Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 93

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Editor assistance. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 90

Archive 91

Archive 92

→

A query on Space Quest 4

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I am caught in the middle of a dispute on the Space Quest IV: Roger Wilco and the Time Rippers page over a fact that has yet been given a chance. Also I have read that TWINKLE should not be used for reverting good faith edits. However User:SchuminWeb has done so three times (possibly without appropriate summary edits used?). Thanks in advance for any solution that can be made. Deltasim (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)\

This is a content dispute. Have you attempted to discuss with User:SchuminWeb, preferably on the article's talk page? – ukexpat (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Problem solved. No further action required. Deltasim (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! As an aside, one of Twinkle's "undo" functions is specially designed for undoing good faith edits, and the article history shows that this is the one that was being used. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Dimesion Machine

Request unclear

– URL removed from post. Kudpung (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

:

Hi, This Book is very real and unique, please take a look at "The Dimension Machine" At: <redacted>

Thanks

Rudi Merom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.246.33 (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess your heading is missing an 'n' and should have been "The Dimension Machine". Do you have a request for editor assistance at Wikipedia? If not then your post looks like spam and may be deleted. If you want to edit Wikipedia then Wikipedia:Notability (books) may be of interest. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Palinopsia Vandalism

Resolved

– Edit reverted. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This article:

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

's second paragraph is a bizarre attempt at a Sarah Palin joke. It'd be cool if someone could get rid of it. Thanks.

72.190.61.202 (talk) 03:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

That was quick. I appreciate it.

72.190.61.202 (talk) 04:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Clive Nolan

Resolved

– Page deleted per copyright violation policy. Kudpung (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

:

I represent Clive Nolan and he would like his birthdate deleted from his wiki article..We also would like to know how to put links to the various things discussed in the article..Mr. Nolan will be glad to sign any documentation to get this acoomplished. I am legally working with his permission and am asking for what he has directly requested. The birthdate is located at this location: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Nolan

We can be reached at <redacted> to discuss this matter.

Thank you,

Roseann Hurley (representing musical artist Clive Nolan) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.32.73 (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I think that Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem/Factual_error_(from_subject) might be useful to you, as well as Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help, depending on your reasons for wanting to remove the birthdate. Are you suggesting it's incorrect?

As for the links, that article could use some more internal links, which are formatted [[destination title]]. Links to other sites are mostly discouraged, and the article already has some of those external links. Our full policy on this is at WP:EL.

I hope this helps; please continue this thread with other questions. --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course, what the article needs most is some more references. Most of the article appears to be unreferenced. --AndrewHowse (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is for all intents and purposes totally unreferenced - the self-published sites are not acceptable WP:RS sources. Under new drives to clean up unsourced and poorly sourced biographies of living persons, this article may soon be scheduled for deletion if sources are not found. Pending that decision, any unsourced claims may be removed from the article by any editor. Kudpung (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Clive Nolan is a copyvio of http://www.clivenolan.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=58&Itemid=29 and I have tagged it for speedy deletion accordingly. – ukexpat (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Where to ask for a review of merger I did on an article related to statistics?

Answered

– . Kudpung (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

:

Hello all,

I just performed my first merger of two articles. I merged Adjusted Rand index into Rand index.

Since this is my first time I wanted to ask to know:

1. Where can I ask someone to look into the merger so to be sure I did it correctly?

2. Where can I ask for a wikipidian who knows statistics, to see if they can give another proof reading of the article?

Thanks, Talgalili (talk) 09:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The merge was OK. You may be able to get help for checking that the content makes sense from WP:WPSTAT. I'll have a look at the basic WP:MOS for you.--Kudpung (talk) 11:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for helping Kudpung :) Talgalili (talk) 11:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Author : of article "Stepping Stone (Computer Security)"

Answered

– Kudpung (talk) 08:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

Only point that I am (Luislo) the author of article "Stepping Stone (Computer Security)" not Anthony Appleyard (you can see my original post using the logs). The only thing that Anthony did was split the original article. Please, I would like that my name appears as the author of this article, not Anthony Appleyard as appear at present.

Thanks in advance, Luislo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luislo (talk • contribs) 09:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Quite right, your name is in the logs as a contributor. Stepping stone appears to have been first created as a redirect on 02:56, 23 October 2005 by User:Teklund (Stepping stone moved to Stepping Stone). It was redirected by Anthony Appleyard at 15:33, on 30 August 2006 . Anthony was the first editor to mention its use as 'a piece of pop music'. It was then a&dded to the dab page as Stepping Stone is a Computer Game Developement Company on 6 July 2007 by User:Dbzsamuele, and you expanded the dab page by trying to turn it into an article with your revision as of 06:28, 26 January 2008.

On 19:43, 29 January 2008 User:TenPoundHammer restored the dab page to its proper use by removing your 'spam'. You have never created a Wikipedia page. In any case, there is no ownership to Wikipedia articles, but if you create new pages correctly in the future, you will find your name in the log as creator..--Kudpung (talk) 10:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Note also that the article currently has no references, so you might usefully provide WP:RSs. Without sources, it might be deleted. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

what do u guys called vandalism

Answered

– . Kudpung (talk) 08:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

:

i got a message from DVdm telling me he was going to block me ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Leghacy_of_444&diff=401772267&oldid=401771475 ) because of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villa_Soldati?diff=401772191 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leghacy of 444 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I personnaly wouldn't call the edit you made vandalism. There is a definition of vandalism at WP:Vandalism. The edit you are making is not sourced and it isn't an appropriate tone for an encyclopedia, but I believe you are making the edit in good faith. ~~ GB fan ~~ 13:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Also you might want to read WP:3RR. You have already violated that and you should discuss the edits rather than reverting them. ~~ GB fan ~~ 13:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The edit was not vandalism. It was however ill chosen because it was unsourced and may be very inaccurate. Be careful not to get involved in repeated reverting as you may be in conflict with the Wikipedia WP:3rr rule.--Kudpung (talk) 13:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Sanskrit alphabet composition (Kristubhagavatam)

Resolved

– Kudpung (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

:

Hello, I've created a new page at Kristubhagavatam for a notable (and multiple award-winning) Sanskrit poem. I'd like to express the name of the poem itself in Devanagiri script. However, even after viewing the Devanagari page, I'm not sure how to create the necessary conjuncts where several letters are written together. I've succeeded in making kr, but not kri. Similarly, I've made st, but not stu. Any suggestions? Or if anyone knows how to simply implement such conjuncts, the text in question is on line 1 of the lede. Many thanks -- Health Researcher (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you not got a Devanagari font in your computer? You already know more about Devanagari than I do, But check that your browser version correctly supports it. Another editor may have a better suggestion, but I would suggest cutting it from a source or a web site, and pasting it into the editing window. You could also ask any editor of the Devanagari page or of the thousands of Indian articles here directly for advice, or at Wikipedia:WikiProject India, or Wikipedia:Indian and Pakistani Wikipedians cooperation board. Note however, that you have some in-line references that are not showing correctly.--Kudpung (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Problem now solved. And a knowledgeable editor gave tips for future usage, which I copied to the article's talkpage. Health Researcher (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

For anyone with a similar question, the answer was: see Help:Multilingual support (Indic)#Other input methods (or the rest of the page), or the external links at Devanagari transliteration, or any online transliteration tool such as this one.--Kudpung (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Attempt to censor Sharyn O’Halloran entry

Being discussed in at least 2 other places, no need to continue here. – ukexpat (talk) 03:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Dr. O’Halloran is a prominent academic at Columbia University, as is her husband (or possibly ex-husband). He was arrested recently for alleged incest with his adult daughter. I added a short and well-documented section about this arrest to her entry, with no gossip or commentary. i used credible sources, including the Columbia University student newspaper. My entry was deleted by a party who claims I am guilting of “outing” and engaging in a personal attack. I strongly object to these claims and this deletion. I reverted it for now, but how is this disagreement handled? Nicmart (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Start by discussing your proposed changes at the article's talk page. If you are unable to resolve the issue there, then take a look at your options for dispute resolution. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Content seems to have been restored, with proper citations. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I restored them and they have been deleted and, and then I restored them again. Nicmart (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I am relatively new to Wikipedia editing, but note a trend by certain editors to sanitize bios to the level of "Who's Who" entries, rather than including any negative information as appropriate for an encyclopedia article. I think in this case the highly public and well sourced arrest of a spouse is appropriate to mention in passing and would not offend Wikipedia policies on BLP, RS, Undue etc. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

No, the articles are "sanitized" to the point of being encyclopedic and not sensationalized tabloid, because, Wikipedia is after all an encyclopedia and not a scandal sheet. Active Banana (^bananaphone 00:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss your proposed changes on the talk page. Other editor's have raised valid concerns over them there. You should also be aware of the three revert rule and policy on edit warring. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI, this topic is being discussed both on the article's talk page and on the Biography of Living Persons noticeboard. Jonathanwallace (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

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

this ip user is changing images

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

this user [1] seems to only be changing images on page to less correct images. mostly they seem to be changing covers of books from the original version to a more recent version, but they are leaving the text as 'original cover'. does anyone want to do anything about this? i dont want to get in another fight. if not, ok. Aisha9152 (talk) 07:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Would seem to be related to Shadow Resurrection (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Just at a glance, you can tell something's wrong by the inordinately high resolution of this user's non-free image uploads. These should probably be reverted and tagged for deletion; however, I don't have the time to go through these at the moment. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Most of contributions's substitutions have been reversed, at least those where an image was replaced. Upon further investigation, it would seem that not only is 86. the same as Shadow Resurrection, but also SHADOW4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I don't see any of what we'd normally call socking, though both accounts are being actively used.

The contribs of both accounts need to be checked still. Also, any new images by either user that we decide to keep need to have their resolutions checked. Generally speaking, fair use images should be around 0.1 megapixels overall (see Category:Rescaled fairuse images more than 7 days old#Instructions). All that said, I don't see many significant edits here; the Best of Led Zeppelin images were by far the most concerning since they were high-rez duplicates of proper-size fair use images. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Can a diagram/map be primary source

Discussion moved

– WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Can a map be a primary source? Jezhotwells (talk) 11:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hiya. Just wondering if anyone has any pointers on whether a diagram or map can be considered a primary source? This academic paper produces a world map and regional maps of climate classification, and while it doesn't annotate the maps with country or region names, it is mostly obvious from the maps which areas/countries/regions have which climate classification. Would the map itself be a usable source? Or do the regions/countries need to be listed by name within the paper? Is it original research or synthesis to extract the names from the diagram? Any ideas? Thanks in advance Fmph (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Note. In effect you are asking whether these edits ([2], [3], [4], [5]) are OK. I don't think they are, as is explained on Talk:Belgium#Climate. The main point is that the paper does not define Northwestern Europe. You assume it is the green area in Figure 8, but that assumption is questioned. DVdm (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

No I'm not. Please do not put words into my mouth. In fact, to the contrary, I'm asking if your assertion, that the words/terms used in the content must also be present in the source, is correct. I don't believe it is. If you want to ask a different question, then by all means do so. However this thread is my request. I'd appreciate if you wouldn't try to cloud the original question. Maybe you'd like to strike your Note: above. Fmph (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

In view of the recent edits you made and the talk page discussions, I think the note is a relevant clarification. You say it is not. Ok. Perhaps I should have worded the note as a question, and you just answered it. I'll leave it to those who respond here, to interpret it as such, and/or to ignore it if they wish to do so. DVdm (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that you should raise the question at the reliable sources noticeboard. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I have opened a new discussion in relation to this dispute at Reliables Sources NB. Fmph (talk) 10:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

'Stealth Game' reverting disputes

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've been having some trouble with a fellow editor and was looking to get some assistance. I'm not looking for a dispute resolution, just yet, but was hoping input on the right course of action. The Stealth game article is being patrolled by User:bridies, who has an editing policy that I find disruptive. When good-faith additions are made to the article, this user will revert them if they are not sourced. In the most recent example, the information was up less than 15 minutes before it was reverted. In most cases, the information is quite beneficial to the article once it can be verified but, with his policy of reverting first, it's almost impossible for other editors to help improve the information without digging through the history and taking it to the discussion page to ask for his approval.

