Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 79

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

Revision history of And Quiet Flows the Don

Stale

– --Diannaa ^TALK 21:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I added a link to this page with additional information, but it was almost immediately reverted for being "vandalism". Please review this action. If my good-faith edit was inappropriate, please explain why. Otherwise, please restore. In any case, please warn your editors against the callous use of the "vandalism" label.

(cur | prev) 18:48, 12 June 2010 The Utahraptor (talk | contribs) m (9,163 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 68.226.49.161 identified as vandalism to last revision by 72.83.171.122. (TW)) (undo)

MT 68.226.49.161 (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Confusing Material on "Coach (TV Series)" page

Resolved

– CliffC (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

On the Coach (TV Series) page there is confusing, undocumented information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coach_%28TV_series%29

Under the subheading Origins, the last two sentences make no sense. They read: However, all of this information is completely unverified and the exterior shots were actually taken from the campus of Northsouthwest State University in Rhode Island. Lori Hansen is completely wrong, in this regard in addition to the majority of her personal and professional pursuits.

There is no such university as Northsouthwest State University in Rhode Island and Lori Hansen is not a name elsewhere documented as having anything to do with the show or this page. This appears to be a personal attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanSVinson (talk • contribs) 23:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Just garden-variety silly vandalism; removed and user warned. --CliffC (talk)

Kill Bill Vandalism Accusation

Answered

– Diannaa ^TALK 14:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I have been threatened with being blocked by 2 editors; one is going by an IP address. I don't know if I should give you their names and the third person who continues to delete true information in the Kill Bill article. I have been trying to correct falsities and half-truths from these editors regarding Kill Bill: Volume 2. I have been told that if I edit again, I will be blocked. I read your policy that I alone do not determine the truth. I was also told on my talk page by one of these people that continuing to correct the edits of 2 users constitutes an edit war, regardless of whether or not they are typing falsities and half-truths. However, I am confused: The truth is the truth and I should have the right to type the truth as much as possible, even if 2 editors are not, correct? For example: Water is H2O...if 2 other editors say that water is H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide), and I continue to correct that, how is that an edit war?

I am not trying to be difficult, I just want some help. I simply want to put the truth out there without the threat of being blocked. Thank you for your time. 79times (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you should carefully read WP:TRUTH, although part of the argument by the anon IP seems to be more related to WP:UNDUE.

To be honest, reading both sides of the arguments I think it is truly about minor minor minor details. I would suggest all parties relax a bit, as this does not seem to be an issue of sufficient importance to fight about. Perhaps try to use some of the approaches suggested in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Arnoutf (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree Arnoutf. This is a content dispute, pure and simple. 79times repeatedly reverted until I finally convinced him to take the matter to the article's talk page. So now we can wait for consensus. If other means of WP:Dispute resolution are needed that's fine, but the consensus process has only been underway a couple of hours. I hope 79times can be patient enough for that process to play out. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Minor Edit War at Rex Brown

Resolved

– Date-changing vandals seem to have moved on. --Diannaa ^TALK 14:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I might not be reporting this in the right place... but there is a minor edit war going on between anonymous IP editors at the article for musician Rex Brown. I also considered alerting the folks at WP:3RR but the problem might not be serious enough. Brown's year of birth keeps switching back and forth between 1964 and 1966, and this has been done by several IP editors starting on about May 22, as can be seen in the revision history. Some vandals have made things worse by adding jokey years of birth as well, to be reverted by IP editors in both the 1964 and 1966 camps. A few edit comments in the history are pretty nasty. I am uninvolved in this dispute but added a "citation needed" tag and addressed the issue on the article talk page, to no response. I'm not sure if there really is a reliable source on Brown's year of birth, unless someone asks him personally. So this minor edit war is fairly ridiculous, if anyone here wants to check it out. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I consulted the Oracle and it shows six sources using a 1964 date of birth. Are any of these reliable sources? Would putting a citation stop the edit warring? Diannaa ^TALK 23:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I never thought of checking with IMDB in relation to Brown's music videos. IMDB is considered reliable in the world of film-related articles at WP, as far as I know. Most of the other sources located by Diannaa are probably not reliable (WP mirrors, social networks, etc.). I will put a citation to IMDB in the article and report back here if anything happens. I suspect that someone in the 1966 camp will revert. So if there are more shenanigans after this, I am still not sure how to proceed, though I will say that the IP editors engaged in this goofy dispute probably don't peruse serious policy-oriented areas of WP like this page. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a whole series of warning templates available at WP:warn that you could apply to the talk page of the edit warring IP's. The one to use now that you have cited a fairly reliable source is {{uw-unsourced1}}. You start with a level one template and move up if the disruptive edits continue. If you get up to level 4 and the problems continue, you might ask for temporary protection for the article or you could report specific users at WP:ANI or the edit warring noticeboard at WP:AN3. Good luck! Diannaa ^TALK 05:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. An anonymous vandal messed with the year of birth again after my addition of the reference, but a dedicated editor reverted. I think these IP schmucks will get bored and go elsewhere after a while, but I'll keep an eye on the article. If the shenanigans continue I'll try those warning templates. Thanks again. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Justin Langston

Resolved

– Article deleted. – ukexpat (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Justin Langston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) My name is Mark Langston and Justin Langston is my son but he also is my musician that you can find on www.reverbnation/justin langston.com & on his official website-- www.justinlangston.com & may google --Justin Langston and see that he is a recording artist with copyright material in the United States library of Congress and I have newspaper report From the Odessa American 08/11/2006 . He just recorded his first album that will be master and for public sale. I ask that you except my article.Mark Langston (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Article has been deleted WP:CSD A7 (subject matter not notable enough for an article at the present time). Please re-submit the article once Justin has received recognition for his work in reliable third party sources. Sorry.--Diannaa ^TALK 00:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous editing/moderation

Resolved

– User requests thread closure as good discussions are now happening on the article talk page. --Diannaa ^TALK 13:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Following article (which I submitted) refers:

Continuous_Repayment_Mortgage

I am unhappy about someone anonymous posting 'cleanup' and 'query' banners at the top of this article. I think the relevant editor/moderator at minimum should post a comment in the article's discussion page so that I can try to resolve whatever he/she is complaining about. For example I am advised that the article doesn't have any 'inline citations'. I am quite happy to provide 'inline citations' but I don't think they are mandatory in the article - therefore why not just leave a note/suggestion on my Wiki page or alternatively on the article's discussion page?

I have requested clarification on the discussion page - please advise what procedure I should follow to effect removal of the banners if the anonymous editor/moderator does not respond. The notion of trying to satisfy some or other anonymous article censor cannot possibly be in keeping with the spirit of open collaboration on Wikipedia.

Thanks

Neil Parker (talk) 09:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The use of maintenance tags cause issues if the problems aren't detailed at the talkpage. The first thing you could do is read the relevant policy and guidelines linked in the banners. For example, reading WP:LEAD (one of the links) will help you to understand how the introduction should be. Posting at the talkpage is another good step, but it's unlikely that the editor who placed the tags will be watching the talkpage. If you want further clarification from them, I would drop a note at their talkpage. If you look at the history, you can see that User:R'n'B added them, in this edit, so I would ask them what they think needs to be done. Inline citations would be very helpful as you've listed some sources, but it's not clear which bit of information goes where. Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of out key policies, and it means that readers should be able to go and verify that information in out articles is correct (or at least in the sources quoted). As you have used books, it would be extremely helpful to add page numbers, so that the information can be easily found. With regard to the introduction (the "lead"), it's self-referential at the moment. it has phrases like "The purpose of this article...", which is not generally how we have articles here. Hopefully, reading the layout guide linked in the banner will help more with that. Feel free to post any more questions here.--Beloved Freak 10:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. Have already re-written the intro and will also attend to the 'inline citations'. Trust I can presume good faith on part of User:R'n'B: ie he/she should be monitoring the article and thereafter either remove tags or advise what still needs to be done.

