Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 91

Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 91
Career information
Position(s)	Offensive Guard
US college	UCLA
NFL draft	1980 / Round: 3 / Pick 68
Career stats
	Playing stats at DatabaseFootball.com;

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

Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The article is about a Canadian electoral district in the province of Ontario. The boundaries for provincial electoral districts in Southern Ontario are shared with their federal counterparts; still, there are usually separate articles for federal (example) and provincial (example) districts. I've made draughts of separate federal and provincial articles; they can be found in my namespace here (federal) and here (provincial). Aside from sorting provincial-specific and federal-specific points, the articles are substantially the same as the original. My questions are:

Is there any reason to not separate the article?
Are the draughts in my namespace ready to go live? (If not, why not? Suggestions?)
The federal article will retain the original name; if that weren't the case, how would I delete the original?

That's all I can think of for now, but I'd be glad to hear any other insights you may have. Thanks. HuntClubJoe (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that you ask this question at WT:WikiProject Electoral districts in Canada as they are probably best placed to proffer useful advice. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Though seemingly a more a propos place to ask, WT:WikiProject Electoral districts in Canada has exactly three posts in 2010 (the last of which, from September, is still unanswered). I don't need a thorough vetting, as the information is substantially the same in the two split draughts as in the original. If someone could just spend a minute or three looking at the draughts and the original to ensure that everything is Wiki-cool, I'd be grateful. I've gotten an earful every time I've tried to make substantial changes to existing articles, so I thought it couldn't hurt to get input from more experienced Wikipedians than I before I create one. I've spent hours reading dozens of seemingly relevant WP help pages; I think it's ready, but another set of eyes can't hurt. HuntClubJoe (talk) 10:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Many Canadian projects are in limbo, seemngly bogged down by wikeaucracy Ottawahitech (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

What you plan to do doesn't seem controversial. But as a minimum, you should post your intentions at WT:WikiProject Electoral districts in Canada. If nobody responds, that increases the chance you can make the change with no later objections. I notice you have clashed with User:Earl Andrew in the past, but if you can manage to ask him for his advice, he probably has some ideas on this topic. Or, you might get him to suggest a third person who knows about these articles. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Incivility aside, the other user's edits leave (in my opinion) unsourced and biased opinion therein (this was first noticed in March 2006 by another user). I hope to remedy this via WP:3O in the near future, which is an option I was unaware of at the time. I don't dismiss anyone's input out of hand, but neither will or should I recognize consensus as a reason to revert (per WP:BB and WP:CONS). As for the current article, I will post my intentions in WT:WikiProject Electoral districts in Canada as a sign of good faith before I proceed with my proposed changes; if there is consensus among other users that I was mistaken in making these changes, they can be reverted and discussed further. Thanks to all those who have lent insights on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HuntClubJoe (talk • contribs) 21:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if your view of BRD meshes with what's practiced (which incidentally, per WP:PG, is how our policies and guidelines are defined). My interpretation of WP:DRNC is that the unqualified "no consensus" is generally not a sufficient reason to revert. However, disagreeing with an edit (or even feeling unconfident about it), and reverting to maintain the status quo until discussion hashes out a consensus is quite valid. That is, DRNC is more about maintaining openness about why you're reverting, rather than establishing limitations on reverting. The condition of requiring an articulated consensus prior to reversion does not seem correct to me, at least in terms of what is practiced if not in terms of logic. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

COI and addressing inaccuracies

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia Editor,

I work in the Medical Information department at Novo Nordisk Inc. I reviewed the Wikipedia article for Liraglutide (Victoza®), a product manufactured by my company, and noticed several product information inaccuracies. Is it acceptable for me to post a summary of the errors, along with the correct information and references, on the Discussion/Talk page for the Wikipedia Editors to consider when revising the Victoza article? If yes, is there is a specific way I can post the suggestions so that my conflict of interest (employee of Novo Nordisk) is transparent to the editor? Thank you in advance, Jill Webb (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. Yes, please post corrections and their references to the article talk page. If you begin with a copy of your first two sentences here, then your involvement will be 100% clear. -- John of Reading (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity: Can Jill Webb enter the information straight into the article itself if it is unlikely someone else will?Ottawahitech (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, edits by COI-afflicted editors are frowned upon. That does not mean they're disallowed, and in the case of trivial edits (obvious spelling or grammar corrections, for instance), nobody would bat an eye. However, even small disruptions of an article by a COI-afflicted editor are unacceptable. A simple example might be editing the article to change all instances of a brand name to use the "®" symbol, be in all-caps or all-lowercase, or be typeset in some unusual way simply because the company has trademark identification guidelines requiring that usage (this might violate MOS:TM).

Another issue here might be determining whether it was "unlikely" that someone would enter information. Admittedly, a great many article talk pages get very few views, and those of small companies and organizations are no exception. However, that doesn't mean it's OK to make wide, sweeping edits to an article just because there are few recent edits to the talk page. In general, I would much rather see a COI-afflicted editor proactively seek out editors from other places, such as a relevant WikiProject's talk page, or even right here at EAR, than make edits to an article because it doesn't get much traffic. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing my question. Everything you say makes sense, but...

Most volunteers (including wikipedia editors) are busy people. As a result, there is a lot of content that should be on Wikipedia, but is not, especially when it comes to biographies of living persons. I know many here do not agree - I have even seen some older Wikipedians claim that everything that should be on Wikipedia already is. Not true in my opinion. Ottawahitech (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC).

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. Certainly there's always room for improvement, but we're talking about COI-afflicted editors here. While generally speaking, editors are encouraged to be bold in editing, the community's experience with COI-afflicted editors seems to be that there is a risk of disruption. Thus, such editors are encouraged to ask for the assistance of other editors. That can take time, but most edits do not need to be made on an emergent basis. If it is an urgent situation (e.g., defamation under the scope of WP:BLP), one acceptable solution would be to remove the offending content, then to post a note on the talk page (and possibly on WP:COIN and/or WP:BLPN as well if it's a low-traffic page). I would not consider any content to be added "urgent" under any policy or guideline.

By the way, I have never come across the viewpoint you describe, or anything close to it. As much content as there should be on Wikipedia, there is a substantial amount more that should not. Rationalizing the addition of content by the reasoning that other editors are too busy does not make the poorly-formed or disruptive edits made by many COI-afflicted editors any better. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Editor assistance/Requests

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

DAE ONE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Noni Spitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Extended content

Dae One

References

Noni Spitz

REFERENCES

I have written two articles on two rappers from Los Angeles, CA but I keep getting flagged. I have sources for online article interviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlb81 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have serious concerns about the audio and image files included in these articles, supposedly released under free licenses by the uploader Mlb81... but that's all at commons and needs to be hashed out there. I'm looking into that now.

As to the references you've got here... few of these look reliable at first glance. Interviews aren't the best references; actual articles are. You might be able to get some more specialized help from WikiProject Hip Hop. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It's also worth noting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No One (hip-hop band), about their ensemble, which ended in delete. It seems unlikely that these two articles would survive AfD. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

These articles are being sourced on pretty shaky bases. While there are interviews in there, at least one looks like what WP:MUSICBIO mentions as an "endorsement interview". If either article passes muster, it will only just pass, and frankly it looks like these need to be rewritten. All but three of the media files used in these articles have been pulled from Commons, and all should be down eventually. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

orphan page

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I have made links to the page Mireille Astore in order to remove the "orphan" banner. How long will it be before it is removed? Thank you --EidM (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It has been removed. More important however is the fact that it is an unrefrenced BLP. It may be deleted in the future if it doesn't get some references. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not too pleased with the links that got added either. The ones in video art and conceptual art are in unreferenced laundry list sections of purportedly notable people in those genres. Similar for Lebanese Australian and the two list articles. The point of considering an article orphaned is to note that there are few other articles that discuss this subject to the extent that a link would normally be relevant, which indicates that other readers are unlikely to ever become interested, click and read the article. A trivial entry buried in an unreferenced list of trivial entries doesn't fix the underlying problem.

Given the article is up for PROD, I feel like this is unlikely to be fixed. Should the article be deleted, I would strongly suggest delinking and removing the entries from those other articles. Even if it's kept though, I would like to see those lists in video art, conceptual art and Lebanese Australian reviewed and substantially trimmed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Not sure where to respond but I'll try this. 1. The article has been on wikipedia for a while now. It was reviewed when first written with alterations and more importantly references given. On 28 December 2009, Bifigura has passed it following the addition of references. In fact, I myself felt at a loss as to why banners kept appearing on this article. I quote: "Hi, It's been a while now since I attended to your feedback (15 November 2009) and I am waiting a resolution to either remove the whole entry or remove the "warning" fields. Your attention to the matter is much appreciated. Thanks, EidM". The article remained with all banners removed. The current threat of deletion I believe contradicts these earlier correspondences. I can understand the request for references for notability and will attach references as requested after reading wikipedia's policy on what consists of notable people. In the meantime, please remove the threat of deletion. Thank you for your care and concern. --EidM (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ralph Drollinger

Answered

– various sock puppets have been blocked. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Editors;

You previously blocked "Diaperdaddy" for slanderous postings on my bio page. Diaperdaddy like the new one, "OCNative" continue to disparage my name by quoting a singular article from a faint source, a tabloid, of which the internal contents of the article contain no authentications other than what these same people provided annonomously to the writer of the article. There are no named sources other than Frank Erb who does not validate the conjecture of the article. Therefore their supposed posting validation utilizing this singular source, (i.e.Capitol Weekly)is circular and not objective.