I feel like his actions are in violation of the following protocols:

Reverting: When to Revert

Revert Only When Necessary

Ownership behavior

Perfection is not required, there is no deadline, don't bite the newbs, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, etc., etc.

Basically, he is making editing very hostile. I have brought the issue to discussion each time it happens (example) and usually he does the right thing, but only after I make a firm case for the information and, even then, he does it arrogantly, never acknowledging how he has potentially disrupted editing let alone apologizing. Granted, our discussions can be belligerent from both ends, we usually remain civil enough to focus on the issues. However, I'd like to work on solving the underlying problem instead of taking it to discussion every time this happens. What is the proper procedure for dealing with this? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Warthomp (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The proper procedure is for you to find the source "before" you make the edit to the article. WP:V and WP:RS are required reading. If you include a reference to a WP:RS to support your edit, then (providing that you haven't breached any of Wikipedia's other rules), there will be no reason for anyone to revert your edits. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but according to WP:V, the challenging editor should either tag the information ^{[citation needed]} or move it to the talk page. Only if the information is harmful or contentious to living people does it suggest that the information be removed on sight. Additionally, reverts are emphasized as a last resort. So somewhere between the error of not sourcing and the error or reverting on sight lies a happy medium, I would think.Warthomp (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The challenging editor may tag, but may also remove. The editor wishing to add or return must provide legitimate sourcing if challenged - and removal of unsourced content is challenge. Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

So, theoretically, any and all information that isn't sourced can be removed on sight and cannot be returned until a source is found? If the protocol always favors the challenger, surely a rogue editor could strip an article down to the bones if he wanted to.Warthomp (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, although I would contest the "rogue" epithet. Stubbing articles is frequently done with WP:BLPs to remove uncited content. See also WP:BURDEN. – ukexpat (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Doing something like that would be seen as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Not letting me or my student re-name a page we created/edited due to being too "new" a user

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

My student and I have been working on a page (practicing how to research, cite sources, and upload to Wikipedia) and the student used own personal user page to create the content page. When we tried to re-name the page so that the content and the editorial history would stay in tact, I did have the "move" menu as one of my choices besides read, edit, history...but the system wouldn't allow it to be renamed. In the original error message page (abuse log), I asked why not and was told that even I'm too new a user...but then how does one actually go about re-naming a page? All I was told was to find a more experienced user, but I don't know how to go about that. Here's the actual error log for reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog/3868810 Cubanabop (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The major problem was that you were trying to move a page from someone else's userspace (seen as third-party interference, because userspace is generally the purview of the user himself). And User:Arbatchelor is probably not able to do so because he won't be WP:AUTOCONFIRMed for another two days I think. What's the target where you wanted that page moved? Please also check WP:MUSIC, as the article appears heavily self-sourced and light on the claims of notability. DMacks (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, DMacks...my student and I both wondered why I had the "move" feature available for HER PAGE but not her on her own page, so it isn't surprising that I got blocked, but we just couldn't find where it said how/when *she'd* be able to do it. Since she used her own userpage to do it (she was a first time Wikipedia user, so didn't know not to) as long as she'll eventually be autoconfirmed, then she can learn to do it. This is not, BTW, her own or my group that she's writing about, and we're working together to make sure the student includes more references beyond what the group says. I appreciate your pointing to the issue of notability, and I was already aware of that: it is a new group but also a novel type of organization, and there are plenty of similar ensemble types that have Wikipedia pages but don't do the same things as this group, so I think it is ok to add an entry for them. Cubanabop (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

List of Medium episodes - future events

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There has been a previous discussion that is at least partly relevant to the issues I'm now raising. See here.

Currently, I'm fighting a lonely battle on the article's Talk page about changes to the episode table for the seventh season. First, I believe that adding information about future episodes violates WP:CRYSTAL. At least one editor thinks that the only way one can violate WP:CRYSTAL is to put in future information that is unsourced. I see no basis for that position in the policy. Second, even if the future information does not violate policy, I think it's trivial. Essentially, editors are putting in dates and titles for future episodes, nothing else (no synopsis, no director, writer, etc.). I don't see the point. Apparently, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, it's a TV schedule. In any event, no one who has contributed to the discussion agrees with me, so I thought I'd reach out to see if I'm truly alone in this, in which case I'll just have to defer to a misguided (smile) consensus.

Instead of notifying all the editors individually, I'll put something on the Talk page that points to this section.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a violation as the upcoming episodes and air dates are presented in the same table as aired episodes, which implies that those dates are as correct as the past ones. I don't think it's necessarily trivial to the point that it should be excluded entirely, but it should definitely be qualified, preferably in prose. I've dove in a bit; we'll see what happens. Next step would be escalate to WT:NOT. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, there's a lot of TL;DR-type material in there, but the whole matter is extremely straightforward; don't get distracted by straw man arguments and desultory "wall of text" diatribes. The point at issue is whether the presentation of the future episodes violates WP:CRYSTAL. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your diving in, but, unfortunately, nothing has changed. As you noted, someone made an edit to mark the upcoming episodes as "scheduled" but then backed it out. As you can also see, the opposition to presenting this information differently is quite fierce. Do you suggest I take it to WP:NOT now?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

That's because Wikipedia is ruled by consensus, and I am, out of courtesy, giving the other participants of this conversation an opportunity to chime in; while Xeworlebi has been quite active today, and therefore likely to have had an opportunity to view this compromise, DeleriousAndLost has not been logged on since her comment this morning, and I want to be sure she's seen it and has a chance to comment before we change what you previously acknowledged (before running to daddy) as consensus. Even if she doesn't comment, if I see activity on her edit history (which I have been monitoring), I can assume she's at least seen it, or is available to when the edit takes place. When I feel that ALL participants of this conversation are heard or available, I'm happy to oblige. KnownAlias contact 01:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess it bears noting that a proposed compromise has been implemented several days ago identifying the questioned future episodes as "Scheduled" on the table. It seems to have been more or less accepted by the involved editors of this conversation. KnownAlias contact 11:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

any negative information about Windows Phone 7 keeps getting deleted from page

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I have been adding important information to the page Windows Phone 7, and this information is being systematically removed.

The information is well written, refers to quality journalistic sources, and is consistent with the similar information on other WikiPedia articles about Microsoft products. The information being deleted refers to articles by eWeek and the Wall Street Journal, for goodness sake!

However, the information in question is on initial sales results for Windows Phone 7, which are bleak. This is why I believe the users are deleting it. I believe, in fact, that they are Microsoft operatives ... who else would bother? If in fact they actually believe the reasons they are giving for deleting the information, then they would go to the other Microsoft pages and delete the prominent sales and market share information associated with those products as well. But, they don't. The stellar initial sales results for Windows 7 stay on that page, and yet the dismal sales numbers for Windows Phone 7 get deleted.

This is an outrageous abuse of WikiPedia.

MbdSeattle (talk) 03:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, this edit [6] should have been reverted, certainly. You seem to be edit warring information into the article that already exists in another form on the page. I'd advise you to continue the discussion on the talk page, although without referring to other editor's opinions [7] as "invalid reasoning." Dayewalker (talk) 03:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Brian David Mitchell

Discussion moved

– Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian David Mitchell Jezhotwells (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

A full bio of Brian David Mitchell was written following the standard and style of another well known kidnapper (someone who had also only committed one crime (ie Bruno Hauptmann know for the Lindbergh kidnapping ) The article on Brian David Mitchell stayed up since June and had several editors contributing bits and pieces until Dec 10 when apparently one editor deleted the page and linked the name 'Brian David Mitchell' into the Elizabeth Smart Kidnapping page with a part bio inside the Kidnapping article. It now looks substandard but it isn't possible to start a new article for a Brian David Mitchell bio, now that he has been found guilty of some federal charges, because the name is locked and only links into the elizabeth smart kidnapping article.

I'm seeking to return to and maintain a general wikipedia standard where well known cases have separate articles, one for the crime and those events and another for the bio's of the criminal and another for the victim. For example it is the standard already used in wikipedia for such crimes as the Lindbergh kidnapping case and Bruno Hauptmann or like the Murder of Adam Walsh case with a separate article for the criminal Ottis Toole and many more.

Is it possible now to revert back to what we had before the 9th Dec 2010 with a separate article for Mitchell's biography? one apart from the kidnapping article and from the victim who does have a bio page too Wombat24 (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The Brian David Mitchel is now up for deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian David Mitchell, so it would not be appropriate for us to comment here unless, we, like all editors can, wish to go and comment and !vote at that process. AfD usually has one of three outcomes: keep, delete, or merge. You are free to comment and !vote there as you think appropriate. --Kudpung (talk) 09:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Addition to a semi-protection page

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

On the page for information regarding 'Arizona' under the 'History' section you have this sentence last:

'Three ships named USS Arizona have been christened in honor of the state, although only USS Arizona (BB-39) was so named after statehood was achieved.'

Please add "Additionally, two Los Angeles class submarines have been named for cities in Arizona, the USS Phoenix (SSN 702), now decommissioned, and the USS Tuscon (SSN 770)."

Source of information - contributor knowledge backed up by internet search.

Thanks, rural88jean — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rural88jean (talk • contribs) 10:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Requests for edits to semi-protected pages should be made at the talk page of the article. You need to make a new section at Talk:Arizona with a title like "Edit request", placing the code {{Edit semi-protected}} with your description of the addition. The request is more likely to be accepted if you can include a link to the sources you found. January ^(talk) 10:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

remove template from site that is one month old

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like the template removed on the following site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beth_Anne_Raymer

Can you help me with this? Thank you, Maccab — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maccab (talk • contribs) 18:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The unreviewed article template should only be removed once it has been reviewed by someone other than you (the creator of the article). I don't see that that has happened yet, but I would expect the reviewer to remove the template. Maybe what you're really asking is for someone to review it?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the article some. At least it has some inline references now and looks better. My central question is whether the author is sufficiently notable. She's written one book. It's been reviewed in the press, including the New York Times. She sold the film rights to her book. It looks like a film of the book will be made by Stephen Frears. However, it's not clear based on sources whether production has even begun on the film. I've looked at WP:PEOPLE, in particular WP:ARTIST. I'd like some feedback from others on this threshold issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say there's enough secondary coverage for WP:BASIC, Google news archives brings up more articles and reviews. I moved it back to Beth Raymer per WP:COMMONNAME, none of the sources refer to her as Beth Anne Raymer. January ^(talk) 22:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Contacting article subjects

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

A relatively new editor contacted the relative of the subject of an article asking for information. Obviously, any response from the person would have to point to a reliable, third-party source, but I've never heard of an editor doing such a thing. I looked, in vain, for policy on the issue but couldn't find anything that squarely addressed it. For example, I don't think WP:OR or WP:COI applies because the editor has no relationship with the subject or the relative and, as I said, any assertion inserted in the article would have to be reliably sourced. Is there a policy on this?