Neil Parker (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

PS Cool user id!

Had just put in the above comment when I discovered yet more 'pastings' on the article. They simply do not add anything concrete to the two that are already there and which I am attempting to deal with. This is now indeed becoming an 'issue' as you put it and I would therefore like to submit to the Wikipedia editorial board (or relevant structure) a formal complaint. Please advise how I can go about doing that.

I am more than happy to collaborate (preferably with someone who understands the topic) on the inline citations and on how to improve the introduction which has currently been dismissed with the wonderfully catch-all tag of being 'not encyclopedic in style or format'. I am not prepared to engage with 'style' and 'format' police who clearly do not wish to engage anyway else they would post on the article's talk page.

Who exactly is defining what is and is not 'encylopedic' more especially when an encyclopedia by definition covers a wide range of topics for which (presumably) various different 'styles' and 'formats' will be applicable??

Neil Parker (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No matter what the subject matter, we have guidelines that have been developed by years of consensus on this wiki. Those guidelines are conveyed in the Manual of style. The guidelines are intended to be followed no matter what the subject matter of the article.

The main problem with the introduction is that is does not even define what a continuous repayment mortgage or how it differs from other types of mortgage. It simply moves directly to a comparison of this type of mortgage with capacitors in an electrical circuit. Please refer to WP:Lead for information on the type of introduction that is required by the Wikipedia style guidelines. One of the tags is {{original research}}. The relevant policies can be found at WP:OR. The tag {{wikify}} means that it is desirable to add links to other articles in Wikipedia.

Please read over the relevant guidelines mentioned in the above paragraph and if you still feel a dispute resolution process is the way to go, have a look at dispute resolution to select a venue. Hope these tips help. --Diannaa ^TALK 14:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input above.

I have worked on the introduction. It does define what a continuous repayment mortgage is and how it differs from a standard (discrete interval) mortgage in respect of the applicable maths.

I have also supplied numerous 'inline citations' from Beckwith (the authoritative source) to the point that the relevant editor Orange Mike refers to them as 'iterative' and suggests I find alternative sources to quote from.

The inline citations can certainly be tidied up but the point is they should demonstrate quite conclusively that the 'original research' tag is not applicable and that the requirement for inline citations has been met.

Once the core requirements of edit tags have been met, I think it is reasonable for a contributor to expect they be removed. That does not preclude further improvements - I have always indicated comments/suggestions would be most welcome - but I believe the article's talk page (rather than indefinite pastings on the main page) is the appropriate forum for these. Will post similarly on the article's talk page.

Neil Parker (talk) 13:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Citing Radio Segments/Notability

Resolved

– AfD debate has closed. Result: No consensus. The article stays. --Diannaa ^TALK 01:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Article: Songfacts

User TenPoundHammer marked this entry for deletion on the grounds that it doesn't meet notability requirements. After it was marked, I made numerous edits to the page with references to valid sources, but TenPoundHammer has deleted them with this explanation: "Everything Ndugu added was either one-sentence mentions in the scopes of larger work, primary sources, irrelevant or synthesis. The radio mention is also trivial. Absolutely nothing added is helpful."

I disagree with this statement, but I don't want to start an edit war with an experienced editor that I respect.

In trying to prove notability, I found numerous mentions of the Songfacts site in major publications and audio of the site being mentioned on NPR and The Howard Stern Show. Are these not relevant to the article?

Also, the site was created as a resource for radio disc jockeys, and is very well known in that community. As such, the site is frequently mentioned in radio segments, not just as a resource, but discussed as a topic. While these mentions are very hard to cite, I provided references to station podcasts that discussed Songfacts, including this one from a major station in Des Moines, where the description of the segment is: "Behind the Music: Deace checks out the cool website Songfacts.com, which promises the real story behind some of Pop Music's most famous songs." http://www.whoradio.com/cc-common/podcast/single_podcast.html?podcast=deace.xml Is this really "Trivial"?

Another section that was deleted was the controversies section, which dealt with controversies that occurred as a result of interviews conducted by the site. In the case of the Steve Jobs/Asteroids Galaxy Tour, the interview in question led to articles in Ars Technica and Fortune Tech, and bring up the issue of Job's involvement with music in Apple's commercials. Since the Songfacts interview generated the coverage and was a centerpiece of the subsequent third party articles, is this not relevant to the Songfacts Wikipedia page?

This article seems to be facing far higher scrutiny than many of the other Music Websites on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Music_websites

Thanks for your consideration.Ndugu (talk) 04:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Some info i found - Third party view of the site from 2003 -->Keeping current: advanced Internet strategies to meet librarian and patron needs By Steven M. Cohen ISBN: 0838908640 - A Goggle Books search result shows that Songfacts is/has-been used as a reference source for many books --> Songfacts Book search. Moxy (talk) 04:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"Hertz, Saul" Article Help

Answered

– Diannaa ^TALK 23:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Saul Hertz article requires some major revisions. Help? 72.80.196.118 (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Since no one seems keen to edit this article right away, I have added the {{copyedit}} tag so it will get in the queue. --Diannaa ^TALK 21:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Re-purposing of Russian American article

Discussion moved

– Discussion continues on my talk page and the talk page of the article. Diannaa ^TALK 19:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

With no agreement other than his own, one editor is re-writing the Russian American article to include only ethnic Russians and exclude all non-ethnic Russians (i.e. minorities such as Jews) (see article and its talk page). I think this re-purposing should not stand, but I am not interested in conducting discussion with this editor, who is now starting to use insults. Perhaps, others will be interested in this subject. I also left a note on the Russia project page to look. Hmains (talk) 02:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted his edit and posted a message regarding WP: edit war on his talk page. Thank you for taking the time to post about this problem. I will watch the page for a while to see what happens next. --Diannaa ^TALK 03:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Tom Clements heading should be changed

Answered

– Diannaa ^TALK 19:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Editor,

There are several Tom Clements listed on Wikipedia. Most of them have an identifier in parentheses, following their name. Only Tom Clements, the quarterback, doesn't. Could you please put (quarterback) in parenthesis next to Tom Clements, the quarterback?

A Tom Clements (politician) is running for Senate in South Carolina. This is a very contested race. People should easily find him when they search, and not be confused when they get to the quarterback's page.

Also, when I copy/paste the URL of the page for Tom Clements (politician) into an e-mail message, it doesn't work. The URL is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Clements_(politician)

But when I paste it the final parenthesis is not copying. It looks like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Clements_(politician

Can you please helpl? What's wrong, and how can I fix it?

Thank you so much!

Elisabeth Gareis [personal information removed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egareis (talk • contribs)

I think you will find the page Tom Clements (politician) is a copy vio of - clementsforsenate.com - also as he has not been elected to anything, he would fail WP:POLITICIAN and would be unlikly to pass a AfD. Codf1977 (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Unjust "advertisement" and "unnecessary list" label on Scott Heidepriem's page

Resolved

– Discussion is over. Diannaa ^TALK 19:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I created an article on politician Scott Heidepriem that I feel has unjustly been labeled as an advertisement and as having unnecessary lists. The exact label is this:

The only section of this article I could imagine wiki referring to as an advertisement is the one on "issues." That is what I will address. I do not believe the "issues" section was written like an advertisement because, as the author, I refrained from opinions and instead stated facts and merely recorded Scott Heidepriem's opinions (with proper citations). For instance, the portion on state employees reads:

"Over the eight-year-long Rounds/Daugaard Administration, the number of full time state employees increased from 12,800 to 14,500.[18] Heidepriem believes this is unjustified costing the state valuable tax-dollars that should be invested in programs like education."