In reviewing the edits on my bio, you will see that several of your administrators have overwritten these continual repostings from now, OCNative. In that if you block OCNative, like you did the similar postings of Diaperdaddy, they will, history suggests, simply resurface under a new alias.

Furthermore the reference to the Grace Community Church website as a source of validation for their claims is bogus. There is nothing on that website that affirms these allegations.

Since it seems impossible for Wikipedia to protect my biography from these malicious and continual repostings <redacted attacks on living persons per WP:BLP>, I ask you to immediately take down my bio page (you will notice that Diaperdaddy created it in the first place without my authorization).

Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter.

Ralph DrollingerRkdrkdrkd (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

We do not seek or expect "authorization" for the creation or editing of an article. If something needs correcting, then request correction on the talk page of the article, documenting the need for correction. Meantime: you are alone in your characterization of Capitol Weekly ("The Newspaper of California Government and Politics") as "a tabloid"; there is nothing to indicate that it is not a reliable source. Additionally: if this account is Ralph Drollinger, then what about User:RK Drollinger?--Orange Mike | Talk 17:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The edits I made have not been overwritten by any administrators whatsoever because they are cited in the newspaper. Diaperdaddy was banned because he/she was a "Disruptive single-purpose account with the intent of negatively slanted edits on Ralph Drollinger." I, on the other hand, have over 8,000 edits over five years. I also concur with OrangeMike's assessment. Biographies on Wikipedia must be objective, so we must include both positive and negative information per the NPOV policy. Biographies on Wikipedia are not supposed to be hagiographies. Also, the reason I was drawn to the article about you is because you actually intersect two of my major editing interests: politics and Pac-10 sports. OCNative (talk) 06:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ralph Drollinger

I am checking to see if there has been any decisions on my bio.

Ralph DrollingerRkdrkdrkd (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions have been made above. Further to that, you could post your concerns at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. But please note that as stated above, no-one needs permission to create a biographical article and as long as information is correctly cited it should stay. An article's subject has no control over the content, but if incorrect un-cited information is added then it is fine to post at the article talk page and / or WP:BLPN. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

That's Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. – ukexpat (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, corrected now. Must remember not to edit whilst finishing my tea! Jezhotwells (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It's already up on BLPN actually, via User:RK Drollinger (WP:BLPN#Ralph Drollinger). I suspect contributions is the same person, given the past action regarding the same reference. Off2riorob tried to balance things a little per WP:WEIGHT, but things have been changed a bit since then, with the section having been bulked back up.

I would also like to note for the record that it is somewhat misleading to use the possessive "my article". It is an article written about you, and it is important to think about Wikipedia in that regard. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RK Drollinger. OCNative (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Notability vs Deletion

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Not sure where to respond to Orphan page actions

The article Mireille Astore has been on wikipedia for a while now. It was reviewed when first written with alterations and more importantly references given. On 28 December 2009, it was deemed worthy of wikipedia following the addition of references. In fact, I myself felt at a loss as to why banners kept appearing on this article. I quote: "Hi, It's been a while now since I attended to your feedback (15 November 2009) and I am waiting a resolution to either remove the whole entry or remove the "warning" fields. Your attention to the matter is much appreciated. Thanks, EidM". The article remained with all banners removed by December 2009. The current threat of deletion I believe contradicts these earlier correspondences. I can understand the request for references for notability and will attach references as requested after reading wikipedia's policy on what consists of notable people. In the meantime, please remove the threat of deletion as it states in the threat.

I tried to add the following reference which actually lists and explains why this particular person Mireille Astore is notable.

Kazzi, Antoine. Brilliant Faces. Sydney: El-Telegraph Newspaper, 2009. page 83. This project was funded by the Australian Government.

but the Reference list already on the Notable Lebanese Australians page did not show the other citations in edit mode so I may be able to insert this one on. I searched the FAQ's but with no luck.

Further to the most recent notability, Mireille Astore was one of the four plenary speakers at the International Conference for the Arts in Soicety in July 2010 where hundreds of papers were presented by international experts in the field. Please visit this page http://2010.artsinsociety.com/plenary-speakers/index.html for context and please let me know if this reference falls within Wikipedia's guidelines for referencing.

I have posted these comments elsewhere but I am confused by the number of options to request for help that I felt the need to write again here.

Thanks--EidM (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You're very lucky that the article is still in the encyclopedia. None of the references assert notability, nor do they fall within our ctiteria for reliable sources. It's nothing unusual for an artist's work to be included in an exhibition - they do it all the time. A source that only includes the name of a participating artist is not broad press coverage or an article about the artist. being one of 'hundreds' of speakers at a plenary does not confer notability either. I would suggest inserting the El-Telegraph Newspaper reference and letting the mater rest.--Kudpung (talk) 09:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Don Gilmore Wiki profile

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I manage music producer Don Gilmore and he was wondering if there is a way to block editing of his page or somehow have control over it? He tried to delete the below post, but it was put back in days later.

Gilmore worked with welsh rock band The Automatic in 2008 on an early version of their album This Is A Fix, however the sessions were aborted 5 weeks in as the band preferred only recording what they could physically play live, as opposed to Gilmore's production style of using Pro Tools and cutting things up.[1] ^ "Xfm Meets The Automatic". Xfm. 2008-13-07. Retrieved 2010-10-16.

The statement is not true and is referrenced through an interview with the band. This is band conjecture and does not reflect the truth. How can we get that deleted and for the future is their a way for him to manage his own wiki page?

Thanks. Bkeg (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Mike

Unless there is persistent vandalism of the page, no, there is no way to block editing. For more information on what the subject of an article can do to influence the content of an article see the section "Managing your biography" here.

I've cleaned up the paragraph in question so that (hopefully) it is clear that this is the band member's opinion, not an objective report on Gilmore. --Danger (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

NBC Orchestra Violinist Emille Cocozza

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Emille Cococzza was head violinist/concert master, with the early NBC Orchestra in New York city, either slightly pre, or slightly post, '30's depression era. He was my mothers father, I never asked her which specific years. Mario Lanza, (real last name: Cocozza) was a close relative, who lived in Philadelphia as my grandfather did for years. Emille Cocozza was the concert-master of choice who Anna Pavlova preffered to work with when she worked in New York. Whoever compiled the page about the early NBC Orchestra did a very fine job of it. I am wondering if the persons involved with the NBC Orchestra complilation have any reference to which years Emille Cocozza worked as concert master lead violinist with the NBC Orchestra? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.121.175 (talk) 06:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Feel free to ask the editor(s) or co-editor(s) on their talk pages. To find out who they are, click the 'page' tab at the top of the article page then 'history'. You can then click on their names to go to their talk pages after clicking the (diff) to see what they wrote. Anything that can add to a Wikipedia article, as long as it can be referenced, is most welcome. Do remember to enclose links to any pages you are talking about by enclosing the page title in [[square brackets]], and to sign your messages using four tildes (~~~~) - instructions are on every edit-mode page. Good luck :) --Kudpung (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to add another note to this discussion: if you want to find out who the main contributors to this wikipedia article you may want to check this link http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=NBC_Symphony_Orchestra Ottawahitech (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You can of course also go straight to the toolserver from this link near the top of the history page: External tools: Revision history statistics. The advantage of the history page itself is that the edit summaries will (theoretically) give you a basic idea of what the editor did, and if you are using pop-ups, by moving your mouse over prev you can see and read the edit without having to load the page.--Kudpung (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ralph Drollinger

Answered

– already answered. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Editor assistance;

The bio page of Ralph Drollinger keeps posting a singular source that is defamatory to his reputation. It is the Capitol Weekly article. This single article contains only one source within itself, who is a past employee of Capitol Ministries <blp violations redacted> I ask you to therefore remove and block the continual repostings of all references to this article in this bio. --SACPI (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)— SACPI (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

How many times do we have to deal with this? See above. – ukexpat (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RK Drollinger. OCNative (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

What does ca stand for?