As a secondary question, what if the relative adds material to her website that addresses the issue, could her website then be used as a source? Carried to an extreme, it's problematic because the relative could add the sentence "The world is coming to an end" to her website, and we certainly wouldn't want to source to that. In this instance, though, the information is family-related and uncontroversial. Still, it seems circular to me and feels wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is any policy about this. As you say reliable sources are what count. Primary sources should be used with care, but are generally considered reliable for non controversial facts about the subject, e.g. DoB, but should be properly attributed. If you want more then ask, with specific examples at the reliable sources noticeboard. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

See WP:SELFPUB for the conditions to use such a website source. I have heard of several cases of editors contacting people directly and the editors are always told not to add the obtained information without a published source. Template:Cite email was deleted at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 19#Template:Cite email (on my nomination) because it encouraged editors to do something against Wikipedia:Verifiability. I haven't heard of cases where the subject actually selfpublished something about themselves on the suggestion of an editor, but it should be OK if WP:SELFPUB is satisfied. For a case where the website was reliable and the statement was not about a person, see Talk:Semiprime#Original Research where I successfully suggested a change to a university website of a math professor. I only know him via the Internet but had earlier and since made several other suggestions he followed so I didn't come out of nowhere to him. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

What Is The Template For "moving a user page into mainspace"?

Discussion moved

– WP:Help desk#What Is The Template For "moving a user page into mainspace"? Jezhotwells (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

What is the template for "moving a user page into mainspace"?199.126.224.245 (talk) 06:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Replied at Wikipedia:Help desk#What Is The Template For "moving a user page into mainspace"? Please make any further posts there. PrimeHunter (talk) 06:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Sailing to Byzantium

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

In the "Popular Culture" section of the above article about a Yeats poem, an unsourced assertion was made that the title of Bruce Sterling's novel "Holy Fire" was derived from the poem. Sterling has told me twice in email this is not so, and I modified the article accordingly. However, as I spend more time here, I have come to believe an email to me is not an appropriate source. I think the best solution is to delete the Sterling reference entirely from the article, but wanted to get a reality check.

A related question is when, if ever, a title of a book should be assumed to be taken from a poem, in the absence of a source such as an author interview acknowledging the borrowing. The article lists a couple of other books without any kind of evidence, including Cormac McCarthy's "No Country for Old Men" and Philip Roth's "The Dying Animal". Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The answer is simple: Sterling does not have to provide proof that something is not. The editor wishing to include an item must prove that it is. See, and quote if you have to, WP:BURDEN.--Kudpung (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Flag of Australia article

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

In the section entitled 'Blue or Red Ensign' in the article on the Flag of Australia the following appears:

"However, when Australia's new Parliament House was opened in 1927, only Red Ensigns and Union Flags were flown."

However there is a very good chance Blue ensigns and Union flags were flown that day: www.flagsociety.org.au/Parliament_house_puzzle.htm

Hence this article takes one side in this debate. For Septimus Power's painting has no more probative value than the lithograph by the unknown artist in the end.

I say the image of the lithograph by the unknown artist remains in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.113.158 (talk) 05:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The above editor is a SPA editing in support of the blue ensign in Flag of Australia and Australian flag debate. His version of the quote in the article is incorrect, it actually reads However, the official painting of the opening of Australia's new Parliament House in 1927 shows only Red Ensigns and Union Flags being flown. The section originally had no image until the anon added the lithograph image to show blue flags which, due to poor resolution, are ambiguous as to what country they represent. The article currently has a B&W photograph of the opening to avoid any POV favouring either side. The talk discussion can be found here.Wayne (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I actually took that photo out. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Next Steps

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a stalled dispute on Talk:Sarah Palin regarding the inclusion of certain content from a news article. The only consensus is that we need to engage dispute resolution. What I'm here to ask about is which step to take next. Dylan Flaherty 00:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

With this huge number of talk page participants and the number of posts, there should be enough editors to hold either a poll on the talk page or start an WP:RfC to obtain a consensus.--Kudpung (talk) 11:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

What about mediation? Dylan Flaherty 12:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It is always recommended that editors resolve issues among themselves before engaging the valuable time of the noticeboards. In the case of Palin, it takes a little over two hours to familiarise oneself with the background. There are more than enough participants (hundreds) in the Palin discussion to reach a consensus through a normal process. Please read the instructions for starting a Request for Comment.--Kudpung (talk) 03:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

TOM SHAW (Portland, Oregon filmmaker) (1st)

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This is for anyone who makes the decisions of what pages can be created and put on Wikipedia:

Several years ago, I created a Wikipedia page and wrote about a Portland, Oregon filmmaker named TOM SHAW, who made one short film and three feature length movies, two of which have been distributed internationally and have achieved some level of "cult" status around the world.

I worked for Shaw and knew him and am familiar with his history and films, so I was qualified to write the page,

I did my research, and wrote the piece on my own computer, getting it all organzied and polished up, before copy-pasting it onto the Wikipedia page that I had created.

The entire thing was rejected by Wikipedia, but I never found out why, or what the logic was for rejecting the whole thing outright. Was it just the copy-paste that killed it, or something else? I had put a lot of time and work into it for nothing and so I just gave up pursuing the matter any further, figuring that someone else who knew Tom and his films would ultimately create a page about him that I could add to later on.

But after all these additional years, there's still nothing about this filmmaker on your site, even though his two released films COURIER OF DEATH (aka THE COURIER, aka, STREET CONTROL) and OPERATION: TAKE NO PRISONERS are in the IMDB, and have been for years.

Since my first attempt at creating a Tom Shaw page, there's even more interest in the films and life of Tom Shaw on other internet sites, but still nothing about him on Wikipedia.

Complicating things further is that two-ish-years ago my computer with the hard-drive with all my Tom SHaw research on it was damaged by an internal power-surge and now I'm currently in the middle of trying to recover that data from the hard drive, an expensive proposition that taken me a long time to save up for, and still pending.

Is there any record still in existence that has the reason why the page about Tom Shaw was rejected, and would wikipedia re-consider letting me take a second try at creating one, assuming I can recover the info from the damaged hard-drive?

I'm pretty ignorant on how to access my specific communication pages with Wikipedia (I accidently did once, but was never able to re-find it), so if you could just e-mail me directly with your response, and allow me to communicate with you via regular e-mail for awhile, that would be appreciated, cuz I know how to do that much.

I'm still not even sure if my just finding this page to communicate with you (still in your typical open public format?!?!) is the right way for me to communicate with you, as even now I'm just not that Wikipedia savy.

Assuming I can save my Tom Shaw research from my damaged hard drive, maybe we can find some kind of resolution of all this confusion and I could still maybe create and page to preserve the information and history about this filmmaker.

Please help me with figuring all this out and fixing this problem in any way(s) that you can.

Dan Fiebiger Portland, Oregon

<e-mail address removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.40.225 (talk) 12:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

A few points: first, there is no one person ort group of persons who decide which articles can be created. Deletions are ultimately a matter for consensus except for obvious cases such as copyright violations, blatant spam etc (see Speedy deletion criteria); second, by all means go ahead and re-create the article. You will need a user account (if you do not already have one) and I would suggest thatyou create the article as a draft in user space first, then ask at WP:FEED for it to be reviewed by other editors. You can use the article creation wizard to assist you. If you can remember the exact title of the deleted article it can be undeleted into user space for you so you can work on it. – ukexpat (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

A user, User:Dan Fiebiger, made this edit in July '07. At User talk:Dan Fiebiger, there's reference to the deletion of Tom Shaw (independent filmmaker - Portland, Oregon) on grounds that there was no assertion of notability. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Note also that many non-notable people (such as myself) and many non-notable films, TV shows, etc. are in the IMDb. We are an encyclopedia, not an exhaustive directory. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Partisan editing at Hassan Diab

Answered

– Kudpung (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Would appreciate more eyes on this article about a Canadian sociology professor that France wants extradited for trial for an alleged role in a 1980 synagogue bombing.

Now that the extradition hearing has begun, there is partisan editing on both sides of the case, but in particular by User:Justice Freeze, a SPA who seems to have used Whois to point out in at least two places the exact location of an IP editing on the other side. After Justice Freeze's latest edits I reverted and warned about NPOV, UNDUEWEIGHT and NOTNEWS but he has dug in, as can be seen at the article talk page. I am trying to preserve at least the appearance of neutrality in the article, but can't keep up. --CliffC (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It might be best to enlist the help of relevant WikiProjects. A glance at the article talk page shows entrenched POVs and it is all rather confusing as some posts are not signed. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, will try Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board which seems reasonably active. I posted a link here in one of the other Canada groups last week but it was probably the wrong one. --CliffC (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there a page that list all the {{ }} edit tags?

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I am working on Hans Albrecht von Barfus which uses German Wikipedia as a source which I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to do. The entry also uses sources written in German and I wondered whether this is acceptable? What do I do when I just want to flag this for attention and not correct it myself? thanks--Aichikawa (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It is certainly not OK to use another language Wikipedia as a reliable source, although it can be used as a translation source for the English text. There is however no requirement that a reliable source be in English. Category:Cleanup templates lists most if not all of the relevant templates. – ukexpat (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

New Article Deleted?

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I began a new article for the artists "K.M" (title of article) and it appears to be gone. Was it deleted? If so did I violate a guideline and may I correct it and continue the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottebya (talk • contribs) 22:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history you will see that it has been turned into a redirect to KM as the artists are not notable per ~~WP:BAND~~WP:CREATIVE. – ukexpat (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It was converted into a redirection to KM, since the article had no evidence that the duo were in any way notable. (It was also incredibly poorly written, with lots of art-magazine blather and little substantive content; so it probably could have been deleted for lacking a neutral point of view. Phrasing like "the classic mystique of Amsterdam and the unrelenting natural forces of Iceland" and "Much of the pair's charm comes from the tension between their differing working and living styles" has no place in an impartial reference work.) --Orange Mike | Talk 22:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your insights. This is my first article and if I am accurately assessing your critique I should work on:

1] the tone of the article making it more neutral and formal 2] providing more "notable" references for the artists (can you be more specific what constitutes "notable"?) 3] increasing the amount of "substantive content", which I assume means more examples of the artworks, history of the artists and explanation of the context in which they fit in the field of Art.

Is there a time limit or a way I can work on the article and not have it deleted while I try to improve the content as advised by editors? I appreciate your assistance and any further suggestions you have for revising this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottebya (talk • contribs) 22:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

References must be from reliable third party sources (see WP:RS) and provide more than trivial coverage (see WP:N). Active Banana (^bananaphone 00:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

An editor has put a message on you talk page, welcoming you to Wikipedia and containing a host of links to the all answers you need. Happy editing!--Kudpung (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Big Help with an article needed - Carvelli

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I need help to fix the Carvelli article.

