or when you were not logged in. Thus, we cannot review those edits unless you provide us with further information as to where those edits were done. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Butting heads

Hi. I'm butting heads and seeking advice.

[Note: Shortened from long version.]

Guy Macon is being WP:POINTY, authoritarian, and is blind to his errors. He's been preventing the addition of any info regarding fakes to Secure Digital. Most recently:
Guy removed my article talk page comment and he reverted (diff) my removal from my talk page of his previous comment - thereby for a SECOND AND THIRD TIME violating the very rules he had just reminded me of and warned me not to violate.

I was going to post the following to his page and revert his revert the above two violations but decided to come here instead for advice:

Warning: Please stop your disruptive editing.

Please stop your disruptive editing. As you know, having just warned me of the same: Talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did here and at User talk:Elvey, you may be blocked from editing. AGAIN:Do not revert edits I removed from my own talk page. See WP:TPOC and WP:BLANKING. AGAIN:Stay off my talk page. You are, of course, free to delete this warning, but doing so will be considered to be evidence that you read it and were properly warned. AGAIN. --~~~~

I'm wondering what to do next. --Elvey (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

What to do next? Apologise for your behaviour, before you get blocked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

This issue should have been a case for the WP:DR noticeboard where it should have been taken- see the edit notice at the top of this page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, this isn't a DRN case in the least. It's a simple behavioral dispute that evolved from a content dispute. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Whatever, but this is certainly the wrong venue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so sure this is the wrong venue, Elvey is clearly asking for advice and that that is exactly what this venue is for, both for conduct and content matters (see the main page). If he was asking for intervention or mediation of them, this would indeed be the wrong venue, but nothing above suggests to me that he's doing that. Having said that, I support AndyTheGrump's advice. Guy Macon has made a mistake here, but his only mistake is not explaining things very well, not in reverting Elvey's edits. Let me do it for him: The edits to Secure Digital were inappropriate and revertable because they were not sourced to a reliable source (yes, some blogs are reliable, but the cited one doesn't even come close), the talk page edits were inappropriate and immediately revertable because they violated, at least by implication, WP:BLPREMOVE, part of the BLP policy that applies to every part of Wikipedia. (They also arguably violated WP:OUTING by implying personal information about other editors.) Elvey may have meant these to be rhetorical questions: "I'm not a paid editor; are you?" and "Are you a seller of frankenflash?". But he certainly didn't make clear that they were, and without that clarification they were clearly making "contentious [implications] about a living person that [are] unsourced or poorly sourced". Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Removing your editing flags

Sorry to ask what is obviously a FAQ but how do I get you to re-examine an article that is flagged as deficient?

The article Byron Shire Echo, contributed a couple of years ago, has been correctly labelled as non-neutral and unreferenced but I have now edited it to remove (hopefully) those problems.

Although the article has still been provided by a member of the Byron Echo staff (me) can it be re-assessed please?

--Tree Faerie (talk) 07:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Maintenance templates are normally removed by individual editors after they have dealt with whatever problem has been flagged. It would be unwise for you to remove them yourself because of your WP:COI position. It is far better that they are removed by an independent editor. You can suggest an edit for another editor to make on the article talk page. You can attract the attention of an uninvolved editor by placing the template {{Request edit}} immediately above the suggestion. Spinning Spark 13:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Does a video have to provide additional "informational value" to an article?

Answered

– OP advised to discuss the dispute before seeking other remedies. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I recently added a 10 second original video (shown on the right):

The feminist sex wars.

...to the article Feminist Sex Wars. It shows the division (within liberal, feminist ideology) between pro- and anti-sex work feminists, which is the subject of the article. I put it on in the spirit of improving the article so that it wasn't just text.

Chapter 15 on Adding Images, in Wikipedia's Missing Manual suggests ...an article without at least one illustration seems incomplete. I was applying the same logic as that to my film but found that it was deleted on the grounds that the Video makes little sense and does not add to informational value of article. (26th March 2013)

I thought I had made it short, clear and concise, and my intention was to illustrate the existing article rather than add any new information. Do I really have to go through a reverting the edit, justifying why I've reverted it back, discussion on talk pages (possible edit war)? I was really hoping that this might just be a less confrontational technical point, that an experienced editor could revert it with a comment like "Reverting to help user (as requested) - video is merely illustrative."

I would appreciate any help. Thanks --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 08:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No, you don't have to go through a reverting edit etc. In fact, that would be a very bad idea to revert back - see WP:Edit war. At this stage you must either accept that your video is not liked or else open a discussion on the article talk page. Article talk is always the first port of call in the event of a dispute. You might also want to consider how WP:OR relates to your video. Spinning Spark 13:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

There's little room for the kind of procedural revert you suggest on Wikipedia, especially with respect to content disputes. As Spinningspark indicates, the next step is to take it to the article's talk page and try to reach a consensus with the editor in question. More generally, I would refer you to the Image Use Policy and the Manual of Style for Images, which would be the controlling policy and guideline, respectively. Commenting briefly on the file itself, I'm not sure it's something that shouldn't simply be done in a static image with a more descriptive caption—presuming of course there isn't any original research issue with respect to the file's use in the article. I think the caption itself is a major issue: as someone with absolutely no familiarity with the topic, there just isn't enough context to comprehend the file at a glance. Hope this helps. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift answers. A discussion on the talk pages was exactly the kind of thing I, like most women, was hoping to avoid so I'll just leave it. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Strange idea that women are avoiding the talk pages. Is there any evidence that this is happening? Spinning Spark 10:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully, Wikipedia is driven by consensus, and the onus is on the individuals supporting a change—irrespective of sex or gender—to justify a new addition to an article. The status quo rules until a consensus to change has been reached. See WP:BRD for a standard editing practice. But this isn't the place to discuss the merits or demerits of editing practices. You may be looking for the Village Pump. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I've got to say, I don't see any kind of informational content to that video; and yes, that is the reason for an illustration (2-d or 3-d, still or moving). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Trivia

Answered

– OP indicates question has been answered. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering if there's a specific policy against including non-noteworthy trivia about a subject in an article. For instance, it might be possible to reliably source what someone, particularly if they are famous, had for breakfast on a certain day. Such content would meet verification criteria but on its own would not normally be considered relevant, unless a specific reason can be be brought up, for inclusion in an encyclopaedia article. Is there a specific policy to cite against including trivia like this or does it come down to gaining talk page consensus on whether it is too trivial or not for inclusion? Thank you in advance for your comments. Wcp07 (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Trivia like you describe should probably be nixed per WP:UNDUE. What a person ate on a particular day is probably not relevant to the overall subject. However, if it's part of telling the story of a larger event, it actually may be relevant and worth including. You may want to look at WP:HTRIV for guidance. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Those links are quite useful and pretty much address the concerns I had. Thanks for your help! Wcp07 (talk) 09:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Metropolitan Areas of Canada

On Canada's page, in the Metropolitan Areas chart can you add pictures? I tried it myself, but I didn't know how to do it. Thanks. My name is Ekjaap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.232.109 (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The article Canada is currently protected from editing by unregistered editors due to persistent vandalism. You can request an edit be made to the article on the article talk page. Use the template {{edit protected}} to make the request. If you have not already done so, you must first upload your images to Commons before anyone will be able to add them to the article. Alternatively, you can register an account and then request on my talk page that the account be confirmed. You will then be able to edit the article yourself. Spinning Spark 20:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Romford FC page

Hello,

Can anyone please tell me why the list of ex players which I painstakingly researched, has been deleted, without my consent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RomfordReject (talk • contribs) 07:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The section was tagged as having a problem with this edit in September 2012. It was removed with this edit in March 2013. The editor left this edit summary "Rem Famous Players section tagged as having no inclusion criteria for a number of months". You need to discuss this issue with the editors involved. I suggest that you start a discussion thread on the article talk page and then ping the editors involved to draw it to their attention. Concerning your comment about asking your permission, no one needs to ask permission to make an edit, even if it is a deletion. The article belongs to the whole community, not the person(s) who wrote the material. Spinning Spark 11:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd just argue that judging from the language of the template, that there was no inclusion/exclusion criteria evident, is incorrect. "Former player" is a fairly clear-cut inclusion criterion, though it seems like that list would be incomplete there. I don't think it's uncommon to even have list articles for former players. At worst, you might use a category to link together the pages on players to the page on the club. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Use of primary sources

There has been a good deal of controversy regarding the military service of a recently deceased prominent person. I recently filed an FOIA request with the National Archives and received a copy of the individuals military service record. The information in his record is at variance with almost ALL secondary and tertiary sources. However, the military record is a primary source and Wikipedia prohibits primary sources. What to do? Oldbubblehead (talk) 06:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It is allowable to use primary sources for bare facts but caution must be exercised and it is always better to use secondary sources that have interpreted the primary sources, see WP:PRIMARY. I think what you have to do here is make an assessment of the reliability and knowledgeability of the existing secondary sources. There are sometimes reasons, not always self-evident, for primary sources being inaccurate or (as in this case) incomplete. We do not attempt to derive conclusions from primary sources ourselves, we rely on secondary sources to provide any conclusions required in the article, see WP:SYNTH. Hope that helps, you will need to post specific issues and specific sources to get more specific advice. This would be better done on the article talk page where there are editors with knowledge of the subject, where you have already opened a discussion thread. Spinning Spark 10:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of where you continue the discussion, I do suggest scanning what you got via FOIA request, and posting it to Flickr or a similar website where other editors can also look at the document.

It's also an interesting question as to the likelihood of your finding a journalist interested in the variance between actual military records and what has been reported in the press; if there were to be, in the future, a story about the variance, then of course you'd have a secondary source. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the assistance. This is all very good advice. Oldbubblehead (talk) 08:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

moved page from sandbox to userspace, it copied sandbox history

I moved a template from my sandbox to userspace, and it copied the edit history of the sandbox to this template. The template is Template:Musa (acuminata × balbisiana). I request a history split to this page, and my sandbox, since that seems like the most practical solution. Thank you in advance for the help. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 10:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Done, although the correct venue for such requests is WP:RM/TR. Spinning Spark 11:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

What can I do in an edit war if the other editor doesn't want to do a RfC or enter into mediation

Hi there,

Coincidentally this has happened to me on two pages recently. Never come across this before (been editing since 2006), never even been involved in an edit war at all.

I've looked up dispute resolution but all the steps there depend on agreement between the editors to ask for assistance. What do you do when the other editor is sure they are right and don't want to engage in any of the official Wikipedia processes for resolution?

Dispute with Warren Platts

The first one is this one:

Talk:Concerns_for_an_early_Mars_sample_return

His version of the page is the main article: Concerns_for_an_early_Mars_sample_return

My version of the page is in my user space here: User:Robertinventor/Concerns_for_an_early_Mars_sample_return_new

It is a civilized enough discussion, but there seems to be no point of contact on how we want the article to appear. Neither of us is able to work with the other's version of the article, and he is not interested in RfC or dispute resolution. He just thinks he is right and that there is no need to ask for outside help.

As you will see from the history of the debate, it started when the other editor Warren Platts replaced my version of the main article page with his with no preliminary discussion just a notice to say he regarded the article as OR and so had changed it. I reverted it, and asked for discussion first but he wasn't interested.

After a couple of reverts I warned that it was an edit war but he continued to edit the main article. I worked on my own version in my own user space to avoid edit warring behaviour.

We engaged in extensive discussion of the issues on the talk page but are not getting any closer to resolution, and seem to have reached a complete impasse.

Warren Platts sees me as trying to edit wikipedia towards my own POV that there are people with concerns about a Mars Sample Return. I think it is basically the issue of an editor who has never before been involved in editing an article on a controversy who is under the impression that to do it with a NPOV means to remove any suggestion of bias or differing POVs. But of course he doesn't see iike that though I tried to explain.

His version of the page omits even most of the concerns raised by mission planers for NASA about a MSR addressed in their policy reviews. You would get the impression from the article that you could return a MSR to Earth today if you had the finance, which none of the published sources say.

He also doesn't seem to understand why anyone might think that his version of the article has editorial comment.

It is a civilized discussion. He just simply doesn't see why it is a matter for debate, or dispute resolution. He is not interested in my suggestions to attempt dispute resolution.

