Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 71

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

Einsiders.com

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sir or Madam:

Yesterday it was brought to my attention that Einsiders.com is about to be (or has been) removed from Wikipedia.

Can an editor or administrator contact me and tell me what the heck is going on?

Thanks,

javascript:insertTags('Jonathan W. Hickman (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)',,) Jonathan W. Hickman Editor and President Einsiders.com, Inc.

Hi, I can't find any page named Einsiders or Einsiders.com, but maybe you are referring to external links to your website being removed. There is a discussion about the reliability of Einsiders here, which concludes that, in Wikipedia terms, it is not a reliable source. The standards are set quite high here and no evidence can be found that other reliable sources, e.g. major newspapers, journals, etc. cite Einsders as reliable and there is no information on the website as to editorial process. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

There is another discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, I dislike that bit about being called unreliable. I've interviewed plenty of filmmakers and actors, many on video, over the years, are you saying that simple reporting of what is said by those people is not reliable? The whole Wikipedia thing is pretty intimidating to me. But I think that it is unfortunate that the conclusion was that einsiders was not reliable was reached without anyone ever emailing me about it. I've been writing about movies for over a decade, you know.Jonathan W. Hickman (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Jonathan W. Hickman

Please read our policies on reliable sources. Can you provide references in third party publications that verify that your web site is a reliable source?

I really hate this. I never cared whether I was in Wikipedia or not, but being called unreliable smarts. Einsiders has always been an independent voice for film criticism online. I suppose we've been quoted by others, certainly our reviews have appeared on posters and movie boxes. We were mentioned in Hollywood Reporter once about our Sundance coverage. Can't a Wiki editor recognize that the over a decade of covering movies makes us a reliable source for film criticism? I myself have written several thousand reviews and I'm a member of SEFCA, my films are listed on IMDB as well. Thanks for your attention on this.javascript:insertTags('Jonathan W. Hickman (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)',,)

I am not calling you unreliable, I am commenting that it seems from other discussions that the website einsiders.com is not a reliable source. Google News Archive turns up two articles where einsiders reviews are quoted and one passing mention of sending bloggers to a festival. This does give some credence to the site being a source, but it is not a lot for ten years coverage. It is really up to the reliable sources noticeboard to offer guidance on this. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Need some new eyes

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have had a problem with a section in the article Diploma Mills. The subsection is on Romania, and contains information about the university [Spiru Haret] I just received a message from someone saying I was going to be blocked from editing if I did anything else to the page. The whole issue steams from the question, is the school a mill or not. It is not! and it has full government accreditation to operate. It has had some problems in the past and they are being investigated. But by no means are they a mill. A mill would mean they lack accreditation, the school does not. I think the other editor getting a mod to kick me is a bit of a srong responce. I made my edit after posting in the talk page and waiting. I did not just do it. --Super (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Over several days you have repeatedly deleted that material, and repeatedly been reverted by several editors. That's edit warring. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I know this, my question is why can't anyone talk about this. Should I allow this error to remain, is it fair? Its ok for people to change my edits but I can't change theirs? I have posted all the facts needed to back up my actions. I think you have a conflict of interest in this. I will show good faith. All I wanted to have were some fresh eyes to look it over, I never said your name or brought you up. --Super (talk) 04:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

In what way would I have a COI? That's an odd claim to make. I have no interest in or knowledge of that school. My only concern is your removal of sourced content and then edit warring over the matter. You are the one who seems to have a COI, as you are the one protecting the school. As to mentioning my name, if you do so you will be blocked for outing. That's a very serious matter here. Several editors have been indefinitely banned from Wikipedia for doing so. The notification at the top of my talk page makes that very clear. Don't do it. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The error is in your removal of information referenced by two reliable sources about enquiries by the Romanian authorities into this university. If you carry on edit warring in this manner you will be blocked. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

That’s all well and good, but that’s not the point, me making two edits does not warrant a block, nor is it an edit war. The point is the school still has accreditation and is clearly not a mill. I see the same group of editors pile onto people when they try to correct one of them, not to fair. If people would just look at the facts and then look at what a mill is than we can fix this. Its ok to be wrong.--Super (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"Two edits"? I count five deletions. [1] I also notice that you have previously been blocked twice for this type of behavior and for socking. [2] You need to reconsider why you are here. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I was blocked twice by the same group I am having problems with now. Both times I was unblocked. Both times the un blocker stated we were being treated unfairly. Anyone who worked on the University of Atlanta page was just about blocked and called a sock puppet, we were all unblocked. Anytime anyone makes a good edit on one of the pages their working on they all jump on you. Just look at what you are doing. Not once have you looked at the issue that’s the problem. I came here to get some new eyes on this and the same person who threatened to block me(BullRangifer) follows me over here and try’s to block anyone else from looking into it with negative posts about me. You need to look at why you are here! --Super (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Much Ado about Removed "See also"

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed a "See also" from Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission because neither the case nor the relevant issue was mentioned in the text and I figured it would be confusing for most people. An editor continues to object and harass me about it, saying I haven't told him why, when I've made a number of arguments for doing so. See talk discussion here. I have repeatedly suggested that if he thinks it's that important, all that is needed is one sentence with a WP:RS in the article to make the link relevant. But he'd rather keep hassling me. I don't feel like going to 3rd opinion or wiki-etiquette on this. Or should I?? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have responded at the talk page. Basically, I see nothing wrong with that article being linked in the see also. In fact if it was referred to in the main text of the artcile, that would be a reason for removal. I think you are mis-understanding the See Also guidlines. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin keeps posting libellous statements about Dr. Steven Jones

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

For the entry of Dr. Steven Jones, User:Arthur Rubin keeps posting libellous an unsubstantiated comments about Dr. Steven Jones, retired Professor Emeritus of Brigham Young University. Dr. Jones retired in 2006 with full benefits, and continues to be listed on BYU.edu with his latest CV (Sept 2009). This is something BYU has no obligation to do, once a professor retires. There are no hard feelings between Dr. Jones and BYU. Arthur Rubin insists on posting the false statement that Dr. Jones was "relieved of his teaching duties" which makes is sound like he is not on good terms with the University. If that was true, BYU would not update his CV. BYU even cites his research on the dust of the World Trade Center. I have asked Arthur Rubin to cite a source for his belief, and he has not done so. Arthur Rubin has posted on Wikipedia that he thinks Dr. Jones is an "idiot" - which obviously is not true of someone who has a PhD from a major university, with many studies published in refereed scientific journals. I ask you to not permit Arthur Rubin to use Wikipedia for his personal bad feelings he evidently has for an honest and hard working professor. Arthur Rubin needs to provide a source to some statement from BYU, not ad-hominem attacks by a "hear say" third party. Wikipedia is not a forum for his personal opinions of a living person. Arthur Rubin's opinion of Dr. Jones is contrary to Wikipedia's definition of Professor Emeritus as "A full professor who retires in good standing." Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cicorp (talk • contribs) 22:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The lede section of an article in general does not include sources, but there is considerable sourcing in the body of the article which supports the claims. I see nothing wrong here. Woogee (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the artcile sources the information that Jones was relieved of his teaching duties. Your reversions consist of edit warring. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Repeating the same argument over and over again doesn't make your claims any more true. Are you saying that all of the sources on the page are false? Woogee (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Internal links to special pages

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Just trying to make an internal link for my tool box to "Recent Changes" page and can't get it to work. I know it will work, it works off the userbox I have, does it take writing a script ? or am I using the wrong template ? Mlpearc (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably best to check out Wikipedia:Tools. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Article Re: "Naveen Jain"

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There are few people who seem to constantly add incorrect information even after I provided them with the official information from the SEC filings. There are few people insist on writing that Jain paid 105 Million to settle lawsuit by shareholders. As you can see, it was a multi-party dispute between several officers and directors of the company, infospace and insurance companies. I added the following text from the SEC filings reference at http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1068875/000119312504219392/dex991.htm.