I have links and information the discussion tab of the article. But I don't know how to add it correctly. It has a few warnings and is considered for deletion.

Bmcglobal (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC) BMCGlobal

In its present form, the article is almost certain to be deleted when the discussion closes in seven days. An editor has put a message on your talk page that contains links to all our tutorials and help pages. Please follow them all and read everything carefully. You may wish to save a copy of the article to your user space or your own computer, although its current style has little in common with what is needed for use in an encyclopedia. Please also pay particular attention to the policy on Conflict of Interest as you appear to be closely connected to the subject.--Kudpung (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Smoking question

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

BRING BACK SMOKING AREAS IN ALL AREAS OF THE WORLD!!! Subject: Bring Back Smoking environments to Chatswood area in anger and protest - complaint

Dear Willoughby City Council,

I’m writing in with great anger and wrote in previously only for someone to unprofessionally respond to my email and rudely spoke to me as I’m writing in in great concern as to why we are having all these smoke free areas in Chatswood when it’s been openly talked about from shop owners of cafes losing business on the news, and the severe anger of the state and how long it’s taken to fix Chatswood Mall when it was fine the way it was. We don’t even have a decent library and the Concert Hall was fine and all this construction when the workers of the Mall stand around and smoke anyway all day and yet it’s smoke free. It’s a free country and I deserve the right to light up if I so wish at my own expense as the price of cigarettes are overpriced on taxes. If you listen to talkback radio, they were saying that Smokers have been paying for non smokers expenses for years. Why wasn’t Chatswood smoke free 30 years ago but yet we still sell alcohol which is also bad for health and the liver but yet we still drink it openly. Ban that too if Willoughby City Council had their choice. There is a facebook page saying 21,000 members like smoking and strong messages about it. In Singapore, there are smoking rooms in Changi Airport and ashtrays everywhere and it’s clean. Plus Willoughby City Council could create ashtrays at bins every 10 metres. Even the Police in Singapore smoke in uniform. I go to Gloria Jeans in Chatswood Mall and Create Café in Anderson Street and now hardly anyone goes there because of non smoking. Ban consumption of alcohol but not smoking. Be fair on the smokers who fund for non smokers expenses and be like Singapore. Modern etc. It took years for them to build the interchange and still it doesn’t go far enough. Be fair, you’ve bundled up with your Mall and Civic Place so be fair on smokers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.137.170 (talk) 13:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our 3,502,474 articles, and thought that we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Stalked for a long time

Answered

– Kudpung (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I have been stalked from Commons to sv.WP to en.WP and back and forth for a long time by User:Pieter Kuiper. Before I created my user account, he had also stalked other editors, particularly User:EmilEikS, who quit those three projects because of it and turned his watch lists over to me. The stalking is always due to some kind of retaliatory urge on the part of Kuiper that he does not seem to be able to control, despite the fact that he has been warned many times by administrators about that and about uncivil behavior in general toward many other editors also (unconnected to me). The most recent occurrence in my case is this one, where Kuiper, blocked now for a month on Commons, puts in a brief appearance on this project, as usual only to try to find something to try to to irritate me with on en.WP. I have tried to get Commons adiministrators to help as you can see here. Can somebody please help us to get a ban enforced on interaction between us as started by either of us (I have never started it)? What do I need to do? SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI is the place to report this. – ukexpat (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - would it be OK to copy the complaint above and repost it there, or do I need to rewrite it? I am very uncertain about all policy in matters such as this. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes just repost the text, but if you have diffs that show the behaviour you are referring to, please post them to assist the admins. – ukexpat (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I hope the ones in the text will lead to an investigation of this user's history, which pretty easily should reveal the inordinate amount of sarcasm and ridicule he always spews out. SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Michael Cherney

Stale

– Kudpung (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

:

User:Moscowrussia and others constantly remove factual information concerning the article about Michael Cherney. See also the short discussions on the Michael Cherney talk page and the Moscowrussia talk page. The author is particularly persistent in removing the following sentence:
He is currently wanted for questioning by Interpol on a Spanish warrant for organized crime and money-laundering charges.^[1] This is despite the fact that according to the Interpol website Mr Cherney is still wanted. Hope this dispute resolution request helps to solve the problem. --spitzl (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Moscowrussia deletes the sentence saying in the edit summary "Swiss courts have cleared Cherney of any connection with illegal organizations." Although he provides no source for this assertion (there are sources in the Invalid passport section, although I don't know if that relates to "illegal organizations"), the Interpol source says that Cherney is wanted based on a Spanish warrant. I'm not familiar with any of this, but wouldn't the Interpol sentence and source belong in the section Spanish allegations and attempted arrest? Part of the problem with the Interpol source is it's bare and has no real prose explanation of what's going on. Maybe you could also find an additional source that provides more context.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanx for your quick reply. The article contains information on Spain's Supreme Court decision to file detention order against Michael Cherney, see Michael_Cherney#Spanish_allegations_and_attempted_arrest --spitzl (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, that's what I was referring to when I mentioned the Spanish allegations section of the article. The question is whether the Spanish warrant listed on Interpol relates to that section. If it does, you should connect the two in the section, along with another source that explains the connection. If the warrant doesn't relate, then you should list the warrant plus another source in an appropriate part of the article. I would be hesitant about putting in JUST the Interpol source into a BLP article, particularly in the lead.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the warrant is based on the Spanish investigation, see e.g. this Ynetnews article or this one. Given such serious allegations I believe it should be included in the head section of the article. However, I doubt that it will stick there very long. --spitzl (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it. Why don't you put the Interpol cite and the two news cites in the Spanish section first? Whether something from the body merits highlighting in the lead is a separate issue. It's not in the lead now anyway and why fight that fight before first completing the Spanish section?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Well its not in the lead because certain people are constantly removing it. This is what my original question was about. What should we do when people repeatedly delete well sourced information? Following your advise I did make it clear in the Spanish section that the warrant is based on a Spanish court ruling. I still believe though that the lead section misleads the reader by painting Cherney as an innocent business man and philanthropist, when in fact there is an int. arrest warrant out there, plus numerous other allegations. --spitzl (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I made some minor to moderate changes to your edits to the Spanish section. Let's just wait and see what happens next before trying to change the lead. I have a question, though. The key source from El Mundo (#22) doesn't work well for me. Although I'm not proficient in Spanish, it doesn't seem to link to the article. That's rather important. Can you do something about that or clarify it for me?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Although you haven't commented yet here, you edited the article with the following edit summary: "el mundo source is unavailable - added fresh wikileaks cable that prove its existence". I guess you're conceding that the El Mundo article is, at best, a dead link. Adding the link to the cable, though, doesn't help because although it mentions Cherney at the end of the cable, and it mentions El Mundo, whether the article ever existed is not important. What matters is whether the assertions in the article are supported by reliable sources. At this point, the entire paragraph starting with "On 20 May 2009, Spanish authorities informed their UK counterparts ..." is unsupported by the references. I'll give you a little time to see if you can fix it, but, otherwise, the paragraph has to go until it can be sourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Let's see what I can find. Maybe the article is available for subscribers only.--spitzl (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the article is only available for subsribers. Here is the link to the article from that day. So unless someone has an account with el mundo, I'm afraid this won't help much. --spitzl (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it appears that not only do you have to register but you must have a subscription to one of their non-Internet products, or you have to pay for something. I tried to register (not easy with my limited understanding of Spanish), but I couldn't get it to work. Have you read the article? I believe that Wikipedia allows citing to subscription-only sources (although I can't find the policy), but you have to represent that you've actually read it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

See WP:PAYWALL. There would be hell to pay if someone didn't pay and just assumed the detail to be in it, and it wasn't!Kudpung (talk) 01:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Bbb23, I don't really remember. Maybe I did follow the link (I do speak Spanish), maybe I didn't, sorry. Thanx Kudpung for posting the "Access to sources" link. Unfortunately though I couldn't find a listing for Spanish newspaper archives. I also tried bugmenot but no luck. So if we still need the article, I'd suggest we ask the Spanish wikipedia community. There got to be many wikipedians out there that have access to the el mundo archive. Too bad there is no Spanish version of the "Michael Cherney" article yet. That would probably be a good place to post the request. Or we post it on the El Mundo discussion page. It's worth a try, right? --spitzl (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to continue your research, which is great, but in the meantime, I think it would be better to remove the paragraph until it can be supported by a verifiable source. It can always be reinserted later.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll keep trying to get that article. One more question. What I didn't quite understand yet, is it is optional or mandatory according to Wikipedia standards to include a source that is verifiable to everyone, compared to - as in our case - only subscribed users of el mundo?--spitzl (talk) 09:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

As long as the source can be verified it may be used. So artciles behind pay walls or print copies of newspapers as they can be verified by someone. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Stalked for a long time

Answered

– Kudpung (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I have been stalked from Commons to sv.WP to en.WP and back and forth for a long time by User:Pieter Kuiper. Before I created my user account, he had also stalked other editors, particularly User:EmilEikS, who quit those three projects because of it and turned his watch lists over to me. The stalking is always due to some kind of retaliatory urge on the part of Kuiper that he does not seem to be able to control, despite the fact that he has been warned many times by administrators about that and about uncivil behavior in general toward many other editors also (unconnected to me). The most recent occurrence in my case is this one, where Kuiper, blocked now for a month on Commons, puts in a brief appearance on this project, as usual only to try to find something to try to to irritate me with on en.WP. I have tried to get Commons adiministrators to help as you can see here. Can somebody please help us to get a ban enforced on interaction between us as started by either of us (I have never started it)? What do I need to do? SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI is the place to report this. – ukexpat (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - would it be OK to copy the complaint above and repost it there, or do I need to rewrite it? I am very uncertain about all policy in matters such as this. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes just repost the text, but if you have diffs that show the behaviour you are referring to, please post them to assist the admins. – ukexpat (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I hope the ones in the text will lead to an investigation of this user's history, which pretty easily should reveal the inordinate amount of sarcasm and ridicule he always spews out. SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

letter

Answered

– Kudpung (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Please provide me a suitable place. i will be evergracefull to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.240.67.177 (talk) 10:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If you are looking for employment opportunities with the Wikimedia Foundation then you need this link. If you are just looking for nice places, I recommend San Sebastián or, for somewhere a bit more secluded but not quite so evergracefull, Grazalema. If you are looking for places where you can best assist the project, one place to start would be to click here to choose an unreferenced BLP to reference. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Good choices. Even more evergracefull might be Castara, only a personal view though. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Dispute regarding Article titled Qanungoh Shaikh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Answered

– Kudpung (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to bring to your attention an editwar which seems to be developing between the user Qanungoh aka 82.71.17.110 and myself.