Answered

– —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

What does ca stand for? - as in "ca:The Huffington Post" TIA, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Without the quotes inside the brackets it would be an interwiki link to the Catalan widipedia and would generate an entry on the left side of the screen under a heading "Languages". RJFJR (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! When I first saw the "ca" I thought it stood for Canada. Unfortunately, at Wikipedia it stands for Catalonia. What is the abbreviation for the Canada version of Wikipedia? TIA, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

There isn't a Canadian Wikipedia; we don't do regional variants of Wikipedia, just language variants. Catalan Wikipedia uses the "ca" abbreviation because, "ca" is the ISO 639-1 code for the Catalan language. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a Kannada Wikipedia at "kn" ;-) Many Canadians will probably prefer the French Wikipedia at "fr". PrimeHunter (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Please help me to de-orphan and neutralize my page! Tried and failed...instructions are baffling me...thank you.

Resolved

– Nutopia (company) deleted and Nutopia 123 indefinitely blocked. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

In trying to 'deorphan' my company page I have inadvertently made it an advertisement?! How do I fix both problems before the page is removed please! Thank you. Link to page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutopia_(company) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutopia 123 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Well the article does read like an advertisement. This is an encyclopaedia, not a trade directory. Please read the block notice that has been placed on your talk page. As noted there, you shouldn't be writing promotional articles. And your user name is against Wikipedia policy. Neutrality and referencing to reliable third party sources are core Wikipedia principles. I haven't found any such sources for your company in an admittedly brief search. There seems to be little of encyclopaedic content there, so I have marked the article for speedy deletion. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Since the article in question was using a multichannel reference, I wonder if this article belongs in Wikipedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multichannel_marketing Ottawahitech (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Multichannel marketing does seem to be a legit topic; the question is as to notability, as so often with business/management marketing. But what's that got to do with the Nutopia spammer? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Maine gubernatorial election, 2010 Candidate infobox

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There has been an ongoing feud between at least three editors regarding the notability of candidates in the election, and whether all the candidates deserve mention in the Candidate infobox. This has led to an acrimonious discussion on the talk page, with every editor using their own Wiki-Policies to further their cause. As an observer of these events unfolding, I would like someone to come in and help keep the peace, and hopefully, reach a resolution that everyone is OK with.

Bkissin (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

This comes up regularly in US election articles, I believe. Might I suggest that you could ask for help on resolving the notability issue at WT:WikiProject Politics. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I left my comment on the talk page, hoping to douse the heated conflict. Thanks for your help. Bkissin (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The situation is not getting better, despite me trying to keep the peace. Please help. Bkissin (talk) 09:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Not an easy dispute to read through. A lot of comments with unfortunately unusual indenting. And it looks like it's gotten involved on the WikiProject talk page too. Honestly, I think that given the number of participants, the wide-sweeping implications for articles on (at least) US elections, and given there seems to be at least one proposal on the table (the 5% cutoff), I would suggest it's time for an WP:RFC. I'd suggest starting an "arbitrary break" subsection and proposing that an RFC be started. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion and edit warring both seem to have died off. No edits since protection expired. Not sure what's going on presently in this situation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

protected content

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I edited part of a piece about the Waldensians and inserted some additional information. Since then, somebody has edited my edits and protected their own pieces in some way so I can't revise it. How is this possible that my insertions can be edited but the other person's can't be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidim (talk • contribs) 20:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You need to start a discussion with Ian.thomson on the artcile talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

My issue is not with Ian Thomson, or anyone who did the edit, but my question is about how it's possible for another person to edit my contribution but protect his own pieces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.48.244.30 (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article isn't protected as far as I can see, but as in your post immediately above, perhaps you were no logged in? Jezhotwells (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, right below the "Save page" button, it does say "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." Ian.thomson (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Not clear what happened, Vidim. It doesn't look like the article was protected or even semi-protected (making the logged out theory unlikely). By all accounts, you should be able to edit the Waldensians article. And to Ian, that really isn't the sort of complaint Vidim was making. It looks like there was a genuine technical issue here that is probably resolved by now. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what happened either. There was some red type saying, 'protected content'. I'm not getting much joy in these discussions with Ian Thomson. Is it possible that someone can review the discussion so far and give us some feedback?Vidim (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Anna Nicholas

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello. There are at least two Anna Nicholases. At present, there's only one on Wikipedia.

I believe I've tried to resolve this dispute amicably by allowing the British Anna Nicholas, resident author Mallorca, to have the primary page with a link to myself, another Anna Nicholas, an American Writer, Director and Actress. The former seems to have a problem with my existence, however, because I believe she continues to undermine my being on Wikipedia.

I am a produced screenwriter of a film about the LA riots (Univers'l), a produced playwright, a published author (under my own name--LA Times byline, various other publications; and under the pseudonyms Royal Mack and Cialan Haasnic) as well as an actress on IMDB. All of this is verifiable with a minor bit of research. My website is annanicholas.com. Hers is anna-nicholas.com.

Someone complained about the page I wrote about myself (which colleagues suggested I do because of the confusion created by the British version) and I cannot think who it could be other than she.

Can you please put the page back I wrote or give me permission to exist and write another one. I could not find anything specific on the "talk" page.

I understand that biographies of living people are discouraged but I fail to understand why she gets to remain and I must go.

If you can make me understand this, I will defer.

Sincerely, Anna Nicholas, Woodland Hills, California —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlyoneanna (talk • contribs) 04:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Note to responders- please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Nicholas (US author/actress/screenwriter). tedder (talk) 04:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Seen - Self explanatory. Ms Nicholas is free to write a new article in her user space which she can ask to be reviewed before it is moved to mainspace, but she must understand that it must be completely neutral, non promotional, and that all claims must be substantiated according to excellent WP:RS & WP:V (no self-published sites, blogs, or social ntw sites, etc.) after having established absolute notability according to either, or a combination of, WP:BIO, WP:GNG, and WP:ENT, WP:AUTHOR and taking into account the ruling at WP:COI on writing about one's self. However, with bios, as we usually say, if a person is worth writing about, someone else will have done it. British Anna Nicholas is another issue (see WP:OTHERSTUFF) (note: the blue text bits are all clickable links to the relevant policies). --Kudpung (talk) 06:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, I honestly question whether the British Anna Nicholas would survive AfD. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Me too :)--Kudpung (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

So now Anna Nicholas has been turned into a "disambiguation" page in response to an "OTRS contact". But it really isn't a disam page because the reference to the actress isn't linked because there is no article about her, because she is not-notable! What nonsense is this? – ukexpat (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This has now been fixed - the disam page was deleted and I moved Anna Nicholas (writer) back to Anna Nicholas. – ukexpat (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Album genre disputes

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Passages (Frank Gambale album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Greetings, first time using this system. I am currently involved in a dispute with an anonymous editor (one without a login) with whom I have been unable to come to an agreement on several music album articles. The issues include list crufting and the inclusion of a particular genre that I feel should be on all the pages concerned; having provided sources for the latter and explained my reasoning. It has proven difficult to discuss the issues with said user because they have initiated edit wars (in which, admittedly, I have been caught up) and aren't able to articulate themselves very well on the talk pages—sometimes choosing to ignore doing so completely. Whatever discussions we've had have spanned multiple talk pages across separate articles and haven't led to any resolution. I'm not sure if I'm required to list the aforementioned articles and their talk pages here, or at some other stage? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 09:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. With the great Alphonso Johnson on bass I should imagine this to be jazz-rock/fusion broadly construed, although I've never heard the Frank Gambale music. Anyway, far be it from us here at EAR to get involved in subject matter. I see you've made a start on the article's talk page, and you would want to encourage the other editor(s) to join in there by dropping them a very short line or a talkback template on their talk pages. Remember however, that it must be a discussion about the article and not about the subject in general. If there's no progress at the end of the day, it's not worth getting upset about - it's only rock 'n roll (well, jazz)? --Kudpung (talk) 09:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. That article in particular is the subject of debate between said anonymous editor and myself, but the bulk of our discussions (and disagreements) have taken place at the Note Worker album article, as well as Truth in Shredding. Each time I attempt to engage in discussion, he skips ahead and reverts my edits without so much as a word in the summary. Obviously edit warring achieves nothing and I would otherwise leave things be, but at the very least in doing so it occasionally gets him to respond in the talk page—after which he reverts my edits again. With him being a non-logged in user with a dynamic IP, what should be my next step? Granted, there's the option of leaving it all alone, but one knows the feeling... once you're involved, you want some sort of closure. Should I go in search for a third opinion from the musically-minded editors? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 09:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You might want to invite comment from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. I expect that they have rehashed this stuff several times. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, of course. That totally slipped my mind. I'll do that. Thanks for the pointer. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It also slipped my mind - because I had taken it for granted - that you would be basing any genres on the ones under which the pieces of music (and/or the musicians) is recorded, published, distributed, and catalogued by the mainstream music press and quality web sites. I would suggest that if you do that research, you have your answer. I have put a friendly note on the talk pages of all the involved IP editors. It seems obvious that it is the same person. If the contributor does not wish to sign up for an account - there are many reasons why the IP could legitimately change each time - in order to facilitate discussion, perhaps you could do the same when they make further changes, in order to encourage them to localise their comments to the article talk pages instead of using edit summaries as a means of communication. --Kudpung (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Geoffry Thomas