I am not against requests for comment nor dispute resolution nor nomination for deletion. BTW, my name is Warren Platts. Warren Platts (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, that is clear - thanks Warren Platts. If you agree to dispute resolution then, following the guidance at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE, you should try Wp:Third opinion. If you get no joy there, then enlisting the help of WP:SOLARSYSTEM would be the next step. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Great glad to hear it :). Sorry about the mis-spelling of your name, have fixed it.Robert Walker (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

"Sorry about the mis-spelling of your name, have fixed it." Nice strategic display of incompetence Robert... Warren Platts (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that too. Absolutely no intention I assure you, only noticed the misspelling in the title. Have fixed all the other ones now. Robert Walker (talk) 08:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Dispute with BatteryIncluded

Talk:Life_on_Mars#RfC:_Is_this_an_accurate_summary_of_the_research_on_cosmic_radiation_influx_on_the_Mars_surface.3F

It is a more straightforward matter, to do with how you interpret the published scientific research on the topic.

He doesn't want to discuss the issue with me any more even on the talk page and has not been able to explain his issue to me. His main point seems to be that as a mathematician I shouldn't be editing a section on biology, and can't understand the topic. But though it is not my subject that I trained in, I have a long term interest in the subject, have kept up to date, and read many of the recent research papers on it, and have no trouble at all discussing it with microbiologists friends outside of wikipedia including professors and lecturers in biology.

So I don't think it is really my understanding of biology that is the problem.. But he is not interested in RfC, or dispute resolution, he is just sure that I am wrong.

I tried a RfC as you see, but realise this is probably not appropriate when the other party is not interested in engaging in discussion or in comments on the dispute. It has probably made things worse if anything. I got one reply asking for information, and no opinions either way.

This is the first time in eight years of wikipedia editing that I've ever got involved in an edit war, or any kind of extended dispute over content, the nearest before was an AfD discussion about an article I wrote that was quickly decided in my favour.

If you're interested in looking into whether a particular research paper is reliable for Wikipedia purposes, you may be interested in the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. RfCs, as you may now know, aren't exactly the best place to take relatively undeveloped disputes between a couple or even a few editors. Hope that helps. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Origins of the Warren Platts dispute in an onlline forum

The Warren Platts dispute originated in several discussions at nasaspaceflight.com such as this one: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31914.0;all and has spilled over into wikiedia.

I expected opposition on that forum as (I knew already from previous discussions that many of the members are strong advocates of human spaceflight to the surface of Mars. Any need to be careful about contamination issues, or any suggestion of the presence of life on the Mars surface would seriously delay their main objective to land humans on the surface of Mars as soon as possible. As you see it got quite heated.

I don't know of any connection between the batteryincluded dispute and the ones in the nasapaceflight.com forums or anywhere else outside wikipedia.

Robert Walker (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Outside the scope of the project. We don't really care about people's off-wiki activities unless it's proof-positive of disruptive behavior, and even then it's been controversial. Honestly, we often don't even care about people's personal points of view; we care about bad editing, regardless of its origin. Speaking generally to this thread, I would advise you, Robert, to give WP:DUE a read, which discusses how Wikipedia should address multiple competing viewpoints, particularly in terms of relative prominence. Hope that helps. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Now at AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concerns for an early Mars sample return. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Guidance and Assistance Please

(1) I am User:Dr Lindsay B Yeates (which is my real name) in relation to the matter at hand, and I also have a long and reliable history (more that 10,000 edits) as User:Lindsay658 -- in relation to my other "non-academic" work.

(2) It appears as if User:Ronz has not understood the clear content of the messages at [2], [3], [4], [5]; and I base this upon what appears to me to be an entirely inappropriate (in the sense of speaking about some sets of entirely different circumstances) message at [6]. My dissertation is freely available to all and sundry at no cost. It is only available through the repository storage at the University of New South Wales. Therefore it is most definitely not "Spam". I was very strongly advised, by one more expert at Wiki than myself, to keep myself "at arms length" (and, by the way, such "keeping at arms length" also involved creating a new user name, such that I was not disguised in any way), and place the link within "Further Reading", rather than place it in the list of sources; and that is precisely what I have done. leaving aside the matter of whether or not the dissertation itself (which is a scholarly work) expresses opinions, a simple viewing of the appendices attached to the dissertation will reveal a whole host of important historical resources for editors that are, otherwise, unavailable (see [7]). How do I respond to this, in my view, mistaken intrusion by "Ronz", without causing offence -- when, to me, it seems that he has neither read, nor understood the content of (WP:HISTRS).

(3) In relation to [8], is there some way that "Anglicanus" can be warned about his language? (I am sure that I outrank him as a scholar, and I am also certain that I have made many more edits in a far wider range of articles over a far longer period of time, and after eight years study into his life and work, I'm absolutely certain that I know much more about Hugh M‘Neile). His "reasons" for edits are also rather offensive -- especially at a time when the article is clearly marked "Under Construction"

(4) Once more, in relation to [9], is there some way that a senior person can explain to "Anglicanus" that, given his alteration of the article's title, he also becomes responsible for reducing the "redirect" complexity generated by his change of the article's name.

(5) Please advise me about (2), and please ask some senior person to act, behind the scenes in relation to both (3) and (4). Dr Lindsay B Yeates (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no rule against linking to ones "own stuff" on Wikipedia, but many editors consider it poor etiquette to do so. There is no question that PhD theses are to be classed as reliable sources since, unlike a Masters dissertation, they have gone through a formal peer review process and are considered part of the scholarly body of work. In any case, WP:RS is not directly relevant here as you have not used the work as a source for any article. Conflict of interest is a relevant thing for editors to raise here. One can assign an importance and relevance to ones own stuff that is not seen by others. I am not saying that you are actually guilty of this, just that it is very difficult to make a clear judgement when one has an emotiional investment in the work. Without looking at detail into the issues or reading the articles, inserting the same thing into five different articles does seem to be excessive. There is probably a good case for James Braid (surgeon) since that is the subject of the thesis, and I note that that one has not been reverted. You can solve this problem quite simply by requesting on the article talk page that some other editor makes the change to the article. To attract independent editors to the page, for simple uncontroversial edits {{Request edit}} is available and for cases which may be disputed the WP:RFC process can be used. If an independent editor makes the change, this avoids entirely any accusation of COI. If no one will make the change you might want to consider the possibility that you are wrong. Spinning Spark 11:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your other request, this venue is not really intended for taking action on editor behaviour. There used to be a WP:Wikiquette notice board where such things could be reported but it has been closed down as counterproductive and now just redirects to the guideline. I do not consider anything you have linked to be serious enough to warrant administrative action (I am an administrator myself), not even a warning, and I would not recommend reporting to an administrator venue. I also note that your initial request to the editor was less than WP:AGF and more or less invited a bad tempered response. You could, for instance, have openened with "Have you noticed that some articles link to the old title?". That is, not assuming they have left them deliberately. In any case, your complaint to Anglicanus is pretty groundless. Linking via a redirect is not a problem per se, the reader still ends up in the right place, and there is no especial need to change them. Double redirects should be fixed since these break the link, but even if they are missed there is a bot that goes round fixing them automatically. Spinning Spark 11:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

"Spinning Spark", I accept your remarks on (3) and (4), and I stand corrected on my dealing with the matter; and, so, we'll leave it at that.Dr Lindsay B Yeates (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

@(2) The Hypnosis and History of hypnosis articles are far too general for the link to be included and I fail to see why an external biography of James Braid should be linked from the biography of Hugh M‘Neile or Charles Lafontaine. "Spam" can be an insulting word, especially if good-faith edits are labelled as such, but if a new account with an obvious COI adds the same link to multiple pages, the word comes to mind pretty quickly. I'd recommend that instead of using the link as an external link, use it as a reference to back up the unreferenced claims about James Braid in the M‘Neile and Lafontaine articles. If you insist on having your theses linked on all five pages, please post a comment on Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard and see what they think. jonkerz ♠talk 13:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

"Spinning Spark" and "Jonkerz", "Thanks" to both of you for your assistance; however, I feel that I need to explain to each of you that the situation, in relation to my dissertation, is a little different from how you have represented it. Firstly, it is not "a biography of James Braid"; it is an extremely detailed examination of the events of a nine month period that mark the birth of hypnotism (November 1841 to June 1842), and the boundary work that Braid was forced to perform.

There is a direct and very strong connexion with Lafontaine; because not only was it his (Braid's) visit to an "animal magnetism" demonstration given by Lafontaine in Manchester that set in train the events, experiments, etc. that resulted in Braid's discovery of "hypnotism" (BTW, "hypnotism" was the name given by Braid, and Braid, also, gave the name "suggestion" to the directions given to a subject who has been hypnotised), but there were a number of very heated disputes between Lafontaine and Braid that had very direct influence on Braid's practical and theoretical development of the set of practices that eventually (by June 1842) had become "hypnotism".

Both Lafontane and Braid were fiercely attacked by M'Neile; and Braid's published response to M'Neile has been characterized as “a work of the greatest significance in the history of hypnotism, and of utmost rarity”. And, of course, as a consequence of the forgoing, the events examined within the dissertation are of the utmost importance and the highest significance, not only to the articles on Braid, Lafontaine (to which I will perform some editing in the near future) and M'Neile, but also to the articles on Hypnosis and the History of Hypnosis.

Finally, in order to make my point unequivocally clear to you. My purpose is not to promote myself, or any of the ideas, etc. that I might, or might not have developed in body the dissertation itself (approx. 377 pages), it is to make available the extensive bibliography (of more than 1,500 items) and, especially, the otherwise hidden/unavailable/unknown source material that I unearthed/exhumed/discovered in the process of my research, which has been transcribed, corrected and annotated in the appendices to the dissertation (approx. another 450 pages), which amongst other significant source material includes:

Lafontaine’s (10 December 1841) statement attacking Braid;
Braid’s (28 December 1841) response to Lafontaine’s attack;
Braid’s (12 March 1842) Manchester Lecture, containing a response to Catlow’s attack;
The Liverpool Standard’s report of M’Neile’s “Satanic Agency and Mesmerism” sermon, plus “derivative accounts”;
The Macclesfield Courier’s (16 April 1842) report of Braid’s Macclesfield lecture;
The Published text of M’Neile’s “Satanic Agency and Mesmerism” sermon;
Braid’s published response to M’Neile’s sermon; and
Twelve other published responses to M’Neile’s sermon, etc.

All of which are not available separately; and are only available within the document lodged in the UNSW Repository.

The importance of these particular (never-examined-by-scholars) newspaper accounts is that they combine two things: (a) a reporter's account of what exactly took place (they were all public lectures or, in M‘Neile's case, a sermon delivered orally to a large congregation), with the additional text of precisely what was said that had been transcribed, in person, by a stenographer present at the time.

So, here's my question: Just to ensure that I have clearly understood your directions, am I permitted to use the following procedure. (using [10] to explain how I will do things):

(1) Place -- Yeates, L.B., James Braid: Surgeon, Gentleman Scientist, and Hypnotist, Ph.D. Dissertation, School of History and Philosophy of Science, Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences, University of New South Wales, January 2013. -- with the electronic link, in the section headed "Other sources".
(2) Have as note [71]: See Yeates (2013), pp.273-308.
(3) Add to note [73]: The text of the article is at Yeates (2013), pp.591-598.
(4) Add to note [74]: The text of the article is at Yeates (2013), pp.599-620.
(5) Add to note [75]: The text of the publication is at Yeates (2013), pp.621-670.
(6) Add to note [76]: The text of the publication is at Yeates (2013), pp.671-700.
(7) Have as note [77]: The texts of the responses are at Yeates (2013), pp.701-739.

I hope that this procedure meets your recommendations, sincerely Dr Lindsay B Yeates (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, freely available through the National Library of Australia's long thread of links to the UNSW Repository: [11]. Dr Lindsay B Yeates (talk) 03:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

No, this is not the right venue to decide the content of articles and we do not give permissions to make edits, only advice. The content should be decided in discussion on the talk page of the article concerned by consensus of the editors of that page. If after prolonged discussion consensus cannot be reached then one of the procedures explained at WP:DR may be used. You may also find WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle helpful. Spinning Spark 10:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand; and I thank you for your advice.Dr Lindsay B Yeates (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Avoiding redirection

Hi, first of all if this is not the page I should be requesting this then I'm sorry, but I do not know where I should be asking and I'd like to know where I should post things alike in the future. Could this template {{ru|FRG}} → West Germany link here Germany to avoid redirectioning in the same fashion templates like these {{fb|FRG}} or {{bk|FRG}} or {{fh|FRG}} ( West Germany, West Germany, West Germany respectively) all link me directly to Germany instead of West Germany? Thank you. Tibullus (talk) 02:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

You can get technical help on Wikipedia at WP:VPT. Spinning Spark 07:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You could post at Template talk:Country data West Germany; to make this work, that template needs an extra line defining "link alias-rugby union". That's a protected template, so I can't make the edit for you. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Revised Article on User Page

Hello Wiki Editors, I'm hoping to get clarification on a few things in regards to content I recently posted on my User Page. Upon suggestions from editors, the content was article revisions and new 3rd party links for my page guardNOW; my understanding was that by first testing out content on my User Page, it would lower the risk of deletion and allow me to receive help and feedback as I proceed - it seems that event this content was deleted. I posted it so I could have more experienced editors have a look at the new references (I have several others, but want to get an idea of which are best to use on my re-created page). This is the link to my Sandbox, if someone could take a minute to offer feedback/suggestions, it is much appreciated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zaid231/sandbox

Thank you for your time, Zaid231 (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The most helpful suggestion I can offer is to read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) - your 'private security company' stands no chance whatsoever of meeting the guidelines. Wikipedia is not a free advertising service. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not as agreed on delete. On an initial look, while many of the supplied references are patently promotional, there are a few more borderline ones. It might be enough to trigger WP:GNG, but I doubt it. As to the actual content of the draft, it's not good, and probably runs afoul of WP:NOT. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

What you have failed to mention is that you have had this article rejected at least five times at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/guardNOW to the point where administrators have deleted it and even locked the page. It has also been deleted from mainspace at GuardNOW. This article does not meet the very basic requirements of WP:42. It probably can't meet them, that is why it keeps getting rejected. Also please stop cross-posting at multiple notice boards, that is not a helpful thing to do. Spinning Spark 22:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Forumshopping if no opinion given on noticeboard?