There was a multi party dispute between InfoSpace, the officers and directors of InfoSpace and several insurance companies. the dispute was settled with express agreement stating that each defendant in each of the resolved dispute, including the Company, denies liability. The Settlement Agreement was entered into for the sole purpose of resolving contested claims and disputes as well as avoiding the substantial costs, expenses and uncertainties associated with protracted and complex litigation

There are couple of people working in concert to keep undoing this and adding irrelevant and incorrect information. Can this page be completely locked since this person is a living person and too many people trying to vandalize the page.

Information being constantly added may belong to an article about InfoSpace but not about a person who worked at the company.

Please advice.

Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

See discussions at WP:AN3 on Wiki Expert Edit, User talk:Wiki-expert-edit, Talk:Naveen_Jain#Short_swing_lawsuit, and Talk:Naveen_Jain#Inaccuracies.3F --Ronz (talk) 04:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see SEC 8K filing which is most authentic and trusted source of information on this topic at http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1068875/000119312504219392/0001193125-04-219392.txt. In any case, most of this information belongs in the article about infospace and not on this page. Remember, Jain was just one of the many people who were involved in a very complex dispute. Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we please discuss the issues as opposed to bullying everyone in to accepting your version by threatening them to block them. I have provided you with authentic documents to disprove your references but you insist on continuing to spread the inaccurate information. Please stay civil and respect fellow wiki community members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-expert-edit (talk • contribs) 17:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ronz isn't bullying everyone - everyone agrees with him and is reverting your edits (seven editors so far). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-expert-edit, please stop forum shopping and bring some reliable sources to the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Erroneous Information In in a Wikipedia article about Sen. Joseph Lieberman

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Senator Lieberman is not a registered Democrat. He is an Independent. (foxnews.com, Wednesday August 06, 2006) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.27.82.130 (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, which bit of this paragraph from the Lead,

"During his re-election bid in 2006, he lost the Democratic Party primary election but won re-election in the general election as a third party candidate under the party label "Connecticut for Lieberman." Lieberman has been officially listed in Senate records for the 110th and 111th Congresses as an "Independent Democrat"[2] and sits as part of the Senate Democratic Caucus. But since his speech at the 2008 Republican National Convention in which he endorsed John McCain for president, Lieberman no longer attends Democratic Caucus leadership strategy meetings or policy lunches.[3] On November 5, 2008, Lieberman met with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to discuss his future role with the Democratic Party. Ultimately, the Senate Democratic Caucus voted to allow Lieberman to keep chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Subsequently, Lieberman announced that he will continue to caucus with the Democrats."

do you disagree with? Jezhotwells (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

BOB MARLEY SONG ONE LOVE

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the wonderfull work you are doing.Really,it has been a great impactation.Please,kindly send to me wordings of Bob Marley one love song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.199.50.77 (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You mean this article, One Love (Bob Marley song)? If you want to find an article in Wikipedia just type in the name in the search box. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

He didn't ask for the article, he wanted to know where to get the lyrics. The link there doesn't work anymore. (I have no interest in the subject - just trying to help.) Mzk1 (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, silly me. lyric server has lyrics for the song. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

A question regarding contacting the deleting administrator

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

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

The page states: "A page with this title has previously been deleted.

If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below."

Who is the deleting administrator? And how does one contact?

In case someone wishes to pass this along to whom it may concern, here is what I would send to the deleting administrator or appropriate whomever:

I noticed this was deleted and I don't understand why it was deleted... Something about advertising? Since my total knowledge about the company was two news articles on TV and less than 15 minutes of web searching I can assure the Wiki Powers that it was not for profit on my part. But I suppose no one will be harmed if they don't find a wiki article on Flogos. On other things the Wiki Elders just rewrote them until it met their criteria. Rather than just axing it.

Here is a third party source on the item: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24162063/

No idea if MSNBC meets "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market."

I will never do Wiki-ing enough to reach the level of proficiency that I should. But I rather thought (if I recall correctly) my article covered the basics of the subject. And now there is no information on it at all on Wikipedia, which seems rather pointless.Wiki-790 (talk) 08:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, imemediately below the text about contacting the deleting administrator is the tex:

03:17, 9 May 2008 Discospinster (talk)) | contribs) deleted "Flogos" ‎ (G11: Blatant advertising) 10:17, 10 April 2008 Longhair (talk) | contribs) deleted "Flogos" ‎ (G11: Blatant advertising)

which tells us that on 10 April 2008 Flogos was deleted as blatant advertising by Longhair and on 9 May 2008 by Discospinster. So those are the deleteing admins to talk to. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

adding information

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

How do you add information about your town, that already has a reference in Wikipedia? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diccadoo (talk • contribs) 16:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Go to the relevant page (such as Harlow) and click along the top where it says "edit this page"--TimothyJacobson (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Requesting content from deleted page

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, the article List of Messianic and Hebrew Christian congregations was deleted for CSD in 2008. I would like to get a copy of its contents at deletion time, and any recoverable snapshot ca. April 2008. I'm not asking that it actually be restored to Wikipedia after all this time. I understand only those with administrator rights to Wikipedia can do this. Anyone who can recover this is welcome to just email a text-dump to me. Can you assist? Thanks. —Wikijeff (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If you click on the link to the deleted article you will see a message stating the admins who have deleted the page. If you ask them nicely, they may restore it to yoru user-space. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Need help on Grue and Bleen

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

In Grue and Bleen (talk page) User:Kevanhashemi insists on keeping in a passage which by his own admission, is original research and which references a self-published paper by himself. I have no idea what to do about this short of edit warring. Someone please help me. Ken Arromdee (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello i have posted a message on his talk page...Very friendly told him that we need a better source. I think we should also look make sure theres no Conflict of interest --> [3] However, if it is him he is well known in the community ..he was the Electrical Engineer at Harvard University for some time. Buzzzsherman (talk) 07:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The page is about philosophy, not electrical engineering. 67.218.38.62 (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL i was just pointing out he is a well educated individual and i dont think he can be just brushed off...Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, he's claiming that he's not using a reference at all and that the argument in the paragraph itself justifies its inclusion. Ken Arromdee (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This still needs fixing. He put the paper on his department website. However, putting a paper on his department website doesn't make it published. The paper is not peer reviewed and the subject matter of the paper has nothing to do with the high energy physics department anyway.