I was recently ask a friend of mine to look at the Adnan Oktar page. In addition I was shown the "Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre of Jordan" which ranked this person as 45th of the most influence Muslims in the world. The Adnan Oktar page clearly seemed to violate Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons in the following respects:

It was not written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy
It was written like a tabloid
It was not written in encyclopedic fashion rather lists of court cases and negative information without context or connecting prose
The legal issues were quoted twice, repeating information in both the Biography and also the Legal sections
Most of the sources are openly hostile to the subjectt. The first line of one source, quoted several times, explicitly says "The following article is mostly a personal attack." [1]

So I began slowly, over the course of two weeks to add additional information:

The fact that the latest court case was appealed and overturned
The "Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre of Jordan"
A couple of book covers to illustrate the style of the subject
I DID NOT DELETE NEGATIVE information
Instead I added a quote from the subject's websites where he claims the court cases are harassment. I assume this is allowed in WP:SELFPUB because I am quoting the subject point of view and clearly labeling it as such.
Lastly, I added some highly toned down information from their website to the biographical section. WP:SELFPUB specifically allows adding context from self published websites that is not unduly self serving. There is no reason to doubt the information I added because it is even confirmed by highly negative article [2]

Then before I can turn around, the page is reverted, I am labeled as "Conflict of Interest"

I challenge the "Conflict of Interest", but I do not know where.

PLEASE I REQUEST ARBITRATION IN HANDLING THIS PAGE AS IT TOUCHES ON THE BIOGRAPHY OF A LIVING PERSON --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

A Request for Arbitrarion was filed about this, but looks like it's going to be rejected due to a lack of lower-level DR. However, it's worth noting this is also up at WP:COIN (thread) and WP:FTN (thread) by other parties. Discussion seems to be happening or ongoing at Talk:Adnan Oktar.

It looks like part of what happened is that Geoffry Thomas made a number of edits with which other editors disagreed, specifically with about whitewashing and COI. One of those editors reverted the article to an earlier version prior to those edits. Discussion seems to have started but is stalling. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity what does "lack of lower-level DR" mean? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

DR is an acronym for dispute resolution. Essentially arbcom woon't look at something unless it has been through lowere levesl of dipuste resolution. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Discussion is underway/ongoing. Looks like a real wall of text at the talk page though. I'm not sure if things are going well. The threads at the other noticeboards have gone stale. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Recommended Addition to Climate Change Denial

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

In the page entitled "Climate Change Denial" there is no reference to the thousands of emails that were intercepted in 2010 that show the members of the IPCC to specific actions to deny peer review and the publication of articles that challenged their scientific approach and final report. Someone should be selected to research this issue and put clarification in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.2.50 (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The talk page is the place to bring up that sort of discussion. WP:FTN, the fringe theories noticeboard, may be a good place to bring up concerns if the talk page doesn't get much discussion. You may also be interested in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change; an arbitration case which recently closed concerning this issue. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Medium's Cancellation

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There have been reports from Hollywood sources (nothing in the mainstream press) that this will be Medium's final season. Its original episode order of 22 was cut to 13, and the reports say that the series finale will air on January 21, 2011. The star of the show (Arquette) and the show's creator have both reported these items, Arquette to Entertainment Weekly, and the creator on a Facebook page. Although I'm not crazy about the reliability of those sources, I'm willing to accept assertions about the show's cancellation and the scheduled date of the final episode in the prose of the article, as long as they are worded carefully. However, other editors keep inserting future events in the infobox and tables. For example, in the infobox, they want to insert in the Broadcast slot that CBS ran the show from 2009 to 2011. Similarly, in the season table (toward the bottom of the article), they want to put the date of the season finale and ending year of this season as 2011. They also want to say that CBS has "officially" canceled the show, even though none of the sources says that, nor is either Arquette or the series creator a CBS spokesperson. I've removed these kinds of changes, leaving in the prose the news about the show's cancellation, etc. I've started a discussion on the Talk page (no responses). I've explained why it's not appropriate and cited WP:CRYSTAL. But to no avail. I've seen this phenonenon on Wikipedia before, this in my view unseemly rush to report very recent and, worse, future events. I can understand it when it comes from IPs, but some of this is coming from more experienced editors. Am I off base here?

Comments would be welcome.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

On the face of it, you appear to be proceeding correctly. Have you contacted the other editors and pointed them to the article talk page? Jezhotwells (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I've already removed it myself - sources are only speculation in blogs and facebook. There has been absolutely no official statement.--Kudpung (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I noticed. You've actually taken the more aggressive approach of removing everything, even the assertions in the prose. As I noted earlier, I tend to agree that the sources are not very good, but I've also seen that many entertainment articles rely on such sources, and the sources were actually quoting the people, not just supposedly reporting gossip. In any event, now that I'm no longer taking the heat by myself, I'm going to see how it plays out. I may add a comment to the article's Talk page and refer to this discussion. As to contacting editors directly, I've been pretty explicit in my edit summaries (editors are supposed to be able to read :-) ) and referred to the Talk page in one of those summaries.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The irony is, that the people who were being quoted, were admitting to being not 100% sure either. Wikipedia cannot be part of a tabloid-style rumour machine.--Kudpung (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I agree that the sources are saying they're not sure. The only speculation I've seen in the cited sources is the content of the final episode, not in whether the series has been canceled or when.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion direct contact with other editors is best, communicating via edit summaries is not sufficient. Why don't you try placing a talkback on their pages, referring them to the talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've put Talkback templates on three editors' pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Dispute on inventor of Peeps

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Link to article of question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peeps

Sentence I dispute: Peeps were introduced nationally in 1958 by Pravin Pant Sr., a Nepali immigrant.

This is not true. It was started as an internet meme by Pravin Pant Jr., his immature son. It was picked up by the presses. I believe that Wikipedia should not promote such untruths. Clearly, if Just Born acquired them in 1953, why on earth would it be true that Pravin Pant Sr. invented them 5 years later? This is also unsupported by the Just Born corporation per their peeps website.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nopeeps (talk • contribs) 19:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

This is really something you should bring up at the article's discussion page, Talk:Peeps. I'm sure this is something that can be worked out there. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, although the complainant's ID and the article's revision history are both interesting. The disputed statement isn't sourced, but neither is Nopeeps's counter statement. However, generally, unsourced statements, if challenged, may be removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

In reviewing the history of the Peeps article, it's frankly astounding how many different people have introduced Peeps nationally - and when. The current person (Pant Sr.) has been in place for quite a long time. However, as of May 16, 2008, Sam Born introduced them in 1952. See here. On April 30, 2008, they were introduced nationally by a Mexican immigrant named Chelsely. See here. I think that one may have been a hoax. Generally, Sam Born/1952 seems to be popular prior to the Pant Sr. edit made by an IP, which, for whatever reason, stuck. Then, of course, in 2007, there's the claim that Peeps were introduced in 1953 (no person mentioned) but that they were "originally manufactured in the 1920s. See here. At least that version had the grace to admit that a citation was needed for the assertion, not that any was ever provided, of course. In any event, that version seems to have been in place (not always with the citation needed template) since at least early 2006, at which point I got tired of going backwards.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

This diff is the original introduction of "Pavin Pant Sr." into the article in May 2008. Since the 2008 submitter seems to be an accomplished vandal ("accomplished" because he has drawn only two vandalism warnings in his career), I think we can discount it. The original sentence, "Peeps were introduced in 1952 by Russian immigrant, Sam Born" flows nicely since Born is already mentioned twice. If no one objects, I'll restore it. --CliffC (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Jezhotwells has put in a citation needed template for the Pant Sr. assertion. My preference would be to replace the current assertion with the Born assertion (I agree with you, makes much more sense), but KEEP the citation needed template because it still lacks a source.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, will do. It turns out that Gothamist noticed the hoax in June 2009, commenting in Matthew Beals, Peeps Documentarian, "I saw that posted on Wikipedia and it’s totally not true. Someone made it up, and it was sort of too funny for me to correct." --CliffC (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks for helping out.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Offensive content on main Wikipedia page

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I was looking at the Wikipedia main page in Arabic about three weeks ago. They have a quote of the day on that page. On one particular day, the quote was from Adolph Hitler, and said roughly, "I could have annihilated all the Jews in the world but I let a few live to be able to know why I annihilated them." Does this violate some sort of standard? How can it be brought to the Arabic Wiki's attention, since I am not fluent enough to complain? I think this was an appalling choice of quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudyoliver (talk • contribs) 19:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Different language Wikipedias don't interact much, except for putting InterWikimedia links in the others' articles. However, contacting the Wikimedia Foundation directly might be your best choice, making sure to emphasize the point that you aren't fluent enough in Arabic to complain. I can't tell you what kind of response to expect. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