Discussion moved

– Thread at WP:NORN. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully it's ok to ask this process question here, since didn't get response at WP:FORUM SHOP talk page (and only got one biased one per below elsewhere). Do find this an important issue to settle since some will go around doing this kind of WP:OR if allowed. (And I'm getting tempted myself!)

I put something that's probably more WP:OR/SYNTH on WP:BLN since it's in a bio. Obviously a mistake since no one answered except an involved editor who merely linked to the relevant talk page discussion. (Later I did add a couple things in a second section more directly BLP related).

When I asked at the BLP notice if it would be a problem to move the WP:OR section to WP:ORN, the editor of the questionable edit finally bothered to respond, merely linking to WP:FORUMSHOP. So is moving to another noticeboard if there is no response forum shopping? Thanks! CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 14:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

If you believe that there are multiple, independent reasons for you to do what you have done, then there's no reason to not list them at multiple noticeboards so long as you're careful to say at each one that it is pending at the other as well. That may cause your request to be declined or removed in some venues (e.g. most content dispute resolution venues will not accept a case if questions about it are pending elsewhere), but it certainly shouldn't cause you to be accused of forum shopping. It says as much at WP:FORUMSHOP: "Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct noticeboards may be reasonable, but in that case it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question." Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Sometimes you read things but given others objections think, well, maybe they're right anyway. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc: - Even if there is only one issue involved, and even if you pick exactly the right forum, it's perfectly fine - if you wait a couple of days and get no response from non-involved parties - to try elsewhere. As TM has stated, you then link to where you tried before, as in "I posted about this at [link to section of page], but got no independent response, so I'm bringing it here in the hopes that someone can help." This isn't forum-shopping because forum-shopping involves ignoring what is said at one place, and going elsewhere in hopes of a different answer, or (essentially the same) posting simultaneously at multiple places, planning to use the best response and ignore the others.

Finally, do keep in mind that unless there is some urgency, when there are multiple issues, it's normally better to post only about the most important problem, and see what happens. Often editors who get interested in that problem will deal with other issues at the same time, saving you from multiple posting - and saving editors who frequent multiple noticeboards from having to read the same request in multiple places. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Waiting another day and just on the WP:OR issue, the others being resolved. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 23:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I urge you to give a careful look at the two responses you've received here and then to consider the extent to which they apply to the facts concerning your actions at BLP and your next contemplated step. Reviewing the BLP thread just now, its clear to me that you did not present a well-formed policy-based question there. That may have been the reason for the lack of participation by onlookers there. Moreover, given the lack of a question, I think user:Srich, who is hardly a partisan or POV-pushing editor, gave you good advice to return to the talk page to pursue your concerns with the other involved editors. This was hardly a contentious dispute. SPECIFICO talk 03:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Given there's still no response on WP:BLPN on the WP:OR policy issue, also brought to WP:ORN. Thanks for your help. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 14:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

RFC needs outside comment.

See Talk:Sousveillance for an RFC on the use of a picture which needs outside comment. Any additional comments would be useful to prevent an edit war and help provide resolution. Thanks. --Jayron32 23:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Payza

The "criticism" section and advert template tag are repeatedly removed from Payza. I believe this action is by Payza staff as the article is written like an advertisement and edit comments suggest the criticism section has no evidence, despite citing seven different sources. Xmeltrut (talk) 07:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You need to open a discussion on the article talk page to resolve this. If necessary, start an RfC to attract additional comments. I would comment that several of the sources in the deleted section are blogs and forums. These are not normally considered reliable sources and will detract from your case. I would recommend limiting any future addition to unarguably reliable sources. Spinning Spark 08:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Spinningspark with respect to the criticism section; you need to start a discussion about its presence in the article and improve its sourcing. With respect to the advert tag, I agree that the article is somewhat troubling, and as such the tag may be merited... but frankly, since you're concerned about the article enough to post here, I would advise you to just be bold(!) and fix the advert language yourself. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Confusion over requesting deletion of image with multiple duplicates

I noticed that a user uploaded the same image twice to Wikipedia (File:Photo of Rick L. Weddle.jpg and File:Rick L. Weddle.jpg), as well as once to Commons (File:Photo of Rick Weddle.jpg). In my attempt to fix this, I requested speedy deletion of the first one here per F8, and the second one per F1 and F8. However, since the filenames here and at Commons are different, I was forced to use both db-f1 and db-f8 on the second one rather than db-multiple, because db-multiple assumes all filename parameters are the same. Was this the best way for me to do what I did? --71.199.125.210 (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The tagging is fine, but the first one has an incoming link which needs to be retargeted to the Commons file name before it can be deleted. Spinning Spark 00:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Help with Blackboard Inc. histmerge issue

Hello, I am looking for help with an issue that resulted from a histmerge a few weeks ago. I had created a draft version of the Blackboard Inc. article in my user space, where I worked on revising and updating the article. After discussing the changes with other editors, the draft was moved live to replace the then-current version of the Blackboard Inc. article. However, when this merge happened the original revision history of the article was replaced with the revision history from my user space.

Does someone here know how to restore the original revision history so that editors can see all the previous version of the article? I should note that my work on this article was as a paid consultant to Blackboard Inc., which was clearly disclosed to the editors who were involved in reviewing the draft.

I've tried following up with the administrator who moved my draft version live, but he says he doesn't know how to fix the issue, either. Can someone here help with this? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not possible to fully merge the two versions because they have overlapping histories in time. It was a bit of a blunder for User:DGG to delete the existing article since the history should be kept for licensing reasons. You should simply have pasted in your new version. The best I can do is restore the old history and move the history originating in your userspace to Talk:Blackboard Inc./Old history. Spinning Spark 15:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the update! You're right, it would have been easier without the histmerge. I think your compromise is the right one; the more important history is certainly the full history of the article over the years. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Need citation mystery help

Answered

– Question answered (no mystery about it at all), but user's underlying problem outside the scope of this noticeboard. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm way over my wiki time budget but have two added citations getting red error messages that I haven't been able to figure out what the Css is complaining over (the process/format used to work fine!). Cite#15-16 (?or 17- look for red! <G>)

15th is first here

If someone can fix those up, I'd appreciate it. I can be reached here if there is a time sensative question.

One possibility -- there are mediawiki '?' and '=' characters in the links... may be the issue?

//FrankB 20:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you see where the error messages at N3V Games#References say "Unknown parameter"? You have tried to use two parameters (|summary= and |Substantiation=) which are not known in that template. Simply remove them. Click on the message's "help" link for more information. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I used neither parameter, ... if you look at the source: url, date, title..., these were very basic cites, as the source is a wiki history and not going anywhere. Those are the interpretation of something being expanded by the scripting. Hence I asked for the help. I did add a caveat as a comment about the site being a login site, and that it goes down mid-day periodically. Are comments parsing wrong? // FrankB 13:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Those errors were introduced by this edit of yours, and were just removed by this edit of user Michael Bednarek.

If I might make two suggestions: 1) Where other editors are working on the same article it is often handier to raise questions like this on the article's talk page. 2) It often facilitates locating errors if you do your editing in smaller hunks, checking each one as you go. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Well thanks for the heads up, but it doesn't explain the problem. Did point out an irresponsible editor with delusions of grandeur... I certainly wouldn't ever hire. The edit in which it went away, was a revert of my whole edit. TRY AGAIN. The problem is still there as I just put the 5.706 characters back. I hate reverts but this brought the company history into the current decade, not abandoned it in 2007! So can anyone else figure why those cites fail?

Oh, as to the other point, that article has been all but dormant for a long time. I really really really don't care to invest the time I spent running some of that down, this kind of hack and slash attitude here is why I rarely contribute any more, but as I have since 2004, when an article needs content, sometimes I still do. This one did. It can still use more, but I don't have the time on THIS wiki when this kind of rape occurs to AGF edits so often. I'm much too old for endurance contests any more, but if this is the quality of editor you want, you all deserve the crap many articles have become. WP:MOS is far too regimented as applied by some people. WP:IAR has been forgotten all too often. The mission, is to deliver information. NOT be stylish. Too many young editors sans perspective of a longer life don't realize that they are handicapped by their own age. Have a good wiki, if you can keep it. // FrankB 03:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I have demonstrated the exact error message as seen before with this edit; I think that is a very clear demonstration. I think the underlying problem is that you are not happy editing on Wikipedia, and the fix for that is for you to find some more congenial activity. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Editorial help for new user.

I have begun my first contribution. As per advice I read in the wiki guidelines, I have created a draft page before submitting. I am on a steep learning curve with policies and format. I am hoping that some more experienced editors will lend me their knowledge and opinions before I go forward.

User:Yogijbrown/draft_article_on_Mark_Whitwell

Any helpful suggestions are appreciated. Thanks in advance. J. Brown 04:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of things, but the biggest issue, a showstopper, is that the article does not appear to establish the notability of the subject in reliable sources. I can give you my analysis of the sources if you desire, but right now I don't have time. Spinning Spark 19:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

retitle an article or add content for breadth

Resolved

– Nick Levinson (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to preclude an intense disagreement, so I'd like to know what is generally preferred across most of Wikipedia.

There are two articles, one on a specific subject and the other on a wider subject that summarizes the specific one. The wider-subject article is mostly nonsummary content. Both articles link to each other.

I'm planning to add new content on a related subject to one of the articles. Either article would be suitable, but I think some editors will object in one case and some editors will object in the other case. Between the following editorial choices, which is generally preferred in Wikipedia?

1. Add the new content to the specific-subject article, because it's within the article's scope, defined by the article's title.

2. Retitle the specific-subject article to make its scope narrower and to preclude or exclude the new content; and add the new content to the wider-subject article only.

3. Create a new, third, article for the new content (if notable) and retitle the old specific-subject article to narrow it to preclude an overlap of scopes. Right now, I don't know if I have enough for notability, although I do have enough for weight.

It's possible that the most frequent editors of the old specific-subject article will object to all of these solutions and won't propose an alternative that grows Wikipedia's content within policies and guidelines. What they're likeliest to accept is adding the content to the wider article and leaving the specific-subject article titled as it is, but that would result in the specific-subject article being titled to cover more than it does after the most frequent editors will have refused proper content for it, resulting in an impression among Wikipedia readers that no such content exists.

I have not identified any of the articles here because before I do that I'd rather explain why editorial work is needed and the present draft of that explanation is extensive; and a dispute before that posting may be harder to resolve.

I'd like what I propose to be closest to Wikipedia-wide consensus. I probably need to select one of the first two options. Consensus may change, but I try to stay within Wikipedia's norms. Does anyone here have any recommendations or thoughts?

Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone here have any recommendations or thoughts? Yes. Provide some specifics. Identify the articles and explain why you weren't satisfied with the discussion on the article talk pages. Msnicki (talk)

If you don't want advice on a specific article probably the best we can do is point you to some relevant guidelines: WP:Splitting, WP:Article titles, WP:Summary style, WP:Article size. Spinning Spark 17:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

When there was discussion at the article's talk page or in edit summaries, the content was deemed false, sources had not been identified except those already cited, and editors preferred not to discuss it further. I have more sources now but the refusal to discuss remains. Given the article's history, what I need is the norm across Wikipedia. I didn't find one though the links suggested, but I'll try again to see if I missed a sentence on point. Neither article in question is too long. This is a complicated issue. Maybe there isn't a norm, but I don't want to go to a dispute resolution forum if I can solve the problem without having a dispute. If you have ideas that apply generally to most articles, that would help. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

One partial answer was in the policy WP article titles (the Considering Title Changes section), which prefers that stable titles be kept or that the matter be referred to Wikipedia:Requested_moves, probably in preference to debating at an article's talk page. In this case, the article titles are stable, which means the proposed new topic should be added into the specific-subject article. Adding the content will probably be strongly objected to, but at least there's a policy to point to.