The factual claim is that the amount of full time state employees has increased from 12,800 to 14,500. It is backed up by a source providing a corroboration of those exact numbers. The section goes on to say what Heidepriem would rather use that state money for. No where is it said that investing in education is the "right" action or if it's the "smartest" action, but rather, simply that Heidepriem would prefer investing in education. Advertisements endorse an individual's actions by deeming them as right or smart--this section does no such thing and therefore should not be labeled as an advertisement. (This argument applies to the other subsections within "issues.")

Additionally, I am confused why this article is seen as an advertisement while the pages of other politicians are not. When I authored Heidepriem's page, I reviewed the pages of other politicians, namely Meg Whitman. Whitman's page has a section entitled "Political Positions," after which I modeled Heidepriem's "Issues" section. Within Whitman's "Political Positions," it is written that Whitman has "pledged to not raise taxes" and the author describes what Whitman will do on her first day in office. If saying that Heidepriem would rather invest money in education is advertisement-writing, I cannot see how writing that Whitman has "pledged to not raise taxes" is not also an advertisement as both statements simply document the person's ideas or actions. And yet, Meg Whitman's article has no "written like an advertisement" label.

Either Whitman and Heidepriem's pages should have the advertisement label, or neither.

I also believe that the "unnecessary list" label is unjust. Heidepriem's page is a catalog of his achievements, informing interested or curious people. Those people should be able to know a candidate's personal and professional history. Heidepriem's professional memberships, awards, and public service all give important information regarding Heidepriem's personal and professional history, making them all necessary when informing people about his past.

I hope I have made myself clear and we can come to a solution.

Thank you.

Pheidepriem (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Pete, your dad is notable enough that there should be an article about him. HOWEVER, it should not resemble one of his campaign websites. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I understand, Mike. Thank you for the speedy answer. But what about my point on Meg Whitman? I understand you taking down what you did, but it doesn't seem fair to leave Meg Whitman's "Political Positions" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheidepriem (talk • contribs) 22:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The items in the article on Whitman are invariably sourced to impartial reliable external sources, who give nuanced coverage of her stances (including statements by opponents and rivals). See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Jack Merridew

Answered

– Diannaa ^TALK 19:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the purpose of these pages?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jack_Merridew

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Davenbelle

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jack_Merridew&oldid=367527996

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

--Yopienso (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you asked him? ÷seresin 00:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to ask him since I would be unable to comprehend his answer. I do not know if his comments are serious or tongue-in-cheek. I would prefer not to engage in conversation with a sockpuppet and would tend to ignore any comment made by one on a talk page and suspect any edit made. If, however, Jack Merridew is a serious editor, I want to attach due importance to his comments and his edits. I thought this was a place to ask for editor assistance. If http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Davenbelle is a spoof, I don't know how to interpret any page about sockpuppets. Please see our interaction close to the bottom of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Gore_Effect Yopienso (talk) 08:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not that experienced in these matters, but I took a quick look, it looks like to me this user has used socks in the past, but is acting in good faith--if you look at the user pages for some of the sock accounts, they lead back to User:Jack_Merridew, which I believe is a standard requirement for anyone who has used multiple accounts. I think it would make sense to assume good faith and treat this user as any other editor. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought we had pages like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Davenbelle to alert us to sockpuppets. Such pages are rendered meaningless to me if they include accounts that belong to responsible, productive editors. Jack Merridew doesn't say he used socks in the past but that he is [presently] one. What am I missing here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopienso (talk • contribs) 09:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Please take into account that actions taken against socks are not punishments, but rather intended to protect wikipedia. If you take a look at User:Jack_Merridew/History, you'll see that apparently this user was using socks, but decided to come clean and only use one account. Generally speaking I think it'sb best to assume that an editor is acting in good faith, and not worry about their past. I hope that helps clear up the matter. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The Jack merridew page is a redirect to a character described in the article, it should probably go to Lord of the Flies#Jack_Merridew. I don't see a problem here. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed the redirects. Diannaa ^TALK 20:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Nuujinn, for the User:Jack_Merridew/History link, which is what I was missing. How could I have found it myself? The "View History" tab on his user page simply shows the history of the page, which, interestingly enough, includes recent edits by seresin and Plastikspork.

Dianna, it's a little more complicated than that. He deliberately set up a special page that linked from his user name. If you google "Jack Merridew," or put it into Wikipedia search, you come up with this page that does not have a redirect from Jack Merridew. The one with a redirect is linked to from this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Gore_Effect:

See Jack Merridew, too,^{which you linked to} and you might like to visit this version of my user page. fyi, I am a sockpuppet (this is too easy;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Dianna, I feel quite sure you are not playing jokes, so will follow any advice you give. Thanks for your help! --Yopienso (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a subsection of the article on the Book Lord of the Flies titled Jack Merridew. Jack Merridew is a major character in the novel. If you go to Jack Merridew you get info on the character in the Novel. Jack Merridew is also the user name of a Wikipedia editor, a more than slightly naughty one who intends to reform (bless his heart). To look at his user page, go to User:Jack Merridew and for facts about his history on Wikipedia go to User:Jack Merridew/History. Don't be alarmed if you are still confused. That is his intent, I'm sure. He is tricky. Diannaa ^TALK 00:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

nb: clicking the sock icons on my user page takes one to the /History page. Is there a question here, for me? Jack Merridew 04:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Jack, I didn't have a question for you, but now I do. What does nb mean? --Yopienso (talk) 04:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Nota bene. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Muchas gracias. Best, Yopienso (talk) 06:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

username dispute

Answered

– Diannaa ^TALK 19:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

According to you, I do not exist! I attemped to login, and your reply was"there is no user name-wilbert.searcysr@yahoo.com!" I beg to differ with you, I have been using this username for the last10+years!!, check the web! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.6.48.219 (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Your request is unclear. The above seems to be a valid e-mail address, but it is not the name of a Wikipedia user account. Please provide more information, if possible. Diannaa ^TALK 04:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, to log in to Wikipedia, you'll have to choose a username and create an account first, signup instructions and some tips here. Happy editing, CliffC (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Spice (drug)

Request unclear

– Diannaa ^TALK 19:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Being a somewhat new writer, I don't wish to get into an editing war with the individual over the article Spice (drug). However there is apparently a serious difference of opinion regarding the general basics of the article in and of itself between myself and another editor. On the talk page the other user has stated their opinion and reasons for removing a section I added and I have presented my case after restoring said work and asked for the article to be brought into general discussion to determine who's opinion shall prevail rather than getting into a full blown editing war which things appear to be heading towards.BGinOC (talk) 01:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be holding your own on the talk page and things are proceeding in a civilised fashion. Not clear what assistance is required!? --Diannaa ^TALK 03:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

bio diesel edit

Answered

– Diannaa ^TALK 19:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I edited the cfpp rating for bio diesel to add the cfpp rating for algae oil at 25C and it was removed. Do you need me to provide a reference for this fact or was someone just trying to stifle the truth about algae oil? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.252.43 (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

References are required for all contributions. Thanks for asking. Diannaa ^TALK 20:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

section of article with no citations (axe to grind) keeps being re-added.