He also seems to think that it doesn't even need a reference because "my addition stands upon its own." Come on. He's making his own argument in that paragraph. That's original research and is prohibited on Wikipedia. Here's his justification from the talk page:

So, you accept the fact that the response I have added to the page is correct, and would be of great interest to the reader, but you remove it anyway because you believe that this page should be controlled by self-appointed experts. A "reference" is a basis for backing up a claim that is made without sufficient discussion in the Wikipedia page. In this case, the link to my paper is not a "reference", because there is sufficient argument in the single paragraph I have added to justify its addition. The link I provide is for the interested reader to follow, as a further discussion, but is not used to justify the paragraph. --Kevan Hashemi 14:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That is *very* blatantly violating Wikipedia rules about the need for references and the ban on original research. (Furthermore, he's wrong. I don't consider his paragraph to be correct, but I have no interest in debating the paragraph, and because original research is barred, I shouldn't *need* to debate the paragraph.) Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

help with Chesterfield Idaho page

Resolved

– discussion continues at article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia. User Nyttend keeps reverting the page back because he says I'm violation copywrite, but will not give me examples. How do I change what is in violation when I'm not told what I'm violating?

Also, I think this is being very rude, especially to a newbie who would like assistance in correcting my mistakes.

bgwhite

Bgwhite (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, you have been posting text which is a copy or close paraphrase of the Chesterfield foundation Fall Newsletter, November 2009. In doing that you have also removed referenced text from the article. Further this edit includes an edit summary that states "Please do not revert page as Chesterfield Foundation board members are checking for errors.", which suggests that you have a conflict of interest. I have placed some useful links on your talk page. Please read up on the copyright and conflict of interest policies, which are important foundations of Wikipedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Please tell me what sections the I have copied or a close paraphrase so I can fix it. All I'm asking is tell me where it is. No, I don't have a conflict of interest. I'm not affiliated with the Chesterfield Foundation. When I asked them for permission to use photos, they asked me if I would correct any problems they found and I said yes.

Bgwhite (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I should clarify that the copyright violation allegation was made by User:Nyttend. Perhaps you ought to allow them time to respond to your comment which was only made 40 minutes ago. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have left a note about this discussion at the artcile talk page and User:Nyttend's talk page. It is usual practice to inform other involved editors when you are bringing issues like this to WP:EAR or other noticeboards. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I asked in the revision history page on 19:45, 27 February 2010 to tell me exactly where the problem was and I got yet another general response. I feel I'm just going back and forth. I will wait. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgwhite (talk • contribs)

Bgwhite (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry that I didn't do as you asked; I must have misunderstood what you meant. When this first came up, I found at least one passage (I think more, but I can't remember) in this version of the article that was word-for-word identical to one of the sources. I don't remember what it was now, and I can't find the passage in the original. Since board members are checking for errors, perhaps they've changed the source documents since this subject came up? I have other problems with this content, but as they're unrelated to copyright issues, I'll bring them up at the talk page. Nyttend (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

References and internal links removed from article

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

User "Alepinski" on 24 November 2009 removed all of the references and internal links (to other Wiki articles). I'm writing to ask if this was appropriate and if not, whether a wiki editor would please restore them.

Thanks much, Books2read (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Books2read

I have reverted and warned the editor. Must be the most delayed vandalism report that I've seen! :-) Jezhotwells (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Jamie Colby

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I edited this article to remove the book promotion link.

http://www.backtolifethebook.com/

I did this as an objectionable link under the Wiki guideline below http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#In_biographies_of_living_people

....Links normally to be avoided

5. Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, the mobile phone article does not link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services.

Do you agree? Mojofan1945 (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree: this is an unambiguous spam link. The user who put the link there has put it back. I have reverted and warned the user. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply. Mojofan1945 (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Personal Pages for Members of 7x grammy nominated band The Killers

Resolved

– articles moved to user space and editor is working on them there. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I am looking to put up a personal page for each member of the international multiplatinum rock band The Killers (Island Def Jam Records, 15 million records+ sold). One of them (lead singer) has a page, the other three do not yet (they were deleted each time). These members each perform interviews for various international publications. They each have fan groups and they have each been featured for their superior talent at their instruments in internationally published (ie. 'Bass Guitar Magazine' cover June 2009, 'Bass Player' Magazine, 'Drummer' Magazine cover June 2009, 'Rhythm Magazine', 'Modern Drummer' Magazine, 'Drumhead Magazine', and 'Guitarist' Magazine May 2009, etc) magazines.

What do I need to do to restore/write wikipedia pages for these guys? I am more than happy to have my proposed pages approved by a wikipedia staff member. I am sure that you will find that they meet all standards for personal pages. Below I have written some of the publications that each can be seen in individually. The actual publications I can provide sources for or they can be found also at the painstakingly collected www.thekillersfansite.com. I can find many more publications like these if needed.

Dave Keuning: About.com (interview) Main Stage Centrail (T in the Park, Scotland, interview) Musicradar.com (interview) Whisky Soda: Alt Music Magazine (Germany, interview) Rolling Stone Magazine (Spain, Nov 2008, interview) HotPress (Feb 2009, interview) Colorado Springs Independent (newspaper, Jan 2009, interview) stuff.co.nz (Jan 2009, apology for show cancellation and interview) Timeslive (interview about show at the "Dome") TVNZ (interview) threedworld.com.au (Feb 2009, Australia, interview)

Mark Stoermer: Studio Brussell (Germany, interview) Lowlands Festival (UK, interview) Bass Guitar Magazine (March/April 2007, interview) Las Vegas City Life (interview) muziek.nl (June 2009, rt before Pink Pop Music Festival, Netherlands, interview)

Ronnie Vannucci Jr: Auckland BDO (Norway, interview) azcentral.com (interview) The Vine (interview) Drumhead Magazine (Oct 2008, interview) Rhythm Magazine (Nov 2008, interview) Louisville.com (Jan 2009, interview) National Post (Jan 2009, back stage in Toronto, Canada, interview) Modern Drummer (March 2009, interview) Edmonton Journal (April 2009, Canada interview) Vindy.com (May 2009, interview) Las Vegas Review Journal (interview) thebejinger.com (Jan 2009, China, interview)

Below are links to the starts of each of their articles--can you please restore these? I will polish them up to specks if you will do that. I think a better way to approach these this second time would be to focus on their instruments and the specs associated with them for the fans who are interested in playing like them, etc. Something similar to the pages up for members of the rock band Kings of Leon (Jared Followill, etc) <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Keuning&oldid=326671755>, <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronnie_Vannucci_Jr&oldid=309104025>, and <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Stoermer&oldid=326272613>.

Please help me. If you would read through this I am sure that you will find these persons worthy of wikipedia pages. Sincerely, Joe Meservy (on wikipedia 'waytagojoe') <email redacted>

You can also contact the management and law firm for each of these persons at http://www.reynolds-lawyers.com to confirm details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waytagojoe (talk • contribs) 21:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you work on the articles in your user space. I have copied each of them there to User:Waytagojoe/Dave Keuning, User:Waytagojoe/Ronnie Vannucci Jr and User:Waytagojoe/Mark Stoermer respectively. Add references to reliable sources and most importantly establish their notability outside of the band. When you think you have things fixed up, come back here and ask for opinions on whether they are ready for main space. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Please look over the following two pages (I am still working on the third) which I think are nearly ready for main space. I am happy to adjust as needed to make them worthy of wikipedia. Thank you for your help. User:Waytagojoe/Ronnie Vannucci Jr and User:Waytagojoe/Mark Stoermer

Sincerely, Joe Meservy --Waytagojoe (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, how can I add a photo to wikipedia for the Ronnie Vannucci page? Its pretty simple I am sure but I just don't have experience for it.--Waytagojoe (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Being stalked by Helsinki based IPs

Resolved

– user page protected Jezhotwells (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Have been stalked by various Helsinki based IPs. User has been sockpuppeting to gain "support" for his/her own edits. Has reverted many of my edits despite talk page attempted resolution by myself and has also been instrumental in attempting to stop my attempts at gaining rollback rights. Has today posted on NJAs talk page causing trouble in order to try to prevent me to gain these rights.