And contact details for the foundation are here. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

cut off ties thinks i'm guilty

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

User cut off ties thinks i did a sherade about someone named Annika in August, when it was my friend George using my computer. He went on wikipedia after turning off my screen reader, and started vandelizing it, saying it was someone with the same address named Annika. I never learned how to do wikipedia editing until September, and even then, he was still going on wikipedia occasionally. What can i do about cut off ties's constently thinking it was me just because of our similar spelling styles and the fact that george was messing around on wikipedia with my computer? N.I.M. (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you should make sure that you change your password and don't leave your computer unsecured. You should try to calmly explain yourself at User talk:CutOffTies and as I said make sure that your "friend" does not have access to your passwords and accounts. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This was before i created an account, so he had access anyway. I had no idea he was doing it. I tried calmly explaining it to him in october, but he says that i'm doing a second sherade to get out of taking responsibility. What should i do if he continues to preach to others that i believe in this annika. I told him where George came up with the name Annika, from a novel we read in english two years ago, she was a character. He likes sweedish names. How can i get it through to cut off ties sinse he still doesn't believe me after numerous times i've told him about what's going on? Anything you can say to him? I tried everything, including telling him that he is stuping to a level below him, and i know he is not that bad. I even told him that i know someone from baltimore that can help him. N.I.M. (talk)23:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that you could have been somewhat more moderate in your comments on User talk:CutOffTies. Phrases such as " no good immoral piece of crap" are hardly conducive to assuming good faith and civility. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Remember, i said that he is not one. I'm not calling him that, i'm mearly trying to say that only braindeads would stupe down that low, and that he is not a brain dead. No, he's not, but what can i do to stop him from ever bringing it up again? while telling him that he is not that, even though those kind of people stupe that low? N.I.M. (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

How about letting it go and moving on? Is there a specific, current, problem you're trying to solve? If not, then just behaving as a constructive contributor will quickly establish your bona fides, and this will all fade into history. --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone wanted to block me for putting info in wikipedia and undoing reverts. Can someone please put a message on Cut Off Ties's talk page? and help him understand so he won't go telling the wikipedians about it? He also did it at the entertainment reference desk when i mention about taylor swift being the same person as denise oliver. —Preceding unsigned comment added by N.I.M. (talk) contribs) 00:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

But you haven't been blocked. No official complaint has been posted about you. You have been warned. I should just accept that and move on as AndrewHowse says. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the comments made by Andrew and Jez. The friendly advice in the message already left on your talk page by User:Comet Tuttle is as good as any we can give you here.Kudpung (talk) 02:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

See the talk page for Cresix, there are more messages claiming that i am young, and claiming that i'm a kid. This stupidity and false acusations have to stop. Please, leave messages on their talk pages, because nothing I am doing is working, they think i'm being a trole. I hope none of these people go to Judge Judy, because they would lose big time, and i don't like bad things happening to people. Please talk to them and see what you can do. Adam Bishop and Cresix are now in the game that Cutoff Ties started, Can you please do something? Talk to them, because i am failing miserably. N.I.M. (talk) 02:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I just left a friendly message on his talk page, hope he understands now. N.I.M. (talk) 10:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Share International article Citations

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I have contacted another editor of the article (he is retired now) who has been very neutral concerning it. I am new to wikipedia, so I attempted to verify I am correct in this matter before taking any action. He agreed with me. Another editor of the article provided sources to the Share International magazine as source, but it was from a recent issue stating that in the past, they had done as they claimed many years previous. I went ahead and deleted the block of text, which was undone by the other editor (jonson22 I believe his name is.) I've undone that, but I feel without a third party opinion, this will just turn into an edit war (if it's not already)

The talk on the subject is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Share_International#Share_International_citing_their_own_website.3F

I believe that this is the correct place to submit for an opinion on the subject. If there is a better place to take this dispute to for resolution, I'm also open to that. Like I said, I'm new to editing wikipedia and I'm not sure where to resolve this dispute, or if I'm right (of course, I believe that I am adhering to wikipedia policies) Tainted Entanglement (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

A lot of initial dispute resolution can be made during the course of a discussion on an article talk page. The article tp at Share International only gets new comments around once a month and there appears to be no cases of hot discussion or incivility. It might be an idea to wait and see the reaction(s), if any, to the recent changes you have made to the article (see WP:BOLD) - it doesn't look as if the issue needs the involvement of a help or disute resolution department yet.--Kudpung (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I do agree that things are slow moving on this article and there hasn't been any hot discussion or incivility. There has, however, been reaction to the changes I made in the article. In my original posting, if you goto the Talk link (Headline is Share International citing their own website) I started the discussion on it, Andries, I believe, helped me to reach my decision and I removed the paragraph in question. A while later, jonson22 reverted my edit. I've since responded to him on the talk page, and reverted his undo.

I realize that this isn't a heated debate, but this is not going anywhere. We are both firm in our positions and I don't believe that any further discussion on the subject between the two of us will bring us anywhere. I am really looking to see if a third party believes I am correct or not. I know that there is a way to get a dispute resolution going on the main page, and I know this isn't how. I am looking for a third party opinion on the subject matter to determine who is correct. As I said, I am new to wikipedia and am just looking for advise on the situation. I realize that it is not the time to start a "Dispute resolution" I think it's called on the page, but I am looking for insight into the situation as far as wikipedia policies go, and whether I am wrong or not to pursue this. Tainted Entanglement (talk) 03:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I had reviewed the article, its editing history, it talk page, and the talk pages of the contributors before offering any suggestions. At the moment, I can't see anything else that needs recommending other than you follow the link in my message above.Kudpung (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Definition of Australian artist Julie Dowling

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:NDE47cM85p8J:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_arts_of_Australia+julie+dowling+wikipedia&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au in this wikipedia entry it describes me as a Magic realist. I have never been placed within this term in my career. I work closely with the theoriee, if any, within religious based art(Catholic) and these two fields of scintific study; Autoethnography and Ethnobotany. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wade_Davis

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

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

I'd like my name taken from the list of Magic Realism within the definitions and subforms stated within this article about Australian Art.

Thank you for your time,

Julie Dowling —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.253.201 (talk) 05:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou for letting us know. I've removed your name from that list, as it appeared to be unsupported by any reference, and your statement to the contrary seems more than sufficient. The Google cache may take a while to update, though. - Bilby (talk) 05:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Request assistance for DC Universe Classics page

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

For the past ten days, the DC Universe Classics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) page has been in the middle of an edit war between one user (WesleyDodds) who claims much of the content is not appropriate by Wikipedia standards (most specifically, the detailed list of product releases for this toyline) and has removed such info, and multiple other users who have undone the changes. On the talk page, I suggested moving the disputed information to a separate, more appropriate page (such as List of DC Universe Classics Releases), but WesleyDodds did not believe that was appropriate either. I feel there needs to be a consensus on whether this information should be kept or not, as there cannot be continuous back and forth of removing and readding the info. JLThorpe (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Getting a consensus is always a good idea. As there has been very little movement as yet on the talk page concerning these issues, that would be the place to start building a consensus - it's generally one of the main purposes of the talk page. As regards the edit war, I can't see where you have been involved, and perhaps it would help us here at EAR, and the editors involved if they would all learn to complete edit summaries. However, before any of you go any further with your content discussions, it would be an even better idea to address the multiple issues for which the article has been tagged, before another editor comes along and proposes the whole thing for deletion for not having any references at all!--Kudpung (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I haven't found an issue with WesleyDodds' removal of info, despite the fact that I made numerous contributions to the page prior to the edit war, so I've stayed out of the general conflict between him and the other editors. However, if he's right in removing the info, then the other editors who have readded it should be told not to do so. Vice versa if the info is acceptable, then WesleyDodds shouldn't be removing it anymore. I will add a new discussion to the talk page. Thank you. JLThorpe (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Why are some Wikipedians showing in red links

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw somewhere that red links have a special significance on Wikipedia, and today when I checked the View History tab at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nortel&action=history I saw that one of the regular contributors is now showing in red. Can someone please explain what this means? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This just means that the user has not created a user page, or has asked for it to be deleted. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There are more reasons. Some editors want to stop editing wikipedia, they no longer want their name to be associated with wikipedia, and they use the right to vanish (it includes deletion of user pages and renaming to a randon name). Other editors also stop editing wikipedia, but they only ask for their user page to be deleted, they can return years later and ask for their userpage to be undeleted. And there are a few editors who just don't like the idea of having a user page, they think that it's only for vanity or something. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Or they like to be able to more easily spot their own contributions in a 500 item history list - JohnInDC (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Young&Ng

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi The article I posted on Young&ng (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Young%26ng)has been blocked under the Criteria for Speedy Deletion. Apparently it is unambiguous advertising or promotion. I am willing to change the article in whatever way necessary and to ensure that it is in no way promotional - how do I do this??? I would really appreciate some help with this matter. <email redacted>Thanks, Avril 96.232.214.243 (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see any way you can. It was a totally shameless piece of slimy advertising copy that didn't even pretend to be informational. "immediately caught the attention of the world’s most influential tastemakers including the editors of Vogue, making it an accessories brand to watch. Young&ng’s edgy, yet ethereal, designs are created to teeter on the fine line between fine art and fashion."???? Some people really have no concept of what it means to write actual honest prose. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Woah Orange, let's assume good faith and not leave tooth-marks in IP addresses please. The fact that they're asking here suggests they want to now abide by our policies against advertising, and if they continue to advertise they'll be blocked anyway. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Giftiger, I'm a writer: advertising copy makes me almost physically nauseous; and fashion industry ooze is second only to gossip/celebrity/society-column fawning in this regard. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

96.232, to make one thing clear: we only accept neutral, encyclopaedic articles. If you are looking for a place to advertise your company, there are places where you can do so, but wikipedia is not one of them. If you intend to contribute to the article, you should particularly have a look at WP:SPAM and WP:NPOV to ensure your future edits meet our policies. If you are personally associated with the subject, however, you have a conflict of interest and are strongly discouraged from writing about the subject. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

My edits keep getting rejected-there is less now than ever b4

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi to all- I am Brent Boyd- I am permanently disabled by concussions from NFL (so please have patience and understanding with me here ?, I don't really understand wikipedia- due to concussions, please don't post for public, please consider confidentiality for my concussion disabilities!).