Answered

– Diannaa ^TALK 19:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Building 19 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_19#Corporate_culture

A section of the Corporate Culture section includes many negative statements about the company and its owners' business practices. It refers to a TV program and a college study, neither of which is cited. It clearly appears to be a case of someone with an axe to gring, as every time it is removed (by anyone) it gets put back almost immediately. The editor who keeps adding it never responds in the talk page, and appears to only edit this single entry on Building 19, and nothing else. Woudl like to not have to keep re-doing this every time I see it, and the section clearly violates policy by not having any citations. Thanks for the help in advance.

02132user (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the other editor should respond, but a quick google search shows me that some of the material can be sourced. How would you feel about you (or I) adding the citations and cleaning up the prose a bit, rather than just deleting the material being inserted? --Nuujinn (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I did jump the gun here. I'll take a look tonight/tomorrow and see what I can do re: citations. 02132user (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll check in in a few days and see how its going. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

User: Active Banana

Resolved

– Active Banana has been very active and has been discussed on other notice boards, but this thread seems to be done. --Diannaa ^TALK 19:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please help? User: Active Banana has been going around deleting deleting both sourced and unsourced information. I don't see how this is helping Wikipedia. Rain (entertainer) is an example where User: Active Banana has constantly removed his awards section. I sourced some of them but she keeps removing them all. And other sites such as Naver, Korean Wikipedia and his official site has his awards on their page. So I am saying that if Wikipedia keeps having editors delete and delete then I got to say it's not going to be reliable at all, because not all unsourced information is unreliable and Rain's awards is a prime example of that. 200.63.165.19 (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see User:Active Banana is not being helpful. I will assist you. Taric25 (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I created Talk:Rain (entertainer)#Sourced content so we can discuss this. Please go there. Taric25 (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I have started a topic on Talk:Melissa_Joan_Hart#WP:UNDUE_and_WP:RS regarding this user's edits to the Melissa Joan Hart article. Elizium23 (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the East Bay Green Corridor notable?

Answered

– Diannaa ^TALK 19:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't find a WP article about the East Bay Green Corridor, although it is mentioned on the article for Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums. I thought I would try to write up an article (my first!) but wanted to make sure it was a good topic before spending too much time on it. The EBGR has gotten extensive local press coverage (http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-06-27/business/17210690_1_uc-berkeley-green-industry-green-careers, http://eastbay.bizjournals.com/eastbay/stories/2008/03/10/editorial2.html, http://oaklandlocal.com/article/east-bay-green-corridor-partnership-aims-lure-green-start-ups - a few examples among dozens of others), but I could only find one passing reference to it in the national press (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/us/21sfpolitics.html). Locally, it is an important initative, but is it WP:N? I am not trying to promote it; I have no affiliation with EBGR, other than as an interested local resident. I just want to contribute my first article to WP, and this initiative is something I have followed closely in the news. I would be sure to also include some WP:NPOV criticism of the project (such as http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2007-12-11/article/28674?headline=East-Bay-Green-Corridor-Industrial-Berkeley-s-Salvation-or-Road-to-Ruin-&status=301). Advice? Is this place to ask this kind of question, or is there a better place? I also asked this question at the New User Questions and WikiProject:California; hope this is okay. Thanks for helping a n00b out! Tarastar42 (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Tarastar42

Here is the standard advice to your question. It contains lots of links to good tips and advice on how to proceed.

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 also available to walk you through creating an article. Good luck! --Diannaa ^TALK 18:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

My impression is that this is a subject that could be developed into an article here. If we have articles on individual streets, why not? My only caution to you would be to try not to make it too puffish or promotional in nature. If there is any criticism of the corridor, it would be good to note it. One further note: Let me know when you've started it, and I would be happy to give you a hand if you like. — e. ripley\^talk 19:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

certain portions do NOT appear in downloads of some articles

Request unclear

– Diannaa ^TALK 19:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In downloading some articles certain portions of those articles appear blank in the downloads. For now, specifically the Bold text articles on ROBERT E LEE and ABRAHAM LINCOLN.Bold text Perhaps, over time, I will view other articles where this defect occurs.

IS THERE A GENERAL REASON WHY THIS HAPPENS, AND CAN IT BE CORRECTED? TO WHOM SHOULD I MENTION SUCH FINDS SO THAT MIGHT BE CORRECTED?

I download articles to share with an elderly friend who does NOT have access to the web because he has an older computer; I put them on floppies and he can read them that way.

Other than this MINUTE issue, everything I have seen on WIKIPEDIA is usually excellent and changes are made in a timely and complete manner.

MY IMMENSE THANKS and REGARDS to all the EXCELLENT, KNOWLEDGEABLE VOLUNTEERS! 71.60.245.234 (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)CARL HOWE

When you say they appear blank in downloads, can you expand on what you mean? Downloading in what fashion? — e. ripley\^talk 19:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

General officers listing

Request unclear

– Diannaa ^TALK 19:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are missing two Army General officers;

BG Ronald Rokosz and MG Kenneth C, Leuer. I know both are GO's and presently living but retired.

Keith Nightingale —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.79.152.96 (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If you could tell us which article you are talking about, that would be great. We don't seem to have a page called General officers listing. Thanks. --Diannaa ^TALK 21:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Guidance on what constitutes a personal attack

Resolved

Following the guidance in WP:NPA I warned an editor on his talkpage that I perceived this and this to be personal attacks. His response asserts there was no attack. Please could you give an impartial opinion? --Alistair Stevenson (talk) 09:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well this seems to be a loaded question does it not? Of course they are personal attacks but that is only part of the story. You all have been arguing since May 6, 2010. It seems to have started with this edit. This was your very first communication with User:Kudpung and he is still incredibly angry about it. --Diannaa ^TALK 20:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa, that seems a very fair reply.--Alistair Stevenson (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this Dianna. I had actually long forgotten his earlier unprovoked tirade (which was not so very long ago), and in spite of the ignoble and very personal attack, I had quietly left without WP:TLW. However, this comment on my talk page about civility is hard to swallow, and that he suggests elsewhere that you agree and sympathise with his cause is a perfect example of WP:GAME. It demonstrates the pattern of behaviour I have mentioned elsewhere. He appears to be unaware of : Never post personal details: Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely. (WP:TPNO) and still needs to know what constitutes the difference between discussions among editors about his behaviour in the hope of improving it, and WP:NPA. It's time he stopped baiting editors and then running for cover to arbitrators crying 'It wasn't me.' It's difficult to know how to help him when every polite and friendly post is met with snatches of postings taken deliberately out of context, righteous indignation, and threats of punitive arbitration. Assumptions of Good Faith can and do have a shelf life. See also: User talk:Drunken Pirate#Chris Noth--Kudpung (talk) 03:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

After intense deliberation and reading all appropriate policy pages I've decided:

Kudpung and Alistair Stevenson will refrain from any interaction for a period of no less than 3 years.
this edit was not a personal attack, Alistair Stevenson was sincerely trying to help a fellow editor.
Alistair Stevenson will refrain from accusing anyone of personal attacks, but will catalogue all personal attacks at user:Alistair_Stevenson/Personal_Attacks where I will review them daily
No one will ever mention this ever again, including thanking me for my decisive intervention or responding here

Pirate^Argh!!1! 04:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that I have serious doubts as to Alistair Stevenson's good faith. The sharp discrepancy between the standards he urges on other editors and his own patterns of behavior, his Heep-like tone that seems calculated to inflame disputes and aggravate other editors, and his utterly preposterous factual arguments (eg, Chris Noth is better known from a single offhand joke on Family Guy than from major roles in Sex And The City and Law And Order) all point to a lack of constructive intent. Some of the commands he posted on my talk page remind me of those from a now-blocked sockfarmer who enjoyed stirring up disputes with productive editors. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If the three of you would kindly stay away from this user in the future, that would be best. Cheers, --Diannaa ^TALK 20:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Uploading files under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license

Resolved

– – ukexpat (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I have three copyrighted images that I am planning to upload under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license for use on a Wikipedia page that I will also be uploading for peer review prior to going live. The images have been provided to me via email by the copyright holders.