The IP has been asked to register for an account to stop sockpuppeting and harassment from taking place, but has not done so.

Has also threatened me with "termination" many times and has threatened to report me to a (fake) admin because of my reports (available below)

A mini-report of this IP set is available here. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

i see that you have already asked for admin help at User:NJA's talk page and that they have responded, with some useful suggestions. What else do you need from here? Jezhotwells (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This reply has nothing on what to do

This suggests the IP signs up, though I've yet to see evidence of that. Also says dispute resolution, but that's difficult when I've already taken that my talking to the person's various talk pages. The fact that harassment is still taking place and sockpuppetry was never punished. I really need these IPs banned because they're stalking me and causing trouble. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think that User:NJA indicated that this is not sockpuppetry. If the IPs keep edit warring then report at WP:3RR, if you feel you are being harassed then report it at WP:AN/I. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

To quote from the sockpuppetry page:

Strawman socks: Creating a separate account to argue one side of an issue in a deliberately irrational or offensive fashion, to sway opinion to another side.

This not an example of that (just substituting the word "account" with "IP")? Paralympiakos (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, if you think it is sockpuppetry the report it at WP:SPI. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem though. I don't know how to. That page confuses me. After clicking on the button to make a report, it says how I would be recreating a page that was already deleted. I've asked for admin assistance before (I think at one of the links I've left above) but have yet to receive any. Paralympiakos (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read the instructions at the top of the page. The bot is currently not working so you may have to ask a clerk to add your request. Make sure that you have all the the diffs (edits) to hand. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

As for asking a clerk, I've noticed that NJA is one and I basically asked for help from him/her. Unfortunately, that user has been absent for a while now. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Category tip

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

(crossposted from pseudoscience WikiProject):

Do we have a category for "pseudoscientific and fraudulent devices"? If so what is it - I can't find one. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds a little specific to me. I see at Special:Categories that the category Pseudoscience has either been deleted or not created. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Pseudoscience was created in 2004 and has never been deleted. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, it showed as a redlink in Special:Categories Jezhotwells (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

??

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I have updated my page which appears to have been written by someone with bias against my involvement in 'drum and bass'/electronic music

I added facts including my winning 'Best Producer' since 2003 from Knowledge magazine (can be verified), and the consistently voted no.1 drum and bass track of all time 'the nine' specifically by 'Drum and Bass arena' also some other facts which are relevant to my career and status within what i do, and things i would like there as a lot of people in the music business use these pages as a point of reference. This has been disputed in some way by someone, i cant work out how to communicate with them directly, i also wanted to update the photo which was taken by somebody in a nightclub about seven years ago with a decent quality press photo, but noone has got back to me

help! : )

Dan Stein DJ Fresh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshbadco (talk • contribs) 17:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone did answer your concern above, on this page, with information about how to add a picture. (If you look at the contents at the top, the section is no. 17.) With regards to the edits you've made to the article, it's discouraged to actually write about yourself or subjects that you are involved with. It's considered a conflict of interest. You'd be better off making suggestions for any changes you'd like made at Talk:Fresh (musician). Also, if you look at the history of the page, you can see who has reverted your edits, and why, and you can contact them by clicking on the link that says "talk" after their name. Hope this helps. Regards, --Beloved Freak 17:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure whether to assume good faith

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi all,

This user has made some contributions to the bleach article which I'm having difficulty with — they aren't obvious vandalism in my eyes, but they fall far short of what is expected of content. He has removed a large chunk of unreferenced text (fair doos) but did so in a very roughshod way, leaving a paragraph with half an opening sentence. He then added an (unreferenced) statement on the dilution of bleach which is unencyclopaedic. The user has a history of non-communication; any messages left on his talk page will be blanked as soon as they are noticed. One of his accounts is banned (User:Killspammers) and another (User:Thekiller35789) is used to primarily ask questions on the refdesks, which occasionally include links to shock sites. I'm still fairly new to WP so I don't know how to handle him or what action (if any) should be taken. Brammers (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean by roughshod. First action is to undo the edits to Bleach since those are pretty obviously flawed in many many ways. I will do that. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, to answer your question: yes, assume good faith. He clearly doesn't care about capitalization, grammar, or referencing text. Still, he isn't vandalizing (much) and he is actually trying to add content. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I will do, and thank you so much. He's actually responded to a comment I left on his talk page this evening, which is a pleasant surprise. Thanks again for the quick response :) Brammers (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Please Edit the page on Jarno Saarinen - motorcycle racer

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This article suggests Saarinen was the first to win the Daytona 200 on small-displacement machinery. Here is the statement: "Saarinen's 1973 season started amazingly well, as he became the first European rider to win the prestigious Daytona 200 race in the United States on a TZ350 against much larger-capacity opposition."

Yes, it's a sort of truth. He was the first European winner, and he was the first to win on that particular model of Yamaha, the TZ350, but he was not the first to win it with a small displacement engine against the big stuff(350 cc, vs the 750 cc allowed at the time). The year before (1972), Don Emde won it with a TR3 Yamaha, also of 350 cc. The TR3 is virtually identical to the first TZ350's as Saarinen used in 1973, except Saarinen's engine was water-cooled, giving it a large advantage over its predecessor in long distance races like the Daytona 200. As well as being the first small-displacement victory in the Daytona 200, and the smallest displacement ever, by the way, Don Emde's victory, because it was done with an air-cooled engine, was much more of a challenge than Saarinen's.

Something should be changed in the sentence quoted above to correct the perception that what Saarinen accomplished at Daytona was unique, or pioneering. In fact, Yamaha brought Saarinen over to the US to run the race for international variety in what was considered to be one of the world's most prestigious motorcycle races, even though it was not on the World Grand Prix Championship circuit of events. The Daytona 200 is/was about twice the distance of a World Grand Prix event, providing many different challenges to Europeans, such as tire wear, need to re-fuel mid race, rider endurance, tactics, high banked turns, etc. Yamaha knew that many private US, Canadian and South American riders with over-the-counter air-cooled Yamaha's would have high odds of winning, even with the previous year's 1972 air-cooled technology. They knew the new water-cooled bikes would be even better. Though an air-cooled victory would have done OK for marketing purposes, the best thing for them was a victory by a European using the new water-cooled technology. Yamaha wanted a water-cooled bike to win because it would sell more racers as well as street bikes, and fuel consumer appetite in Europe as well. They made sure of that by sending a superior factory-special example of the new water-cooled bikes with the very popular newly-crowned 250cc European World Champion aboard, Mr. Saarinen.

