Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 63

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

Vfb Speldorf

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Vfb Speldor have signed a new player for 6 weeks and it does not display this on wiki. Link http://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.reviersport.de/98469---vfb-speldorf-kurt-horst-saterdag-da.html&ei=_OUHS9vFMIj-sQOL4p3BCQ&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBMQ7gEwAg&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dkurt%2Bhorst%2Bsaterdag%26hl%3Den —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.72.42 (talk) 13:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Compton Station Event Funding Group, Inc.

Resolved

– explanation of deletion given. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I can not understand why my entry would be deleted. I was simply stating that this newly formed organization was formed to support Law Enforcement. If Wikipedia is going to have this attitude towards law enforcement (Los Angeles County Sheriff's), then we want nothing to do with them. Someone is going overboard on the delete process! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.68.16.102 (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you might find the essay WP:Why was my page deleted? to be of use. Wikipedia has no bias against law enforcement and indeed there is a dedicated project on the subject, WP:WikiProject Law Enforcement, which you may want to contact about contributing to articles in the area. I think the most likely reason for deletion would have been that the information in the article was not verified using reliable sources, and it may not have been notable enough to meet the inclusion criteria for organisations.

Looking at the deletion log the reasons given for deletion were:

19:43, 21 November 2009 Kinu deleted "Compton Station Event Funding Group, Inc." ‎ (A7: Article about an eligible subject, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

23:40, 18 November 2009 Fastily deleted "Compton Station Event Funding Group, Inc." ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion allow the removal of articles that fail to explain why the topic is important or significant or that seem to only be advertising the topic. You can discuss the deletion of the pages with both of the adminstrators in question, and you can consider opening a deletion review if you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with Wikipedia policy. However in the absence of reliable sources discussing this new organisation, I would advise that you wait until independent news media have taken note of it before trying to add mention of it to Wikipedia. Fences&Windows 20:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

yeah, it is worth pointing out this is an encyclopedia and not just a forum to advertise a good cause. Many good causes are explicitly listed in places as invalid reasons for inclusion here. Also note that there is a general effort to avoid moralizing, see my crime scene analogy posted earlier. A good cause perhaps is served by an encyclopedia which makes accurate information available about topics others have found notable and hopefully only those of lasting significance. I think I also recently flagged an article with the only substantial content being a threat to not donate if article is deleted, there are various free web sites for other purposes. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Post: Jeff Durgan

Discussion moved

– moved to WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jeff_Durgan:_NASL.2C_.22Vitriol.22 Jezhotwells (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I am Jeff Durgan. I am a living person. Information appearing under "Jeff Durgan" in Wikipedia is true but inaccurate. Based on the information contained within this post, I have been denied employment by at least two companies. I have tried to edit the material but the original author restores the content and defines my edits as non-constructive. The author cites newspaper stories. The content did appear in a newspaper, but that content was inaccurate, not comprehensive, quoted out of context or simply not appreciative of all the facts. "Don't believe everything you read in the paper..." is a fair statement. As my name is on this post, I should have the right to edit inaccurate information detrimental to my life and my ability to gain employment. Please assist me in clearing this matter.

Notiempo (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Regards,

Jeff Durgan Lansing, Michigan

When the Cosmos collapsed, Durgan moved back to the Seattle area to sign with F.C. Seattle on May 20, 1985. However, Seattle coach Bruce Rioch released Durgan from the team on July 29, 1985 after he was ejected for committing several flagrant in an exhibition match with the Canadian national soccer team, including kicking Canadian player John Catliff in the head while Catliff was on the ground.[3][4]

However, in May 1984, the Cosmos requested that Durgan take a 20% pay cut. When he refused, the team waived him then resigned him for the lower pay after no other league team expressed an interest in signing him.[2]

Comment I don't know anything about soccer so I won't volunteer to help with this, but I can see that someone has taken great liberties in writing the paragraph allegedly supported by footnote [2]. --CliffC (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have commented out the contentious material, please take this to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, if you wish further action to be taken. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello Jeff. This is our general guideline for subjects of biographies: WP:BLP#Dealing with articles about yourself, and there are more details here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help. You've done exactly the right thing by asking for assistance. Controversial and unsourced material has been removed - our policy, WP:BLP, is very clear that such material cannot be included and that our biographies must be written neutrally and conservatively. Fences&Windows 21:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Persistent irrelevent addition!

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

An entry that I frequently moderate, Minisink Valley High School has consistently been recieving the same, irrelivent addition that I have been deleting once I see it has been posted. How do I get this editor to completely stop entering this information? I have given explanations in my deletion, but the person still persists. Logan brennan (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Start adding warnings to the IP's talk page in ascending order; if they reach past a final warning, you can report them to WP:AIV to be blocked. Since the information has only been added a small handful of times over the past few days, the page is not a candidate for protection. Keep up the good work in keeping the page clean! GlassCobra 16:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Well, you could start by talking to them on their talk page. Gently warning them using the warning templates is thenonly way of going about it, IMHO. I have started you off with a level one template. Persistent abuse should be responded to with increasing levels of warnings. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Removing offensive, derogatory information about a subject that directly pertains to us as a whole

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

My Name is David Alford and i am the President of Pro Web Design Studios. We are marketing and web design firm in Dallas Tx. We have been retained by W.V Grant Ministries to redesign their website, and clean up some negative information that is found on line. The top result when typing in WV grant is Wikipedia and the very 1st sentence says he was arrested and indicted for tax evasion. We are not certain of the fact involved however we do not he has never been convicted of any tax evasion. How do we go about presenting and changing the documentation on the WV Grant Wikipedia page to more suitable and favorable content that is more relevant to the nature of their business. Like showing a more biographical outline with good clear and positive point about their ministry? The article in question is located at W. V. Grant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thanks David Alford Pro Web Design Studios <phone numbers redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalford480 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

David, thanks for bringing this matter here to discuss it. The link on the page is to a Dallas Morning News article [1] that states "A federal district judge Monday sentenced evangelist W.V. Grant to 16 months in prison for tax evasion, denying the nationally known minister's last-minute request to withdraw his guilty plea."

The article goes on to say "The Grants each pleaded guilty April 15."

This seems to be a pretty reliable source that the subject pled guilty and was sentenced to tax evasion. Do you have any reliable sources showing the facts are different? Thanks in advance, and welcome to Wikipedia! Dayewalker (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC

You need to appeal to the reliable sources to establish context. While I see religions often presented in a negative light in popular press and sometimes in wikipedia, each article needs be evaluated by appeal to sources, not by the goal of achieving a desired outcome.Usually conflict of interest edits are discouraged, and if you can't set aside your goal I would depart from my usual advice and suggest you just post comments on the talk page for that article but you are free to edit it yourself ( note that unsupported claims will be reverted). You can consider maybe someone like Spiro Agnew or other tax evaders and consider how these aacts fits intot their overall notability and if they are given the right treatment but again each article needs to stand on its own and you are likely to see people add more details in derogaroty info in other cases rather than make your aricle more favorable. ( sorry, my stupid browser seems to want a zillion gigabytes to fill out a stupidform and the response time a bigf deistraction aand areregfhhh plus an deidt ocnflict that makes fireefox almost stpop eree). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Well, it appears that the statement in the article: In 1996 Grant was convicted of tax evasion, is supported by the reference in the Dallas Morning News [2]. Articles on living persons must follow the policy on biographies of living persons and be verifiable and use reliable sources. What makes you think that the Dallas Morning News is not a reliable source? Please note that Wikipedia is about WP:NPOV, not about presenting favorable content about subjects. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the hope here would be more context, undue weight or even relevance. There are many personal details or gossip that maybe unfavorable and maybe you could argure relevance or have them mentioned in passing later. If he is only notable for this however that will be difficult to aruge. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There are abundant sources confirming the fact of his conviction. I do think that for a person in Grant's position conviction for fraud is relevant. That someone paid by Grant to improve his public image should ask for the information to be suppressed should not be allowed to encourage us to suppress it, nor even to minimise it. On the contrary, that fact itself is newsworthy, although the unsubstantiated word of a Wikipedia editor is not a reliable source for it, so it cannot be reported in teh article. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not claiming the facts would support my suggested line of thought, just that it would be better than "we don't like what you have there now." There are plenty of personal details in most BLP's that get edited for relevance or encyclopedic merit etc. This sounds like it has been noted by others and probably is worth including but maybe you could argue about its prominence compared to all the other coverage he gets. If it is just covered as a small part of a longer life, then leading with it as one of two facts may be out of proportion. ( why do I need 500 Meg oe memor just to fill in a stupid form?????????). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The Lime Caipirinha Controversy