Should I expect any problems with acceptance of the copyrighted images for use under that license? Doc2234 (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:IOWN for the process that the copyright owner must follow to give permission. – ukexpat (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Doc2234 (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

FSCs needing closure

Resolved

– It's been taken care of. Jujutacular ^T · C 17:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There are two nominations at Featured sound candidates that have clear consensus to promote, both months old. I have closed most recent FSCs; however, I am involved in both, and as such should not close them. If an uninvolved editor could evaluate the nominations and confirm, it would be appreciated. Once confirmed, simply place the following code at the bottom:

'''Promoted Example.ogg''' --~~~~

The two nominations are:

Simply confirm, and I will complete the closure process. Many thanks. Jujutacular ^T · C 15:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to request this at the talk page, Wikipedia talk:Featured sound candidates. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested there. However, I ask here mainly because the few people that I imagine would take notice there would be the ones already involved in the nominations. Participation there has been very low (hence nominations 8 months old...). Jujutacular ^T · C 16:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

regular editors at FoxNews are ignoring past consensus (FAQ) and outside editors

Stuck

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

A small group of regular editors at the article for Fox News Channel seem dedicated to keeping the lede free of criticism and controversy. As it stands now the lead inadequately summarizes notable controversies and criticism. From the third paragraph:

~~Many~~Some observers have asserted that both Fox's news reporting and its political commentary promote conservative political positions. ^{[1] [2] [3]} Fox News Channel denies any bias in its news reporting and maintains that its political commentary and news reporting operate independently of each other. ^{[4] [5] [6]}

(Additional sources to add/replace: Report on American Journalism and conservative Jonah Goldberg writing for the LA times).

Past consensus is summarized in the talkpage FAQ:
-- per WP:Lead - Appropriate to overview the controversies / allegations of bias.
-- in re "Many observers" - Critics are sufficiently numerous that elevating a single critic or source gives it undue weight and is in compliance with the accepted exceptions to WP:weasel.
-- The lead should only briefly summarize the notable controversies. (See the FAQ for more info, in particular on alleged bias and related archives.)

Attempt to discuss on talkpage - several other regular editors there agree with me, but they are drowned out by the vocal pro-FNC editors who seem to ignore or dismiss past consensus. One (User:Arzel) says the lead is the result of past compromise. Yet I contend that it does not reflect the FAQ points. Based on text that was already in the Criticism and controversies section, I made the following change (shown in bold) [7]:

Many observers have asserted that both Fox's news reporting and its political commentary promote conservative political positions at the expense of neutrality.

(And it could still be improved with a summary of other criticism from the Obama administration, Bush talking points, poor fact-checking and mixing commentary with reporting.) But it was quickly reverted by Arzel. [8]

Attempt to resolve on WP:POV/N where three outside editors agreed that the lede should better reflect Fox News bias and controversy. (In the meantime, another editor changed the wording from "Many observers" to "Some observers" [9] again despite the FAQ quoted above (also the body text was changed recently in an unrelated edit [10]) With the additional support from other editors at the talkpage and at POV/N, I thought it would be appropriate make the first change again. [11] But Arzel again reverted the change [12] and made what seems like a contentious remark on the talkpage, "Let them come here and discuss it." Should I take this to AN/I or arbitration? I know it boils down to a content dispute but the editors in question are not making any concessions at all. -PrBeacon (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I would consider changing "some observers" to simply "critics". "Some" can be vague and as pointed out listing who would give undue weight to certain individuals. Some sort of mention is appropriate. The conservative slant is well known and reported. The denial line clearly says that Fox is attempting to keep it to their commentary and not news. They might fail at it sometimes but that is the way it is.Cptnono (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

PrBeacon, if you are going to attack me on these pages I would prefer if you let me know about it. Arzel (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Where is the personal attack? Npa: "..referring to other editors is not always a personal attack." -PrBeacon (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

While I understand the notion of common courtesy, I will extend that to you when you stop assuming bad faith. Dismissive and patronizing replies don't help any discussion intended to further the collaborative project. -PrBeacon (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

DrinkOrDie

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I found the same text at Federation Against Software Theft and decided to remove both, citing WP:LIBEL and Defamation. I'd still like to know what the policy is, though. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry John, I was unable to find anything out either, though I did look. Perhaps inquire at wp:Village pump (policy)? --Diannaa ^TALK 21:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. In the mean time I'll just keep both pages on my watchlist. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Admin mobbing - help needed!

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like some assistance with a Wiki-admin, User:JzG, who is obviously out to get both me and my articles, even though I haven't done anything to the guy. First he blocked me indefinately on completely made-up claims of me being a sock puppet (without ANY evidence) by User Jaes (see my userpage), and that same day he also speedily deleted one of my articles, 1541 Ultimate on claims of advertising -- even though it had undergone a previous deletion discussion and had been online for 2 years. Now I got the article restored after a 5:0 vote on undeleting it, I even removed the passage that could be interpreted as advertising (even though it only was the truth), and right away, he adds it for deletion - again! It is fairly obvious he is pissed off about me being able to reverse both his blocks and deletions, and I fear he will continue to abuse his admin powers. Looking around on his userpage it seems I'm not the only victim of this guy. Oh, btw: He refuses to answer to emails, talking to him was the very first thing I tried! -- DeeKay64 (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You have been unblocked, obviuosly. If you wish to complain about such actions try WP:Administrators' noticeboard. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Attenda

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I need some assistance in an article I was writing following post research for my dissertation. I entered an article with regards to a company called Attenda, which I came across during the time I researched into cloud virtualisation and its impact on the environment. I believe someone had tried to submit an article before me and it had been deleted. I also wrote a small excerpt and mine was deleted as well. I am somewhat confused as I believe other cloud vendors are on wikipedia and I think my article, although small, was neutral. I felt it had a place on wikipedia and shouldnt have been deleted. I was directed by the admins to submit a sub-page perhaps and I have no idea how to do this. Any help would be great as to how I can get started.

Thanks Kernowgal10 (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Everything you need is at Starting an article. If you use the Article wizard to create your article, there is an option to create the sub-page that the administrator suggested. Good luck! --Diannaa ^TALK 05:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Swann v. Board of Education

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The entire last section of this article is political commentary with little fact in support. For example, it makes the statement of wishful thinking "Twenty years ago, Charlotte was a success in school integration; other successful schools included Marie G. Davis Middle School and West Charlotte High School." with no source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.250.23.29 (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The entire article is poorly sourced and I have added a {{refimprove}} template to the article. Thank you for pointing this out; hopefully someone will be able to improve the article soon.--Diannaa ^TALK 05:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Henney

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Mageclansoftheeast is removing what seems to be referenced material and free images without using the talk page. 200.123.147.57 (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

There is not repeated behaviour of removal, and anyway in an earlier removal the editor did provide a relevant edit summary: "Image is not about the actor but rather an image of the product Cyon phones".

The images "free usage" is contested see [[13]], and the uploader is blocked as a sockpuppet.