So I think the statement should be changed to read:

Saarinen's 1973 season started amazingly well, as he became the first European rider to win the prestigious Daytona 200 race in the United States. He used the new Yamaha TZ350 against much larger-capacity opposition, duplicating the previous year's winning results by Don Emde, who rode an earlier air-cooled 350 cc Yamaha, the TR3.

The reference on which to base this change is found in Wikipedia under the Daytona 200, and in the annals of racing history.

Thanks, Tony Lowe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximumsmoke (talk • contribs) 00:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia! Ok, you have an account so you can edit the article yourself. I have posted some links on your talk page which I recommend that you read before you actually do any editing. Remember that you should find relaiable sources for any information you add. The suggested sentence you quote above is not encyclopaedic - words like amazing represent a point of view (yours) and should not be used in teh artcile. The language used in an encyclopaedia should be neutral, reporting the facts in a balanced manner. Please read up on our policies and especially the tutorial - there is a lot to learn. Good luck. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

actor parthiban

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

i am krishna, film director r.parthepan sir's associate. i saw the artcle about actor parthiban was lot of errors, and plenty of wrong information. so kindly change the wrong information, because he is well known person in india, espesially south india. if u want any clarification about actor parthepan,please check www.parthepan.com

regards,

krishnamurthy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishnaakittu (talk • contribs) 04:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you post specific concerns with errors you may have noticed at the article talk page, Talk:R. Parthiban. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

disputing definitional assertions

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Article fails to note that the terms "sexual violence" or "sexually violent predator" are used, in a legal context throughout the United States, to denote actions or behaviors which do not involve the use of force or physical violence as these terms have always been understood.

As the term "sexual violence" has been redefined, it now includes any adult having "sexual contact" with a minor below a certain age (these ages vary by state from 14 to 18). The term "sexual contact" itself varies by state, as well, and can include fondling through clothing even if what is being fondled is not genitalia.

The mere act of having sexual contact with someone under that age is, as a legal definition, "sexual violence". No actual violence need be employed.

This is crucial to understanding governmental policy on sexual offending today and to providing a fuller, more balanced, view of the context in which these terms are used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidmkennerly (talk • contribs) 04:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, why don't you post your concerns at the article talk page and see what other editors there think? Jezhotwells (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Also note that articles at Wikipedia should have international context and should not limit themselves to definitions as they pertain to just one country. The article currently does not discuss legal definitions of the term for any particular country. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Barbara Baird-Filliter

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have never read the Wiki material concerning me until recemtly and I wish to edit some of it. There are errors, the most important one for me at this time.....my appointment to the Court of Queen's Bench in 2007. PLease contact me at <email redacted>. 142.139.0.53 (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't edit the page yourself as you have a conflict of interest. I am placing some useful links on your user page. I have removed your email address as per our policy at WP:Personal information. If you have information that you wish corrected, please post it with WP:reliable sources at the article discussion page, Talk:Barbara Baird Filliter. If there are contentious issues which you wish removed, please post at WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Click on any of the blue links in my message to get further further information. Citations have now been added to the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

the speedy deletion nomination

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I am wondering if there is a friendlier way of notifying someone that their article is under scrutiny. The way that the flagging is done seems very aggressive and does nothing to promote the use of your site. I did not post the information about our non profit organization in order to be thrust into an argument. The way it is now, it made me look at the flagger's page, and immediately I question whether his motives for flagging us is truly due to content, or due to his anti-religious stance. I do not want to be placed in such a defensive mode.

If you could change the wording of the nomination, Wikipedia would be much more user "friendly".

Sheree —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShereeK (talk • contribs) 19:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that you feel this way but please remember that large numbers of un-encyclopaedic articles are created every day and many are tagged for deletion in this way. The notice may seem a little abrupt, but if you wish to save the article you need to add references to reliable third party sources and write it in a neutral encyclopaedic way. I have left some notes at the article talk page. It might be useful to you to copy the article to your user space, so that you can work on it there and then ask here for someone to take a look and see if it is redy for mainspace. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You might also care to read the Wikipedia:FAQ. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The article has been deleted. If you ask the deleting admin nicely, at User talk:Accounting4Taste, they can probably copy it to your user space for you to work on and get into shape. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Small inconsistency in World War 1 page

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I noticed a small inconsistency when I was looking at the World War 1 page. - World War 1 page, BACKGROUND section, second to last paragraph, third to last sentence says "When Serbia acceded to only EIGHT of the TEN demands..."

Whereas below, in the BLACK HAND page, it states that NINE of the demands were met.