Answered

– 3rd opinion given. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Caipirinha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a Brazilian drink made of cachaça, sugar, and lemon. I've referenced a federal law that specifies lemon. However, the most common species of lemon consumed in Brazil is the “tahiti” variety, which happens to be green and round; because of that, non-Brazilians mistakenly prepare the drink with lime instead. The article persistently gets edited to list lime as an ingredient; first without justification, and now based on a theory that tahiti lemon (Citrus latifolia) is called lime in English. I put it that: first, the article on Lemon specifically mentions tahiti as a variety of lemon; second, we make caipirinha with any species of lemon we have available here, but never with (key) lime; and third, even if Citrus latifolia is called lime, that is non-obvious enough to require a verifiable reference in the article. -- LaloMartins (talk • contribs) 21:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the US government seems to think that Citrus latifolia is a lime [3], as does the Australian governmenet [4] and the Royal Horticultural Society [5]. The limes avaialable in UK greengrocers are usually Citrus latifolia. There are so many citrus varieties all artificially generated from a few originals. The RHS says that latifolia is derived from Citrus aurantiifolia x Citrus limon. You should discuss this on the artcile talk page, that is what it is there for. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This article [6], although nota n RS, casts some light on this. Also it appears that limão Tahiti is the Brazilian Portuguese name for Citrus Aurantifolia [7], which is definitely a lime. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The talk page is already choke-full with this topic, and some other user suggested/asked that we request editor assistance, that's why I did just that. -- Lalo Martins (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, you could ask for a WP:Third opinion or open a WP:Request for comment. I have left my 3rd opinion at the talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions about Imperial Knight Eberhard (Bernhar) Buob (Booe)

Answered

– discussion continues at article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a newly created article. Despite the title, it appears to be a (fairly detailed, as it were) genealogy of the page author's medieval ancestors, with references listed at the end. Several sections appears to be taken from the page author's websites at http://www.yadtel.net/~rbooe/booe.htm. I don't necessarily wish to raise this as a copyright claim, and I'm not pressing for the article to be deleted, I think...I think there's the start of some decent articles here, but I'm not sure about how to proceed from this point, other than being certain that it can't stay in its current form. I'm not sure what to do here, so I'm requesting advice and/or assistance (If this is the wrong place for this, please let me know.) I'll put a notice on the author's talk page that there is the start of a discussion here. Thank you. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion should take place on the article talk page, not here. You can always place cleanup templates on the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't looking for a content discussion, I was looking for advice on the right approach, I guess, to avoid it becoming a confrontational situation. However, it seems I'm in the wrong place (I thought this was for assistance, guess I misunderstood the kind of assistance this page is for), so I'll move over there. Please close this item. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I have placed some templates on the article and asked for assistance at WP:Wikiproject Germany. – ukexpat (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

Resolved

– apparently resolved at article. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday, I added an edit to Palin's article adding the fact that she had a ghostwritter. The wiki article suggests that Palin wrote her own book. user:Horologium reverted. I reverted back to edit and warned a POV tag forthcoming if reverted again. He reverted; I tagged the article and began discussion on the Palin article talk page in the section "going rogue"

Twice, user:jæs removed the POV-section tag, both times prior to discussion on the article talk page. I warned him against removing the tag without discussion, that it could be viewed as disruptive editing.

How should this be dealt with? I've offered two solutions to the problem. The current edit is factually incorrect and POV biased. So, please offer guidance if all else appears to come to a grinding halt on the talk page, as it has. Thanks in advance. Instead of several diffs, It may be easier just to glance at the history of the 22/23 Scribner (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you compared sources? Do both sides of this discussion have RS which support their position? Thanks. 7 23:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed a goodly amount of discussion on the talk page over there when I looked earlier; no progress being made there? You might consider an RFC to get some outside opinions going. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought I heard something on TV recently that actually named the ghostwriter. If that fact is out there, it should be easy to source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This Time article [8] says that a woman named Lynn Vincent helped Sarah write it, but that the details are confidential. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact, that article already states that Lynn co-wrote it. I don't know what the big deal is. Many public figures have ghostwriters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(E/C with jæs) First, I'd like to thank 7 for alerting me to this discussion. The issue is whether or not Palin should be credited with writing her autobiography in her BLP article, and whether the ghostwriter needs to be identified. I took a look at Hillary Rodham Clinton and quickly discovered that her BLP has no mention of the ghostwriters for her two books, and that Living History is explicitly identified as an autobiography, with no mention of the three ghostwriters involved in that work. Using that as an example (and that portion of her bio has been stable for quite a while), I argued that Palin's should likewise not mention it. Scribner (who has a history of disruptive edits on the Palin bio page) came in with guns blazing, making a BOLD edit. He was reverted (as per the discussion that was in progress on the page) and then he slapped a POV tag on the article, although he is the only one who seems to think it should be there. Horologium (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a bit of forum shopping, but I'll address it as best as I can. There has been a discussion on the issue at Talk:Sarah Palin, and the general consensus has been that (per summary style) covering the ghostwriter at Going Rogue is sufficient and that going into detail on the mechanics of "auto"biography writing at Sarah Palin would be unnecessary (and potentially undue). The tagging issue is much ado about nothing; User:Scribner apparently has a bit of history with using tags unconstructively, and I'm afraid that appeared to me and others to be the case here. The section "in question" at Sarah Palin did not have any significant neutrality issues, and tagging it in the absence of any concrete neutrality concerns was part of a tit-for-tat by User:Scribner against User:Horologium (as made clear through the edit summaries). Unless I'm missing something, all of this is probably more appropriate for Talk:Sarah Palin, but I'll let you guys sort it out in case I'm mistaken. jæs (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, 7 their sources were never a question; it's the omission of facts that I'm questioning. What's up, Doc? this is the section in dispute. Lynn Vincent's name isn't in the section. And, no this isn't forum shopping. There's a genuine POV issue with inferring that Palin wrote her book; she did not. The issue with for you, jæs is removing tags without discussion. I think you cross the line into disruptive editing. And, that's part of what I'm asking about in this request. How to deal with your actions as well. Scribner (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If the Time writeup has it right, the only detail verifiably known is that she was assisted in writing the book, by Lynn Vincent. Hence it deserves at most a sentence. And if that's restricted to the book's article and to Vincent's own article, it's no big deal. So she had help. So what? It's her own words, or at least her own views, organized into book form by a professional writer. So in essence it's her book. Having professional help is very common among public figures who aren't writers themselves. It doesn't denigrate Palin. Hence it doesn't need to be made a big thing of, in the Palin article. And asserting that Palin herself "did not write it" would require sourcing, which would be hard to get if the deal was confidential. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This page is not a forum for continuing this dispute. If you can't resolve at the talk page, then ask for a WP:Third opinion or consider WP:Mediation. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the standard wikipedia practice for handling ghostwritten books? If anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

My point is simply that this it will "be nice to put my journalism degree to work on this and get to tell my story." infers that Plain wrote the book; she did not.

Thanks for your input, so it's:

File RfC
WP:Third opinion
Or WP:Mediation...anyone else care to offer advice? Scribner (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, another editor boldly pruned the section down. If you are amenable to his changes, this whole thing might be moot. Horologium (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem

Answered

– 3rd opinion given. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Transport in Romania (sections "copyright problem" and "which part of this is copirighted?") for details.

I removed what appeared to be a clear copyright violation from the world bank (details on link above) - and informed the editor who made the additions. (see User_talk:Nergaal#Copyright_problem:_Transport_in_Romania)

Now the user has started re-adding the information [9] (note edit summary), and does not seem to be taking it well. I can't see anything I can say further that will help. It seems possible that the editor may be suggesting that they did not copy the info, or that the world bank page copied. I'm not sure.