Finally, if you have a problem why not take it to the article talk yourself. I think it is not a big problem that needs outside help. Arnoutf (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Civility process

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I am just asking for some feedback on **MY** actions here. I try generally not to get into editorial disputes so I am not well skilled at these but looking at this discussion disturbed me and I reacted with this edit. I thought about putting my comments on the user's talk page but there is more than one user in the mix and the "ownership by misconception" issue needs to be viewed by both sides of the table for clarity. I would welcome learning if there is a better way I could have handled this particular issue. 66.102.198.220 (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I dunno. The user's comment about waiting till 2011 seems to be quoting information they thought they saw on the pages of WP:WikiProject Star Trek and another user feels that information is incorrect; the changes have been agreed upon but no one has actually done them yet. But it is not a lack of effort per se that keeps things from getting done on the encyclopedia. It is more the sheer monumental size of the task. Someone recently said that there are 3,329,067 articles on Wikipedia and 3,329,067 of them need improving. Editors are all volunteers who do the work as a hobby. As such, they will tend to gravitate towards the tasks they find interesting or fun. So I think the phrase "lack of effort" just means that people's efforts were directed elsewhere. --Diannaa ^TALK 21:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry it's the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome page. Blood ban in UK for CFS/ME patients not CFS patients. CFS/ME is the official term used by UK Government & NHS.

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I recently added a line to say that the UK has banned patients with a current diagnosis of CFS/ME from donating blood.

Another member 'Sciencewatcher' keeps changing the name from CFS/ME to CFS. The official term in the UK for the disease is CFS/ME, and those are the patients that have been banned.

I have provided a source for the blood ban. ^[1]UK Parliament, 10 Mar 2010. "Ann Keen: People with myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), also known as chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), are not able to donate blood until they have fully recovered. The reasons for this are: first, blood donors need to be in good health, and people with ME/CFS often experience a range of symptoms which could be made worse by donating blood; and second, as the causes of ME/CFS are not currently fully understood, people with the condition are deferred from donating blood as a precautionary measure to protect the safety of the blood supply for patients."

I have provided a source for the official term. ^[2]'Inquiry into the status of CFS / M.E. and research into causes and treatment' 2006. pg5. "The Group feels the condition deserves a name that reflects its pathology but in view of the contentions surrounding it, it is probably wise not to be over restrictive hence we have used the term CFS/ME. We have used this term as it is the recognised term in the UK. It does not reflect the groups’ opinion on what the name should be."

I have also provided numerous source that show the UK uses the official term CFS/ME. (The MRC expert group on CFS/ME, the NICE guidelines for CFS/ME, the NHS CFS/ME clinics.)

'Sciencewatcher' believes that I am trying to push my own POV. He agues that the Parliamentary source use the term CFS or ME, but they also use ME/CFS, and at no time state which of the three is the official term. I therefore provided the Parliamentary Inquiry 2006 to show the official term is CFS/ME. He has also presented the CMO report from 2002, to say the official term is not CFS/ME, clearly this is out of date and the source I provided is from the UK Parliament 2006.

I would very much appreciate some assistance in resolving this matter. I only wish for the line about the blood ban to be accurate.

Many thanks. UYBSUYBS (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This name seems to be only prevalent in the UK. The Mayo Clinic website and the World Health Organisation use CFS. --Diannaa ^TALK 19:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

References

Aymatth2 removal of edit

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I added an edit to the article about the Sexual Revolution.

I said that the possibility that the Aids virus was a biological weapon designed and deployed in the conflict between free love advocates and sexually repressive power structures has not yet been appropriately examined in public.

I think this is true. I do not believe that the political ramifications of the question outweigh the truth of the statement. I understand and respect the possibility that Wikipedia is unable or unwilling to state such a reality, but I do not wish to be labeled as "political"; what I said is something that I believe to be the truth.

My educational background on both the undergraduate and graduate levels supports the statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.216.41 (talk) 02:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Aymatth2 used Huggle, a software tool generally used for removing vandalism. However, he explains his reasons for reverting your edit on his user page. Remember that 'The threshold of inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability not truth.' (WP:V) This disallows any claims that might represent what you believe to be true. You would need to prove '...has not yet been appropriately examined in public,' and that might be a lot more difficult than proving something that has been done. Don't take the revert personally, and take some solace in the fact that the article appears to have several unsourced claims and pieces of information. --Kudpung (talk) 06:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC).

Guidance requested to help resolve a situation

Resolved

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

This request concerns Ironholds (talk · contribs) and my (mistaken) actions at Andrew Dobson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). While patrolling new pages and recent changes I came across a user who apparently appeared to be Andrew Dobson himself removing content that criticised him from his own article. I reverted the removal of content, twice, without really reading it, and I am aware that I was wrong. I made a mistake, and I am prepared to apologise for that.

Ironholds, from the first time he contacted me about this incident, has been accusatory, authoritarian, and I have found his messages to be offensive. He/she does not appear to appreciate that I made a mistake, and even though I have apologised for the mistake I made, he/she has continued to ask scrutinising questions over why I did what I did. In the last message that Ironholds left for me (which you can see in full at my talk page) I was being accused of "Multiple insertions of libelous material", which was blatantly not my intention.

If I have handled anything badly then I'll admit to that. I just need someone else to step in and help resolve this before it escalates. -- role^player 10:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Roleplayer, you've made a mistake, admitted it and explained how/why you did it. I've suggested to Ironholds that the issue is now quietly dropped and all return to improving the wiki. That way, further drama can be avoided. Mjroots (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. -- role^player 14:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (television)

What should our policy be on articles that contain lists related to television? You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists (television). Taric25 (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

User:Pete Fenelon

Resolved

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Could an administrator block that user indefinitely? That user passed away in October 2008. /Hey Mid (contributions) 15:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I have re-posted this at WP:ANI as I don't think any admins are currently patrolling this board. Thanks for reporting this. --Diannaa ^TALK 19:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverting image

Resolved

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, could someone revert the page File:GAME.jpg? The description matches the old picture. – GeMet [gemet|ʇǝɯǝƃ] 15:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Done, no reason was given for replacing album cover with a screenshot from a random computer game. No articles linked to the image besides the article on the album. Arnoutf (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, "game.jpg" is a pretty non-descriptive generic filename so it is easy to see how someone could mistakenly upload another image over the orginal one. – ukexpat (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Libelous and questionable information continuously added to Cambridge High School (Jordan)

Resolved

– Article speedily deleted as a copyvio. – ukexpat (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

(Cambridge High School (Jordan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An anonymous editor continues to post libelous and questionable information concerning Cambridge High School (Jordan) and its staff. A source is cited, but it appears to be self-created and contains no valid data to back up the claims. A request for more clarification/details on the talk page has been ignored. The anonymous user continues to revert the page despite several attempts by users to purge the information. - Cybjorg (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

On my watchlist now. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm also now watching the article, but drop me a line (or pop over to WP:RFPP) if it continues and we'll get the page semi-protected. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Article text is copied from the school's website, back to very early versions. Versions earlier than that were copied from elsewhere. I've speedied the article under G12. Shimeru 20:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Dawnspire the Prelude need help creating.