"Qanungoh word means Law (Qanun) speaker (Goh) and is descendant from 10th century Lawspeaker (Swedish: lagman, Old Swedish: laghmaþer or laghman, Danish: lagmand, Norwegian: lagmann, Icelandic: lög(sögu)maður, Faroese: løgmaður, in Old Norse origin: Lamont (name) or Lamond) from Scandinavian countries, Lawspeakers Traveled in the Era of Ottoman Empire from Scandinavian and European countries to Turkey and Persia then to Afghanistan where there is a Province which is Laghman Province. When Lawspeakers migrated to South East Asia (Persian, Afghan and Indian region) they translated their surnames to Qanungoh or Kanungo and then it appeared in Mughal Empire in different times."

The statement "Qanungoh word means Law (Qanun) speaker (Goh)" is factually incorrect in as much as suggesting that "Goh" means speaker and has been manufactured to justify the rest.. It in fact translates to "expounder" such as here: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Qanungo or here http://punjabrevenue.nic.in/gaz_jdr9.htm.

The remainder of the theory seems to be based on some very superficial similarity between Norse Lawspeakers and Qanungoh Sheikhs, and the tenuous and probably coincidental linguistic similarity between Nordic words for "Lawspeaker" and the Laghman Province of Afghanistan.

The term Qanungoh is a pre-Mughal/Mughal feudal title related to exclusively revenue collection, land allocation/disputes and taxation rather than any wider judicial functions. This is generally common knowledge and can (for example) be verified here:

Yang.A.A., The limited Raj: Agrarian Relations in Colonial India, Saran District, 1793-1920. University of California 1989. Pgs 90, 98 & 99. Available at: http://books.google.com/books?id=Ck4jmD7H34UC&pg=PA98&dq=qanungo&hl=en&ei=yT8KTeSUKqKShAecy7WWDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CEoQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=qanungo&f=false

and here:

Sharma.S.R., Mughal empire in India: a systematic study including source material, Volume 1. Atlantic Publishers. 1999. Pg 266. Available at: http://books.google.com/books?id=OnP0Lcp0TGoC&pg=PA266&dq=qanungo&hl=en&ei=7UAKTbuWLYWAhAesvsGIDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=qanungo&f=false

I feel though, that he may be the kind of person who is unlikely to heed any form of dispute resolution.

Potohar1982 (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The best course is to WP:REVERT and WP:WARN, using templates such as {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}. If/when you reach Level 4 warnings, report at the most appropriate of the noticeboards listed at the top of thei page. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

University logos

Answered

– Kudpung (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

can you please upload the logos of sunchon national university and holy angel university to their respective pages. logos can be found on their respective websites. Please do this also as soon as possible. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.92.130.1 (talk) 23:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Please make your request at WP:Files for upload. – ukexpat (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Article i, Section 2 of the Constitution is wrong

Resolved

– Kudpung (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You omitted an important part of Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution; that a person running for Office as a Representative, 'shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen'. Wikipedia says, 'Be (at the time of the election) an inhabitant of the State they represent." NOT TRUE. And I suspect the same is true for the election of a Senator.

dr burke xxxxxx@xxx.xxx

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

"No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."

United States House of Representatives - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Qualifications Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution sets three qualifications for representatives. Each representative must: (1) be at least twenty-five years old; (2) have been a citizen of the United States for the past seven years; and (3) be (at the time of the election) an inhabitant of the state they represent." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.193.57.142 (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, those tricky double negatives! "No person shall be a representative ... who shall not be an inhabitant ..." is read to mean that one must be a (resident) of the state in order to represent it. --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Please repost this on the talk page of the appropriate article.Kudpung (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Sunspot article

Answered

– Kudpung (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a reversion struggle going on. Contributor TAURUSTHECAT keeps trying to insert an irrelevant citation to a TV presentation that has nothing to do with sunspots as such, but sounds to me like a sop to deniers of global warming. Both I and contributor ROTHORPE have been reverting the page to eliminate this nonsense, and it needs some attention at a higher level.

I don't know how to communicate directly with TAURUSTHECAT or ROTHORPE but thank the latter for helping deal with the former.

Thanks

--71.131.195.237 (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Please start a discussion about this problem on the Talk:Sunspot page. You can contact any Wikipedia contributor on their talk pages. You might wish to start the discussion, and leave messages at User talk:Taurusthecat and User talk:Rothorpe to et them know that you have done so. Do familiarise youreself with the system of page histories to see the details of contributors and what they have edited.--Kudpung (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Help with Sopheon

Resolved

– Article edited by an EAR assistant. Kudpung (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Sopheon has undergone a major revision tonight by Tomcat66 g500 (talk · contribs). I suspect that the user has got a conflict of interest which he/she denies. My suspicion was raised because a) the upload summary for the company's logo was "used with permission of Sopheon plc" and b) because there was some very clear copyvio and other sections (now deleted - see my edit summary on the article) which were simply reordering the words from pages on the company's website. The whole article is unsourced and written like an advert. I am very tempted to revert it back to the version that existed before this user got involved, but would prefer input / action from the good people at this noticeboard. I'm going to back off for a while. --Biker Biker (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I have further pruned the marketingspeak. – ukexpat (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice one, thanks. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Orthomolecular Medicine for India

Answered

– Danger (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello I am the author of the essay - Orthomolecular Medicine for India. On 13 December 2010 Chase me ladies, the Cavalry deleted "Orthomolecular Medicine for India" ‎ with a note (Promotes medically problematic views, written by someone with a flawed understanding of medicine)

1. I feel this is absolutely unfair like hanging a person without a trial. 2. I am a qualified MD and PG in Acupuncture from Harvard. 3. The opinions of Dr. Linus Pauling (two time Nobel Laureate)and Dr. Abram Hoffer can not be termed as Flawed Understanding of Medicine. 4. What I have written has several references to leading medical research publications and extensively edited ( though not wikified) 5. Orthomolecular Medicine is a new medical paradigm and Wiki I thought is a place to express an alternative view with freedom

I request a review of my page and re-instate the page ASAP. Thank you with kind regards Dr. Jagan Nathan Vaman <email address redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drjagannathanvaman (talk • contribs) 11:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on your Harvard accreditation. I will ask the cavalry to clip-clop over here and comment. If you have any problems resolving the issues, there are several other options open to you.

I will also note that, while well sourced material is generally a good thing for Wikipedia, things that are a new medical paradigm (as you put it) may not yet be sufficiently covered in mainstream secondary sources for inclusion. Some further information on this can be found at WP:NOR and WP:FRINGE. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Harvard doesn't have an Acupuncture program. --Leivick (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

And for the record: yes, the views of Linus Pauling on medicine can largely be discounted. Neither of his Nobels were for medicine. DS (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I have redacted your e-mail address. As others have hinted at, the problem probably lies in your characterisation of what you wrote as an "essay" - Wikipedia is not the place for "essays" or any other kind of original research, it is an encylopdia that has articles about subjects that have already been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. – ukexpat (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the "free Wiki" that Dr Vaman is looking for, might be more like this: "Wikia provides a collaborative publishing platform on which everyone - really, everyone - can share their passion and knowledge on subjects that don’t fit into the strict model of an encyclopedia." (from http://www.wikia.com/The_Wikia_Story - I have no connection with Wikia and do not have an account there) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Taking this to another project, such as Wikia, would be best. The reason I deleted the article was because of the outrageous and in many countries criminal claim that this 'treatment' could cure "Autism,[3] Schizophrenia,[4] Multiple Sclerosis,[5] Huntington's Disease,[6] Bi-polar Disorder,[7] Cancer,[8] Shingles.". The article was basically a rehash of the long-pushed idea of orthomolecular medicine, orthomolecular psychiatry, and the long-discredited idea of high-doses of niacin to cure practically everything. The Pseudoscience/Fringe community would be a good place to get more input on this, because it's not currently medicine. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of page Tell 'Em Steve Dave!

Answered

– Advice provided by User:Demiurge1000. Kudpung (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

My question concerns the deletion of the page for the Tell 'Em Steve Dave podcast.

The reason for deletion appears to be that their popularity or listener base could not be verified by an outside source. This podcast was part of iTunes top 25 podcasts of 2010 and yesterday, won Podcast Awards in both the People's Choice and Comedy categories.

Since these awards are given based on listener voting, I believe that this is proof of a large listener base and discredits the reason for the original deletion.

Thank you for reading my post and considering my request to restore this page.

Globeboxxr (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)Globeboxxr

I suggest that you wikilink Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tell 'Em Steve Dave! and then consider (with or without input from editors on this page) whether to proceed to some form of Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes question

Resolved

– Article in question has been deleted per AfD. Kudpung (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Artel Jarod Walker is under pending changes protection. However, I can't figure out what level of protection it's under. When I recently edited the page, it put my change in pending review, whereas in other articles under pending changes protection, it automatically accepts my change. In trying to figure out why, I delved into the mysteries of how pending changes works. Although I confess to (a) not being to follow it all and (b) not wanting to follow it all, I preliminarily concluded that it had to with the level of protection, but I didn't see quickly (slowly wasn't an option - required too much patience and I already had a headache) how to determine the level of protection.

So I came here hoping someone would take pity on my whining and explain it to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Click "View history" and then "View logs for this page" to see [8]: [Accept: require "review" permission]. You may also have a link saying "show pending changes log" at the bottom of Artel Jarod Walker. There are few such pages [9] and far more [Accept: require "autoconfirmed" permission]. You are autoconfirmed but not a reviewer. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I declined to be a reviewer (I'm one of those who opposes the pending changes "system"). I wonder how an admin decides what level of protection to give an article generally and, in particular, this article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Russians and Russians Talk page

Resolved

– Danger (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Russians and Talk:Russians have recently suffered (since Nov 22 or so) from one or more IP addresses engaged in trying to change the premise of the article. The article edit war with mean reversion statements is now going on in unsigned IP edits on the talk page (if signbot adds a signature, it is removed) which have now degenerated into bad language, overt racism and, today, threats (and look at each difference). I had some early involment here, but not lately. Can some neutral party look at what is going on here and take appropriate action regarding these IP addresses and perhaps clean up the unpleasant leftovers. Thanks Hmains (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

An uninvolved administrator has placed an appropriate warning at Talk:Russians. Continued sockpuppetry, or future breaches in behavioural or editing policy should preferably be taken directly to the appropriate department. --Kudpung (talk) 01:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I already noticed. And communicated with the admin. Thanks Hmains (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Page Version ID: 403349429

Stale

– Danger (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sir:

Somebody (user shows up as "Boreal") continuously is removing content from my Wikipedia site "Evangelical Christian Church in Canada", and I am seeking your help to stop this.

Each time I revert to the original information, this person removes it. It seems ridiculous that anybody with a contrary opinion can harass another, and exercise such control over another's content.

I truly appreciate any assistance you can offer.