Follow links I've given below to get to the text I'm referring to. - World War 1 page (link provided above), section at top of page, second paragraph, second sentence, link to KINGDOM OF SERBIA. - Kingdom of Serbia page under section ASSASSINATION IN SARAJEVO, first paragraph, second sentence, link for BLACK HAND. - Black Hand page, IMPACT section, first paragraph, second to last sentence says "Serbia accepted all but one of the (10) demands..."

````Jeannine McIntyre —Preceding unsigned comment added by McJet (talk • contribs) 00:54, 3 March 2010

The best thing to do would be to post your concerns on the relevant talk pages, i.e. Talk:World War I, Talk:Kingdom of Serbia, Talk:Black Hand. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

NCB Capital Impact

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

NCB Capital Impact is a national non-profit, 501c3 organization. I have been trying to update our page, which has been redirected to NCB. Although we are affiliated with them, we are a separate entity.

We should have our own page. Can someone please tell me what I am doing incorrectly and why my posts keep getting redirected? Uncle Dick is claiming I am a vandal, which I am not.

Thank you in advance for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arlingtron (talk • contribs) 17:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to improve Wikipedia. However, you shouldn't be adding articles for organisations that you are affiliated with. That is considered a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not a directory or an advertising service. If the organisation meets out notability guidelines for inclusion, then someone else will get around to creating the article. It's not a matter of people or organisations deserving their own page, it's about creating an encyclopaedia that best serves its readers. If you are absolutely sure that it meets those notability guidelines, you could make a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles for someone else to create it, but please don't keep trying to do it yourself.--Beloved Freak 17:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit Tallest Buildings in Anchorage

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Please advise.

Thank you.

Lorrie Jordheim <email redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordheil (talk • contribs) 18:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you mention this on the talk page of the artcile (Click the talk link above). It might be useful to contact User talk:Raime who seems to have done most editig to the article. The usual sources for building heights emporis.com [4] and skyscraper.com [5] list the building, but no height is given and they disagree on the number of floors, 15 and 13 respectively and completion 1985 and 1984 respectively. Neither of these sources are considered throughly reliable as anyone can register and contribute details. I can't find any news or journal articles either. The thing is a reliable source is needed. Perhaps there are offline sources available in Anchorage? Jezhotwells (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Kerry Washington "Early Life" verification

Resolved

– vandalism reverted Jezhotwells (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I noticed that someoe posted some information Kerry Washington, but I noticed there is math error and there is no source to back it up. It's where the writer put:

            She performed with the Tada theater teen group in 1985, when she was fifteen years old.

Since she was born on January 31, 1977, then in 1985 she would performed at the age of 8, not 15 years old as stated. If she did performed at Tada theater at the age of 15, then shouldn't it be 1992/93? I read that the Tada theater group did start up in 1984 and the article stated they were for all kids, and on their website [6] verified she was part of the group, but didn't say when she was there.

Since there is no citation for this fact, I wanted to know how that could be found and corrected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deafiemia (talk • contribs) 15:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It was vandalism by User:216.241.250.30 according to the article history. I have reverted it. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Intelligentsium#Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#I Need Help So That The Templates Work

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

To input the cells, one would naturally use parameters, or arguments (such as <code>| name = value</code>). However, the difficulties lie in how one would name the cells (i.e., 1x1, or cell1) and how one would tell which are which. As each cell may have different CSS, this may make coding them more confusing than simply coding the table manually. In a manually coded table, it is fairly easy to tell what section of code would affect what cell, but in a template, this become confusing. There are also many options for table CSS, and how specific or unspecific to be with these with regards to template parameters might also be a hindrance.
— [7]

What difficulties would these be?174.3.99.176 (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, did you mean to post this here. Perhaps at User talk:Intelligentsium ? Jezhotwells (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

He didn't answer me.174.3.99.176 (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, you could check out Help:Table. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

kk.174.3.99.176 (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

???? YOu could also consider allowing time for the other editor to respond. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible Privacy issue.

Resolved

– page semi-protected Jezhotwells (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I posted about this issue before [[8]] and it still is not resolved despite following your advice. I have been writing on each user's talk page after I undo their edits, but I don't think they even look there and continue adding incorrect information. Gekkakou (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

As the edits appear to be from IP editors you could request semi-protection. A guide to this procedure can be found at WP:ROUGH. Requests for protection are made at WP:RFP. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment, though it may not apply directly to this case, since you are really objecting to the insertion of unsourced information. There have been several examples of artists shielding their true identities to create a mystique (call it a promotional gimick). Examples include The Residents and Nash the Slash, both of whom kept their identities secret for decades, until the internet (and Wikipedia) came along. (In the Residents' case, they dropped hints that they might really be The Beatles in disguise!) Their identities are no longer secret, and have been verified by checking publishing and royalty collecting records which show the artists' true names, and are viewable to the public. Questions have been raised about whether their true names should be removed from their Wikipedia articles, because that's presumably how the artists themselves would want it, and the conclusion is no, because "Wikipedia is not censored" and if these people are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, then they do not have a right to this level of privacy. (See the talk pages, including archives, for these two artists for past discussions, and details on how the info was verified.) It's entirely likely that the true identity of the person you are asking about, can be verified using the same method used for others, so I don't see this as a privacy issue, but one of sourcing. Though you may not like the idea, the best solution is probably to look up the publishing info and accurately cite the artist's true identity in the article. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yoga Asanas Merge

Resolved

– as per requestor. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue I'm seeking community input on appears to fall somewhere between a dispute resolution and a request for peer review. I am not allowing a disagreement with one editor to develop into a dispute, by working in a separate space as much as possible, but in order to bring this project to fruition, a difference of opinion and working style will need to be resolved.

I'm trying to bring together an article page, to replace a list page and a group of stub-pages with numerous issues, covering the range of specific yoga asanas. We already have a page describing what an asana is, and pages on the various forms of yoga, but only piecemeal stubs and the list to cover the positions themselves. All of this within the Category:Yoga and Category:Asana pages.

A good place to step into looking at the project is from the talk page which all the stub merge tags point Talk:List_of_yoga_postures

My overall approach to my project has been to create a page with sections temporarily transcluded from the stubs for each posture, and a contents box which then effectively replaces the list page. I have also begun editing many of the stubs.

A very few of the specific asana stubs qualify - just - as notable enough to make articles. The rest, where more than stubs, have been "padded" to make them appear more significant at a glance than they probably are in interest terms, with excessive detail only relevant to a teaching manual.

The issues on the stubs include very poor english (probably written by non-native users), lack of citations to controversial statements, inappropriate external links, poor quality suspect-copyright images, teaching style, and excessive duplication over the group.

So far, agreement with the proposal has been noted from 2 experienced but uninvolved editors, but only one contributor to these pages has made any contact, and that in a negative manner. However, I do not wish to continue investing valuable time in this project if it is going to be blocked in the end. So, to this end, I would really appreciate :

neutral contributors who have resolution skills and can give me some overview and help negotiate towards consensus with an entrenched editor

a specialist who has access to the standard yoga asana texts, and an overview of internet sites, who can guide/help with citations, and is aware of the encyclopedically-controversial nature of many of the statements commonly made in yoga, and can help include them in an appropriately cited manner.

finally, any broad-minded feedback into the styling task I am attempting, which throws up technical issues which I can deal with but do not fall neatly into wiki pigeon holes.

Thanks for your attention Trev M (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You could try Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's have some feedback on whether what I'm attempting in User:Trev M/Yoga asanas (page merging and development) is an improvement on the array of stubs and/or the list. If a consensus of experienced contributors feel my proposal is inappropriate, I'll happily let go of it and work on the issue in another way, or leave it. If it is thought appropriate, then perhaps we could talk about how to get agreement in the cabal? Trev M (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want feedback, then WP:Requests for feedback is probably the best place to ask. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Just been checking that out; I'll hump it over; put a closed tag on this if you want and I'll bring it back anew depending on the outcome there. Thanks, Trev M (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Current Notability: Martin Tod

Resolved