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

Looking for assistance for a page I wish to create pertaining to an old PC game I used to play. I have created a rough, currently residing within my contribution page. I have written the main body of the text and tried to include as much information and relevant links as I could. Any help would be great. Thanks Persus (talk) 12:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a link to your draft article. You can request feeback at requests for feedback. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess you mean User:Persus/Dawnspire. Why don't you check out WP:Good Articles on computer games such as those listed at Wikipedia:Good_articles#Everyday_life under video games to see what you should be aiming at. I would suggest you need to write in an encyclopaedic style, use better referencing and follow the Manual of Style. Read up on policies and guidelines using the links that have been placed on your talk page. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Surname meanings

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm new to the Editor assistance page, so excuse me if I'm posting this out of place. I feel that surname page should have a reliable source. I have gladly added surname meanings to certain pages. I have discussed the reliability of Ancestry.com amongst others. They feel that because Ancestry.com apparently allows users to submit entries, it shouldn't be a reliable source. Butthere are hardly many credible websites to cite. The only solution is books, but my question is....How do we cite books to where someone doesn't wonder "How do I really know that's the correct book I can find that in?" FYI, this is something that's been on my mind for awhile, and I just decided to try and see what others think. I welcome any views on this, SwisterTwister (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Citing books is perfectly legitimate, there is even a template for doing it. This should help: Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style#Books. You can also check out WP:CITE and WP:V., they should give you all you need to know. Hope this helps.--Kudpung (talk) 06:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Use {{cite book}} to cite books. Mjroots (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

If you have a look at the class of article, the higher the class, the more likely the sources have been checked out to verify the contents are actually present in the citation. To reach good article or especially feature article status, the sources are thoroughly vetted by experts in the topic. I also discovered there is a WikiProject Fact and Reference Check dedicated to checking and verifying sources. --Diannaa ^TALK 14:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Further to the above, Ancestry.com is not a reliable source because anyone can add information, it is in effect a kind of wiki, so not RS. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Nibiru

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I keep adding a link relevent to the Nibiru/Planet X theory, which keeps getting deleted.

Please prevent the editor from removing this relevent link:

Nibiru, Niobe, Niobium, Rubidium, Rothschild, Tantalus, Stargate Universe, The Matrix, 2001 Space Odyssey

Thanks

David Senouf 82.239.102.131 (talk) 10:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.239.102.131 (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the Nibiru theory. "Nibiru" is a word in Akkadian that means "crossing"; it is not and has never been an acronym. Please do not add this again. Serendi ^pod ous 08:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This is article does not put into question the etymological orign or meaning of the word nibiru, but the usage of the name 'Nibiru' in multiple sources from youtube videos to websites regarding the Nibiru theory. See Youtube entries on Nibiru. Please do not remove this again. Senouf (talk) 08:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, this link has nothing to do with Nibiru. It's just some guy noticing that the acronym for Niobium/Rubidium is the same as the name for the object. It's like putting the Laffer curve into the article on laughter. Serendi ^pod ous 08:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless you take the time to read through the entire article I quote, I suggest you refrain from judging its' content or relevance. As such, if you do remove the link again, I will ask you to be removed from wikipedia entries. Senouf (talk) 08:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That article isn't about anything; it's just a random list of free associations. And why is this guy so notable that he deserves a link? Who is he, exactly? Serendi ^pod ous 08:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

My real name is David Senouf. Do you care to provide yours ? Senouf (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I've read through the article. Per your note above, I suppose that allows me to judge its content and relevance. Simply put, it appears to have none with respect to the article, but instead is simply an essay composed of speculative thoughts and conspiracy/disaster theories. I'd also note that you are repeatedly restoring a link that you appear to have a direct conflict of interest with, despite its failure to meet the requirements of the external link guideline.--Ckatz^chat _spy 08:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

If the article about Nibiru / Planet X collision is about a conspiracy /disaster based on false scientific pseudo-science that a twelfth planet will come close to earth in 2012 and create massive destruction, then this is indeed exactly what the article I link to is about. It argues for the dispelling of the Nibiru Hoax, whatever Nibiru's etymological origin, but validating the objective of eradicating a greater part of humanity, based on scientific technology such as Electromagnetic and Gravitational theory, in the form of the HAARP project and usage of gravitational force fields. Unless you are an astrophysicist able to contradict / invalidate Extended Heim theory, although not accepted at large as the Unification of all fields of Physics, then you are in no position to judge the relevance of this part. Even if you are an astrophysicist, you are unable to disprove Extended Heim Theory, although you may have an opinion it.

Before answering further, please tell us who you are, provide us your scientific pedigree. I have a PhD in Mathematics from UCLA in 1994, and I have written four articles in scientific journals.

Please stop hiding behind anonymity and provide us with that information before babbling any further. Senouf (talk) 09:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The specific article that you are trying to get linked, has it been published in a scientific journal? --Enric Naval (talk) 10:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

References taken from http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/

The various scientific journals or conferences appear within each article:

Emerging Physics for Novel Field Propulsion
Gravitational Field Propulsion
Extended Heim Theory, Physics of Spacetime, and Field Propulsion
Spacetime Physics and Advanced Propulsion Concepts
HQT: Notation, Glossary and Mathematical Definitions

Most of Extended Heim Theory has yet to be accepted in mainstream academia as the Unified Field Theory of Physics, but many articles have been published and used at conference presentations. Although no Physicist will stand behind it today for fear of being ostracized, none of them can disprove it, nor will they attempt to do it. As such, whether it is yet accepted by a larger community of scientists, does not discredit it, as much as it does not provide it with mainstream endorsement. If any of the people that wish to discredit this theory are able to bring a theoretical physicist that will prove any mistakes within this theory, let them come forward. Their may not be enough details in the work available yet on EHT, however none of it can be shown to be inconsistent. Claiming that too little mathematical formalism is provided to judge the relevance of such a revolutionary theory is shortsightedness, and is in no way a refutation of a novel theory.

Senouf (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a post on a blog from someone with a conflict of interest. It doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia so far as I can see. I don't care if the author has a PhD or not. Dougweller (talk) 12:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Blog are not reliable sources. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Resident Evil Afterlife

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I write to you because I would like to change the zombies to puppies. Director Paul W. S. Anderson, has done more harm by making movies of the classic video game resident evil, than George Lucas and Steven Spielberg redoing all their classic movies combined. It is obvious that the problem is Milla Jovovich. The director is married to Milla Jovovich and she is the main character in all four resident evil movies, but she plays a character that was never created by Capcom, the makers of resident evil, and gives her super powers. I am not talking about super powers like the Flash being super fast she can see someone who is looking at her from a camera screen and then make security man's eyes start pouring bleed which I'm no doctor but shouldn't bleed that much in the first place. That only happened at the end of the second movie. Have you seen the third one??? They start cloning Milla Jovovich and have an infinite army of super hero who can destroy a satellite that isn't even in geosynchronous orbit, but can't save an actual character who is supposed to live in the game. The director kills the biggest character of the game Leon Scott Kennedy. Leon saves The President of the United States daughter from crazy Eastern Europeans people with monsters in them. The director even stole those guys in Resident Evil 4 to put them in his new movie and a crazy African with a giant ax from Resident Evil 5. God almighty, this director has to steal the plot line from a video game and put his hot wife and fucks up the story. Then he has to steal Resident Evil 5 plot with a complete different story and ruin that. He has to make it in 3D so the any fans of the Resident Evil movie can't watch it on illegal sites without looking any worse than it already is. If you see the trailer, it looks exact copy of the matrix but she has even more powers than Neo. All I ask for is to change the word zombies to puppies so people might actually want to see it. I mean puppies. What is more perfect than puppies besides maybe a box full of kittens. This man has already ruined the Alien VS. Predator movies and luckily the makers noticed how bad he is and fired him and found someone else. If they didn't Milla, would be the one killing the Alien and Predator with a toothpick.

Please Please help me stop this director or at least allow the word puppies in the article Resident Evil Afterlife. I will take kittens if you would prefer.