Another possibility is to create a subarticle of the specific-subject article under the WP summary style guideline, but I don't know if there is enough to support notability for a new subarticle, although there is enough for weight, and even if there is there may be a conflict over adding a summary paragraph into the specific-subject article. On the other hand, the guideline favors merging elsewhere rather than splitting, which discourages creating a subarticle.

The WP article size guideline and the WP Splitting information page didn't apply since neither of the articles is too long.

So I guess the norm by policy would be to add the content to the specific-subject article and not rename it, rather than to add the content to the wider-subject article and rename the other. Knowing a norm avoids having a method unique to one pair of articles that would make it an unjustifiable exception in Wikipedia. Thanks.

Nick Levinson (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Wrong photo in use

Hello, when a person Googles Helen Palmer Geisel, the photo of the blond woman wearing red is not Helen Palmer Geisel. HPG was Theodor "Dr. Seuss" Geisel's first wife. The photo of the blond woman is his second wife, Audrey Stone Dimond Geisel.

This is a terrible mistake as Ted Geisel walked out on first wife when she was ill and he consorted with the much younger, and incidentally married, Audrey Dimond. Helen ended up committing suicide in 1967 over their affair.

Please correct this mistake if you can.

Thank-you,

Shannon Lee Mannion [redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.38.210 (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not think that we can. The Wikipedia article Helen Palmer Geisel does not currently have a picture. As far as I can see, it has not had a picture for months, and probably years. If Google are showing a picture of the wrong person, then Google have something wrong at their end. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree that we cannot help on our end. Just a note about the algorithm used: it returns images on pages containing the text string, not only images of the person or object searched for. Thus we could search for Seuss and get covers of his books, his wives, movie posters, etc. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Please do not include contact details in your questions. We are unable to provide answers by any off-wiki medium and this page is highly visible across the internet. The details have been removed, but if you want them to be permanently removed from the page history, please email this address. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Posting of images with copyright watermarks

First of all let me say that I am bringing this here because I don't know how best to deal with it or even if it's something that needs to be dealt with. I'm not sure if the user I'm about to mention has done anything wrong. Note: I have not alerted the user to this posting because, like I said, I don't know if they've done anything wrong.

I have the article for Quincy Market on my watchlist. User Ingfbruno added an image which I didn't think had much to do with the Market. It's not a shot of the Market but of a couple of items for sale at some shop. Hardly representative of an entire marketplace. But I also noticed that the user had added their own watermark, complete with copyright symbol, to the image. This was the second image that they had added to the article. The first was much more appropriate in composition. Once I saw the copyright in the watermark though, I began looking at the editor's other images. They all have the same copyright. And there are quite a few images which have been added to many articles.

The user's username and the name on the photos are similar, so I believe the editor is the photographer. What I don't know is: Are images with watermarked copyright notices allowed here? Is this even a matter for en.wikipedia given that the images are on Commons? Should the editor be warned about trying to promote themselves? What, if anything, should be done?

Any help with this would be appreciated. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 03:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

An image's copyright status belongs on the image description page, not in the image. From Wikipedia:Image use policy: "Do not put credits in images themselves." "If you create an image that contains text, please also upload a version without any text." "Free images should not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use." From Commons:Watermarks "Adding your name directly to the photograph when uploading is strongly discouraged. It detracts from the quality of photographs, and generally the thumbnails used on pages are so small the text is not visible anyway." All of these images should be cropped to remove the copyright information.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Like Fuhghettaboutit said, visible tags or watermarks are strongly discouraged. Commons:Template:Watermark can be used to tag watermarked images (Commons:Template:Remove border would work too in this case), but asking the uploader to re-upload the images without the watermarks would be easier. There is a user warning template for this, Commons:Template:No watermarks, and other templates for self-promotion, but it's probably better to just talk to the user and link the Commons guideline without coming off as too WP:BITEY. jonkerz ♠talk 14:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) I have now tagged all of the images with the commons template {{watermark}} (Commons:Template:Watermark). I am uncomfortable that the user was not informed about this discussion. Any post about me anywhere on Wikipedia I expect to be brought to my attention, regardless of the its nature and so I do the same when I post about others. Since I've taken action on this, I am going to inform the user by pinging him. @Ingfbruno:--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Now that we have Wikipedia:Notifications it is only necessary to link the user name in a discussion and they will automatically be notified that they have been mentioned. Spinning Spark 16:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep, which is why I used the {{ping}} to inform the user in my post above. Notification won't work without a linked name, which is why the OP would not have resulted in the user getting a notification.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

My comment was intended for the OP. Spinning Spark 17:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Generally agree with what else has been said here with two qualifications: One, visible image credit watermarks may actually be violative of our CC-BY-SA attribution prominence obligations to people who contribute text to articles, so we shouldn't merely discourage them, they should be outright forbidden. Two, this should not be construed to forbid markings on an image that are an important part of the work itself, such as the artist's signature, or imperial seals impressed on the work as often seen in Chinese and other East Asian art. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

FIGJAM redirect maze

I stumbled upon a redirect/disambiguation maze featuring the acronym FIGJAM. A map:

FIGJAM, where we started originally...

There is one other incoming redirect to the disamb page: FigJam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The only other link on the disamb page goes to the article of a band that happens to have a non-notable single named Figjam. I'm not sure where to start fixing this mess. There is no actual FIGJAM article, although it's meaning is verifiable due to it being defined in external sources related to Phil Mickelson.

I considered the following actions, but wanted to discuss them first:

De-wikilink FIGJAM on the List of acronyms article.
Redirect all other FIGJAM page versions to the List of acronyms article.
Nominate FIGJAM (disambiguation) for deletion at MFD, as this will break incoming external links to the band's article.

Thanks in advance. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 23:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's what I'd love to see happen: Create an article called fig jam about the product, redirect FIGJAM, and the dab page to that, and put a dablink in the fig jam article that says "For the song, see [band article]". And yeah, lose the acronym entry and probably delete the acronym redir. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Steven Crowder

I am requesting that my own editing and discussion behavior be reviewed at Steven Crowder and its talk page in regards to JohnKAnderson. I am not requesting dispute resolution - I'm attempting to use some third party reviewers for that purpose in order to avoid putting this on the dispute resolution noticeboard. I'm simply trying to review my own conversational and editing behavior to see A) if I'm following guidelines correctly; and B) how I could handle the dispute better on my part. Thanks! 5minutes (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

So... nothing?5minutes (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not really the sort of thing we do here, do you have a specific question you want us to address? If you just want general comments you can ask for an editor review at WP:ER. Spinning Spark 21:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Really just trying to make sure that I've followed WP policies in terms of dealing with this user. If you can address that question, great. If not, then I'm happy to close this as something I misunderstood the purpose of. 5minutes (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Merging/Editing Page

Port Gamble, Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Port Gamble, Mill Town (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm trying to merge and edit the Port Gamble, Washington and Port Gamble, Mill Town pages because I work as the marketing coordinator for the company that owns the town and they want the pages to reflect accurate information. I read the articles and thought I was following what I was suppose to be doing but I'm being told that I'm not and I'm going to get blocked. I'm not trying to piss everyone off, I don't know website coding and I'm trying to read the articles and follow what's there but the edits are getting deleted. What do I need to do to merge and change the pages? Portgamble (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)portgamble

In this particular case it is not possible to merge the histories because they overlap in time. The usual procedure in such cases is to place a wikilink to the page where the source history is to be found in the edit summary of the edit to the target page that introduces the merged material. An edit summary like Merging material from Foobar. See Foobar for edit history will do. The source page must not be deleted (but in some cases it is moved out of mainspace) and a note should be left explaining that the page must be kept for licensing reasons.

However, I think you should be discussing this merge with other editors on the article talk page before going any further. There seems to be more objections to your attempted merge than just the issue of preserving editing history. Spinning Spark 23:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You also need to read WP:COI since you are not writing from a neutral point of view. You are strongly advised to to suggest edits on the talk page rather than make them directly in the article. You can use the template {{edit request}} to call the attention of a neutral editor to make the edit for you. Spinning Spark 00:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

François Truffaut's Fahrenheit 451 Wikipage

I have noticed in the first paragraph of the page that it mentions this as Truffaut's only English language film. This is not true he has made at least one other one that i know of called The Story of Adele H.

" This was Truffaut's first color film[4] as well as his only English-language film."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451_(1966_film)

--Jckinnck (talk) 06:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure that this is not L'Histoire d'Adèle H. dubbed into English? Our article says it won the National Board of Review Award for Best Foreign Language Film which leads me to believe that it is. See this page at IMdb which confirms the original title was French. As always with such claims you should first find a source that you can cite and then you can put it in the article. Or else raise the issue on the article talk page. Spinning Spark 13:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Theodore Lukits ‎

Theodore Lukits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ArtnHistory (talk · contribs)

I've already done some copy editing and cleaning up here, but am requesting assistance for several good reasons. I've been mopping up articles relating to California Impressionism, mostly in the wake of expansive edits by one contributor, and while a person could probably spend the summer on this, it's dispiriting, and could look like there's a personal agenda. Secondly, the indiscriminate laundry lists of exhibitions, references, etc, is indicative of the editor's style, but is especially inspiring in this article. I'm tempted to really carve, but believe it would be better to let others take the wheel. I've already done a lot, but suspect that beyond this article there's a lot more of this kind of thing that I haven't even looked at yet. JNW (talk) 02:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

I would ask for two things from an uninvolved editor. First, review Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 to see if the article has any problems with basic wikipedia policies (i.e. WP:NPOV). Second, review the talk page for the current disputes. Provide some thoughts on those dispute and proposal thoughts to move forward. Thank you for your time.Casprings (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Where to go when RfC violates WP:RS??

In an RfC a few weeks back 9 editors (brought in from some irrelevant wikiprojects) were for changing the main description of an economist to theorist, even though there was only one reference that he was a theorist (later deleted!) and seven that he was an economist. Six editors were against it. (He was a professor, author of economics books, but his biography did not have a lot on the academic credentials because no one had yet done the work. The RfC was started by an editor who intensely dislikes the bio subject the day after I promised to beef up the economics section!)

Where is the best place to go to appeal this reliable source policy violation? Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 19:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The best thing to do would be to provide us with some links to the article(s) and discussion(s) you are talking about. Other than that we can pnly suggest you star a discussion on the article talk page or with the editors concerned. If you feel your surmise is still the correct one , the best place to go is WP:DRN, but you could try looking in at the WP:Teahouse first. We don't resolve content disputes here. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Was just too burned out to think this AM. In this case, adding more WP:RS info and fighting attempts to delete it seems best option. Luckily others have noticed the brouhaha and are helping out. User:Carolmooredc 03:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Use of 4im warnings on vandalism-only accounts

Am I acting within policy to give a 4im warning for vandalism that is not exceptionally severe, but nevertheless is clearly bad faith, if the account is apparently a vandalism-only account? Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

That's fine as far as I am concerned. I would normally only expect to see a 4im warning to accounts that were on some kind of spree, not for just a one-off attack. Spinning Spark 21:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you're good. It's not about the severity of the vandalism (tbh, the more subtle vandalism can be much worse) so much as the good/bad faith of the edits and indications that the editor knows how things work here already. I mean, there's no point in giving a level-1 or -2 warning, both of which try to assume the editor is making a mistake or doesn't get that vandalism is bad here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. Just to clarify, the situation that brought this up was that a newly-created account replaced correct information with misinformation on an article, I 4im'd, they did it again, I went to AIV, and the report was declined for incorrectly warning the user, and the wording of {{AIV|4im}} seems to say what I did was incorrect. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

A lot of vandals go on a spree, it's often the way they start. It has to be stopped quickly if the edits are still arriving in guick succession. The correct way to do it is through an AIV report, but many admins only do superficial checks there. If fast action is required the best solution is probably to notify an admin direct Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment - This guideline is for designing the warnings, but it gives you a good idea of what each level is meant for. I know this question seemed to have already been answered, but that page helped me get an idea of what the numbers at the end of the template meant, so I figured I'd post it here in case it might help someone else as well. - Sudo Ghost 03:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The levels are recommendations/guidelines only. It's often possible, depending on the severity and/or older warnings to skip a level or start higher. AIV is a semi-automated process with a palette of template replies and cannot cover all eventualities.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Citing oral history or personal communications

I would like to create an article about Ernest J. Fawbush. As explained in Wikipedia's article on "Tornado Alley", Mr. Fawbush -- with his colleague Robert Miller -- was the first person to predict a tornado. Mr. Fawbush is dead, but his children (daughters) are still alive and I am in communication with them. Can I cite information provided by them?