Please help with dispute resolution, this issue etc. Thanks.Shortfatlad (talk) 09:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added a third opinion at the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Assistance adding a photo to an article

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if an Admin or some other authorized person wouldn't mind adding a photo/thumbnail to the Article titled Mekael Shane? An image has already been uploaded and added to the WikiCommons, titled MekaelShaneArticlePhoto.jpg. MatrixEditor (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Can do this for you.. (1 minute)Shortfatlad (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Done added photo see Mekael Shane p.s. you can link directly to commons files as done in the link.Shortfatlad (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

SGAUS

Answered

– discussion continues intermittently at talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Request Editor assistance with moderating excessive "undo"s for the SGAUS article. User: Todd Gallagher continues to "undo" complete strings of editing over limited content objections. His cites are misleading and inconsistent with the organziations stated mission and objectives as listed on their website. I am new to Wiki and have reached out to more seinor Wiki members for assistance and grateful for their assistance - but they have other intrest they are working on it this abuse of "undo" actions has gone on for more than week. I have made every effort to comply, while learning how to use Wiki, with guidance and instructions from Senior Wiki members. Respectfully, 22015va (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have spent a considerable time checking through the edit history of this article. I see a good deal of content dispute, with 22015va putting in a huge amount of effort to try to establish their preferred version, assisted to a considerable extent by QueenofBattle, and perhaps to a smaller extent by others (is 67.201.102.20 a different user?). I see a number of other editors from time to time trying to establish other points in the article, with 22015va and QueenofBattle deleting references and sourced material they don't like. Among these others Todd Gallagher has been particularly prominent. I also see that 22015va repeatedly removed a speedy deletion tag from the article they had created, until eventually it was removed by 67.201.102.20, effectively a single purpose account with almost no edits outside this article, and then by Eastmain, who used the misleading edit summary "added a reference". The statement "His cites are misleading and inconsistent with the organziations stated mission and objectives as listed on their website" seems to completely miss the point of Wikipedia: we do not seek to mirror the opinions of the organisation covered by the article, and if there are other points of view which conflict with the organistion's stated mission and objectives then it is Wikipedia policy that we should report them, and not give a biased article in favour of the position the organisation prefers. Likewise on Todd Gallagher's talk page 22015va has written "You continue to use the words 'private militia' and link to obsolete web pages that are not part of the organizations website." The idea that we should link only to the organization's website, and not to alternative sources is quite inconsistent with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. In fact it seems to me that this is the essential problem: we have certain editors who are setting out to write an article which espouses the point of view of the State Guard Association of the United States, and object to other editors who try to make it more objective. I do not have enough knowledge of the subject to assess the value of Todd Gallagher's attempts to redress the balance, but that concerns a content dispute, whereas the question raised here is about the behaviour of an editor in the course of conducting that content dispute, and on that basis I see no reason at all to regard Todd Gallagher's behaviour as worse than that of those he opposes. Finally, I should like to invite those who are involved in this dispute to consider WP:CIVIL. For example, QueenofBattle's comment on Todd Gallagher's talk page "I don't know what the flying fuck you think you are doing, but knock it off or we will battle" is not conducive to constructive discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

While I'm generally supportive of 2nd amendment and other rights, this article does read a bit like an ad, probably not enough to flag but close, and I'd imagine there is some non-fringe controversy about its goals and efforts somewhere. Some of the sections seem to be more oriented towards recruiting than explaining why the organization is notable- this isn't necessarily bad, but may be a bit much as you can mention these in passing and create EL to their website for further information. If the organization is largely notable for involvement with legislation, there is likely to be an adversarial party that could be worth citing ( did this legislation pass unanymuously or are there evil groups that have prominent opinions, as evil as they may be?). Even if the topic relates to armed conflict, that needn't me part of the wikipedia editing decisions criteria :) Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia (about six weeks now) and started the SGAUS article (I have also tweaked some other state defense force related sites). For lack of experience, I tried to model the article after other non-profit lobby type group articles (i.e. ACLU & National_Rifle_Association. I believe that I have been objective and made every effort to cite current and accurate information. I have two issues with edits made by user: Todd Gallagher; 1. state-level associations and chapters are two different entities are not part of the SGAUS organization. While SGAUS does and has in the past recognized independent groups seeking to establish 32 USC 109 state defense forces; I can find no source that SGAUS supports them (implying financial support). 2. I believe it is counter productive to undo a block of edits over one area of objection, this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I welcome oversight of senior Wikipedia members as this article develops. If users Todd Gallagher has an issue with the SGAUS "history" I would suggest these edits be placed on the history section of the article and not throughout the article. Respectfully, 22015va (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion needs to continue on the article talk page. If you can't reach resolution and establish WP:Consensus, then try WP:Third opinion or WP:Request for comment or WP:Mediation. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest on Jacobsen v. Katzer

Answered

– discussion ongoing at talk page Jezhotwells (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I'd like to request another set of eyes on the article Jacobsen v. Katzer. I have been editing it, however I believe the defendant's brother (RAKROD) has been inserting needless information and bias into the article.

I edited it in depth about a month ago, and then again just a few days ago. In my most recent revision, in addition to bringing the article up to speed with current events in the case, I carefully went through all of the other editor's changes and reverted those that I thought were unimportant or biased. RAKROD is again going through and adding that information back in.

I'd like to suggest that another person look through the various changes and perhaps help us to find a resolution.

(mjlissner (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

Sorry I can't help but it is interesting reading. I would ask however if you can mention to the US Courts PACER folks to embrace, not hinder, automated free access to court documents. They seem to encourage unusuable PDF submissions( no text for searching) and the token fees create problems for exploratory search and skim efforts. They should have a search API with required text available ( not just scanned PDF). Also, there is no real hint of notability- I found the article interesting but it is more like a story between two groups and no indication it is noted, almost like a divorce story or something. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It's notable because of the precedent it set for open-source licensing, since it has gone so far in the court system. I agree about PACER, but courts are largely pretty dumb about this kind of thing. You might be interested in the RECAP program though. If you haven't checked it out, you should.

Anybody else up for looking at this article and coming up with a solution to the above? (mjlissner (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC))

Thanks, will look when I get a chance. I could benefit from some comments to that effect but maybe I missed it after getting into the details- start with a sourced reaseon for notability should be fine. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

MY PHOTO USED ON WIKIPEDIA WITHOUT CREDIT OR RIGHTS

Resolved

– Nominated for deletion at File:White Squall.jpg. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This is my photo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:White_Squall.jpg I would like full photo credit please otherwise to have it removed. The person who posted it can verify that it is my photo. Thank you,

BETSY CROWFOOT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.217.40.113 (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

OK I have posted a comment at [10], the talk page on Wiki Commons for User:Butterfly voyages asking them to respond here. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The image is on Wikimedia Commons, and is used on both the French and English Wikipedias. Butterfly voyages claims in the original license summary that (s)he holds the copyright on the image ([11]) - and releases it under a CC-by-sa license and the GFDL, which is what Wikipedia is licensed under. You may have to contact OTRS. The members of the OTRS team are normally the ones who deal with this matter.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 04:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I confirm : The author of this photo is Betsy Crowfoot. I'm sorry to make this error : similar photo and movie in same time. Sorry Betsy and administartor of commons. Cheers.--Butterfly ^effect 13:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Well you had better go and sort out the licensing at Commons as it is about to get deleted. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Monastery question

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

When i create new article about some monastery, should i:

Place name of the saint first (Saint Archangels Monastery), or
Place monastery first (Monastery of Saint Paul the Anchorite)?

There should be some rule about this, and i cannot find it...

And also, should the word Monastery be big, or small in the article name (Monastery/monastery)?

All best! Tadija (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:naming conventions is the policy page. Generally the name by which the monastery is best known in English.

Saint Archangels Monastery: [12] would indicate that Monastery of Saint Archangels would be better. Also correct grammar.
Monastery of Saint Paul the Anchorite: would appear to be correct.

Hope this helps. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I know very well about WP:NC, but question was Saint Archangels Monastery, or Monastery of Saint Archangels??

And also Monastery/monastery, Saint Archangels Monastery, or Saint Archangels monastery? Where i can find this information, or whom i should ask? Tadija (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Can this help? But it is defunct... I would love to expand it. What to do next?