1residentevilfan, please take a minute to read the warnings about vandalism that have been posted on your Talk page. Regards, --Diannaa ^TALK 04:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Content

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I recently added information to the page for actress Charisma Carpenter. I simply took biographical information found at the website www.imdb.com and added it to her page to present readers with more information about her, and yet three times this content has been removed because supposedly it cannot be verified. Its pretty sad when truthful information that is easily verified keeps getting removed from this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.47.36.166 (talk) 06:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, I haven't looked at what you were specifically adding, but IMDB isn't seen as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Since anyone can add to it and there's not much administrative control, there's no guarantee what appears there is verifiable. Dayewalker (talk) 06:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The reliability of IMDB is one thing and copying and pasting from them is another. It's called a copyright violation and will always be removed no matter what site it's taken from. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 10:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Editing Issue .... total wiki newb here but facts are facts

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Before I get to the issue of dispute ..... I would like to say I am posting here because after reading and rereading the dispute help section I continued to get lost, follow the wrong links (I guess?), and was unable to find the help I was seeking .....

My name is Dave and I am the creator, composer and copyright holder for Discordian Society. Discordian Society is a band formed in 2000, has been around for 10 years, holds an EP and 2 full length CD's under it's belt. I have posted the bands general info to "wikipedia.com -> discordianism -> discordian inspired works" dozens of times over the past 3 years only to find it missing again when I would point someone to the link. So recently I became a registered user, validated my email address, and have been posting my info sometimes up to 3 TIMES A DAY ..... and yet miraculously it seems to disappear every time.

Here is a copy of my posting .... since I own the copy rights to the name and the albums there under I know the facts below are 100% verifiable.

discordianism->discordian inspired works

Band - Discordian Society was formed in 2000 by bassist/composer David "Davz Not Here" Annarelli. Inspired by the writings of Robert Anton Wilson, Dave aspired to create music that incorporated the ideas of change, humor and weirdness put forth in books such as the Illuminatus Trilogy, Principia Discordia, etc.

Discorgraphy:

EP - Figments 2003
CD - Rise of Molecule 2005
CD - Primordial Soup 2010

I'm not the most computer savvy person but I do know when something is being deliberately removed for no legitimate reason. I can not seem to find the moderators name on the site for emailing to resolve this issue ..... anyone who knows more about getting things done on wiki, your help would receive my gratitude ..... should I just contact our lawyer ? or is there another way to resolve this ?

Dave Annarelli <redacted for poster's protection> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Discordiansociety (talk • contribs) 19:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That aside: for a band to have an article here, it must not only show that the band exists, but also satisfy our standards of notability for bands. So far, none of the attempts to insert the band have met that requirement. If the band is notable, somebody without your obvious conflict of interest will write an article about it that passes muster. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

talk:World Wrestling Entertainment#Recent edit warring

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi! My name is Screwball23. I have added material to the World Wrestling Entertainment page, and it has been deleted by editors Justa_Punk and 3Bulletproof16 repeatedly. The discussion on this has been unproductive, and the two have a personal issue with me based on a previous edit war I had with them, one where I finally got to add my material.

If you are familiar with wrestling or not, don't worry. I still would value your opinion. Please read the disputed section and see the ongoing dispute between myself and these editors. If anyone familiar with dispute resolution here on WP has the time, I would appreciate the opportunity to speak with you about how to resolve this issue so this continued edit war can finally be settled.

Thank you!! :-) --Screwball23 talk 22:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I have read through the talk page and suggest the WP:RFC would be the way to go. It's simple to file the request and it would attract interested and knowledgeable editors to comment on the discussion. Good luck. --Diannaa ^TALK 23:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

OPERATION DAWN PATROL

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I was stationed on the U.S.S. Independence during a 1977 operation named by NATO 'Dawn Patrol'. The wikipedia article states that the operation took place in 1973. Were there two seperate operations under the same name?

<e-mail address redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.143.247.158 (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Tagged. Message left on Talk:Operation Dawn Patrol. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the poster's e-mail address from this very public board. --Diannaa ^TALK 23:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

caterpillars

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I have been accused of add inappropriate external links to the entry for caterpillars. The caterpillar entry on Wikipedia contains a reference to the arctic woolly bear caterpillar and I provided a link to a site with extensive scienctific information on Gynaephora groenlandica. I fail to see where providing an external link from Caterpillars to arcticCaterpillars.org is spaming or that the link is in appropriate. ArcticCaterpillars.org is a not for profit site that contains information on the behavior, life cycle, parasitoids, and environment of the arctic woolly bear caterpillar Gynaephora groenlandica, you might check the content of a site before you acuse someone of spamming. ArcticCaterpillars.org contains no advertising and offers no products for sale and unlike Wikipedia it do not solicit funding from others. -Thomas Allen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallenkukal (talk • contribs) 23:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It was probably removed because you have a conflict of interest, since this is your own web site, judging by your user name. Sorry. --Diannaa ^TALK 00:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The link is most likely too specific in a general article. It is, however, useful for the entry on Gynaephora groenlandica where it is already given. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The first one I removed was that added to Ellesmere Island because the Gynaephora groenlandica is not restricted to that island and articles would become overwhelmed if all wildlife was given an external link. I then removed them from the other articles because it seemed to me that it conflicted with Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming, Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided #1 and #4, and Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest. When I looked your site, which I did before I removed the links, I realised that there was no adverts or direct selling of anything, but at the same time there appeared to be nothing there that would "... provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 04:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking for editors who can understand Bulgarian

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Recently another editor created the page Andrea Teodora, about a Bulgarian singer (and, I believe model). The original article was a Copy-vio, which we fixed, but the problem is that it currently lacks references, and, as such, is up for deletion based upon WP:BLP policy. Looking around the internet, it seems to me to be fairly certain that this person meets Notability, as she has several recordings and, more importantly, has appeared on the cover of several magazines (according to her "official website," at least). The problem is that all of these magazines and the like are in what I assume is Bulgarian, so it seems nearly impossible for those currently working on the article to find and cite the relevant sources. So I'm wondering if any speakers of Bulgarian could give us a hand. On the talk page, someone has recommended searching for her by her stage name, which is "Андреа." Warning, though: Part of this author's notability seems to arise from pictures of an adult nature (i.e., one of the magazine covers she was on is a European edition of Playboy). Thus, if you are searching for information about her, a fair amount of it is going to is definitely NSFW, so please don't undertake this if that's not your thing. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Milowent has done extensive work on the article and has removed the PROD tag. Bulgarian sources are not an obstacle as Google Translate can tell us what they say. I added an info box. The article looks great! Now if we only had a photo :-)) ----Diannaa ^TALK 15:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyrighted Images

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I have uploaded a Copyrighted image with explict permission from the owner of the image in order to enhance a Wikipedia (MBF Bioscience) article. How do I make sure that the image maintains its Copyrighted integrity? I've seen other Copyrighted images used on Wikipedia, but I am unable to get my image File:Color-logo-small-TM.jpg to have the proper licensing to show below the image. How do I acquire the proper licensing on Wikipedia (I have explict permission from the owner)?

Thexman20 (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The owner would have to give permission; we can't take your word for it. However: once permission is granted, I'm not sure that we can guarantee to "maintain its copyrighted integrity"; since the license is pretty broad. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Note the images were uploaded to commons not wikipedia. Not sure what the commons equivalent of Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission is. MilborneOne (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That logo (File:Color-logo-small-TM.jpg) is too simple to be eligible for copyright, and you have already properly tagged it as such. Jujutacular ^T · C 15:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

[1] ttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100310/text/100310w0012.htm#10031086001767

[2] ttp://www.erythos.com/gibsonenquiry/Report.html

[1]

[2]