Yours truly, Hotman1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotmas1 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

First I would check out what Wikipedia says about ownership of articles. This isn't your article, it is for anyone to edit. Equally as importantly Boreal has provided a verbose edit summary to explain his/ her actions. Nobody has sought to rebut the statement in the edit summary and demonstrate that was wrong. Nor does there seem to be any discussion. However your own edits on User:Boreal's talk page are unacceptable and wholly non-constructive. The only way to seek a way forward is by carefully considered dialogue valuing the opinions and sources of all editors. I hope that now is the time to start in a spirit of Christian charity. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Boreal has also broken WP:3RR rather dramatically on this page, the editor could report them to Wikipedia:AN3 but discussing it on the talk page might be a better idea (also they might find themselves subject to sanctions at AN3 if the other account that's edit-warring with Boreal is actually them too.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm kind of suspicious that Hotmas1 (signed hotman1 above) is also Ironboys2 and Showman2. I asked the editor to explain his connection to those two accounts, but his only response as of this timestamp is to remove the sockmaster tag from his userpage [10]. Syrthiss (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Brett Sutton and 216.131.74.64

Resolved

– Article tagged and cleaned up, no further warring Danger (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This user [[11]] is editing this article [[12]] to hide or make the article's subject criminal record less obvious, while putting too much focus on most recent commercial success. The edits are highly subjective and biased. The user also sent me hate mail related to my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikolatosic (talk • contribs) 23:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There has been some debate recently on the Biography of Living Persons noticeboard about how to deal with criminal charges against an otherwise (barely) notable person. I would say that the article in its present state, with a one sentence reliably sourced statement at the end, may be the best you can do right now without facing arguments about WEIGHT, UNDUE, etc. I am also not sure this article (at least in its present state) meets notability standards; it may be a candidate for deletion. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Page Event Photographer Society Deleted

Resolved

– Danger (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I would have appreciated notification that the page was due for deletion or how I might have improved it. Can this page be reinstated to allow a decent level of editing?

I am unable to sign in with the original account that created the page which I believe was eps but I may be wrong

Many thanks

Mike Weeks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eventphotogsoc (talk • contribs) 17:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about Society of Sport & Event Photographers? It's still there. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It's apparently about Event Photographer Society which was created by User:EventPS. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Photo uploaded to Street Painters

Answered

– Danger (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded a photos to the article "Street Painters" and think I did something wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tra4691 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. Does it now display as you intended? --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is now showing... thank you!! Happy Holidays! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tra4691 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I have opened a merger discussion at Talk:Street art, proposing that Street artists and Street painting be merged into Street art. – ukexpat (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The "Great Divergence" and the need to discuss income inequality

Answered

– Danger (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

In his 2007 book The Conscience of a Liberal, the Nobel laureate, Princeton economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman labeled the post-1979 epoch the "Great Divergence," referring to growing income inequality in the US. This is a subject that desperately needs to be talked about.

There is already a section labeled the “Great Divergence” (referring to the” European Miracle”), however we need a separate page in which to discuss the problem of inequality.

There is a page entitled “Income Inequality in the United States”, however this page is too technical to be useful for most readers (it is also very out of date) – it is also hard to locate – one has to first navigate through a technical discussion of inequality.

At the very least, there should be an entry entitled “Great Divergence” which would like to that page. It would be better to have a separate entry discussing Kurgan’s thesis and the public reaction to it.

I repeat: it is very important to get readers involved in the debates over income inequality.Gahuntly (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox to get readers involved in anything. We cover content and article subjects that have been covered by reliable, third party sources. We do not create new spins on article topics to push a particular point of view. Active Banana (^bananaphone 16:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Krugman's views on income equality are briefly summarized both in Wikipedia articles Paul Krugman and The Conscience of a Liberal. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliance_Bank update to text

Resolved

– Danger (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The last paragraph on the wiki for [[13]]is incorrect as the logo has changed for the bank.www.reliancebankltd.com Please delete the following line as it is no longer correct:

The bank's logo is taken from the Salvation Army's crest, and represents the light of the Holy Spirit.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.196.236.93 (talk) 12:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I have removed it. Any editor can challenge and remove information that is unsourced. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Article

Answered

– Danger (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I am writing to contest the deletion of my article "Pro Pinball: Fantastic Journey". it was a brand new article and was deleted 2 minutes after it was posted. Due to time constraints, I was unable to continue with the article until the next day. I do not want to start a war, I only want to write an encyclopaedia. WhiteSGPlayer (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

If you go to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro_Pinball:_Fantastic_Journey&action=edit&redlink=1 and scroll down, you will see the reason why your article was deleted, and by whom. I suggest contacting that editor for advice, as the page says, before trying to re-instate your article. Your message acknowledges that the article was unfinished. Possibly it was too much of a first draft, not reliably sourced (see WP:RS) and not "encyclopedic" enough in style. Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The link WP:WIZARD will take you to a wizard that will help you start to build an article in your userspace, where it will not be subject to speedy deletion unless it's also a copyright violation. That will allow you the time to build it up and add the appropriate references to support notability. When you're happy with it, you can come back here to request another editor's feedback to check on its readiness to be released into article space. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

i am barnaby oliver i am trying to write my media history on wiki which is all true and verfiable its my life and and its been remobed

Answered

– Danger (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

stop this editor from editing somethin he knows nothing about and i am the geninune authtic person writing about my media career and who i met and did what with. which i am the expert on. someone else cannot reomove my life when they know nothing about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnaby1919 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I will cross post this to your talk page. You have a number of serious misunderstandings about how Wikipedia works. First you must understand verifiability from a Wikipedia perspective, WP:V explains this and WP:RS explains how what a reliable source is. Notability is also probably an issue here WP:N covers this. You also should read WP:COI as it is highly discouraged to write Wikipedia articles on subjects with which we have a close personal connection as it is difficult to maintain a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV. If there are still things which are unclear myself and others would be happy to help. --Leivick (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Stargate Project - serious bias stuff

Discussion moved

– To Talk:Stargate Project#Fringe conspiracy theory. Danger (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I visit Wikipedia regularly and have always found it balanced and well-researched. I recently stumbled across an article called Stargate Project. I couldn't believe what I was reading. It presents itself as being authoritative about a purported US Government project, yet is full of utter nonsense, backed up by "references" to lunatic fringe parapsychology books. Could someone please look at this article? (My apologies if this is not the correct place to post this comment. 120.154.86.74 (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

...that's certainly a very interesting read. The whole article seems extremely WP:FRINGE and at points ludicrous. This will need some careful research and a lot of work to fix it, I believe. For the moment, I'll add some appropriate clean-up tags. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've added a POV tag, but the article seems to require a complete overhaul, and I'm not entirely sure where to start. Anyone up for the challenge? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Really, this is more of a challenge to article itself and should be posted on it's talk page. Many of the references are rather dubious and other claims are missing references. To that note, some maintenance is definitely necessary as is a very stringent clean-up process. Article may be a collection of original research based on a point of view of the editor that seems no where near neutral, though, and is definitely on the fringe of things. Lunacy? Not sure. Fringe? Certainly. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄ ⒽⒶⓃ② 15:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Maud Muller

Request unclear

– – ukexpat (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

A recipient of One Hundred and One Famous Poems. I received this American poem book as a gift in the year 1932 in Monroeville, Monroe County, Alabama. At the time in the first grade at the Monroeville grammar school. The gift was from the now famous Truman Capote but at that time he was Truman (Buddy) Persons. A visitor at the Faulk family home, he was left by his mother temporarily. The book was mailed to Truman by his mother in New Orleans who was dating a book salesman Joseph Capote, an immigrant and business man from Cuba. After the marriage they moved to New York taking Truman with them. The book has managed to stay in John Bruce Dean's possession until now 2010. Personally, I cannot imagine Maud looking like the painting.. Who or however did it obliviously never even glanced at the poem. Someone surely only mentioned the rake. Many times I have read it. My mother read it and we both cried many tears. It is a most sad story about the maid and (the) Judge. How could she have ever owned such a dress? Even the hat, looks as if she has a deformed head. A long nose? I am upset by this painting and can truthfully say it is a mockery of the real Maude Muller. No wonder the Judge rode away. Would one like to see one of the Judge? Not by this misguided artist. To me it is somehow summed up like this--For all the words of tongue or pen the saddest are these: "It might have been!"

her torn glowed hat simple beauty and rustic wealth her feet so bare, and her tattered gown forgot her brier-torn gown ankles bare and brown long-lashed hazel eyes a form more fair, a face more sweet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.227.235.124 (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Your request is unclear. Please explain more clearly how we can help you. – ukexpat (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record, this seems to be a complaint about the painting used to illustrate Maud Muller. --CliffC (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

World Record Stilts - Tallest

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I am troubled that you have accepted Roy Maloy as the current Record Holder for Tallest Stilts. If you Check the Current Guinness World Records Files you will see that Roy is never mentioned. They have Saimaiti Yiming of China as their accepted record holder for steps and Doug Hunt of Canada for the heaviest stilts with the weighed collective of 137 lb. If you Check with Alternative Records(a record authority in Germany) you will see that Doug Hunt of Brantford Ontario has met their guildlines -same as Guinness as the Tallest Stilt record. Both Record authorities (Guinness & Alternative) require that you take at least 25 forward steps unassisted. Roy did stand on tall stilts but did not balance unassisted or at least was able to take required 25 steps. You could say however Roy stood on the tallest poles?

Doug Hunt Brantford Ontario Canada —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.159.239 (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you begin a discussion on the article talk page. The article has been tagged for cleanup since it does not have enough links to reliable sources; however, I don't think you should edit the article yourself, since you appear to have a conflict of interest. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Two relevant and recent controversies on Lipton posted by me. Both completely deleted.

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello friends. Similar to Avon in the late 1980s Lipton just became the focus of a large campaign for it's animal testing - in labs to bolster it's healing effects.

What made it notable is that the PETA group redirected thousands of emails to the parent company for blocking as opposed to responding, and that postings are beginning on facebook and other social media as a result.

Also it is not industry standard and the source though controversial states other tea companies have supplied written proof they do not do testing.

In any event, my two contributions were not altered by the editor, but instead completely removed. Also request for additional references was not requested, instead just removed.

I suppose he meant well but the speedy removal of not one but two seperate postings left me feeling he looked up my other contribution and sort of followed me. That wasn't cool either. Until resolved that he will not be looking for and deleting my posts It will be hard to enjoy wikipedia which I have not been on in while.

Please send a friendly message to him regarding that as well as review whether I should have time to cite more sources and maybe he could have simply modified slightly or improved. Below are the articles that likely needed improvement, as well as my request to Wentomowameadow also additonal links to support new media controversy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipton_Institute_of_Tea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipton_Institute_of_Tea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wenttomowameadow http://www.peta.org/b/thepetafiles/archive/2010/12/15/was-your-tea-tested-on-animals.aspx

Please assist in updating the controversy thousands are posting and emailing on.