Tadija (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

No-one seems to refer to Monastery of Saint Archangels but they refer to it as Monastery of the Holy Archangels or Holy Archangels' Monastery, the single quote is important. It reads better as well, Monastery of Saint Archangels makes little sense in English. That is why I provided the google link - use the generally accepted usage. As the name of a building or institution it should all be capitalized. It is not a case of one form is right for all instances, use the generally accepted name. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit problems with NewFoundSpecFic

Resolved

– discussion on notability at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewFoundSpecFic Jezhotwells (talk) 11:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I came across some problems with this article, found here: NewFoundSpecFic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and am now being accused of biased editting when I was simply trying to remove uncited information. Someone else has attempted to put a deleation purposal up, but they did it wrong so I can't discuss it properly. I am unsure how to proceed, being new to Wikipedia. Gwen (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a proposed deletion and I've fixed it. Proposed deletion doesn't usually involve discussion, but somply starts a clock for 7 days. If nobody disputes the proposal, then the article can be deleted. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Article creator and magazine editor User:Devin Drover warned about WP:XCOI. Sources have been added by another editor, and PROD removed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean User:Devindrover. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my mistake. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Artcile now up for deletion atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewFoundSpecFic. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Timeline Editing

Answered

– --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

In Women's suffrage article, I noticed that Switzerland is missing in the timeline of the countries. I was going to edit the article, but I found out that Switzerland is already included but for some reason it is not displayed. I could not find the reason for the error. I would appreciate your help to fix the issue. --Gldren (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There was an unclosed element in the code. Should be better now. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

fcps - fairfax county public school and Kilmer Middle School. "not contact policy"

Resolved

– Editor has been blocked by Tanthalas39 for legal threats. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Both these articles have a section called " no physical contact policy". I believe the article should stay as it was where it simply stated that there was a no contact rule policy. However, two editors want to add why the other side believes the rule should exist. At first I was okay with this. But then they wanted to add more and more quotes "against the rule". The problem I have with this is that it becomes biased towards one side. Information is not presented that states why the rule is a poor rule( which the experts from CNN gave plenty of). The article is a touchy subject( no pun intended)the same as apartheid or slavery would be. However, I don't think we would see coverage of why apartheid was good, now would we? Having a rule telling boys they can't shake hands or girls they can't hug is...? 68.119.67.94 (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC) An Editor keeps adding one side of argument only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.67.94 (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is just not balanced now. There are two paragraphs for one side. The first paragraph does not even argue a position. It just states the fact of a student and the principal.

The way the editor keeps changing back the article is completely biased. What is wrong with only the first paragraph alone? The issue at first was "verifable" then is was changed to bias when the editor could not get his way. It is now more biased than ever. Where are the arguments or all the quotes from the experts saying the reason to not have the rule? They had experts on CNN but they are not quoted.

68.119.67.94 (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If your problem is with the content, find sources which back up a different point of view and write another paragraph. The current text you've been trying to remove is sourced to several major news sources, don't just remove it. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I know I gave them the sources because an editor stated the first section was not sourced, although it was. Then when I proved the sources the extra one sided information was added. I thought this was supposed to be viewpoint neutral per the rules?????? The article is with it reverted back to how it was. The information I added is recent. The preceding article was there for over a year without any issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.67.94 (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

To the vandalism patrollers, your content removal just looked like vandalism. I'm not sure what was going on with the article before I got to it, but all I see is you removing sourced content and not replacing it with anything. Wikpedia doesn't take a point of view, but it doesn't mean it can't describe a point of view as expressed in reliable sources. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

SO we end up with a five page article because people keep adding more and more points of view? There is no place for the POV. If I add all the contradictory point of views from the sources. Heck, I am one of the source in the interviews, it would take up three pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.67.94 (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No we don't have to add anything. We're supposed to give weight to the main points of few, and less to the more fringe points of view. And I don't really get what you mean by being a source for the interview. You were interviewed? --Kraftlos (Talk |

Contrib) 03:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I am the students father. I received some sort of warning about vandalism. I am not going to argue this subject anymore. I will just have my wife, and the students mother, who is an attorney contact legal at wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.67.94 (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:LEGAL first. It is far better to just work to improve the article, rather than trying to censor it. If you don't think a side of the story is being told, then contribute to make the article better. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I have already sent the letter to the legal dept. It is one thing to try to work out issues. Which I did. It is another when I am threatened with banning or whatever it is you call it for changing the content to a neutral point of view. Which was called Vandalism by HamburgerRadio. So, while I attempted to work it out it just did not work. I am sure legal will be handling the matter shortly. of course any ban will just make things worse FYI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don't_overlook_legal_threats 68.119.67.94 (talk) 04:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about this:"would see coverage of why apartheid was good". Given that it existed, it likely had coverage which supported it( or explained why it was good), wikipedia is not supposed to make moral judgments and any sources thought to be reliable about prominent viewpoints need to be included even if topics are currently largely disliked or discredited. Everyone seems to believe in some authority structure, there are essentially no anarchists ( and with children in particular everyone wants to presume lack of competence or judgment, your analogy may be apropos LOL ) and often your beliefs about good and bad are based on self-interest or beliefs about the competence of the people under consideration. Once anything becomes too obviously right or wrong to discuss, it becomes harder to achieve many goals of an encyclopedia. One objective is to document what prominent groups thought at various points, not settle moral arguments. Wouldn't it help if you had some idea what the Nazi supporters were thinking in the 30's and 40's? I think my earlier comments about a separate article on controversial school policies, including things like coed classes and mandatory veils or mandatory non-veils, may be worth more consideration if this single issue it dominating an article to which it has only passing significance. And, if you are on the side of less regulation and academic freedom more generally, I'm not sure how you can consistently hope to use legal action to force a private entity to be more tolerant of your viewpoint. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 09:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Little Ice Age Monitored by a biased author

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It has been made quite clear to me that the information describing the causes of the LIttle Ice Age on Wikipedia are being monitored by a global warming alarmist "scientist". The text describes the assertion that changes in land use during Medieval times caused the Medieval Warm Period and the plagues, allowing reforestation, caused the LIttle ICe Age. This is ridiculous and totally an opinion with no scientific basis - there were just plain too few people in Europe and North America to have any kind of effect on global climate. Each time I have tried to add material balancing, even a little bit, this radical and wrong biased opinion, my additions are deleted ASAP. I have been reprimanded and threatened by the author and take great exception to having a thug squatting on the material and preventing the public reading anything even close to realistic or balanced presentation.