I know that Wikipedia prefers printed documents as sources, but in this case, the best source of some information about Mr. Fawbush is his own family. If it is acceptable to use the statements of living witnesses, relatives, etc., how would Wikipedia prefer the information to be cited?

Cwkmail (talk) 05:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The short answer is no. Such information needs to be published somewhere before it can be cited. Personal communication cannot be verified and is therefore unacceptable as a reliable source. The only way I can think of getting around this is if the letters from the family were given to a library or museum (a university library perhaps). They could then be cited by their accession number. Even so, such sources are primary sources and should be used with caution. It is preferred that a secondary source is used that has made an assessment of the primary sources. Primary sources should be used only for basic facts (dates, residence etc), everything else should come from secondary sources. Spinning Spark 09:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

See WP:PUS#Personal communication and more generally WP:V (since personal communications are by nature previously unpublished). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

AHRQ Health Care Innovations Exchange

I tried to update the information on the AHRQ Health Care Innovations Exchange article but my edits were reverted. Full disclosure--I am the Web Content Manager who works on this project. All the content on the actual site is public domain material. The goal of the site is share innovative practices that improve quality of health care, increase patient safety, etc. I believe my edits improved this article by reducing some of the promotional language and providing categories of topics that users will find on the actual site. Is it possible to have my edits restored and/or provide guidance about how I can improve the article. I want to describe the government project without using marketing language that violates Wikipedia standards. I believe my last set of edits were a step in this direction. Should I be using the dispute resolution noticeboard. I am not trying to be confrontational but would like the ability to make edits to this page to make it more informative and current. FieldsTom (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Because of your conflict of interest, you should use the article's talk page to request changes to the article.--ukexpat (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

SUN Area Technical Institute

Revised Article for SUN Area Technical Institute I submitted an article for SUN Area Technical Institute which was "speedy deleted" on the grounds that it was promotional. User:Seraphimblade provided me with feedback and I have revised my article avoiding promotional wording and eliminating the descriptions of our program offerings and the so-called "laundry list" of credits and certifications. All of facts under "History" come from binders of old school board meeting minutes and district agreements. I understand there is a proper way to cite newspaper articles, but the other sources I'm not so sure about. I had originally scanned them and provided PDF's on our website however the school's director explicitly told me not to provide those documents online. Thanks so much for any help and criticism you can provide me. --Coffee ninja12 (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

If those documents were never published, they cannot be used as sources here. (This kind of meddling and interference by your director, by the way, is one reason we are so discouraging about conflict of interest editors here.) --Orange Mike | Talk 17:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm beginning to understand now. I have access to binders full of newspaper clippings all about the history of our school. Since those are published works that corroborate the facts I've laid out those would probably made better citations. I actually chose to use the legal documents (Articles of Agreement) because the newspaper articles read like opinion pieces themselves (small town reporters close to the subject matter, I suppose). Coffee ninja12 (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources not being available online is not a problem in itself, it is only necessary that they are available to others in some way. However, none of your sources are independant of the subject and therefore do not establish notability. This is the key criterion for inclusion at Wikipedia, see WP:42. Spinning Spark 17:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm going to attempt to locate newspaper articles from the time period that corroborate the details of the history section. Do you think revised article read appropriately? What I mean is by Wikipedia standards, is the article now read like a fact-based informative piece and not like a promo brochure? Coffee ninja12 (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a good deal better than it was. The main thing now will be those third-party reliable source references, since the article should be mostly based on those and use primary sources (such as the college's own site) only for supplementary and purely factual material.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraphimblade (talk • contribs) 05:40, 28 July 2013

Could I get you to take another look at my article? User:Coffee_ninja12/sandbox#Program_Offerings I went through years old newspaper articles about the school and was able to find lots of articles in the local paper of the time providing the same information that the internal legal documents did. Coffee ninja12 (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Article naming for computor software

Howdy, I'm looking to create an article about a mobile application that uses a common noun or verb for it's name. How should I title it so as to deal with disambiguation?

Bouncer
Bouncer (software)
Bouncer (mobile application)
Bouncer (mobile software)
Bouncer (computers)
Bouncer (program)

Looking around I could not find a naming convention that fit. Joe407 (talk) 09:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Using this search I found exactly three articles on mobile apps with disambiguated titles: NetBus (Mobile Application) , Burner (mobile application) and ClickHome (software). The last is more than just a mobile app, so software may work better for it, where it might not if it the topic was just a mobile app, as in the first two. It seems to me (mobile application) works well as it's perfectly descriptive (if on the slightly longish side) so I'd go with it. Do not, of course, capitalize the parenthetical disambiguator as in the first link; I'm going to go move that now). The name can always be changed later. Don't forget to list the page, once created, at bouncer. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I"m going with (mobile application) for now as I'm writing the draft and we'll see if it needs to get changed down the line. Joe407 (talk) 08:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Appropriate notification of editors on clear policy issues

I really could use some feedback on this Wikipedia_talk:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification_of_editors_on_clear_policy_issues so can figure out how many editors I can contact who in the past have explained policy to an editor on one article, when the editor goes on to yet another article and engages in the same policy violations. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 18:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Short answer: There's no hard-and-fast number. Honestly I don't know if notifying the editors who had previously given a warning is necessarily the right response. But it depends on the situation. If it's a sufficiently serious behavioral issue, asking the administrator community may be the only solution. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem, of course, is that there's no bright line test to distinguish what User:Carolmooredc characterizes as editors who have "explained policy" from editors who are simply on the other side of a content dispute. If there's a policy violation, it serves no purpose to canvass multiple editors to the article talk page. On the other hand, if there's a content dispute which has been mis-characterized as a policy violation (as User:Carolmooredc has recently done on various occasions) these contacts become a rationalization for stealth canvassing in favor of one or the other side in the content dispute. If it's a content dispute it belongs on the talk page. If it is a true policy violation, it belongs on the appropriate noticeboard. Canvassing is inappropriate in either case. SPECIFICO talk 03:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Check the user's talk page to see how many warning templates have been placed there (some may be in the archives or have been deleted, but can still be located in the talk page history). generally, each warned issue has four increments, after which, as Mendaliv states, ANI would be the next step. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Specifico: Obviously there is an exception for previously involved editors; your close collaborator User:Steeletrap often posts and one or two such individuals pages, at least ones who agree with him. My question is, how many people becomes canvassing? I guess if one just does the one or two editors who had the clearest opinion and are most likely to comment, it's ok.

User:Mendaliv, it does occur to me that if the repeated policy violations are sufficiently obvious and only a couple editors are asked to help, the worst that can happen is the offenders take you to ANI for canvassing where people pay more attention to the policy violations than the alleged canvassing. I've found sometimes being taken to a noticeboard gets you a better result than taking someone.

User:Kudpung, interesting idea. But you probably need a variety of editors doing it for good reason and not a couple with one POV who are just doing it to wikihound people.

Of course, if it's really repeated policy violations over article after article, RfC User is the answer. It's easier than having to bring up same issues on same people on same noticeboards to same outpouring of rationales that drown out the comments of uninvolved editors. User:Carolmooredc 04:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

QUOTE: User:Specifico: Obviously there is an exception for previously involved editors; your close collaborator User:Steeletrap often posts and one or two such individuals pages, at least ones who agree with him. My question is, how many people becomes canvassing? I guess if one just does the one or two editors who had the clearest opinion and are most likely to comment, it's ok.

If you wish to discuss Steeletrap, please address your comment to her directly. Please cite policy and content for which you say "obviously there is an exception.." Canvassing is not about a numerical limit. It's about selecting those notified for their likely opinion. Your surmise that one should select "the one or two editors who had the clearest opinion..." doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the policy. SPECIFICO talk 16:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO: I come here to get neutral opinions on very general questions, not to have you follow me everywhere I go to start an ongoing debate about the specifics of editing of you and your self-styled colleague. I already had to warn you once about wikihounding and take you once to [WP:ANI about it. please stop. User:Carolmooredc 22:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Stop the namecalling please. I suggest you give a careful review to WP:HOUND which you frequently bring up without justification. As you know, your allegations were rejected at ANI. SPECIFICO talk 23:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I think people can read ANIs for themselves and get the point. But enough off topic discussion, if I may be allowed to get a response from an uninvolved editor without disruption. Meanwhile I'll go by the one uninvolved editor's explicit and relevant response above. User:Carolmooredc 21:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

To answer the general question, there's no hard and fast magic number. If it involves a content dispute, it's probably better to involve dispute resolution with previously uninvolved editors to get a fresh perspective, and contacting only the people who agreed with you previously is likely to be seen as canvassing, itself a violation of policy. It also may be that the situation at the second article is different from the first one and consensus may form differently there. If it's a clear-cut policy violation requiring intervention (vandalism, personal attacks, spamming, edit warring, etc.), notify admins at the appropriate venue, noting that the editor was previously warned for the misbehavior. Without a specific example, it's hard to say what specifically would be appropriate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm specifically thinking of RfCs where an editor a couple time has notified three people who may have been at the page before and happened to agree with them - I put a canvassed tag on the individuals but several people were mad. But I know if I alerted people similarly, there'd be a big brouhaha. I guess one has to use one's best judgement. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 17:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikilink to foreign language WP

There is mention in an article of an individual whose English WP article has been deleted because the individual was not considered notable in his field. If that individual is mentioned in the text of a different English WP article, is it permitted, encouraged, or discouraged to wikilink to an article about that individual in a foreign language WP? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

See Help:Interlanguage links. Specifically the Inline Links section. Dismas|^(talk) 00:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. SPECIFICO talk 00:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Open access journal versus open-access journal

Not sure this is the right venue, but I am having difficulties deciding what WP:HYPHEN means for open access journal versus open-access journal. These pages have been moved several times in the last few years and some stability would be good. Note that many organizations and initiatives outside WP use the form without a hyphen (e.g., Directory of Open Access Journals, Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities, Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing, Budapest Open Access Initiative, Global Open Access Forum, Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, Registry of Open Access Repositories, Social Science Open Access Repository). Any advice here or (perhaps preferably) on Talk:open-access journal would be welcome. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

My reading of the hyphen stuff suggests that now that it's a fairly well defined concept, we should drop the hyphen as others have. Just my 2 cents. I didn't see a section there, but if one opens feel free to move my comment. a13ean (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with a13ean (unsurprisingly, since I'm the person who most recently moved the page to open access journal). It's well defined now to use the phrase without the hyphen. Randykitty has created a section on the talk page of the article now, I'm also happy for this comment/conversation to be moved there. Lawsonstu (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

K. Michelle

After the never-ending back-and-forth about K. Michelle's age, I was able to find two sources verifying her age that I believe are pretty legit - a school yearbook archived by the University of Florida and a reprint of the university newspaper. Not only do people keep rolling her age back, now they're deleting the links as well. Assistance would be nice. LoomisSimmons (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It would help us to answer if you provided diffs of the edits you are talking about. However, we do not resolve content disputes on this page. Have you tried discussing with the other editors involved? I see you made a post on the article talk page in July, but you could also post to editor's directly on their talk pages asking them to respond at the article talk. Spinning Spark 23:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what I'm supposed to be linking to in regard to the diffs, but here is the last one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=K._Michelle&diff=568116362&oldid=567723338

And it keeps happening. No reason, no alternate sources...just a silly attempt to make someone younger than they are. I have no intention of being the gatekeeper of this page, so if this is the wrong place to get this settled, where is the right place? LoomisSimmons (talk) 01:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I repeat, your first move in any dispute should be to do your best to generate dialogue on the article talk page. Are all the similar edits by IPs or unconfirmed accounts? If so, you can request page protection. You should also take note of what WP:BLP has to say about birth dates: on the matter of primary sources; "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth...", and "With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year." Spinning Spark 03:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Since when has a newspaper or a yearbook been a public record? If this was a police report or a driver's license, that point would be legit. Nevertheless, you've answered my question. Thanks! LoomisSimmons (talk) 06:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say it was. I'm just pointing you to what policy has to say on the matter of birth dates. Although, it is dubious whether a yearbook by itself is covered by BLP's "widely published". Attempts to hide true age frequently originate from someone associated with the subject or the subject themselves and this needs to be borne in mind when dealing with them. Spinning Spark 08:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I discussed with someone on this request — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.190.16.37 (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Steven Snyder Patent Citation Hyperlink

To whom it may concern,

I have been trying to correct a link on Steven Snyder's Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Snyder) within a patent template for some time now but have failed to do so.