I am now called the father of all the recent news, rules changes, players sitting out, etc..I wanted to add that fact to wiki and some other vital updated info, as my site is way out of date and missing relevant facts about myself. I have submitted edits the past 2 nites, now my site is bare bones. My edits were not opinion, controversial, in other wordsI do not understand why I was not only rejected, but now my site only has one useless sentence. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Boyd )

here is what I submitted last night after your edits- I see nothing wrong or factually questionable:

Extended content

Brent Boyd Date of birth: March 23, 1957 (1957-03-23) (age 53) Place of birth: Downey, California Career information Position(s): Offensive Guard College: UCLA NFL Draft: 1980 / Round: 3 / Pick 68 Organizations

As player:

1980-1986 Minnesota Vikings Playing stats at DatabaseFootball.com

Brent Boyd is a former American football offensive guard. Boyd was selected in the third round by the Minnesota Vikings out of the University of California at Los Angeles in the 1980 NFL Draft.

Brent Boyd, a disabled retired NFL player with severe post-concussion problems, is generally called by media and Congress, as well as Sports Legacy Institute, as the "father" of all the recent awareness and major changes regarding concussions and football and youth sports. Boyd was the first major concussion advocate; he has been the original, persistent and most vocal advocate for concussion and head-injury sufferers.

Boyd has become a leader among advocates for former NFL players. He is fighting to reverse decades of egregious NFL disability claims denials, as well as increasing below poverty-level pensions given to the heroes who built the NFL.

Boyd has testified to the U.S. Congress three times and works continuously to this day with Congress on concussion and NFL benefit issues. Boyd spoke before the House Judiciary subcommittee on June 26, 2007, along with several other players. Boyd was able, as a no-name, no money NFL retiree, to singlehandedly convince the U.S. Senate to place a hearing on their busy calendar (Commerce, Sept 18, 2007).

Boyd, a single father, discussed being homeless for extended periods, as well as suffering brain damage as the result of multiple concussions. The 50-year-old Reno resident now relies on twice-weekly physical therapy sessions to counter headaches, depression, fatigue and dizziness caused by what his doctors diagnosed as post-concussion syndrome.

Brent Boyd is the Founder of the first NFL retired players advocacy group, DIGNITY AFTER FOOTBALL" (DAF). Board members of DAF include ROMAN GABRIEL, JOE KAPP, KENNY EASLEY, BIG ED WHITE, GREG KOCH, NEAL OLKEWICZ, ALICIA KRAMER (daughter of Green Bay legenday player JERRY KRAMER, and Boyd as founder/president. Boyd is also on the Board of Boston's Sports Legacy Institute,(SLI) which is the group doing the medical research proving damage done by concussions and they dissect the brains of deceased football players. To date,SLI has found profound brain concussion damage in 100% of the players, ranging in age from 18 years old to the 50s. . (END)

editors, here is my ORIGINAL, and I think best, edit from two nights ago---THIS IS WHAT I WOULD HOPE YOU USE.

Brent Boyd is a former American football offensive guard. Boyd was selected in the third round by the Minnesota Vikings out of the University of California at Los Angeles in the 1980 NFL Draft.

Brent Boyd, a disabled retired NFL player with post-concussion problems, is widely hailed by public as the "father" of all the recent awareness and major changes regarding concussions and football and youth sports. Boyd was the first concussion advocate; he has been the original and most vocal advocate for concussion and head-injury sufferers ever, as well as a major voice in the fight between NFL retirees and the NFL about the measley benefits, especially NFL disability and pensions.

It was Boyd who introduced the issue of concussions on young people to Congress, media, and public. Prior to his testimony June 2007, the conversation was always post-mortem or after a retiree slipped into dementia. Boyd was the FIRST to open argument about what happens to young players with concussions; they still have marriage, kids, mortgage, career, etc ahead of them; get NO relief, disability or health insurance from NFL, and they cannot cope with these life changes because of concussion damage. Following Boyds testimony, many advocates and groups also sprouted up and followed his example- great groups such as Sports Legacy Institute (SLI) (Boyd sits on the SLI Board also) who have done the heavy work by dissecting brains of deceased players.

But, as SLI themselves point out in a letter, Boyd was the catalyst for their research and without his advocy, research such as SLI would never have been made possible or received funding.

One man, in a 900sf home in isolated Reno/Tahoe , NV, has made such contributions, most people would find Boyd's accomplishments, as a whole, impossible for one poor regular citizen.

Boyd spoke before a House Judiciary subcommittee on June 26, 2007, along with several other players. Boyd, with no fame or money, miraculously singlehandedly (with Jim Green) placed a Senate hearing re:NFL corruption in dealing with concussions and disability claims (Commerce Committee-Sept. 18, 2007) and he testified again to U.S. House Judiciary in Oct 2008. Boyd, a single father of a then school-aged young son, discussed being homeless for extended periods, as well as suffering brain damage as the result of multiple concussions. The 50-year-old Reno, Nevada resident now relies on twice-weekly physical therapy sessions and several medical appointments to counter headaches, depression, fatigue and dizziness caused by what his doctors diagnosed as post-concussion syndrome.

Brent Boyd is the founder of the retired professional football players advocacy group, DignityAfterFootball.ORG and has now taken his fight to the public- fans and celebrities- via FACEBOOK (http://www.facebook.com/#!/brent.boyd2 ). Boyd spends a lot of time working with youth sports, educating youth and parents and training coaches on how to deal with concussions, or avoid them altogether.

Despite a severe lack of energy, vertigo, and a diagnosis at age 49 of early dementia and Alzheimer's, Boyd spends his waking hours fighting to give dignity to ALL concussion victims- youth football, NFL retirees, girl's soccer,etc., male, female---Boyd is the "father" or catalyst of all the changes and publicity you might see about concussions.

contact at sites below

*http://www.facebook.com/#!/brent.boyd2

{{Persondata  | NAME = Boyd, Brent | ALTERNATIVE NAMES = | SHORT DESCRIPTION = | DATE OF BIRTH = March 23, 1957 | PLACE OF BIRTH = | DATE OF DEATH = | PLACE OF DEATH = }} {{DEFAULTSORT:Boyd, Brent}} [[Category:1957 births]] [[Category:Living people]] [[Category:People from the Greater Los Angeles Area]] [[Category:American football offensive guards]] [[Category:UCLA Bruins football players]] [[Category:Minnesota Vikings players]] {{offensive-lineman-1950s-stub}}

Wiki editors and friends, --this is my original edit 2 nights ago above(I dont want to be blocked from editing, so I am asking you tonight!)

You must consider that the huge changes re:concussions, it dominates news and game play by play, rule changes, medical research, etc., is too big a story to leave off of wikipedia. The truth is the media (ex. Michele Tafoya) med researchers (eg. sports Legacy Institute) and just about the entire community of NFL retirees consider me, my 3 Congressional testimonies, persistence w/media, they will tell you I have earned recognition as the catslyt and "father" of attention to sufferers of head injuries. Remember, before my initial tetimony to House Judiciary (June 2007), the discussion was entirely post-mortem or after someone aged into full dementia. It was ME, and ME alone, who hammered home the issue to congress and media the problem of young players getting several concussions but still facing life- marriage, kids, mortgage, career, etc., and being totally unable to cope. I myself was homeless as a single dad due entirely to NFL corruption- and I graduated WITH HONORS from UCLA! I am just pleading with you to allow me the pride, as a disabled player myself, of all the accomplishments and changes I am responsible for, and my advocacy group DIGNITYAFTERFOOTBALL.ORG was the first group of it's kind and has helped thousands of retirees and wives/families.