Is there a way to post on Wikipedia material that is scientific when the subject has already been posted with biased, "referenced" opinions that present material supporting the political agenda of the global warming scam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainhigley (talk • contribs) 01:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, on Wikipedia we have policies on original research as well as verifiabilty. Basically, they state that you cant insert your own findings into Wikipedia and the information written here must be backed up by reliable sources. On articles dealing with topics such as global warming we take the approach that current scientific scholarship is the best way to present information. Yes, the scientists may be wrong and global warming may be a hoax, but Wikipedia's job is not to be used as a platform to advocate unpopular opinions. Instead, we seek to neutrally convey the information which we feel is supported by the scientific community. Our preference for the scientific community's opinion instead of global warming skeptics' is supported by a wide consensus, which is how we decide from which perspectives we write our articles. Them From Space 02:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not personally aware of any great scientific consensus that the little ice age was due to human activity, indeed quite the opposite. But it doesn't matter, the sources are what matters. You may be able to argue about what is scientific or reliable, but prominence of "global warming theories" could include theories that there is no global warming, it is due to space weather, etc. While prominence and popularity may be similar it may be worth mentioning that based on headlines many Americans are sceptical of global warming and presumably, if that opinion is noted in reliable sources, would reflect a prominent view of some community worthy of mention. A consensus within one group doesn't mean that other view points are not prominent elsewhere so picking a group can be a factor. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The article needs to reflect the reliable sources- if the argument hasn't been around sources then it should be easy to resolve by refocusing. The harder problem can be deciding reliable and prominence but people interested in topic rather than a specific outcome should be able to negotiate something once it is about the sources. If you were following crop weather this year, it may have even looked as if the gulf stream stopped-but that is just my opinion from looking at a few weather maps and I'm sure others have more opinions that have no independent notice and therefore no prominence. If there is credible evidence of one person with a weather machine from back then, that would merit some mention probably. This may also be interesting since it will be hard to determine exactly what is scientific and who is biased, perhaps even more so than with religious conflicts. Clearly there are economic and policy implications to the "scientific" result and the predictions to date are not scientifically conclusive and really untestable- so this is more like arguing over prophecy ( even in this case predicting the past ice age LOL) than a theory which can be easily tested. While legislation may reflect some value judgments, there may be passionate arguements to make science agree with preferred results. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, as a bit of a personal observation, intellectual fads come and go. Sometimes herd mentalities catch on and with difficult to test theories or "theories" that are more moral than "scientific" you get a lot of different opinions that change popularities for non-scientific reasons. In biotech, you often see theories and ideas that are just plain backwards but those are usually tractable testable ideas that get sorted out in a few years, sometimes in clinical trials. Also, remember that up until the last few decades science wasn't just white coats and expensive equipment- for example the story of Langmuir films discovered while doing dishes IIRC ( this may be a myth, but there are plenty of cases where simple results were discovered in mundane settings). So, I wouldn't assume you are doing readers any favors by making implicit decisions about who is likely to be right or biasing the selection of source reliability towards some group. Anthropogenic Global warming is an interesting non-relgious test case for dealing with non-testable "science." Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That is simply wrong. Of course AGW makes testable predictions, e.g. about changes in the temperature distribution (stratospheric cooling, tropospheric warming), correlation of GHG concentration and infrared emissions (expensive, needs satellites), and so on. Don't take your friendly blog for it, read the literature. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Then why is there so much controversy? I haven't looked at this in much detail but I guess you would need to examine things like the nature of ( f*ing firxfox doing vm again,100 keystrokes behind ......) the predictions and how they relate to overall policy issues- no one has taken 2 earths with and without people and shown the one is stable, the other burns up. There are so many sources of variability and so much noise, I'm not personally sure what a convincing test would look like. This is not a merit discussion but the issue comes up time and time again in wikipedia articles and elsewhere. You see these things in biotech , someone tests a correlation and uses that to prove non-existent causality or predictions tend to involve models with many free parameters with values determined a posteriori to fit the "prediction." Complex system modelling, well we saw that in the financial industries LOL( I 'm clearly being cynical here but models can depart from reality ). And, in any case, it doesn't benefit the reader, who is expecting the current state of human thought on the topic, to dismiss the thoughts of the US population who, while maybe largely ignorant, could be important contributors to policy issues that relate to this topic. So, prominent views may be important to the reader even if they aren't from The Scientist who appeals to the most popular opinions from funding agencies. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a political debate because the political implications are unwelcome to some people. There is no significant scientific debate - 97+% of climate scientists support the core theses of AGW [13], as do all major scientific organizations (see Scientific opinion on climate change). I suggest that if you are interested, you should look at this in some detail - there even is secondary literature on how the popular press fails to properly reflect the scientific consensus by giving undue weight to the minuscule number of loud-mouthed dissenters [14]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess then defining a group over which prominence is considered is important. If there is a big difference between the science cliques and the other cliques, maybe a section to that effect in an article on the scientific theories would be warranted ( "Popular Attitudes toward AGW"). In terms of Little Ice Age, I wasn't aware of and articles doesn't currently substantiate a lot of acceptance of antrhopogenic contribution- most of the article disuccses sunspots but it isn't clear that anthro deserves its own section based on currently cited lit ( feel free to find sources). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm being talked about here. It is hard to tell - I'm not a scientist, for example, but [15] rather suggests that CH means me. CH is making absurd edits to the LIA page, [16] is the most recent. But if CH really wants to discuss this, the t:LIA page is the correct place. As to the substance of the matter, the objectionable text appears to be William Ruddiman has proposed that somewhat reduced populations of Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East during and after the Black Death caused a decrease in agricultural activity. He suggests reforestation took place, allowing more carbon dioxide uptake from the atmosphere, which may have been a factor in the cooling noted during the Little Ice Age. Ruddiman further hypothesizes that a reduced population in the Americas after European contact in the early 1500s could have had similar effect.[43] A 2008 study of sediment cores and soil samples further suggests that carbon-dioxide uptake via reforestation in the Americas could have contributed to the Little Ice Age.[44] which is of course fully sourced. I personally would consider that this slightly over-emphasises the Ruddiman hypothesis, which is not widely accepted. I'd be happy to take part in a constructive discussion of this; CH hasn't even tried to talk William M. Connolley (talk) 09:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, discuss at the talk page, if no consensus there try WP:Third opinion or WP:RfC. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, topic specific issues may best be discussed there and RS issues maybe on the RS board but I'm not real sure what to do with prominence in this case and it is likely not confined to just this topic. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I posted some comments on LIA and Ruddiman talk pages without response ( it is holidays of course).AFAIK, Ruddiman and his theory both have shown quetionable notability based on sourcs so far. While his theory is mentioned in BBC and another source, these can't possibly be "reliable" for secondary coverage of a scientific theory and no significant reviews of his work have been shown. The lit on his BLP page is largely promo material and sciam article AFAIK was written by him. As he describes it in 2004 it is a new and exciting idea but so are alien baby stories until they have been peer reviewed for merit. Personally this notion seems plausible, if you can reconcile absolute numbers to a time when there were even fewer people(was europe a glacier before carbon emitters showed up?), but also opportunistic due to present day fudning opps. So, I don't really see many differences between this and other views commonly called fringe. It may be worth mentioning in passing but needs a lot of work to be more than that. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll respond on the LIA page but please - if you can't distinguish between peer-reviewed literature and alien baby stories you need to attend to something else William M. Connolley (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Provide the documentation :) I'm not claiming his work is bad, I can't disprove alien baby stories either, just that as written it doesn't seem to be well documented that any secondary sources have noted his work. As I'm sure you are aware, inconsequential works can make it through peer review in any case. If you can't find more secondary sources that have noted his work, and need to rely on the BBC, I don't see how you you can call that a mainstream theory. IF this was a religious theory, there would probably be a strong presumption of fringieness. IF the sciam article is not actually authored by him or people he sponsored, then that is probably enough for wikipedia but you still may be a bit suspicious why specialty journals haven't picked up on this. The sciam link in his BLP page IIRC poined to a promo blurb about a new and exciting theory, as such it is unlikely to be notable or mainstream. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It is already there :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you find my comments there? The graph in question was the one that implied a halocarbon contribution to the litle ice age. It appears to be from a study on modern global warming and doesn't relate to anything except implicitly to antrho terms for LIA. LOL. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Help Needed

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi I am a new member on wikipedia and I rewrote the above mentioned article. After the article was completed we had an administrator come and make a few helpful changes along, other members also made certain helpful changes. Then the member named Huaiwei came and chaned the date format and removed the spacing which was added for a reason (we have visitors to the page who are legally blind who find it easier to read the article with the spacing). I undid her editing and made a post on her talk page explaining to her that the date format that I have put is the American format of Month, date, year opposed to the Asian formatting of Date, Month and year (I did not explain in comaprison-just told her it was the American format we used and please let that format be). She immediately came and rechanged the date format with a question (which in my opinion was rude.)

I once again undid the format and I also told her that an admin has looked at this article and they found nothing wrong with it. So please do not change the date and remove the spacing. I did not want to tell her about the legally blind people visiting the page, as one is my son and the other my friend and I find that information perosnal to share with strangers. She not only comes back and changes the date format, but once again removes the spacing and this time deletes the words Introduction and removes the quote I had added right in the beginning. She also removes the entire section. I have once agin undone his/her editing and I am asking for assistance she does seem to be willing to let go of her edits. Can you please look into this matter and help me out.