If you look at the References section, the correct patent citation for this format doesn't allow you to insert an appropriate hyperlink for the patent in question. Instead, it generates a link from the Espacenet Database based on the information inputted. Unfortunately, I can't find the correct patent on this database, even though I can find it on the USPTO and PTO Direct (http://www.ptodirect.com/Results/Patents?query=PN/D392266). No matter what changes I made to the citation, the link still remains broken.

If you could please help me resolve the situation, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Richard

RMRicondo (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

You might get better help at template talk:citation or WP:VPT. Personally, I tend not to use citation templates because of these kind of problems. Citations are simple enough to format manually. Spinning Spark 07:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

problem with {{cite web}} on Carrière des Nerviens Regional Nature Reserve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, I've entered in my page a <ref>{{Harvnb}}</ref>. When I click on it, it correctly returns the reference. But when I click on the reference, it does not refer to the bibliography. Would you help me please. Thank's. Christian COGNEAUX (talk) 09:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Done corrected with |ref=. Christian COGNEAUX (talk) 10:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Warn and block user

Please warn and block user 83.109.148.70 for several disruptive edits. See the users talk page for a list. User talk:83.109.148.70 --BIL (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Please report vandalism at WP:AIV.--ukexpat (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

ESL editors?

Hi. Quick question: are there any policies or guidelines relating to editors who have English as a second language? Vashti (talk) 01:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

If you are looking for policies or guidelines that limit the contribution of non-native speakers in some way, then no, there is no such policy. Non-native speakers are positively welcomed, see Wikipedia:Speakers of other languages. However, if there is a WP:COMPETENCE issue then policy may come into play if the editing is so poor as to become disruptive despite being good faith. Spinning Spark 08:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a good idea to suggest nicely to editors whose English may be below an acceptable level, to make their edits in their sandbox and ask someone to polish it up before it goes to mainspace. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a WP:COMPETENCE issue. I'm completely on board with non-native speakers making edits and I'm happy to clean them up, but this was a little less constructive. Thanks! Vashti (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

As a final resort you can take it to WP:ANB but it needs to be a pretty bad case of disruption over an extended period. You should first try discussing with the editor; as appropriate, attempt to persuade them not to edit where they have no competence, to seek mentoring, to run edits past someone else first, or to use article talk pages. Spinning Spark 17:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

DESTINY'S CHILD

MY NAME IS MICHAEL ALFORD I CREATED THE NAMESAKE DESTINY'S CHILD. TRADE MARK OFFICE HAS A FILE ONLINE WHERE I FILED A PETITION TO CANCEL. MATHEW KNOWLES VS. MICHAEL ALFORD. THE SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN WIKI-PEDIA POST WHEN YOU SEARCH DESTINY'S CHILD. THANK YOU SPIDERMANCOMTELBEY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spidermancomtelbey (talk • contribs) 14:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Anyone can file a petition. Unless this has been discussed in published third-party reliable sources it is on no relevance to Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

editors 'claiming' to be professors to assert control over other editors: comments please?

Hello. Could you please tell me what is Wikipedia's policy on editors who constantly assert/claim they are professors etc so as to try and assert authority/control over other editors? I mean 'anyone,' can claim to be a professor, of 'anything' on Wikipedia. If all editors did that where would things be at?

Two editors, iss246 and psyc12, continuously make these claims (false or true) on the occupational health psychology talk page. And I have had enough. The opinions/comments/suggestions of more experienced editors would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I just waded through that whole talk page and I see 1 (one) instance where 1 (one) of the two editors you are complaining about claims to be a professor. I don't see any instance where they attempt to use this to "assert authority/control over other editors". I would strongly recommend that you start listening to WhatamIdoing and start concentrating on sources and such, instead of continuing the highly emotional discussions on that talk page. --Randykitty (talk) 06:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I have been looking at the edit history of this article and I have to say that some of your edits are very troubling. This one], for example. A professional society is not a "club", their newsletters are generally considered reliable sources, not "self published". I would recommend that you familiarize yourself more with WP policies and guidelines before continuing editing that particular article. --Randykitty (talk) 06:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171 needs to chill out and grow up. It appears one of the other editors is, in fact, a professor, who displays professional competency and demeanor. That is hardly "asserting control", as Mrm7171 asserts, and who seems broadly clueless. WhatamIdoing has given him some advice, but I suspect he needs across the board mentoring. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Sethi

Hello, since I am new to wikipedia,I don't know much about it. Previous day, i was reading an article named "sethi" which is basically a caste of our region. There was some information that violated the religion's caste. When i tried to edit it, some use "Vigyani" and l "tsigma bo" put a lock. So i request you to please make that article available for editing and reviewing. It will be your gesture towards the new users joining to wikipedia. ATHANKS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devil badshah (talk • contribs) 05:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, the article will not be unprotected at this point. There have been many changes to the article without verifiable sources. You should use the talk page and discuss the changes you feel should be made. Whne you do please provide reliable sources so others can verify the information. GB fan 16:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Moro National Liberation Front

The article on Moro National Liberation Front appears to me to be heavily biased, and the most frequent editor identifies as MNLF Director for Advocacy and Special Projects.

I submit that there is a conflict of interest when any organization is allowed to maintain a wikipedia article about itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.187.153 (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You are free to clean up any COI that exists in the article yourself. There is only really a problem if the article is not accurate and neutral or the COI editor attempts to edit war their point of view in or prevent others from editing. If you think there is a problem you should discuss first with the editor involved. If progress cannot be made you can report to WP:COIN. Spinning Spark 22:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

stonehenge

have ayone considered that stonehenge might once have had a roof and is there any computer simulations or graphics of it regards deon cloete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.23.21.242 (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Your question would be more appropriate at WP:Reference Desk. This page is for assisting with editing. Spinning Spark 22:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio in article

Please see Talk:Central Bank of Chile. ChickenFalls (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Why? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

As the heading says - the article has copyright violation, with copied text from the Central Bank's website. I'm not sure what to do with the article. 06:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChickenFalls (talk • contribs)

Copyright violations should always be removed. See WP:DCV for how to proceed. If it is all copyvio and cannot be reverted to a previous clean version then nominate it for speedy deletion with {{db-copyvio}}. Spinning Spark 07:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Is the talk page not adequate for dealing with this matter? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Not if the article needs deleteting or revision deleting. Administrators need to be alerted to do this either through tagging the article or reporting at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Spinning Spark 22:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

For sure. But not an editing problem. At any rate, ChickenFalls seems to have deleted the copied text, and no one else has complained, so that appears to be settled. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

We don't necessarily resolve copyvio problems on this page but it is fine for editors to ask where to get help, where to find the applicable policies, and what the guidelines and procedures are. That is just the kind of editing help this page was designed for. Spinning Spark 20:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

inappropriate material written on Ford Mustang page

Hi, I was reading something about For Mustang and this is how the page starts:

Ford Mustang

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No one like you. You have no friends. Go back the the faggot land ans suck your dads didck

The Ford mustang has the biggest ball u can ever find but they are not bigger than mine. is the worst car neither does darnell you could ever drive. garret has no dick is an automobile manufactured by the Ford Motor Company. It was initially based on............

When i enter the edit page, all the inappropriate stuff disappear! can you help fixing this page and let me know why the stuff was disappearing from the edit page? thanks

ETT of life

Cluebot has reverted (~~though not to a clean version - have done so manually~~) Will leave a note on poster's talk-page, and assume this is now done with. Haploidavey (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Paddle board yoga

Would someone mind taking a look at this article? I'd reverted when some particularly questionable material got introduced, which was subsequently reverted again without comment, and had a third (and more established) editor step in and expand somewhat. I'm not going to revert again without getting outside input. Thanks in advance! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely terrible article which needs stubbing. A lot of promotional stuff for paddle board yoga and some (uncited) history of yoga, but very little encyclopaedic information on what paddle board yoga actually is. I have placed some stronger warnings on the user's talk page for repeatedly removing maintenance templates for a start, but also for edit warring which is pretty much what this user is doing in a WP:OWN way. I was also tempted to remove the list of celebrities in the article who supposedly have taken up pby but referenced only to a Youtube promo video. Not only is that not particularly relevant to an encyclopaedia article but could also be seen as a breach of the WP:BLP policy. However, I am going to avoid becoming involved in this article as I suspect that administrative action is going to be needed with this editor. The article is on my watchlist now. Spinning Spark 09:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Help Editing Article

Hi,

I have been working on an article for over a month now, and I finally feel semi-comfortable submitting it.

However I am looking for an editor who is willing to look over the article & it's references before I submit it.

If you can be of assistance I greatly appreciate it.

71.166.175.90 (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

You need to provide us with a link to the article before we can comment on it. If you are not ready to post it to mainspace, you can submit it at Articles for creation if you have not already done so. Spinning Spark 09:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

How to fix language link?

Canik Başarı University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wikidata:Q13573451

I tried to fix the link (removed it and added again) from the English article to go to the Turkish "Canik Başarı Üniversitesi" but cannot work out why it is still pointing to the wrong page. The Turkish article links correctly to the English one at Canik Başarı University.

Any idea how I can fix it? How can we see what went wrong e.g. there a log somewhere to see how it got pointed wrongly to "Vakıf" in the first place? Jzlcdh (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The usual fix for this kind of problem is to purge the page and clear your browser cache, but that doesn't seem to work in this case. Language links nowadays are taken care of through the Wikidata: project, not locally on Wikipedia. I suggest that you raise the problem there, it might be a software bug. There is a community page at Wikidata:Project chat. Spinning Spark 22:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that d:Wikidata:Project chat is the place to report this. It looks like someone already tried deleting and restoring the Turkish link from the Wikidata item, and that didn't help. EdJohnston (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It was the OP that did that, as they said in their post above. Spinning Spark 01:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I opened the topic: d:Wikidata:Project Chat#en:Canik Başarı University--Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Bolding subtitles in the lead of an article

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Bolding subtitles about the question whether subtitles of academic journals that are not part of the article title should be bolded in the lead. Not many people have participated in this discussion yet, so more input from editors here is welcome. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Please review

Please go through the article on "Rajesh Touchriver", now re-written using the format of a contemporary of his, Shaji N Karun on the wiki page. Please advise if the tags can be removed. Thank you. Shepherdson7 (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC) Shepherdson7

I note that you had already removed the WP:COI tag before asking here if it is ok to remove it so your request is meaningless. You also reverted in a combative way the editor who removed perceived COI material. The correct thing to do before asking for third party help is (a) stop the combat in the article which is against our WP:EDITWAR policy and (b) open a discussion on the article talk page to thrash out the issues with other involved editors. I see you are also at war with XLinkBot who removed a link to YouTube. The YouTube film is not a suitable reference for the sentence to which it is attached. The text gives an opinion about the film. The film itself does not constitute a reliable source for this opinion and should not be cited as a reference (although it might serve as an external link provided it is not violating the film's copyright). Wikipedia does not give opinions of its own, but we may report opinions of reliable sources as long as they are attributed and not stated as fact. Spinning Spark 16:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Spinningspark. Will be a lot more careful about these the next time as these weren't intentional. Have revised it to make it comply better.Shepherdson7 (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)Shepherdson7

Creation of Joe Hollywood

Answered

– Editor directed to the appropriate fora for such a request. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Actor/Reality Tv actor/Internet Celebrity, please create this article. IMDb article - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5647420/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.52.173 (talk) 05:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You are probably looking for Wikipedia:Requested articles or you might want to submit an article at WP:Articles for creation. Spinning Spark 10:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Logo for Williams Chicken

Answered

– Article deleted. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

Can so one put the logo up of Williams Chicken on the page for me http://www.logosdatabase.com/logoimages/77290400.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indoorsoccer (talk • contribs) 21:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The article was deleted per WP:CSD#A7. There's no reason to upload an image for a deleted article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

False info on Benjamin Franklin

Answered

– Does not seem to be a problem in the article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin was not the 6th president of the United States. He was never a president, someone is screwing around in his page. Can you remove this false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.244.36.228 (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

He was not president of the United States, no, but he was president of Pennsylvania and that's what the article says - JohnInDC (talk) 23:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The Sandbox page

Resolved

– Resolved per OP. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I created an article (Pierce Penniless) using my Sandbox, but now I want to clear my Sandbox to create another article, but the sandbox seems to contain the first article and I don't want to erase the article itself, just the sandbox. If anyone could help me with this or advise, I'd appreciate it very much. Thanks.DocFido (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

All you have to do is go to User:DocFido/sandbox, and remove the redirection code that's in there, replacing it with whatever you want to write. Note: when you click on the wikilink, it will take you to Pierce; you have to click on the little blue link where it says, "redirected from User:DocFido/sandbox to get to the redirected sandbox. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Orangemike. If you want, you can just follow the link below, and it'll achieve the same result:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DocFido/sandbox&action=edit

Hope this helps. PhilKnight (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, everyone -- now I know.DocFido (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Burzynski Clinic

Answered

– Editor directed to discuss this matter at Talk:Burzynski Clinic. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I just finished reading the Wikipedia exposé on Dr. Burzynski's ANP treatment. I have several questions:

Your article cites the Cancer Is Serious Business movie as “one sided and biased”...I failed to see any argument in favor of ANP and/or Dr. Burzynski's successes....has he had any? How has he been able to withstand years of being indicted by the FDA and still be in business? Why am I in touch with several people who have had success with ANP, and why are there patients who particpated in Phase III Clinical Trials prior to 2012 still allowed (by the FDA) to have access to ANP therapy. Most importantly, if these patients (Bay Area's Noah Stout for one) are still alive because they were allowed access to ANP therapy, why hasn't that been reported?