– as per requestor. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have created an article about Martin Tod who is a British politicion standing for election in this years general election. My assumpton has been that this is not yet notable until he is elected. However upon re-reading WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN I am now unsure wheather this person is currently notable. The artile is written on the assumption that he has been elected due to the assumption that the article wasn't sutible for publication yet, but this can be changed to reflect the current position if making such changes would make the article eligable for publication before an election whcih consequently must be held by June this year. --Wintonian (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The press coverage appears to be in the local press, I would suggest that he isn't notable yet, any more than any of the 5,000 odd currently un-elected prospective parliamentary candidates. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, are you saying that it would be more likly to be notable if there was more coverage in the national media? --Wintonian (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, more than passing mentions or simply announcements of candidature. At the moment he is not even a council leader or any other notable position. It seems highly likely that he will be elected so you can post the article at some time on May 7, once the results are in. :-) Jezhotwells (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks, my first article and I'm anxious to unleash it to unsuspecting members of the public :-( --Wintonian (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit war at Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Unresolved
– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

– – ukexpat (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

An IP editor has been inserting the same cumbersome and inappropriately voluminous statutory material, accompanied by questionable and unsourced conclusions, into the foregoing page. I can't make any more reversions without crossing the 3RR line as well, and we seem to be talking past each other in any case. Additional eyes, edits and observations welcome. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 13:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll amend this slightly. Some of the assertions are sourced but they are the assertions of the agency itself and don't establish the broader propositions asserted (to wit, that Congress has backed the FDIC insurance guarantee with its full faith & credit). I'll quit here, to avoid dragging the substantive dispute into this forum; I just wanted to clarify so that it didn't appear I was overstating my case. Thanks again. JohnInDC (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Update. A passing editor undid the subject changes and made some suggestions on the Talk page. We'll see if the assistance (thank you) leads to productive engagement in the next day or so. If so, this can be marked resolved. JohnInDC (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

JOhnindc your statements above about my data being unsourced is false. YOUR statements to the contrary are unsourced because you are relying solely on an "OPINION" to buttress your regurgitated argument that there is no binding effect of FF&C. And apparently you do not have a clear understanding of the "opinion" you are sourcing.

I will prove to you that your opinion is factually flawed. Please see the FDIC talk page on the subject for further details. Maybe an unbiased editor eye would help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.219.142.97 (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This dispute is far from over (please see talk page). Johnindc is simply not budging from his unsubstantiated claim that FF&C is non-binding and the current entry with its innuendo is simply false (it refers to a "non-binding" sense of congress passed in 1987 which is false because there was no court ruling stating that it was non-binding in 1987. Furthermore, it leaves out the laws that followed the passage of CEBA and it fails to correctly reference the statutory basis for Full faith and Credit which appears in at least 2 places in the USC.

It appears he has taken a personal interest in asserting that he is right without providing any objective source for his conclusion. The talk page lays in clear detail the laws that support this including contract law. johnindc calls this research, I call it common sense. If there is a debate as to whether or not the moon is made of cheese, we simply go to the source (i.e. moon rock) and examine it. We don't need someone's opinion on the matter (written or otherwise stated) to debate the facts in the case. If the US Government, Congress, the law, the President and the FDIC (the US Government's agent) all say there is full faith and credit, then I will take it for what it is worth and agree that the FDIC deposit fund is CLEARLY and unequivocally supported by the full faith and credit of the United States. To say anything else (or suggest anything else using outdated an advisory opinion) in spite of having proof to the contrary is just incomprehensible.68.219.142.97 (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I invite other editors to have a look. I've pretty much said my piece on the Talk page already, but the sake of convenience here's a summary: The text of the article as it now stands is essentially correct (paraphrasing, "FDIC represents that its deposit guarantees are backed by the full faith & credit of the US but the statutory basis for the assertion is unclear"); second, the other editor's lengthy statutory analysis does not compel the conclusion that he asserts that it does, and indeed even underscores the lack of clarity; and third, even if the analysis does eventually lead to that conclusion, it's all WP:original research. JohnInDC (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I would be inclined to report the IP at WP:3RR. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, in his defense, he quit inserting the problem text after a 3RR warning or another editor's reversion of the same text, I'm not sure which. For the time being, there is no edit war. JohnInDC (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, johnindc for coming to my defense. I would also like to add, I was unaware of the 3 edit rule (or the rules in general) or even the fact that the talk page (aka discussion) existed. I have stopped editing the item that was flagged and as I told johnindc, I am not here to offend (or break any rules for that matter). I simply wanted to correct something that appears to be factually wrong. My apologies are extended to anyone who may have mistakenly taken offense by that. My intentions were innocent.

Aside from that, I have nothing further to add or say on the matter. I think I've done a fine job on providing enough factual evidence to support a change in the text. Thank you

68.219.142.97 (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

As an individual who voluntarily intervened in that case, one thing that appeared a bit odd to me was the abstruseness of the argument. Since Wikipedia is supposed to be built from secondary sources, I do not understand the need to get into such a complex discussion about the issue itself. I would have thought that often discussion would revolve around which secondary sources to use and how to use them, rather than the nuts and bolts of what those sources are saying. In this case, I was confused with the reliance on a primary source full of legalistic language. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Update - The edit war ended along with the entry by the IP editor above. JohnInDC (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

So I will change this to "resolved". – ukexpat (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Reconsider Advertising tag

Answered

– – ukexpat (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Alterations have been made to the article to remove anything that would be promotional, please reconsider the advert tag. ~~New2~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by New2 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I have removed promotional language, added references and removed the tag. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to remove the borders. How do I do that?174.3.110.108 (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No padding, no margins. What other parameters are there?174.3.110.108 (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Help desk is the best place to ask, if the template documentation at Template:!xt3/doc doesn't help you. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Psi Division

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to avoid a revert war on this topic. Unfortunately I have noticed that one user has revert these kind of corrections before. It boils down to three simple conflicts:

1. The article title - it is currently Psi Division but it should be Psi-Division, with the hyphen;
2. Psi-Judges instead of Psi Judges; similar thing; and
3. Capitalization of the title, Judge rather than judge.

The comic strip this relates to always uses the hyphen and also always capitalizes the word Judge (or any variant thereof). See [9] for examples. Should we not follow this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.252.129.53 (talk) 13:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You could try talking to the other editor and attempting to reach consensus. That is why talk pages are provided. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Can an administrator please put the text of deleted article List of countries by number of islands as a page in my user space?

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I want to see the text of the article. Regards, --Base and Spoiled Female (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You need to ask User talk:Ian13, who deleted it. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Base and Spoiled Female has been indefinitely blocked. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

insert logo from German wikipedia

Answered

– – ukexpat (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to upload the logo of the German article on the Center for Integrated Protein Science Munich ([10]) into the Center for Integrated Protein Science Munich article. Trying the upload in EN wiki commons and insert route got the logo deleted from the EN commons page for copyright reasons. So this attempt already failed. Is there anyone to help inserting the logo? Copyright status should be similar to any official university logos/COAs (e.g. fooling around with it on personal letters could get your butt kicked legally). ScienceRulez (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You need to upload it to en.wiki, not commons, and you need to provide a non-free use rationale. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

See WP:LOGO and {{logo fur}}, and the logo-specific upload form: go to Wikipedia:Upload and click on the logo link. – ukexpat (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

97.118.23.47 and Music of Denver Article

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I need assistance with this article. IP 97.118.23.47 has edited disruptively and has engaged in 3RR editing. I can no longer revert because of the rules, and seems to engage because of some vendetta against other users as noted in some of his edits on the actual article page. In his edit descriptions, he has called other users Nazis and other misguided labels. Admins will not block him, citing that dispute res. is the way to go. Cutno (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

User:97.118.23.47 has been blocked. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

More language or dialects

Answered