I humbly sugest to you that it is entirely apprpriate to acknowledge my work and accomplishments, and leadership- even though I suffer the severe symptoms of NFL concussions. I want my story told b4 I slip into dementia, and I am fine now mentally (energy and vertigo are main symptoms)...but, it is appropriate and would be a crime for wikipedia to deny me, a disabled NFL rettiree, for the public to be informed of what I have somehow been able to accomplish. and the topic of concussions is certainly newsworthy enough for you to cover the history of this advocacy and resulting changes. thank you for your time and consideration, Brent Boyd Reno, NV

Hello, thanks for posting here. Your edits weren't "rejected" exactly; they were reverted, since you didn't cite any sources. We have a policy on verifiability which means that anything published in an article here has to be verifiable - another reader has to be able to know where they would go to check an article against published reliable sources. And while your story is most interesting, you would need to cite some of those reliable sources in order to meet that policy. Don't worry about exactly how to cite them and all that; if you can point out some newspaper stories, or a book, or some similar sources, then we can help with the formatting and niceties. Please feel free to post again here or at my talk page if I can help. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Heraldic Images Discussion

Request unclear

– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello!

I'm putting User:Heralder coats of arms with design style of an active Briton user Sodacan. This style is becoming popular in English Wikipedia, and Heralder are doing Spanish arms in that way for English Wikipedia and other proyects. There aren't problems with the French arms of Sodacan even these works are used at the French Wikipedia version.

I have a discussion with one Spanish Heraldry Group member User:Miguillen he attempts to remove my contributions at the English and others Wikipedia proyects. I've accepted the official version of the arms at the articles Spain Coat of Arms of Spain and Navigation Boxes. For me this is right opinion and the best options. The other change attemps (arms of the King, heraldic design version fo the Kings arms) are arbitrary decisions.

For me This is right opinion and the best options. The other change attemps of this user (arms of the King, heraldic design version fo the Kings arms), in my opinion are arbitrary decisions.

The style of this group isn't compulsory in Heraldry even It isn't compulsory in Spain. This user speaks so well about the Heraldry but he explain opinions no rules. There is a similar design at image number 3 at the left in thes heraldic web o Spain [3], the style is correct! Sodacan style is used in every proyect without problems even in the French wikipedia with other heraldic group!

In Heralder version you can see little shadows and diferent colour shades. Perspectives and hight colour changes are forbidden in Heraldry but the Sodacan Style is perfect. This Spanish heraldic group user are talking us opinions with an elaborated style and arguments but he presents opinion and he doesn´t accept other styles. He can't remove other works. I accepted the Spanish Wikipedia for this group works. At some articles of the English Wikipedia there are the Spanish group version of the Kings arms and I accepted it! Different styles enriched the proyect.

In my opinion this user can't decide the Wikipedia contents. Miguillen and other users are constantly changing and deleting my contributions without sound arguments. I did't put anything at the discussion page of the articles but you can see the changes at the articles history option. You can see the discussion at both user discussion pages (main information in Spanish Wikipedia user pages but we were talking about English Wikipedia, this user used this language version because we're Spaniards). User:Adelbrecht and User:Heralder also have continous edit disputes see user discussion pages (Heralder discussion also at Spanish Wikipedia) and Articles History option.

It is impossible we can get an agreement, as I told you. These are contant changes, this is bad for the project. Can you solve this situation? Can you make a decision?

My main argument is: There is a Heraldic Style trend in English Wikipedia with Sodacan works and Heralder provides Spanish arms with the same style so this style appears at English Wikipedia. The Spanish group style is the only one at Spanish Wikipedia.

Articles disputed (See the changes at the history option):

Coat of arms of Spain
Spanish heraldry
Juan Carlos I
Template:Spanish Royal Family
List of titles and honours of Felipe, Prince of Asturias

Thanks for your cooperation. Sorry for my English I'm learning it. --Tusk3 (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, let us cut to the chase. What do you want from Editor's assistance/Requests? A simple one sentence query will suffice. This is not a place where judgements are made, the solution lies in the hands of the editors on the articles. Talk to each other, work together to reach consensus. If you cannot achieve consensus, consider a third opinion or request for comment as appropriate. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam, I cannot figure out how to insert refrences/endnotes. Can you provide an idiot's guide?

Kind regards

Hamish —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edufic (talk • contribs) 20:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources, and see if that helps. Tobyc75 (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous Vandalism? unexpected misalignment of text and hieroglyphs twice

Resolved

– Use of advanced WikiHeiro syntax will likely prevent this from recurring. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Tahash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)I had returned to reviewing the article Tahash, shortly after adding an external link to an article about Hebrew word play in the Bible, and was surprised to see that the line of Egyptian hieroglyphs and the transliterated letters aligned with each one were suddenly misaligned. The transliteration "text" was now visibly longer than the line of hieroglyphs and no longer matched 'em the way I had set 'em up. They made no sense that way. The change made the illustrative example look confusing and stupid. I checked the "view history" of the edits but there was no entry for the change. So I thought it might be some kind of "anonymous vandalism". I spent about an hour trying to get them to line up again successfully, and thought I was done. But the next day when I was going over the article again (for a different reason) I saw the transliterations under the hieroglyphs were misaligned again, only this time the text of letters under the hieroglyphs was shorter than the line of hieroglyphs and no longer matched 'em the way I had set 'em up! I thought it might be a second vandalism, and I checked "view history" again. But again there was no record of an edit. When I had thought it over for a while and decided to experiment and "undo" what the record of "view history" says was my own edit, the text was restored to what it had been before I had found the first misalignment! Time reference 14:24, 22 Nov 2010 and 00:22, 23 Nov 2010. Even more mysterious, the comparison of previous edits in "view history" did not now show the original misalignment (when the line of letters was unexpectedly made longer than the line of hieroglyphs.) It's as if it never happened! All that remains now in "view history" is

the original normal appearance, and no image of the first edit change to a longer misalignment,
followed by a shorter misalignment that suddenly appeared the day after I had struggled to make the longer line look normal again, but it appears with my ID on it,
followed by my own reversion of what (according to the record in "view history") appears to be my own edit (but wasn't, since I hadn't tried to make the line of letters shorter than the line of hieroglyphics),
which returned the line to normal again.

So what's going on? Is it possible for someone to vandalize an article and leave no trace? --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm sure any vandalism would show up in the history. The exact spacing of the various characters may well be browser-dependent; I'm looking at it now with Windows 7 and Firefox, and the hieroglyphs are about 10% wider than the text. Were you using different browsers or machines for these different edits? Is there any chance that you might have used a "zoom" or "text scaling" feature in your browser at any stage?

Moving forward, I looked at the examples at Help:WikiHiero syntax and noticed that they used some clever tabular markup to align hieroglyphics with text. Have a look at what I've done at Talk:Tahash -- John of Reading (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

While it doesn't look like it's the situation here, when vandalism (or a good faith edit that breaks formatting) occurs on a template transcluded into an article (or into a template that is in turn transcluded into an article), there is no record of an edit in the article. Furthermore, once the edit is reverted, the page cache may need to be purged before it will change back.

In this case, I'm inclined to agree with John's thought that you may have had some quirk in your local browser settings, such as text size (holding shift and scrolling the mousewheel can do this, I think). Using the tabular markup suggested above will probably keep that from happening again as it will force alignment of the columns.

As an aside, there are a number of serious problems with this article. I've tagged it and left commentary on the talk page. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hidden Feedback Category

Discussion moved

– See User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro#Article Feedback Category; may be resolved. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a hidden category called Article Feedback Pilot created by a workgroup and "used to determine which articles use the Article Feedback Tool during a pilot deployment beginning 22 September 2010." The category was supposed to be initially added only to articles "that are part of WikiProject United States Public Policy and are tagged with the WikiProject banner on their talk page." Then, a "small number" of additional pages were included.

Recently, an editor added the hidden category to the Nathan Fillion article. I reverted the addition because I didn't see any direction by the workgroup to insert it in the article. He reverted my reversion here. Following instructions, I inserted a question in a pre-existing section here. Perhaps I should have created a new section but the existing section was precisely on point. So far, no one has responded to my question (or removed the hidden category from the Fillion article).

What next or am I missing something here?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd try to talk to Spadaro about it either at his user talk or at Talk:Nathan Fillion (probably the former since it's possible Spadaro is adding it to multiple articles). You can't really get much across in edit summaries, especially when reverts are involved, due to the necessary conciseness of those summaries. Spadaro may just be mistaken about the purpose of the category.

My understanding is that the purpose of the AFP category is to track articles being followed by the Article Feedback Tool, not to assign articles to be tracked. Since Fillion isn't one of the selected articles, to place him in the category would be a clear miscategorization. As this situation has something to do with an important study, I've gone ahead and removed the category and put a note on the talk page. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. Your suspicion that Spadaro was adding the category to multiple articles is correct, so I've put a comment on Spadoro's Talk page pointing him to this discussion and to your comment on the Fillion Talk page. I've asked him to remove his own edits to other articles. I'll watch the situation.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

new address

Resolved

– List of jazz institutions updated. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Vernon Jazz Society listed in your list of jazz societies in North America

Our new web address is <www.vernonjazzclub.ca>. How do I effect that change?