I'm not interested in politics or conspiracy theories....just appreciate a "level playing field!"

Thank you,

David Lauser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlauser (talk • contribs) 06:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The place to address this is not here, but at Talk:Burzynski_Clinic. I suggest that you read our guidelines on reliable sources for medical articles; and remember that the plural of anecdote is not data. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Are the additions of the image and image caption parameters to the company infobox correct?

Answered

– Editor advised to discuss at the template talk page. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that in the company infobox, image and image caption parameters had been added. Should this be reverted? Please advise. Aeroplanepics0112 (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest discussing this issue at Template talk:Infobox company#Adding an image, where the change was requested and recently accepted. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Misnamed articles

Resolved

– Resolved per OP. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

An editor has created two articles (List of Wisconsin Historical Markers in Kewaunee County and List of Wisconsin Historical Markers in Brown County) that are misnamed. Wisconsin Historical Markers are official markers placed by the Wisconsin Historical Society. Only one of the seven markers listed in the two articles is a Wisconsin Historical Marker. (See [12] for an official list.) Therefore, the articles should be renamed "List of historical markers in Kewaunee/Brown County, Wisconsin". How can this be accomplished? 70.235.84.220 (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I've now fixed these for you, but to answer you question, for future reference, the correct place to make such requests is at WP:Requested moves. Spinning Spark 20:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but except for the capitalization, they look the same to me. Guess I'll have to go to WP:Requested moves. 70.134.229.252 (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was only the capitalisation that was an issue. I didn't read carefully enough. I'll fix it again now. Spinning Spark 21:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks good. 70.134.229.252 (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Juan Dominguez (lawyer)

Answered

– Anonymous editor blocked for edit warring, article revised substantially. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Various anonymous editors from 198.185.18.207 and 38.98.37.10 have contested that the information on Juan Dominguez (lawyer), a BLP article, is not NPOV and against wikipedia policy. They have continually deleted content on the article stating that J. Dominguez was accused of attorney fraud and resulting in the legal case being dismissed. The anonymous editor continue to insist upon deleting the section. In fact, they previously replaced it with a blurb stating ONLY that they have awarded millons of dollars on his behalf, which does not appear possible since the verdicts were terminated. For me this borders on an attempt to whitewash a BLP article that is completely in-line with Wikipedia:Core content policies. I would really appreciate help on this. Jeanpetr (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the first sentence: "... distinguished bi-lingual Los Angeles-based attorney with one of the most well-known and successful personal injury and consumer rights law practices in Southern California." This article requires an overhaul. Holy moley. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. It also consistently refers to "Juan", instead of "Dominguez". I've tagged it for cleanup but am too busy myself for this. Hope someone will jump in. --Randykitty (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick feedback, any help would be greatly appreciated. It's a bit tough going against multiple anoymous editors who try to push their POV while accusing you of POV. The article definitely needs a massive overhaul, in ALL areas. Jeanpetr (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Question before we continue more: Is this fellow even notable? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

He's notable enough. In fact, there is an entire documentary on his lead in Tellez v. Dole called Bananas!*. This was how I actually started becoming involved in the article since, while what was shown in the doc was interesting, the case revealed that neither "side" was completly clean. Jeanpetr (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I dunno. The documentary seems to be about the case, not about this fellow himself. But I'll take your word for it for the time being. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

He was a rather promenant part of the documentary, to say the least. You can see him everywhere throughout the trailer, many many times. Jeanpetr (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I would argue that this was the case that made him publicly visible. Jeanpetr (talk) 15:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Notability does not revolve around how many times he appears in the trailer. That, by itself, does not make him notable. If the documentary focused on him, at least for part of it, then that might count as one reliable source, but more would still be needed. However, WP:ONEEVENT might apply here, meaning it would be better to have an article on the Tellez v. Dole case than on one of the lawyers involved. Spinning Spark 07:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

This, basically. While Dominguez does seem to have some relevance outside Tellez, I think this all needs to be carefully vetted. The awards, the verdicts and settlements, for instance, need to be checked for significance, because I think these are the only other source of notability for Dominguez. And honestly, I would argue the verdicts/settlements are not intrinsically indicators of notability from a Wikipedia sense—if there's significant coverage of those verdicts/settlements, that's something else. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I've been editing this article to streamline it and make other improvements, but I have no particular investment in it and do not object to any thoughts re deleting, merging or recasting it. JohnInDC (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I had a quick look through, but no more - but my initial reaction is that he appears notable for the Bananas! scandal, and not a lot else, which would make him a WP:BLP1E - it's not like he's gone out of his way to be a celebrity lawyer or anything, and he probably didn't jump up and down with delight at the thought of being in the movie - and eligible for deleting or redirecting elsewhere. One other quick question - "He has been named a 'Super Lawyer'" - so what? Can somebody clarify if superlawyers.com is actually a reliable source, or is it just a directory of any old lawyer who happens to be asked to be put in? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it's somewhere in between, but for Wikipedia purposes, it seems closer to the latter. From their FAQ:

A lawyer on our list is not a “Super Lawyer,” or, for that matter, a “Rising Star.” Rather, proper usage would be he or she “has been selected for inclusion in Super Lawyers–Rising Stars Edition 2008.” Used properly, the term is not descriptive, comparative or self-aggrandizing (which in some jurisdictions could raise ethical concerns).

So we probably shouldn't even be using the language "He has been named a “Super Lawyer” for four years". Given the difficult nature of addressing this factoid in a NPOV fashion, I argue we shouldn't mention it at all, nor consider it an indicator of notability. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's a little more on Super Lawyers' process, for what it's worth. Selection Process. So, it probably isn't bunkum, but I don't think we should be going with "He's in Super Lawyers" as an indicator of notability. Perhaps if he was featured in an article in Super Lawyers, that would be something else... but anything short would seem not to be "significant coverage" in the WP:GNG sense. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe this issue is still ongoing; the possibly COI-afflicted editor has blanked the section on Tellez v. Dole claiming a consensus existed for it on the talk page. I don't believe this is correct, and furthermore, the Tellez v. Dole case would seem to be the only matter that makes this subject notable. Further input would be welcomed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Peter and Puddie Watts

Request unclear

– Reason for request not specified, and OP has not responded in over 2 weeks.

Good Afternoon,

My name is Puddie Watts, I am the widow of Peter Anthony Watts. I would like to speak with you regarding misinformation on our page. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by PuddieWatts (talk • contribs) 22:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

This request evidently refers to Peter Watts (road manager), given that's the only Peter Watts we have who's confirmed deceased, and who apparently was married to Puddie at some point. The nature of this request is unclear, however. There's been no edits to the talk page, and no recent edits that seem to be contested. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Puddie, Peter is one of the unsung heroes of Pink Floyd and he's immortalised in the back cover of Ummagumma, and we have an active project Wikipedia:WikiProject Pink Floyd that deals with articles related to this subject. Quickly looking at the article, there are a few possibly contentious things such as the cause of his death or the nature of his divorce. I have a copy of Nick Mason's autobiography which goes into Peter's role with the band in some detail which might be able to balance things out. Drop me a note and see what I'll do to clear things up. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a serious concern . Please look into this matter .

Resolved

– Taken to WP:ANI and already closed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

This Is Not A Personal Attack

This is to inform you that an admin/editor on Wikipedia is constantly involved in heinous activities, such as edit wars, disruptive editing and removal of perfectly referenced information from large number of page. This is a serious concern and i need to know a solution to this . Please guide me to a solution . Is there any way i can complain about this admin/editor?

His name is "TheRedPenOfDoom". This is a link to his talk page -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom. There are a number of warnings on his talk page, including a few serious warnings too . He does not reply to most of them and continues his disruptive editing. If he replies, he does that in an objectionable language.

See this - Finished reading Wiki Guidelines[edit]

I have finished reading the Wiki guidelines and I will be keeping a close watch on all your edits to make sure you are not involved in any war edits as a subject you might even be blocked. I saw someone pointing out that you were involved in an edit war. I am assuming good faith in you and hope you do not take part in any edit wars. Thanks Marcelrios (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC) I discovered that you made some recent changes on prankvsprank, making a few changes. I am still waiting to hear from the website about the reliability of the article so that there is no biased POV here. I suggest that you look into Wikipedia:Systemic bias before you continue with your edits on Wikipedia. Marcelrios (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

-huh wah the fuck does Systemic Bias have to do with PvP? Have YOU actually read that? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

If you go to his talk page, you will find a lot more . Thank You . Please leave a reply.Save Wikipedia!--1.38.22.125 (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Ceci n'est pas une attaque personnelle. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I was quite amazed to have seen someone use such abusive language. I even warned him about Wikipedia:Civility and he removed my warning from his page. I do not expect a Wikipedia editor to use such language. I would rather refrain from using any language that hurts other editors. I am new to editing on Wikipedia pages and I really am looking for someone to step in and handle such harsh behavior. Thanks Marcelrios (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI is the board to discuss user behaviour. However, you should ensure your own behaviour is also acceptable before filing a report, as it may also be scrutinised during the discussion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Me nor any other editors used any abusive language against the editor. I only warned him not to partake in any edit wars. He could have used a soft tone using Wikipedia:Civility. A harsh tone is not acceptable in an academic community where most of them are highly intellectual. Marcelrios (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Just making sure you understand the procedures at ANI, that's all. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

---Sir ,RedPen has been involved in edit wars , even after several warnings from different editors/admins. The proof for the same can be obtained from the complaints on his talk page and from the comments of a fellow editor above. Redpen has been involved in disruptive editing, deleting useful pages, removing well referenced information and use of bad,abusive language (like the example shown above)when he fails to defend his point. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment. All the editors/admins should join hands together and work in order to contribute to this cause .Wikipedia is no not a personal property of any of us. No one can and no one should try to misbehave. Sir, in this respect, i demand strict actions against RedPenOfDoom . Please take some action because all warnings have failed to yield results. This matter is far beyond a scope of "Just Warning" !--(1.38.20.88 (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Wrong venue. Nothing to do here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Delhi state assembly elections, 2013

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Needs an experienced editor's opinion on possible misinterpretation or misuse of Wikipedia policies in a dispute.

Dispute is regarding 'whether to include the candidate list per constituency' of all the political parties in this article. Those who oppose the inlusion state that 1) It violates WP:POLITICIAN 2) It violates WP:UNDUE 3) Similarity/Analogoues nature of the issue to 'Wikipedia's featured article list' can not be used as the criteria for inclusion

Those who support the view say that

1) Creating biography of candidate is not a purpose of inclusion. So even though many of the candidates do not have Wikipedia article on them, their inclusion in the candidate list does not violate WP:POLITICIAN 2) As all the major party's candidate list will eventually be in the table, neutrality is maintained so again it does not violate WP:UNDUE. 3) Wikipedia's featured article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_Maryland_House_of_Delegates also includes name of the candidates who do not have any Wikipedia article on them thus making it all Wikipedia policy compliant.--ratastro (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Your example of List of current members of the Maryland House of Delegates is not very relevant as a precedent. First of all, this is a list of actual members, not of candidates and secondly, it is a list, not an article about an election. Articles about elections such as United States elections, 2014 or United Kingdom local elections, 2012 do not list every candidate and WP:UNDUE could well be relevant if every minor candidate was given equal treatment. However, articles about the result of an election in specific districts do generally give the results for all candidates. Examples: United States House of Representatives elections in Connecticut, 2012 and Barnsley Council election, 2012. Hope that helps. Spinning Spark 17:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

@Spinningspark, Thanks for your quick reply & pointing to the difference between the featured list & list under question on Delhi state assembly elections, 2013. I agree with what you are saying. While going through the Wikipedia articles, I came across following links where the candidate names are announced even though 1) Not all the candidate lists are open/announced 2) A candidate does not have Wikipedia article on self. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Iowa,_2014 & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Nebraska,_2014 Can you please let me know you thoughts on this?--ratastro (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem with comparing those two lists to the one in question is that WP:UNDUE works a very facts-based analysis, rendering arguments based on practice with similar articles difficult at best. Specifically, those two articles you link each deal with elections for two positions at the national level. A more apt comparison might be to look at Illinois House of Representatives elections, 2012 or Massachusetts general election, 2014, both of which are elections below the national level, and involve the contention of many positions. Neither of those articles has a laundry list of the individuals running for each district, and I suspect you'll find the same for many if not most similar state-level elections in the United States.