--WikiShares (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

My edits in question can be seen here and here. I think it's fairly obvious why these had to be removed immediately. I left a friendly message at User talk:WikiShares explaining the issue. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiShares, That sort of content definitely needs robust sourcing, and the sourcing ought to be added at the same time as the content. If there are reliable sources to support your additions, then please do cite them. The burden of proof is on the editor adding the material, not on the editor removing unreferenced material. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Well said. Will reference first and with reasonable sources. I reduced the information significantly then referenced a Discovery channel's green website along with a Vegetarian online publication (that had a dozen or so photo's of it' writers in the about us), and they appeared credible. They both cite Peta as making the claim, however they publish it and add additional commentary as well. The general content of the two articles are still over the top in promoting it's flavor or teas and claims and could use editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiShares (talk • contribs) 01:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the other editors above, that kind of thing absolutely needs reliable sourcing before it belongs in the article. Furthermore, the sourcing needs to indicate that it is actually a notable controversy, and not merely a brief mention on a PETA website. Dayewalker (talk) 02:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Daywalker, the request was to cite reliable sources to support my additions. Please also note that there are requests for the blatant advertising to be corrected which for some reason is being blatantly ignored. Upon your last revision I did some research and found the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Mtl1969 . The link shows MTl169 has had a history of promotion of Lipton. Additionally promoting Ben & Jerrys ice cream which also lists it at as a Uniliver company as is Lipton. The history shows significant marketing and PR efforts by this user. However the user is not shown doing the revisions. Other seem to assist the user in keeping the advertising going while they only correct any non promotional information. In this case you stepped in and controversy was not supported. In that case the wording might be changed to the frequently used term "criticisms" which can be supported. Please undo your deletion of the contribution and if you are interested in bettering the contribution please feel free to change it to criticisms. Public criticism of the animal rights testing for bolstering tea claims is on the Discovery channels website and on other well respected websites in additon to the new Peta campaign which is not to my knowledge a banned entity, regardless of their tactics. The reason I am taking the time to continue this is that it is clear the group of you are not removing the blatant advertising while discouraging not assisting me with adding relevant and recent content on the state of the company and it's recent PR problem. Their company has phones ringing off the hook and is being deluged with complaints via email from thousands of people according to another article. So mentioning the criticism is acceptable in the context of citing the general allegations and citing reputable sources. It is a part of it's history. It made a huge blunder publicly offending many people and is dealing with it right now. It is part of it's recent factual history which is what makes Wikipedia so relevant. Please do not team up and block contributors. Instead please assist and if needed help edit the contribution. That is the appropriate thing to do. Currently you have not read what was written on the top of the page by other editors. They requested the article not continue to read like an ad. Is there any reason you have ingnored that request while effectively assisting in censoring my criticism comments? The nature of all comments on the Lipton pages is highly skewed with PR garbage on behalf of the company. It needs to be looked at as do the contributors that have put forth the promotions of it, and deletions of anything but advertising. Wikipedia is now obviously being targeted by people interested in internet PR as are blogs and other media. That is not to say that you are part of that, but you are assisting in only the censoring of non promotional content. That is serious and if continued could hurt Wikipedia. Please read the request for the article to be improved. Then please correct the deletion of the comments and feel free to change the wording to criticisms vs controversy. --WikiShares (talk) 04:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Please comment on edits, not editors. When I get a chance, I'll look at the article and see if there's advertising in it. It would help if you would go to the talk page of the article and detail some of the specific problems with the article you are having. As for the animal testing, if this is really as big of an issue as you say it is, it should be easy to find reliable secondary sources showing how controversial ths matter is. Dayewalker (talk) 04:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Definitely. I can't find any serious news sources for this, and until we can it doesn't belong in the article - which I note has been pretty heavily pruned to remove promotional content. Dougweller (talk) 08:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Separation of Church and State in the United States

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have been engaged in a long, unproductive dialogue with another editor at Separation of church and state in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which has focused on a dispute about the first sentence of the article. (Basically, that editor objects to a sentence that states "separation..." describes a principal embedded in the US constitution.) Over a period of weeks, I have posted a request for comment, a request for third party opinion, and a request of the US Government policy group talk page. No replies. (Except for one RfQ reply that was a question, with no followup.) We really need some additional neutral parties to participate to resolve the dispute, and I don't know what else to try. Please advise! (Or hop over to the talk page and weigh in yourself...) Thank you. -- BTfromLA (talk) 19:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

By a wild coincidence, I just researched this issue yesterday while editing another article. Will come over to the talk page and join in. Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame), inappropriate link

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

There has been an (obscenely) long debate about a link to a comic strip here. You can see that the fans of the comic wanting the link have not established an overriding consensus to keep the link (the burden to show why it is valid within the framework of Wikipedia is on them), or put forward a case that has convinced other editors that it belongs there. However, as there is a hard core of users who edit the article who will keep adding it back in.

What is to be done here? I can't edit war with them, but I really feel that it's important not to just let have people get their own way just to prevent ructions. Inappropriate content should not be allowed because of this sort of thing (particularly as this comic appears to appeal beyond reason to many contributors and is often spammed in articles). What can I do? You only need to look at my talk page to see that I'm suffering criticism and policy attacks (3RR warnings for two edits!) by the comic's fan-base for any action I take. Would I be right to remove the link and request page protection? Wenttomowameadow (talk) 05:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see consensus on the page to include the link, and I also disagree with the theory that the link has been there for x number of days, therefore that's the consensus. I don't think it's worth edit warring over, though. I would suggest filing a request for comment, so other editors who aren't involved directly with the article can voice their opinions. Dayewalker (talk) 07:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It's been through the RFC process already about a year ago by the looks of it (several people chimed in and the link remained out of the article for some time). I'm probably going to just drop it at this point, as there doesn't seem to be a way of keeping the elves from putting it back in. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 07:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Completing articles on wikipedia

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That is necessary for article found it on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat32#FAT32 - where is about "FAT32 ...... ...... The maximum possible size for a file on a FAT32 volume is 4 GiB minus 1 byte (232−1=4,294,967,295 bytes). Video applications, large databases, and some other software easily exceed this limit. Larger files require another formatting type such as NTFS."

And I have to write to you about size for a file on a FAT32 ... If you have to work with a file with size aprox. 1 Gib (a audio file made it with sound forge) the FAT32 don't let the system to calculate adress for a bit great than 704 mb (more than a compact disc capacity). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.122.88.88 (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in improving this article. Do you have a reliable source to confirm this file size limit? Is this a limit imposed by the operating system or only by certain applications? I suggest you post this to the article talk page where it will be seen by the contributors who are most interested in the topic. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I observed that in time. My job - it is on a radio station, where I have resposabilities to record all the programs 24 h / 24. And when i forgot to restart, after 24h, the sistem record (a computer with fat32), the file record was after 48h large than 704mb (more than 900mb). And when i tried to read with winamp the file, the line time had erors ... And when I tried to put out from the original file a piece , the system was not able to cut - paste with sound forge. I had to split it, to can use, in pieces with maximum 700 mb. After that I repeat it to have a conclusion, with other sistems ... Results equal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.122.88.88 (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Now i have an account to could answer to any question. tomi01_2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomi01 2000 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

What you'll need to look for is a reliable source that actually says that. While I don't doubt you did what you said you did (and I know myself that FAT/FAT32 does tend to get awfully twitchy with large file sizes), but since that's not actually verifiable, it wouldn't be appropriate as the basis for article content (it would constitute original research, which is disallowed). I imagine though, that if this problem really is that widespread, someone's seen about it and written it up in a tech publication. You could always take a look for that as your source. (Off the topic slightly, you probably should be using NTFS or a *nix filesystem for what you're doing, or else you're very likely to run into this again...). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I live in Romania. And something it's very strange for me. BUG system - for fat32 it is not existing , because the source don't exist? To exist a reality fat32 trouble on wikipedia, has to be published on a tech publication. Wikipedia don't have the power to sustain a true! that's my conclusion ... It's not posible to made for any articol - "completing articles " with public opinion until somebody comes and tell - that it's false.

Maybe you know that - people are living on the earth, for a several thousand years, but we have television, cars, telecomunication, fat32, ntfs born in last century ... and that's not thanks for the curch rules ... Galileo has any source? He has reality and senses. Maybe wikipedia has power to do the right choice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomi01 2000 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

There are reasons we require verifiability, the main one being that we do want any editor to be able to verify what's in an article. For your particular scenario, there are any number of things that can cause file corruption. To verify your diagnosis as it having been caused by FAT32, a reader would have to be working with the exact same file as you were, generated under the exact same conditions, on the exact same system configured in the exact same way, and be able to verify it's the file system, not anything else along the line, that corrupted it. That would be difficult, if not impossible, for someone to actually do, let alone for any reader of the article. I've done tech support of that nature (both for a living previously, and informally more times than I'd like to count), and I can tell you just how tough an issue like that can be to run down. If the issue is published somewhere, on the other hand, any reader can look at the source to see who drew the conclusion, on what basis they concluded it was a file system bug, when the tests were run, under what conditions it was found to occur, etc. Like I said, it's not that I personally doubt you, but it is that we fully require verifiability. It's seemed to be a pretty good choice so far to do so. And realistically, bugs in a file system as widely known and used as FAT32 ought to have been found and documented somewhere. Try running a search, you might be surprised at what you'd find! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution with an IP user

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

An IP user (Special:Contributions/84.236.96.225) is constantly making changes to Artjoms Rudņevs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), namely removing the letter -s from his name among some other minor unreferenced changes. I consider this to be borderline vandalism, as the user hasn't reacted to the discussion I tried to start with him on both his talk page and the discussion area of the article, and the user is also removing a valid citation while making his reverts.

Applying Russian grammar and the ethnic Russian spelling of his name is objectively wrong, because the respective player is Latvian and his name simply isn't "Artyom Rudnev" (as claimed by the IP user). Kursis (talk) 18:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I would post warnings on the IP's Talk page. If he fails to heed the warnings, I would request he be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, another IP is doing the same thing as 84. above. I have warned the IP, but based on his/her persistence, I have requested a block. If this is going to come from multiple IPs, though, the article may need semi-protection. I guess we'll find out.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I would be willing to handle this, at least for now. Rudņevs was born in the USSR and thus likely had his birth certificate as Руднев (Rudnev). Most likely his official name (passport, contracts, etc) is now Rudņevs; it is not impossible he still keeps Руднев, but this has to be proven by reliable sources. Russian media calls him as they please, per national sentiments. Materialscientist (talk) 03:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

As I stated on AIV, I'm happy to let Materialscientist handle the problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

His official name is Artjoms Rudņevs. It is not impossible that he personally might favor the Russian spelling, but he's a Latvian citizen and all the names of Latvian citizens are adjusted according to Latvian grammar, as thoroughly explained in this piece of legislation (in Latvian): http://www.likumi.lv/doc.php?id=85209. Section 2, p. 12 clearly states that masculine names can only have the following suffixes: -s, -š, -is, -us (or -a and -e). Section 5 deals specifically with the technicalities of adjusting ethnic Russian names into Latvian.

Due to the unique grammar of Baltic languages, every single endonym (including, for instance, the names of all the countries and so forth) is adjusted to fit the rules of Latvian language with no exceptions, as explained here: [[14]] Kursis (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Josef Strauss

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not know how to edit the first section of articles as there is no "edit this" link - only in subsequent paragraphs. Please link instructions. My issue is the article Josef Strauss. In first section, second paragraph the name Franz Anton is highlighted to an incorrect link. It should be Franz Anton Ries.