Sincerely Farah Samoo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farahs51 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 26 November 2009

Firstly, you need to discuss this at the artcile talk page, that is what it is there for. There is no point in posting here, if you haven't made any effort to get a discussion there. You can alert the other editor by placing a note on their talk page askingthem to join the discussion. You need to have a conversation to establish WP:consensus. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You don't own the article, so you need to work with other editors. You should follow our style guidelines rather than introducing your own spacing and layout for the benefit of a friend, as we have hundreds or thousands of other readers to consider. We have specific guidelines for making articles accessible. Fences&Windows 15:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

article edit

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Linton Chamber Music Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I am the author of the article "Linton Chamber Music Series" and I have edited it in accordance with the comments provided by Wiki. Could it be reviewed again by one of your editors or should I delete and re-post it? Thank you! <email redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preestrinna (talk • contribs) 20:29, 27 November 2009

Well, I agree with the tag that this reads like press release. You need to learn how to format in-line citations properly. Template:Citation contains examples. In-line citations mean that specific statements are cited correctly so that readers can work out what statement is supported by what cite. You should also read up on WP:notability and WP:MOS to get some idea of how to lay out the artcile. Take a look at similar articles to get ideas. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

PS, no need to delete it, just keep working on it. I don't think it is ready for any formal review yet. And don't forget to sign posts on talk pages with four (~)s. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

medicne check

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

i would like to check for a medcine(Bio-Lissom),it must be for reducing fats&written on the packet that it had been authenticated by American FDA.I want to provide from the accurat of this medicne due to making problems with me afterusing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.203.14.166 (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You can look here, http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/Scripts/cder/DrugsatFDA/ or here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed but many drugs have their own websites. In the US these can be restricted in the claims they can make based on what has been proven about the drug but laws vary around the world. You could talk to a doctor if you have a specific problem. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This page is for questions and requests about editing Wikipedia. If you need medical advice, please see a doctor. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, having someone come here asking about a specific topic is also an article request, but I didn't check to see if one existed here yet and I should have mentioned there is a way to request an article. I guess any request for encyclopedic information can be directed somwhere on wikipedia:) Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you should read Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer, the key element of which is:

- - - WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT GIVE MEDICAL ADVICE

for pretty obvious reasons. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL Really? I thnk I mentioned that above in first post but presumably people come to an encyclopedia for information which AFAIK is still legal. Do you have a link to the article request page which may also be of help to OP? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't want to snap back but if you've seen those ads on TV, people need information to be able to talk to doctors and sanity check experts. That is wikipedia's role, providing a starting point for a literature search. If you just punt every question(" that is too complicated for you to understand" or " that is illegal to mention") then you have destroyed the basic notion of intellectual freedom and the encyclopedia ( " we have experts for that you don't need to know"). I guess you can argue about how you present this to new users, but personally I've more problems with the pro-ignorance people than those giving quack medical advice. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome to read the article on anything in question for general information, but if you're asking for specific medical advice, Jezhotwells is providing the best there is—get it from a qualified professional. All that will be (or at least should be) in an article on a subject is what reliable sources say on the matter, we specifically disallow articles from including personal viewpoints or unsubstantiated or unreviewed original research. If you think your doctor may be in error, you'd be best to seek a second opinion. It is unlikely that you would meet someone here who happens to be qualified to give medical advice, and even if you should, no doctor worth the name would give specific medical advice to someone without personally examining them first. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Lake Peigneur

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I live at Lake Peigneur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and am President of Save lake Peigneur, Inc. There are two issues, Live Oak Gardens is a wholesale nursery at Jefferson Island but Rip Van Winkle Gardens is the more appropriate description to relate Lake Peigneur to Jefferson Island. Rip Van Winkle Gardens is home to the historic Joseph Jefferson mansion. Joseph Jefferson was the famous nineteenth century actor that depicted the legendary Rip Van Winkle character. thousands of tourists visit that garden and mansion yearly and Rip Van Winkle is a popular wedding and reception site as well as a favored lunch location at the Cafe Jefferson.

I tried to add an external link for Save Lake Peigneur, Inc. (savelakepeigneur.org). Right now Wikipedia is not taking a neutral position by including AGL Resources in the Lake Peigneur site. AGL's quest to create additional natural gas storage facilities and has been disputed considerably by residents. Currently, AGL Resources is in litigation with the state, and we are actively fighting the proposed development. You will find substantial media coverage both under Lake Peigneur, AGL Resources or my name to support my statement. Currently, we are in major controversy to protect our aquifer because AGL Resources is planning to withdraw the drinking water to create the caverns. We not only want to stop the development of the storage caverns but more important protect our drinking water from this vandalism. We have many issues concerning the development of the storage caverns. i ask that you please read our website or contact me.

We ask that you add our link to maintain neutrality on this very controversial issue.

Thank you.

Nara Crowley —Preceding unsigned comment added by NaraC (talk • contribs) 20:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You get a lot of opinions on these things but AFAIK EL's to notable and prominent advocates for different POV's of a controversial issue are encouraged but if the issue is covered in the article, presumably there would be inline citations to POV sources to document certain POV's. Wikipedia generally doesn't like COI edits and some people just revert obvious COI edits without much thought but everyone agrees that only the result matters- if a POV is already discussed and you are just adding sources, that should not be too controversial and citations to a POV cite should be realiable for describing that POV. If you can author encyclopedic and reasonably neutral content or integrate with other POV content, editing yourself should not be dismissed as an option. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I am new to this. Does your answer mean you will allow my information to be added such as the link to Save Lake Peigneur, that did not go through when I added the link? Also do I write the piece regarding Rip Van Winkle Gardens and add that to the current information? Thank you.

Nara Crowley, President, Save Lake Peigneur, Inc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NaraC (talk • contribs) 22:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added some useful links to your talk page. It is best to study these before diving in. Cheers. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I usually mention wiki coverage on abortion as an example- you don't generally want to defend a given article with "other stuff exists" but abortion has probably been looked at enough by now that the relevant articles are passable. You couldn't cover the topic without references reliably describing what various notable groups think and they are more than able to speak for themselves (LOL). And, experts in many fields often have opinions and conflicts. Here, we have some benefits of not being able to appeal to credentials and usually someone reviews the literature while learning a topic and can eventualy comment on bad perspective- or, you just get opposing advocates to battle it out etc etc. Wikipedia comments on COI editing tend to be very negative, probably due to past experiences and personally I'm not entirely sure telling people to go for it has always been the best approach but there is no better way to learn than to try- or as they say here be bold. Eventually a decision to keep,edit, or remove your contribs will depend on how they seem to agree with sources that can be verified and are reliable for the relevant claims stated. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect info

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone is putting deliberately incorrect information for the entry "Financial Supervisory Service" of Korea. I am an employee of the Financial Supervisory Service, and I tried repeatedly to edit factually incorrect information. But each time I do, it seems the person is bent on putting back the wrong information. Something should be done about this. The Financial Supervisory Service is a market regulator. It is a serious, public institution. I hope something is done about the idiot (forgive me, but this is the kindest thing I can say) who insists on putting out wrong information about us to the world.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mebetomcat (talk • contribs) 09:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not include personal contact information. If you wish to allow others to email you, please enable email in your preference settings. Using this method also means a user who emails you will not know your email address unless you choose to respond. As to your request, the best way to go about things is not to call another editor an "idiot", as we do not allow personal attacks of any kind. If you are involved with the organization in question, you may also wish to read our guidelines on conflict of interest before proceeding. With that in mind, if you need to convince someone of something, the best way to do so is to show them where you found that information in a reliable source. Especially when you are involved, please keep in mind that your personal knowledge, however right you may be sure it is, is not a reliable source. To be suitable for an article, material must be published somewhere besides here first, and that source must be a reliable one for what it is being used to support. I hope that helps to clarify. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Retrieval of deleted page

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The page relating to this url has been deleted. The person who made the deletion is no longer an editor so I have no way to contact them to ask why there was a deletion or to retrieve the page. Could you assist please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hemlock_Semiconductor_Corporation&action=edit&redlink=1

Kheenand (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Kheenand

I'd recommend asking any one of the admins in Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. GlassCobra 19:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It was a redirect, deleted as a result of this discussion. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Question

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I Want to know how many oxigen is needed or the percentage in order to mentain a turbin jet working when is flying at 35,000 Ft above sea level, I Undesrtand the oxigen percentage at that altittude is very low. So do they heve to fuel oxigenaging or how the combustion is performed under that cold and very low level of it. Thanks. Ing Jordi Faraudo P. --189.164.70.133 (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Please start new topics with == your title here ==. We don't answer these questions here; this board is only for editors requesting assistance with articles on the mainspace. Have you tried the reference desk? —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 01:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit Help

Request unclear

– Jezhotwells (talk) 08:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Originally posted to GamWeb Talk page in August 2009 for assistance

Comment about Democratic Party (United States)

Request unclear

– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I've worked out what article it is they're objecting to, changed title to match. Fences&Windows 16:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The south had long been a Democrat stronghold, favoring a state's right to legal slavery. In addition, the ranks of the fledgling Ku Klux Klan were comprised almost entirely of white Democrats angry over poor treatment by northerners, both perceived and actual. However, as years passed and memories waned, African Americans began drifting to the Democratic Party, as Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal programs gave economic relief to all minorities,

Think this might contain a whole universe of understatements? Why the fuck is this article not open for editing? It really needs it.