Additionally, there are WP:UNDUE considerations insofar as the edits reverted in the Delhi elections article only included the candidates from a single political party, featuring said candidates prominently. Even the U.S. Senate elections articles you linked featured the candidate lists from both major political parties in the United States. I'm a bit curious as to why there are no third party candidates listed, but those may just be peculiarities of the specific states or parties themselves; regardless, the Republican and Democratic parties are themselves so controlling in American politics that it likely satisfies WP:DUE to list just those two until there is more major coverage of third party candidates.

But, perhaps even more importantly (in order to stall the likely counter-argument that articles X, Y, and Z do something else), Wikipedia just doesn't work like this. To use an analogy, Wikipedia is much more like a civil law jurisdiction: we don't really do analysis by precedent, and what other articles are doing at any given time is barely even considered advisory (outside of the policymaking process, where it's still going to just be advisory). Hope that helps. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Reconquista (Mexico) edits by some person calling himself "Boogerpatrol"

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Boogerpatrol has removed specific content from the text of "Reconquista (Mexico) (more than once) and posted some nonsense on my talk about "opinion", when the entire premise of the subject "Reconquista (Mexico)" is opinion, not factual. The text under this subject (Reconquista {Mexico}) needs to include facts, at the present time it does not. The sources used in the article in question are opinions, the persons quoted in the article are expressing opinions (and wishful thinking), not facts, therefore the "sources" in the existing article are not factual. It is, in fact, Boogerpatrol's "opinion", apparently, that the so-called "sources" in the article, which he has not removed, are "facts", because they are "sourced", but the sources are to opinions, not to actual historical fact, therefore those sources are not valid. Boogerpatrol's opinion should not be the motivating factor in the removal of facts from an article which is rife with fiction at present, and is in dire need of correction, which Boogerpatrol does not seem able to discern, or act on. His education on the subject he is editing is either too poor, or non-existent, for him to be editing,... and he does not respond well to getting an education on historical facts on the subject at hand, because when I posted facts on his talk page in response to his editing, his reply was to tell me not to post to him in reply again. Boogerpatrol needs to either stick to a subject which he knows something about to edit, or base his edits on something other than his own opinion, because the opinion of others, used as "sources" does not make those opinions "facts".CheyenneZ (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It would appear that at least one other editor shares Boogerpatrol's concerns. Rather than get into an edit war by restoring material that two editors have removed (as unsourced and NPOV), you should first try to engage with them on the Talk page discussion that has been opened there. JohnInDC (talk) 16:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Boogerpatrol violated the three-revert rule on this page. I did engage them on the talk discussion, and Boogertown, as I wrote in the above text, proceeded to tell me not to post any response to him in the talk. So deal with him, and block him for violating the three-revert rule. The subject of the article is obviously one that Boogerpatrol, and at least one other editor are lacking in education on, therefore, neither of them should be editing that page.CheyenneZ (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

From the revision history it appears that Boogerpatrol has reverted three times within the last 24 hours, whereas you have done so four times. This puts you in violation of 3RR, not Bp. Favonian (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, he didn't violate 3RR, and the comment about not posting further comments related to his Talk page (which is not really the right place). He has in fact invited your input on the article Talk page. My quick read is that he's merely ensuring that the article remains free of personal opinion, which is appropriate, and that the contested material should stay out. But of course this is not the place for that discussion either, and that should continue at the article Talk page. JohnInDC (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

CAN'T FIND FORMAT ERROR: New entry appears outside table

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events —

Using the first table's final entry (2012 Dec 31, Warren Jeffs) in the first table as my template, I added an entry regarded Michele Bachmann. Text does appear on the preview page, but it falls outside the table. The footnote citations are likewise inconsistent. Clearly I'm missing some table formatting element. I did read the specific tutorial pages but saw nothing on this; even going character by character, I can't find it. What have I neglected? (see my links for screenshots).

Thank you.

http://www.chuckbryant.com/images/wikitext.jpg http://www.chuckbryant.com/images/wikiresult.jpg

You had typed the entry outside of the end of table marker. See my edit to fix it to see what you did wrong. You had also failed to place a new cell marker at the beginning of the name field. Spinning Spark 17:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Inheritance of importance (not notability)

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Is importance inherited? I tagged The R Music Group for WP:CSD A7. I hadn't found anything in the article asserting importance, and in addition I had run a Google check and found no substantial coverage to support notability.

In response, the author posted this on the talk page:

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (this is a record label and management company. that recently signed a deal with Ingrooves Fontana. Page was not finished being setup within all of the guidlines of wikipedia. I would like to finish the page.)

I know notability is usually deemed not to be inherited, but is importance for purposes of determining whether an author has implicitly asserted it? In this case, even if the article had mentioned INgrooves Fontana from the beginning, and even if I had already known the significance of INgrooves, would it follow that a statement that a record company has signed Ingrooves should be interpreted as an assertion of the record company's importance? (By the way: At the time I tagged the article, there had been no mention of INgrooves. It was added afterwards. I don't know if that makes any difference.) —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

As a general principle, it generally isn't held to be. But if an article author is basically saying "please hold off, I'm not finished yet", we lose little by giving them a bit of time to finish what they were doing, so I'd suggest just holding off for a day or two in this case. Suggest getting much better third-party verifiability, etc ('cos it's got almost none as yet) - treat this as an opportunity to help the contributor - David Gerard (talk) 12:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

That being said, this and other other articles created by the editor appear to be promotional in nature, related to the editor's business (judging by the username anyhow). Holding off isn't a bad idea but I'm not completely confident that these subjects are going to find notability (yet). JohnInDC (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I might be a bit idealistic there :-) - David Gerard (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Please investigate and decide about this article

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Abbas Rajabifard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Talk:Abbas Rajabifard/Temp

Please decide something for this article. If there is still an issue, please notify me to eliminate the errors. Mohegh (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC) Mohegh

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia - and that article looks like a resume, rather than an encyclopaedic biography. It needs substantial trimming, and proper inline citations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Need review/assistance for this page

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

This article is isolated but viewed, included a large amount of WP:Fringed material and hardly any religions compared to pages like Christianity and other religions until I added a lot of content to it, and some user named "Blackguard_SF" randomly started reverting the edits. Other editor joined this, and presented the views that he/she opposed, the issue went to DR[13], the editor seems to have refrained from this subject, but the user "Blackguard_SF" still seems to be disagreeing with the edits, and still reverting back to the Fringed version, after claiming "written like essay, major issues", while he never discussed this topic in talk page or anywhere else, but sure made personal attack, which is obviously not helpful or good faith. Point is, that this page needs to be reviewed once again, as it's fully changed now, and if you see any mistake, kindly let me know. Thanks Justicejayant (talk) 10:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

This is the wrong venue - please see the instructions at the top of this page. Please address the issue by continuing the existing discussion on the article's talk page. If, and only if, that does not work, you might consider taking the issue to WP:DRN. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Creating Biography for Living Person-Candidate for Political Office

Answered

– Article deleted per WP:CSD#A7. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Good afternoon,

Yesterday my colleague and I tried to create a wiki page for a candidate running for office in New York City in the upcoming election. We had loaded in biographical text and links/references to a variety of news articles that have run in reliable publications. Late yesterday evening when I went back to check on the page I was directed to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Burnett_(New_York_politician) and all our text was gone. I am unsure how to meet this notability criteria to have the page show for public viewing. Advice most appreciated.

Thank you, smosher2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smosher2013 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Some things you should be aware of:

WP:OWN - Anything that you place on Wikipedia is free to be edited, within policy, by any other editor
WP:NOTWEBHOST - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free webhost for a political campaign
WP:COI / WP:NPOV - Wikipedia does not look well upon people who come here wishing to promote their products/candidates

Regarding your specific question, the general requirements for a stand alone article are that the subject has been covered in a significant manner by third party reliably published sources, with more specific guidelines for people in the political arena WP:POLITICIAN -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

John Burnett (New York politician) was deleted, since it made no plausible assertion of notability (mere candidates for office are not notable, if all the press coverage is of their run for office). If you work with the sleazeball who added smarmy language like, "Burnett comes from humble beginnings and worked his way up in the financial services industry. Along the way, he never forgot where he came from and is actively involved in the community and various New York based charitable organizations" to the article, you should both be ashamed of yourselves. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

To expand on the previous answer, we have several criteria under which an article may be immediately deleted. One of those is that the article makes no assertion of significance, which OrangeMike explained well above. Another is if the article is clearly promotional (for anyone or anything, not just a corporation). In this case, the article's language is blatantly and obviously promotional, and reads like a campaign brochure. The article could have been appropriately deleted under that criterion as well. Since it seems likely that you are closely affiliated with the subject of the article, you should review the guidelines for editors who are in such a situation. A review from neutral editors may help determine whether this person is an appropriate subject for an article, and if it is so, make sure it gets written in an appropriate manner. If the sources to demonstrate notability don't exist, I'm afraid we can't allow the article at all. You may want to review the general and biographical guidelines for notability, and see if those are met here. Also, would be a good idea to review the requirements on neutrality, as that article certainly was not neutral. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Zinia Pinto

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Please review my draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dsouzaron/draft_Zinia_Pinto and advise if she meets the notability criteria. Thanks. Tissueboy (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Checking. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Please check your text again, there is some minor copying or close paraphrasing from one or more of the sources you used. Apart from that, the article probably passes our notability criteria for a deceased person. To be sure, you can consider submitting your draft to WP:Articles for creation for review. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Stealing Mary

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

A user has been redirecting the article to its Production Studio page when the page easily passes the Notability guidelines. Please someone dive in as the editor is getting very aggressive by rampantly doing the same over and over again. Marcelrios (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The article as it stands does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. To do that, it would have to cite third-party sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Now the same editor is involved in an edit war with me over Stealing Mary. Pleasel ook into his edits. He keeps placing tags even though the article has all the necessary references attached to it. Marcelrios (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) The relevant notability guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (films). You have not said which of these notability criteria you think the subject meets. If the film really does "easily" meet this guideline then it would be helpful if you were to add citations to the article that make this clear. What you should not do is continue to edit war in the article. You can instead use the article talk page to discuss your disagreement with other editors. You might also want to refresh yourself on what Wikipedia considers to be WP:reliable sources. Spinning Spark 20:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Please check the references and the external sources. I have added reliable sources as there are abundant sources out there to prove that the article is reliable and meets all Wikipedia guidelines. Please guide me if I am wrong. Marcelrios (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

If there are "abundant sources out there", I suggest you add some from independent sources that actually discuss Stealing Mary in depth - catalogue entries and material from sources connected with the film are of no use in demonstrating natability. Where are the reviews and critical commentary? How exactly does the article meet the Wikipedia:Notability (films) criteria? The burden of proof rests with you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I have placed the appropriate sources as inline citations and they are not catalogs. Please go through the references. There are reviews and other accounts that suggest that Stealing Mary is a high budget docu-drama. Marcelrios (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

To establish notability on Wikipedia one needs multiple sources that are reliable, independent of the subject, and have more than trivial coverage. I have looked through the first few of the sources you provided but none of them seem to meet these criteria.

The Canamedia source is a production and distribution company. That is, they are selling the film and are therefore not independent.
The nlfc source appears to be a sponsor of the film and is therefore not independent. Besides it has fairly trivial coverage.
The RN-DS source is a provider of medical and forrensic services. They mention the film because they provided the skull reconstruction. They are therefore not independent.
The Telegram source has ony a very fleeting mention in a substantial article about the Indians themselves, not the film.

You appear to have simply added a cite from every source you could find that mentions the film. This makes it very difficult for other editors to review the sources and quickly establish if notability has been established. I suggest you trim out the dross and see if what is left amounts to anything. The idea is not to collect as long a list of references as possible. The purpose of citations is to verify the factual accuracy of the article. References should only exist if they directly confirm the facts of the passage to which they are attached. Other (relevant) stuff can go in "Further reading" or "External links" sections. Spinning Spark 09:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)