We have hosted over 225 concerts in the past 11 years every other week from September through May in our wonderfully funky venue on the second floor of a heritage building in Vernon, British Columbia, Canada

Sue Kershaw Vernon Jazz Society -- Bookings c/o (Redacted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.98.219.56 (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the list (although you could spare us the self-promotion and solicitation). The new website is actually a club run by the Society, but it seems to come closest to a website for the Society. The old link is definitely dead. If others disagree that it should be listed, feel free to comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do not include contact details in your questions. We are unable to provide answers by any off-wiki medium and this page is highly visible across the internet. The details have been removed, but if you want them to be permanently removed from the page history, please email this address. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Seeking Dispute Resolution

Resolved

– At least as much as it is going to be; editor blocked indef following abuse of e-mail function following an ARBPIA block. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe there is a great deal of biased editing going on in this article. In a section of the article on Accusations of Misconduct by the IDF I made an edit to existing information showing that what was identified as charges had become in the last week a conviction and sentencing. Editors pushing a pro-Israeli viewpoint then repeatedly deleted not only the additional information but the original information as well. The exact same material has been removed by both Jijitsuguy and Cptnono and both have coordinated their slant of this article. This information is on topic, well sourced and relevant:

Information prior to Jijitsuguy edit and deletion of well sourced information [4] Original copy before any edits and my first edit :[5]

Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 13:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid that there are many disputes on articles about Palestine and Israel. You may be best off enlisting help from appropriate project pages. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I have tried that but it 9is my believe that until there is some action by the community at large these incidents will just keep on going. I suppose I will go back to the dispute page and see what the next step is. Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Well probably an WP:RfC is the next step. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

CEO Notability and Redirects

Resolved

– Article redirected. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

This article was just created. Steiner's only claims to fame (in the article) are his position at Waste Management, Inc. and his membership on Fedex's board. Clearly, the fact that he graduated from UCLA Law School doesn't make him notable. In my view, being a CEO, even of a large company, doesn't make you notable unless there is something else. However, I don't think the community's view is clear. See, for example, here. The Shell article was eventually changed into a redirect to the company with which he's associated. I would support such a redirect for Steiner (to Waste Management), but I don't see anywhere on Wikipedia to propose changing an article from an article to a redirect (it's probably somewhere, but I gave up after poking around for 10 minutes among the confusing array of policies, etc.). Maybe I'm just supposed to edit the article and do it myself? However, in the interest of not doing the wrong thing, how should I proceed? Comments about the article are also welcome.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I have prodded it. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed, is that supposed to be an implicit answer to my question? I've added a prod2 with a comment supporting a redirect.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Who won the toss

Resolved

– Text adapted to be non-controversial. Kudpung (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Reddington_Hewlett, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hewlett-Packard

The first article says Hewlett won the coin flip. The second article says Packard won the coin flip. Can you please clarify who won the coin flip? Venom6189 (talk) 12:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

We handle queries about editing here - we don't have better sources than you do. Probably the best thing to do would be to look for new, more accurate reliable sources that conform with our policy at WP:RS and correct the article(s) as appropriate.--Kudpung (talk) 12:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hewlett Packard themselves don't say -- John of Reading (talk) 12:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Well John, the regular contributors to the article will have to either find other sources that do say, or delete the mention. Either way, we can't have inaccuracies in the encyclopedia :) --Kudpung (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The articles are now consistent Diff -- John of Reading (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Smart thinking :) - Why didn't I think of that?--Kudpung (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Teamwork! -- John of Reading (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Copy-editing of Everclear (alcohol)

Answered

– Kudpung (talk) 06:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

:

Please look into the dispute between myself and User:Emerson7 concerning this article. Necessary information can be found in the history of the article, in Talk:Everclear (alcohol)#Recent edits by Emerson7, in User talk:Wahrmund, and in User talk:Emerson7#Everclear.

Emerson7 last reverted my edits on 26 November; I have not reverted them back since, as it appears he intends to continue reverting indefintely.Wahrmund (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You have already started a dialogue on the article talk page which is the right way to go, but please try to keep it civil - I don't like some of the tones being used - making a rumpus of anything is the quickest way to invite intransigence. If it's copyediting you want, then you can consider placing a copy edit tag on the article, or making a request at the Guild of Copyeditors department.--Kudpung (talk) 07:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Can any experienced person help me put my new article into sections... I feel pretty overwhelmed right now - being a new contributor and all

Resolved

– page edited for creator. Kudpung (talk) 06:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

:

TimeTesterGalaxy (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You are referring to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rev. Dr. Eugene Callender? See WP:SECTIONS. You should also take a look at WP:SPAM, the draft looks very promotional in tone. – ukexpat (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed up the first few paragraphs in some simple formatting with wiki-links as an example. However, as noted above, the contents will need considerable work to tone down the overt promotional language. Also, as noted on your talk page, much of the material appears to be directly copied from other web-sites which is copyright violation and is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow! That looks really beautiful. Thank you so much.

I'm afraid I don't know what part is too promotional? Does somebody else want to edit any objectional part out?

I was thinking it was just the facts of his life - but I guess not?

Thank you for your help. I really appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimeTesterGalaxy (talk • contribs) 00:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I have edited the draft article for encyclopedic tone and style to be as neutral as possible without sacrificing too much content, but there is still much to be done to completely remove the evangelising style, the yelling in capitals, and/or the bold sub titles. Compare the diffs to see the changes, and count how many time 'the first...' is still being used. There is no doubt that the subject is notable, but for an article of this kind, a huge number of really reliable sources are going to be needed. See WP:RS, WP:V. Hope it helps. --Kudpung (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I see the changes you made.... and will go through the article and complete those changes you have started - later tonight. Thank you for taking the time to show me how to fix the article to be of WP standards. I appreciate it.

(I hope it will be within the 24 hour time limit... I have a very busy day today ....) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimeTesterGalaxy (talk • contribs) 15:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Dispute regarding quotations from the Australian politican Adam Bandt

Resolved

– Kudpung (talk) 06:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

:

This dispute is described on the talk page of the Adam Bandt article. Adam_Bandt

At issue is the inclusion of a single sentence with both a clear, unambiguous primary reference and a secondary reference.

The sentence is that:

He also declared that "It is futile to try and resurrect some kind of social democratic project" and that he was advocating "Towards an anti-capitalist, anti-social democratic, internationalist movement" .

There is an entry on the talk page regarding the dispute.

Surely this is both notable and well referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sien (talk • contribs) 22:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble making any sense of this. Are we talking about the section headed "15 year old email"? If so, it's an unhelpful title. If not, then what? And when we have people posting under IP addresses it's very hard to tell who said what. That little discussion on the Talk page is hardly a dispute yet. I recommend... Everyone register please and try to sign posts properly. Find a better section title. Explain the issue more clearly, please. HiLo48 (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This does regard the unhelpfully titled section in the discussion page about the email. This is regarding the removal of quotes made by Adam Bandt as an adult. The differences are between the edit made at 11:33, 1 December 2010 & 14:54, 1 December 2010 . The quote was first removed because it came from a primary source. However, the insertion of the quote conforms to the use of primary sources. In order to further substantiate the quote a secondary source confirming the quote was then found but also objected to despite being from a magazine that has been used as a reference elsewhere in wikipedia. I request that the quote be returned to the article with the 2 references cited. Sien (talk) 03:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Sien

Please see the latest comments on the article talk page by OrangeMike, an experienced Wikipedia editor and administrator.--Kudpung (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

How do I move a page from my workbox to production?

Answered

– Kudpung (talk) 06:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

:

On November 24th I entered a new page into my workspace (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Hgoldste/Enter_your_new_article_name_here&action=edit). I understood after 7 days it would get moved into production. Is that the case> Hgoldste (talk) 01:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. It's up to you when you want your article moved to main space. However, before you do that you may wish to check out policies for notability and referencing first and enter some additional reliable sources. The currently cited sources appear to only prove the existence of the club, but do not seem to assert any particular notability of the kind that is required for an encyclopedic entry. Please click these links to refer to the various policies and guidelines. They should be perfectly self-explanatory although there is quite a lot to read, but please do not hesitate to ask again if there is anything that is not quite clear: WP:RS, WP:V, WP:ORG, WP:GNG. --Kudpung (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Can someone fix the Gwyneth Paltrow article?

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a very minor thing, I tried to edit the "recent projects" section by adding the fact that she aslo sang the song "Nowadays" from "Chicago" when she guest starred on Glee, as that particular song was missing... apparantly there is no lea michelle article, and the chicago internal link leads to the article for the city when I meant for it to lead to the musical.

I never edit things, and this is why, sorry for messing it up.

64.39.88.38 (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. [6] Anthony (talk) 05:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)