Thx, Ben..—Preceding unsigned comment added by BeezeLouise87 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 5 December 2009

What are you asking about, and kindly moderate your language. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

They are taking exception to the unsourced material at Democratic Party (United States)#African Americans. Ben, what do you believe needs changing in that section? The article is not open to editing from IPs and for new users as it is semi-protected due to vandalism. Fences&Windows 16:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Humboldt Bay (Northern California, USA) dispute. Lagoon or not?

Answered

– suggestions given Jezhotwells (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

On November 30, 2009 User:Thewellman added the category "Lagoons of California" to the Humboldt Bay article. However, neither is there now nor has there ever been a closure (in recorded history) of the entrance to this body, California's Second largest NATURAL bay. The editor refers to the Bar at the bay entrance as needing to be dredged to open the bay. The "Bar" reference is to arms of (relatively) shallow sandbars that previously made the angle of entrance at approximately 45 degrees to the wave action. This effect was deadly for ships crossing into the Entrance Bay, especially previous to 1881 when the Army Corps of Engineers began work to address the safety of the entrance. I present this question here in hope of getting a disinterested third party to examine the article and any relevant support one way or the other and preclude any further disagreement. Norcalal 07:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest you try some of the early steps outlined at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution; specifically, Wikipedia:Third opinion and/or Wikipedia:Requests for comment. GlassCobra 13:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

biographical article: Alfred de Grazia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Article "Alfred de Grazia" has had repeatedly whole paragraphs and references deleted, either under the pretext of a lack of references, or for no reasons given. I have reinstated today sections on "Background," "World War II" experience of subject, and added quotes to the section on "early academic career." I HAVE ADDED NEW AND STRONG REFERENCES, and everything I have added has been deleted within less than half an hour. No attention has been paid to the new references. Please, look up the article, the sections reinstated and the references and judge by yourself.

This article has been for years now the subject of malicious attacks, close to vandalism, with the purpose of reducing Wikipedia readers' awareness of the scope of activities of the subject. Subject (Alfred de Grazia) is a well-known political scientist, the author of over thirty books in political science, published by important American publishers - like Alfred Knopf, Doubleday, etc. He has created the magazine THE AMERICAN BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST and the UNIVERSAL REFERENCE SYSTEM, the first computerized reference system in the social sciences. Yet, it is proposed that his biographical article should not be left to stand its own, and should be be merged with 'Velikovskianism.' (!) You will notice that the article in question is supported by the portal on POLITICAL SCIENCE. Also, by the portal on CHICAGO - but early mentions concerning Chicago which made the article interesting in this respect have all been deleted.

Quotes have been contributed to this article which cast a negative light on the subject (I have made no attempt at removing them as their sources are of quality) but my own endeavors to insert quotes (of a source of at least equally high quality) which are favorable to the subject have been deleted. The quote in question today is from a scholarly book: "Creating the Cold War University..." by Rebecca Lowen, (U. of California Press) putting Alfred de Grazia's denial of tenure at Stanford University into the context of the Cold War and of McCarthyism. I am requesting editorial assistance. I thank you for your attention. Amideg (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't appear to have discussed this on the article talk page. That is the best place to start. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that a comment was made at WP:COIN here was made about this article earlier. Smartse (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Alfred de Grazia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) again

I have added paragraphs to the article on December 1st, 2009, together with NEW, STRONG references. My additions and references have ALL been deleted by ItsmeJudith less than half an hour after I posted them. She wrote comments about her deletions. WHAT IS WORSE: my additions have also been deleted from the discussion of the article and are no longer to be found there - not a trace! There is no more any sign of my additions and references, and even of the fact they I made them! HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?14:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Amideg

It is all there in the history if you care to look. The only deletions on the talk page have been by you trying to change the unsigned bota dded signature. Please sign your posts properly with four {~}s. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Establishing myself as authoritative source

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Rlvirgilio (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)I had added to the information regarding USS Queenfish, bringing out some little known but interesting and accurate information. MBK004 as moderator for military history, questioned the authenticity, and removed the addition. Appropriately, I suppose. There's no way he would know I was the last commanding officer of the ship and am very knowledgable of her history.

I seem to be unable to post to MBK004's talk page, I keep getting looped to the "this page is semi-protected, you are not registered, you must register, this page is semi-protected, you are not registered,...." even thoug I am registered. As a very very very very new user, and not particularly versed in the typical protocols of collaborative internet work, particularly Wikipedia, I can't figure it out.

My intent was to add to the body of knowledge, but some of what I can add is only verifiable through exhaustive research which essentially nobody would undertake. How can I establish myself with MBK004 so he takes my additions as authentic, and how can I really contact him.

Thanks

Rlvirgilio (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This comes up frequently. The problem is that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; or, in other words, material should be verifiable to other readers by having already been published by a reliable source - personal knowledge, even if true, is rarely adequate except where common knowledge issues are involved. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Thanks for posting here.

Semi-protection is intended to deter random edits from unregistered and very newly registered editors. Some editors do lots of vandal-fighting and end up with their talk pages semi-protected to avoid too much nonsense from the vandals. After 4 days and 10 edits, your account will be autoconfirmed ad you'll be able to edit semi-protected pages; you haven't made enough edits yet. I recognise this might seem a little circular - you can't edit until you've edited - so I'll point this thread out to MBK004 on your behalf.

However, Wikipedia is very sceptical of self-published sources. There's plenty of info at WP:SPS. If you've written a book, or had some other work published, that would help.

Feel free to post at my talk, or to come back here, if you have other questions or if I didn't answer one you already posted. --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

MBK004 also has a subpage for use in this situation; see User talk:MBK004/Anon. --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely you can appreciate the problem of quality control trying to post original research here. How would you suggest wikipedia insure the usefullness ( however you want to define it ) of self-certified information and differentiate from other anonymuous forums? How would arguments get settled? My favorite personal experience here is an argument from my youth, that was settled with "I should know, I'm in 4th grade" and it works just as well when the FDA appeals to credentials. LOL. Lack of appeal to authority creates some good benefits here. How can we insure you are right and distinguish you from a false prophet? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

two questions

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you list retail web sites in a directory and if so how can I submit our site offering collector men's neckties. This site has two pages that may be of interest either submitted as a link or as an articles. Those URL Addresses are below concerning the history of ties and the Windsor Tie Knot origin and tying diagram.

Also I have professional pohotography of Iceland, India, the US Southwest, New York and other locations, along with articles that I wrote for magazines that may also be of interest to Wikipedia

http://www.nicetiestore.com/tiehistory.html

http://www.nicetiestore.com/howtotieties.html

“The apparel oft proclaims the man," William Shakespeare - Hamlet, poet, and dramatist 1564 - 1616.“

thank you

Jeffrey Hunter Email jeffreyhunter@nicetiestore.com Nice Ties Inc www.nicetiestore.com 710 East San Ysidro Blvd. Suite A1119 San Ysidro CA 92173 619 270-2102 888 713-1233 toll free —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiesties (talk • contribs) 00:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You need to establish that your business has been noted by someone, even if just for superlative spam exploits LOL. History of something like ties may make a reasonable article but it can't be a how-to or instuction manual. If others have noted your photography it may qualify for inclusion somewhere but you can't just use it to advertise and make notable that which no one else has so far found note worthy. There are catagories or inherent note, and wiki effectively is a directory for licensed broadcast stations. If you have transmitter then you should be fine. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory. Please read the links that have been placed on your talk page to understand about Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia Commons may be a good place to upload your photographs, if you wish to shsre them. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Illegible content

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

On one of your many help pages, the headers and content are placed so that one is positioned directly over the other, making both the headers and the content unreadable. Please look into this. It is located on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_contributors%27_help_page

I have looked and have not found this suggestion posted anywhere.