– – ukexpat (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I live in Hawaii, USA where there is a large group of ethnicity, to name some - Japanese, Chinese, Samoans,Portuguese,Filipino, Hawaiian, Korean, Tahitian, Tongan, Micronesian, Caucasian and those multi-race children of mixed unions who (for most) still speak and read the language/dialect of their parents' origin.

It would be great if one day we'll see you including some, if not all these language/dialect in your articles.

Thank you, JerlynnMICH30 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JerlynnMICH30 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia so all the articles here are in English. There are Wikipedias in other languages, see this list. – ukexpat (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Update on Personal Pages for 7x Gammy Nominated Internatinal Group the Killers

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Please look over the following two pages (I am still working on the third) which I think are nearly ready for main space. I am happy to adjust as needed to make them worthy of wikipedia. Thank you for your help. User:Waytagojoe/Ronnie Vannucci Jr and User:Waytagojoe/Mark Stoermer

Also, how can I add a photo to wikipedia for the Ronnie Vannucci page? Its pretty simple I am sure but I just don't have experience for it.

Sincerely, Joe Meservy--Waytagojoe (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, please read this: Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article. at the notability guidelines for musicians. Basically you need to demonstrate that the musicians are notable, independently from the band. And you have not shown that in these draft artciles. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Please help me with this. These members have both been on the cover of international musician publications for their musicianship. Also, according to the 4th point in notablity, "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." On both pages under references near the end I have posted interviews that these musicians did individually for national concert tours in different countries (Ronnie=China, Mark=Norway, etc) How doesn't this meet the required criteria, especially noting that these musicians are both recognized by their fellow musicians as extraordinary and that with their band they meet all 12 possibilities for notability? Please take into account and consult about how this compares to say the pages for the individual members of the Kings of Leon. They are known for their one band and yet each have individual pages (they have not played nearly the large festival lineup that these individual members of the Killers have streamlined to headlining).

Thank you for your seriously diligent work. Looking forward to your response. --Waytagojoe (talk) 06:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. is the crucial phrase here. As to the Kings of leon members, WP:Other stuff exists, explains why that is not justification. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Miss Nevada USA

Resolved

– – ukexpat (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Can someone help me with the correct policy at Miss Nevada USA? There are/were two images on there, both public domain & both relevant to the article (depicting former titleholders). New editor MyPageantPlace has removed these images, stating in the description "Removing OLD photos at the request of the state director". I reverted, explaining "REVERT This is an encyclopedia, not a personal website or one controlled by a state director. The photos are in the public domain and relevant to the article as illustrations of past titleholder". MyPageantPlace then reverted again, stating "Removing OLD photos at the request of the state director AGAIN". Before this turns into a full blown edit war, can someone please advise me as to the policy here? As I contended in the edit summary I believe the photos should remain on the article because they illustrate former titleholders, which is more or less the subject of the article and which is a convention in articles of this time. Can someone please offer some guidance? Thank you. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 00:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I have warned the user over the edit warring and their username which appears to be inappropriate. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

~~::I note also that your username may not be appropriate if it is created to edit beauty pageant articles. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)~~

Thanks. Can someone tell me what the actual policy here is? If someone wants images removed for reasons like this, do we have to accept that and remove them or can they stay on the article? (provided of course they're relevant & public domain). In other words, should the photos be put back on the article? (preferably by someone other than me).

As for my user name, I've been editing on here since 2006 (just hit 11,005 edits!) and you're the first to query my choice of username. If you check through my contributions list you'll see that while I primarily edit pageant-related articles (because that's a subject I'm interested in) I also edit & help with a wide range of other articles. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 01:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have looked at your edit history. It was the coincidence of your name with that of User:MyPageantPlace to lead me to say that. I withdraw that comment immediately. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No probs :) Thanks for your help with this earlier. Btw just to note that I did the referencing tonight so it should all be peachy now :D Cheers PageantUpdater talk • contribs 14:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to make it clear that I still have a question regarding this issue, if someone wouldn't mind taking a look (sorry if that is poor form, change if need be but I would still like an answer if possible). The question being, should the images be replaced on the article or not? Cheers PageantUpdater talk • contribs 10:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Cant see any reason why the images should be removed they are both properly licensed and show previous winners. Probably more concerned with BLP issues like Stripped of her title due to inappropriate photographs should really be referenced or removed. MilborneOne (talk) 10:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The photos aren't actually of the titleholder who was stripped of her title, so that isn't an issue although I agree the article needs referencing, I'll get on to that now. Since you agree they should be put back up, would you mind doing it? I just think I should avoid it to avoid the appearance of edit warring. Cheers, and thanks for the speeding response. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 10:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced the photos. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks! So sorry to be a pain about it, I just didn't want to exacerbate the situation so thought it would be best if someone neutral did it. I appreciate it :D PageantUpdater talk • contribs 11:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Coxeter-Dynkin diagram symbolic image

Discussion moved

– Talk:Coxeter–Dynkin diagram#SVG_vs_PNG

– ukexpat (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

A user User:Koavf made massive conversion (to 150 articles), replacing PNG symbolic graphics with inferior SVG graphics another user tested a couple years ago. This user complained because I reverted his edits completely rather than sorted various changes, since a majority were SVG conversions, and it took me an hour to do what I did. He has some sort of moral authority that says PNG is inferior and must be replaced, and he's going to undo all my reverts "when he has the time". How is this resolved? The piece-wise images to the diagrams are described at talk:Coxeter-Dynkin diagram. Tom Ruen (talk) 08:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There is conflict discussion here: User_talk:Tomruen#SVG. Tom Ruen (talk) 09:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to comment that some of Tom's value judgements above may be a little hasty. My main response is on the linked conflict discussion. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Talk:Coxeter–Dynkin_diagram#SVG_vs_PNG. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Now resolved. FYI the svg-to-png filter just isn't delivering the quality of rendering at these small scales. Please do what needs to be done with this request. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Need and admin to repair over-eager userfication

Discussion moved

– to WT:Articles for deletion#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loud Machine as a more appropriate venue. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loud Machine, I pointed out that the article creator could ask for userfication. The editor took it upon himself in good faith to move Loud Machine into his user space before the AFD was completed. Can some admin please either undo this so that the AFD can run its full course, or make a bold decision and close the AFD early, and clear out the article space redirect? Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I have copied this request to WT:Articles for deletion#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loud Machine, which would seem to be the appropriate venue. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

And there is an answer at WT:Articles for deletion#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loud Machine. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Tracey Macdonald

Resolved

– Page moved. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I`ve just added a page for Canadian comedienne Tracey MacDonald. I`m trying to get the heading to spell "Tracey MacDonald" but it says "Tracey macdonald". How do I fix it? Gerryfarmer (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Gerry Farmer

I have moved the article to Tracey MacDonald. Tracey macdonald now re-directs to that page. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Einsiders.com

Need some new eyes

Much Ado about Removed "See also"

Arthur Rubin keeps posting libellous statements about Dr. Steven Jones

Internal links to special pages

Article Re: "Naveen Jain"

Erroneous Information In in a Wikipedia article about Sen. Joseph Lieberman

BOB MARLEY SONG ONE LOVE

A question regarding contacting the deleting administrator

adding information

Requesting content from deleted page

Need help on Grue and Bleen

help with Chesterfield Idaho page

References and internal links removed from article

Jamie Colby

Personal Pages for Members of 7x grammy nominated band The Killers

Being stalked by Helsinki based IPs

Category tip

??

Not sure whether to assume good faith

Please Edit the page on Jarno Saarinen - motorcycle racer

actor parthiban

disputing definitional assertions

Barbara Baird-Filliter

the speedy deletion nomination

Small inconsistency in World War 1 page

NCB Capital Impact

Edit Tallest Buildings in Anchorage

Kerry Washington "Early Life" verification

User talk:Intelligentsium#Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#I Need Help So That The Templates Work

Possible Privacy issue.

Yoga Asanas Merge

Current Notability: Martin Tod

Edit war at Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Reconsider Advertising tag

{{!xt3}}

Psi Division

Can an administrator please put the text of deleted article List of countries by number of islands as a page in my user space?

insert logo from German wikipedia

97.118.23.47 and Music of Denver Article

More language or dialects

Update on Personal Pages for 7x Gammy Nominated Internatinal Group the Killers

Miss Nevada USA

Coxeter-Dynkin diagram symbolic image

Need and admin to repair over-eager userfication

Tracey Macdonald