Andy Rosten [email removed] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosten736 (talk • contribs)

Fixed the article. Can't comment on the "edit" tab. Materialscientist (talk) 06:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

To edit the top of an article, sometimes you need to find the Edit link above the title. It lets you edit the whole article at once, obviously including the lead. HiLo48 (talk) 06:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

See more at Help:Section#Editing before the first section. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

First aid - medical advice

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this belongs here; please redirect me to a more appropriate page if it doesn't. But the article Tonic–clonic seizure has a whole section devoted to First aid procedures. It's marked as unsourced as well, but that's not the point of my question, which is: Is first aid advice in breach of WP:MEDICAL, i.e. "Wikipedia does not give medical advice"? Asav (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I read the policy as a disclaimer, not as a prohibition against giving medical advice. It's like a lawyer giving legal advice to someone but telling the person he's not their lawyer and they shouldn't rely on the advice (because he doesn't want to be sued). It's still legal advice, no matter what the lawyer may say. However, even assuming my interpretation is correct, there's still the issue of whether it's a good idea to give such specific treatment instructions in a Wikipedia article. I don't know what the practice is in other medical articles, but my reaction is that this article crosses the line. Some generalized statements about what is appropriate (with citations) might be okay, but the level of detail in this article is far too much. And I would remove the entire section simply because it's unsourced and because of the sensitive nature of the information.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOT#HOWTO. Removed it. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Editor abusing Wiki standards and policies

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I am a disinterested scholar/author on the history of science and hi tech. I am a known and published author, and will be giving a talk on the information age (uses and abuses) at the upcoming World Economic Forum, Davos. As a test, for my upcoming talk, I decided to first hand see what happened when I tried to edit some "controversial" biographies, but correcting them with reliably sourced and accurate information, which is where the interesting things lie. I have no personal or business connection to these individuals. The neutral material that I was trying to post was sourced, relevant and on topic.

There is one bio, which seems to have a lot of tampering (both sides) with (Naveen Jain of Infospace and Intellius fame). The page is completely moderated by a Wiki editor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ronz#top) who appears to hide behind various Wiki rules to allow only the posting of negative inferences, and not keep it either scholarly or factual. He restores the mundane and trivial, allows unsubstantiated inferences, but argues and removes anything, including real sourced information, that goes against his prejudice against this individual. For whatever reason, there is a lot of history here. One can see it throughout the discussions and his consistent undoing of any neutral or positive edits, and any attempts to remove unsubstantiated negative comments.

I have seen this happen with even my own Benign edits, as well as some other individuals who tried to contribute. He has blocked access to anyone from adjusting or fixing the site with the exception of himself. This is not proper journalistic or scholarly.

Is there a way that this obviously prejudiced editor can be disqualified? I have to say, given the fact that I did this to gather information for an important talk, the problem is now worse than I have feared for the overall credibility of the site. I have also taken the liberty of writing Jim W., who is a personal friend, but under my real name. He knows about my upcoming talk at Davos on this subject.

So, please let me know what you will do about this, as the results will be reported and published, whichever way they turn out. So, please give it priority attention. I am happy to reveal my identity to show that I have no personal connection. I have my own substantial entry on wiki, but have not attempted to edit that.

I look forward to hearing from you. Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 19:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you are referring to User:Ronz as the editor "blocking access" to article Naveen Jain, and I assume that "Jim W" is Jimmy Wales. ~~I have made neutral edits in the past to Naveen Jain without any problem, and~~ Ronz is a well-respected editor who has made over 50 thousand edits to Wikipedia over 5+ years, so it seems unlikely he'll be "disqualified" from editing the Jain article or any other. You have said that you have edited Wikipedia in the past, and Ronz has asked you to state whether you have edited the Jain article in the past. So, have you? What was your former userid? It seems to me that "testing" Wikipedia to gather material for a presentation, as you seem to be doing, is de facto disruptive. --CliffC (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "He has blocked access to anyone". Naveen Jain is semi-protected and can be edited by all autoconfirmed users, meaning all accounts that are at least four days old and have made at least 10 edits. Your account already has enough edits and will be autoconfirmed in two days. Only administrators can protect or unprotect pages. Ronz is not an administrator. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for some possibilities in a dispute. Your post here was non-specific and didn't give any diffs so I looked at the issue you brought up at Talk:Naveen Jain#Technology pioneer. You were apparently referring to [15]. "Technology Pioneer" doesn't belong in the caption field of an infobox. The documentation at Template:Infobox person#Parameters says: "caption Caption for image, if needed. Try to include date of photo and the photographer." If the image was not taken at or otherwise associated with a Technology Pioneer award then it shouldn't be mentioned in the caption. If the World Economic Forum has given him a Technology Pioneer award then it can be mentioned in the body of the article, with a source. I couldn't find a source or list of awardees in a limited search. Can you provide a link? World Economic Forum#Technology Pioneers Programme says they give 30-50 awards each year. http://www.weforum.org/community/technology-pioneers says: "Since 2000, more than 450 innovative companies from five continents have been selected as Technology Pioneers". It doesn't sound equivalent to a Nobel in science. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

A&P Group page

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Back in Nov 2008 the previous article for "Austin & Pickersgill" was merged into A&P Group. The editing unfortunately shows a complete misunderstanding of the relationship between these two enterprises, and is riddled with errors in text and references. I pointed this out on the A&P Group discussion page in Oct 2010, also offering to rewrite the articles provided a demerger was agreed. Unfortunately no response from anywhere.

I'm not sure how to go about this. Can I create a new Austin & Pickersgill article, or will that be blocked as a previously merged page? Are the previous two unmerged texts still available somewhere (this could save me some editing time)? Davidships (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably a good idea to create the Austin & Pickersgill as a userspace draft first at User:Davidships/Austin & Pickersgill so you can work on it at your leisure. The pre-merger version is here. Hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ukexpat. That will get me started when I'm back from holiday next week. Davidships (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I blue-linked the subpage for you by adding a {{Userspace draft}} template and added a link to it on your userpage so you can find it easily. Hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Kento Holding

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I have written an article about Kento Holding in English, German and Portuguese. The English article was deleted nearly instantly saying that, I could start a discussion on the page. I put the Hold-on sign into the article to ask for "wait" with the deletion. I started to give proof of the importance of the company with all the details necessary, but instead the discussion also was deleted. This is not the way to handle such things. At least the discussion about the importance or non importance should have gone ahead. I would be pleased to receive any clarification about that matter. Regards--Cruks2010^(talk) 16:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The "article" consisted of a statement of where the company was incorporated, and who owns it. This led to a speedy deletion, since there was nothing to indicate that the subject was notable in any way. Wikipedia is for articles about notable subjects, and most companies are not notable; in the case of companies, more information can be found at WP:CORP. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Hi. This is not the department for resolving deletion issues. Different language Wikipedias often have different thresholds for inclusion. The best way to handle these things is to follow the clear instructions on the two deletion messages on your talk page on whom to contact. Those editors will be able to explain their reasons for deletion, and the admins may, on resonable request, userfy the deleted article so that you can work on it in your user space without fear of it being deleted. Please correct the details in your signature, the talk page link goes to a deleted page. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

response

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Surakarta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) User:Merbabu for second time removes the flagicons of Bulgaria and Spain, used before the names of the the towns Montana and Bilbao, listed as sister cities to Surakarta. He does it even after I asked him politely about the reason of undoing my edit. Whithout getting any answer I put the icons again there and they were removed again by the same user,showing not valid reason for his reverting. In every article the sister cities are shown with the flagicon of the country they belong to.Drjmarkov (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Obviously the same user User:Merbabu has decided to apply a disputed policy about the usage of the flag icons on just that article. I have tried to discuss with him the problem,but he deleted the discussion on his talk page for the reason of "removing rude editor's comments". I haven't said anything rude - I only told that his opinion is "radical" and that he "oppresses" a MOS policy that is still disputed.I asked him,why is he starting with such that article.Drjmarkov (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The flagicons for twin towns have been restored. The use of flag icons in twin town/sister city items is standard Wikipedia practice and is not about be challenged at Surakarta. Further removals may be met with warnings for disruptive editing to make a point. A message has been left on the article talk page to this effect. --Kudpung (talk) 05:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Bungled and entry

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I tried to add a source to the entry, "Chatroulete," but I didn't enter the citation correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annabel Tree (talk • contribs) 07:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed it. Jonathanwallace (talk) 07:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Land claim

Request unclear

– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia EDITOR (History and Land Claim)

I have a record of the biggest land claim (Johannesburg City in South Africa). The history of Johannesburg has been revealed and proved. Johannesburg is known for gold mining and production in all of Africa. And the blacks tribe Bakwena Bamare-A-Phogole are its rightful owners. The land is so huge it is causing a big commotion in South Africa land affairs department to settle. The Bakwen Bamare-a-Phogole has lodged a land claim. This is a history that should never go untold.Send me your email adress, i will submit to you a draft document from department of land affairs about his Bakwena Bamare-a-aPhogoe tribe an land claim. From Stephen Mogagabe cell: ^{[details removed]} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.10.10 (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a question about using Wikipedia? -- John of Reading (talk) 10:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Re-include foreign language sources?

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I have been cleaning up and re-translating some articles brought across from French Wikipedia, and am noticing that sometimes the original editor leaves out most of the French language references (for example, Trévou-Tréguignec, which I am editing right now). If I simply clean up the existing article, it will have few sources; if I put them back in from the French Wikipedia original, it will be extensively referenced to sources, most of which are not available online (for example, a monograph published in 100 copies in 1902) and are in a language most Wikipedians can't read. Seems like the right thing to do, but a lot of work for very little benefit. Please let me know your thoughts. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

More references are always better. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The sources the article is based on should be cited to make the article verifiable, regardless of whether they are online or in English. Note that older books are often fully visible in Google Books. This tool is handy for creating Wikipedia references from Google Books URLs. --JN 466 17:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Sort of knew that was going to be the answer....will do. Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

assumtions by User:Kainaw

Answered

– nothing to do with Wikipedia Jezhotwells (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, User:Kainaw won't stop making assumtions about me and he keeps on giving me a "do it yourself" indirectly. I have asked several questions to confirm disputes, i.e. who voices warmonga on Kim Possible, Kristen Johnston or Kerri Kenney? or Who's the girl in Club Can't Handle me by David Guetta and Flo Rida singing in the background? I ask them, and they keep telling me to use twitter, even though it says that my e-mail is taken just because my aunt created an account anf forgot her password. what can i do to convince this user that i am not lying? N.I.M. (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Get another email account like gmail and get a Twitter account. Your questions are often only answerable by the people directly involved with the media in question. They are not great questions for the reference desk. --Leivick (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Can't create new e-mail, server probloms, and another thing, User:Kainaw says that i'm lying about his screen reader because he is using one. I am using JAWS. He also says that i haven't attempted to research resources myself, when i have. He'd know that if he thought lojicly: "Ok, he's asking because he tried googling it, nothing, so he tried asking someone near by, nothing, so the ref desk comes next." that's usualy what most people do before they come to the ref desk. I'm sure User:Kainaw himself has done it too. He says i am using my disability as an excuse when i am not. My version of JAWS is picky, i can't help it. N.I.M. (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

"Server problem" I don't know how that would prevent you from getting an account one of the many free email providers out there. You are asking questions on the ref desk that are easy to get answers to if you ask the right people. The people who work at the ref desk are not the right people. You need to contact the producers of these songs or the voice actors themselves. The ref desk wont do it for you. --19:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

^ Wanted: CHERNEY, Michael Interpol, (14. October 2010)

[Interpol-1] Wanted: CHERNEY, Michael Interpol, (14. October 2010)

[1]