~Adelaide Eldridge —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdelaideEldridge (talk • contribs) 05:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The page looks alright to me, so I think the issue may be browser specific. What browser and version are you using? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleted page - Telsis

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Good morning. I created a page about the UK-owned telecommunications infrastructure vendor Telsis, attempting to stay well on the side of neutrality and well away from puffery and promotion. Your editor Secret deleted the page because he felt that I had not shown how Telsis was significant. The page was undeleted by Wikipedia and parked in an area where I could work on it. I did so and on the 17th of November posted a note on Secret's page inviting him to take a look and advise if the Telsis article now meets notability criteria. I am new to Wikipedia and unsure of what expectations it is reasonable to have, but I haven't received a reply from Secret. Do I need to do anything else in order to have my revised page reviewed?

With thanks.

Kevin Fiske (Sagepart)78.33.161.173 (talk) 08:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, The Telsis page was deleted and moved to User:Sagepart/Telsis (edit | [[Talk:User:Sagepart/Telsis|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The deletion reason given was No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion: WP:CORP). Might I suggest that you read the WP:CORP guidelines. You, assuming that User:78.33.161.173 is the same person as User:Sagepart, have added "references to to a trade association and teh European Patent Office and Wikipedia irself. None of these are reliable sources in the Wikipedia sense. What you need is references in quailty newspapers, trade journals or academic journals, that establish the WP:notability of the company. Unfortunately the only items I can find are simply Telsis press releases. It would seem that the company is simply not notable enough at present for inclusion in Wikipedia. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a trade directory as many assume. It is an encyclopaedia and there really is no place for every company in the world to be included. Sure big companies like Ford Motor Company and Imperial Chemical Industries are included, becaus they meet the notability guideline for businesses. I have placed some useful links about Wikipedia policies on your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I think wiki assumed companies with publicly traded securities are inherently notable. Note also that notice by a competitor is considered indpendent notice- if a competitor mentions you in an SEC filing or its own PR("competing against the super duper product from acme etc etc"), that may help establish your own notability. The idea is intellectual independence. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 09:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the idea of publicly traded companies having inherent notability has been suggested but there was no consensus. Trivial mentions in filings are not significant independpent reliable sources. Nerdseeksblonde, please do not make up policies or guidelines here, it only confuses the issue. Th etype of coverage needed is specicifically stated as Examples of such sources include independent press coverage, analyst reports, and profiles by companies such as Hoover's.

Coverage in:

Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people.[2] Material that is self-published, or published at the direction of the subject of the article, would be a primary source and falls under different policies.
Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories.

is specifically excluded. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understand my point. Maybe they dismissed the inherent notability based on public securities but it would be hard to find such a company where analyst coverage did not exist. Further, you need to distinguish policies from guidelines and essays and read your entire quote, "group talks about itself" does not limit the usage of such materials from other sources if they manage to be reliable and significant. The driving factor here is significant independent coverage. Implicit in your statements is the intellectual dependence of press releases issued by the entity for which notability is to be established. The coverage needs to be significant, enough to make a reasonable article. And it needs to be indpendent- nothing you state above really makes my earlier post incorrect but maybe the inherency issue is a bit misleading now. It is not common of course for a competitor to make such a statement in the absence of additional third party coverage ( " can acme survive with competition for widget co?"). I also said "help" as I agree that trivial passing mention doesn't make something notable enough for an article. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that analysts' coverage would be a reliable source - they only release reports to drum up business... – ukexpat (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Almost all coverage has a sponsor of sometype with a particular axe to grind or bias but certainly independece in many cases may be hard to determine. There is no requirement that each source be objective or lack a POV, only that the resulting article reflects the prominence of each POV. I tend to agree however that many analyst reports are sponsored by an interested party solely to sell stock. Since these interests may not be clear, there could be a lot of room for debate here. However, SEC filings generally have some legal requirements to be factually accurate and disclose some risk factors. It would not be real common for company X to issue a PR saying "company Y killed us this quarter due to introduction of their product Z with features A,B, and C" without Bloomberg doing a similar story but in some more obscure but still notable catagories it is not impossible. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Nerdseeksblonde, the coverage must be independent, reliable, and significant. If it's something every publicly traded company does as a matter of routine, it's not any more significant of a record than your or my birth certificate. If it's company sponsored, it's not independent or reliable. If it only mentions the company in passing ("competing against company X"), it's not significant. And inherent notability is a contradiction. Notability is verifiable in the same way as anything else—consult reliable sources! If they've written a good deal about the subject, they're stating it's notable. If they're relatively silent on it, or only sources affiliated with the subject (press releases, etc.) are present, they're stating it's not. We follow reliable sources, we do not substitute our judgment for theirs. To answer the question of the editor above, you've got to add substantial, reliable, third party sources to the article. If that level of sourcing doesn't exist, the subject is not an appropriate one for an article and you'd need to go ahead and write about something else instead. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

First, let's remember to always fall back on the policies when guidelines and essays are ambiguous or unclear. And ok, I may have been mistaken about actual inherency of notability but it is almost inherent in the process of getting to that stage that someone takes note. Also, read the full text posted by others, there is no fundamental wikipedia policy against press releases- that quote is qualified and limited to intellectually dependent sources as per the more fundamental policies or guidelines. Unaffiliated entities may take note of a given company in their own press releases or other publications and may give more than passing mention- I'm just trying to be clear that should a press release satisfy these criteria( independent significant coverage) it would help establish notability. The overall coverage needs to be significant enough to write a good article, it is unlikely that one PR will suffice but not impossible. Not all SEC filings are like birth cerfiticates, have you ever read one? These can be open ended places for management to disclose concerns of note- often things they don't want to brag about but none the less have to mention. The idea may come down to having to piece notability together- this has been a topic of debate in the past. And, I will admit that suggesting a PR to a COI editor may be a bit misleading but I thought it made a good point: the notice from an adversary may establish notability. While the point made have been lost on some, it should have made a point on COI editor. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Biographies

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

May I write biographies about people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetspotcontent (talk • contribs)

Hello Sweetspotcontent, welcome to Wikipedia. Please sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~).

A Wizard is available to walk you through these steps. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines with which all articles should comply. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Your first article. You might also look at Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. An Article Wizard is available to walk you through creating an article. GlassCobra 15:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

EUROTEM

Resolved

– malware EL and unencyclopaedic image removed. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The page above (and others) links to hyundai-eurotem.com but I'm getting malware reports.. It's a clearly legitimate business nevertheless.

see http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=http://hyundai-eurotem.com/&hl=en

What to do ? Policy? 77.86.42.133 (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed the malware EL and the image which is unencyclopaedic per WP:EL. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually not completely - one of the references also links got it myself - the link didn't actually state what was a forward looking statement in the text, which I can't find any evidence for anyway. I think that's all of them.Shortfatlad (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, missed that - I have checked the others using WP:CHECKLINKS and they all seem OK. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Style and references

Resolved

– article deleted as recreation of previosuly deleted article and copyright violation. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi everybody,

I´m new in wikipedia and an editor recently noticed some style and references problems in my article. I tried to improve them. I wrote to the editor a private message but I did not get any answer. I just learnt in this article I needed to use the talk page (I´m learning step by step) and I also contacted the editor in his talk page. I would like to invite you to visit the talk page of SAFE-COMMS. Counter-Terrorism Crisis Communication (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and help me to make it better. Thanks. (Zulolohi (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

Your article is a blatant copyright violation. You have removed a speedy deletion tag which was placed on 24 November, without attempting to resolve this matter and I have placed a copyvio template on the page and a notice on your talk page. Do not edit the page as it will be deleted soon. Please read the note on your talk page and follow the links to see how to develop a satisfactory article. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to save you a lot of reading - the best way to avoid any copyright problems is to write the article "in your own words". (don't forget to reference it). Follow that and you should never have any problems.Shortfatlad (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Gen. Wesley Clark

Resolved

– vandalism reverted. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

In the article "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark", the caption under the picture "USSOUTHCOM.JPEG" includes language you may not approve of. I didn't mess with it so you could track whoever messed with it and take appropriate action if necessary. Thanks.

Fixed. If you'd like to know more about how to revert this kind of thing yourself, there's some info in WP:Vandalism, but if not, thanks fro the heads up. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)