Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 101

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Policy on transgendered people?

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello all. I'm trying to avoid starting a nasty editing war with a certain "RafikiSykes" and another user, so I wanted to get some assistance from a third party. I had noticed that a large number of transgendered individuals recorded on Wikipedia had their birth names included in their articles. Being a transsexual woman, I understand firsthand how often transsexual peoples' birth names are rooted out and used by people who are convinced that the transperson in question is "faking," and in some sense, still their old gender, which has to be "revealed" by disseminating that birth name. I believe that it's a violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy to assert that transpeople have to be hounded by their birth names, even though they are not that person any more, in a personal and legal sense. It seems that the only two times it would be acceptable to use the birth name would be if 1. the transperson explicitly and publicly gives permission to use the birth name, or 2. the transperson did a major amount of public work in their old gender.

"RafikiSykes" and the other user claim that because a transperson's birth name has been disseminated, that makes it a matter of public record. But in this sense, the name serves no purpose other than hateful gossip, hanging an albatross around the neck of people who've had their personal information carelessly thrown around by transphobic individuals. I don't think that removing birth names from transpeoples' articles removes any valuable information from an article. (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I've moved this from the top of the page to the bottom; it's just Wikipedia convention on discussion pages like this. No big deal. Danger (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that we should treat the birth name of a transgender person (or anyone who has changed their name) as both privacy issue as covered here and as possibly negative information. This means that unless the name is well sourced to reliable third-party sources (ie not gossip type sources or efforts by opponents to smear the person) or to the person themselves it should not be included. Using primary source documents like birth certificates or court records is not acceptable.
Another aspect of birth names is whether the name is relevant to the article. If reliable sources generally include the name when discussing the person, then I think it is reasonable to include it, especially if the person's change of name/transition is a significant part of their notability (like Micheline Montreuil or Ben Barres).
In general, I would suggest that when you remove a birth name to make a note on the talkpage of the article explaining why you have done so. As a controversial piece of information, in biographies of living people those who add the information must provide sources like those I've described above. I would caution you, though, against mass deletions of well-sourced name inclusions. Those I think are a matter of editorial discretion on whether the name is relevant to include and should be discussed on an individual basis.
You may find Wikiproject Gender studies helpful for discussing issues related to individual articles. Danger (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Ms Ashley has released this info and similar can be found for the others if needed. you chose to start deling various names from articles in many cases those people themselves have discussed a previous name etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirame (talkcontribs) 21:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the proposition that birth names of transgendered people are a private matter that should be dealt with case by case (has the individual released the information or was the individual notable under the prior name) and always reliably sourced. However, I wanted to add that there are circumstances where even reliably sourced information is trumped by other Wikipedia policies. A reliable source for a birthname is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for inclusion. Agree also that under WP:BLPPRIMARY, birth certificates and other public records are never acceptable. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm the other user involved in this debate. I don't know about the other articles which this IP attempted this name redaction but I can comment on the two which I've contributed to: Enza Anderson and Nina Arsenault (who both get coverage in my local media). In both cases reliable sources were originally used for their names: The Indian Express for Enza's name (the link has since died and Wayback Machine doesn't log the site) and I believe one her columns in Fab magazine was the source for Nina's name. I've since updated the link for Nina's name to an article in Eye Weekly. I do agree with Danger's statement that their birth name should be sourced to the same standard as their date of birth. Tabercil (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
And a side note: we have a different user who has started editing the Nadia Almada article in removing her birth name, which is sourced to an interview with The Guardian. Tabercil (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the name from Enza Anderson. I've been unable to find any mention of her birth name in any sources and it doesn't appear pertinent to the article anyway. Danger (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Understandable - I've no luck in finding a fresh source myself. Tabercil (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC) for enza so have put back the birth name mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirame (talkcontribs) 21:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit War on Charles Harrelson article

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Charles Harrelson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


I am seeking assistance regarding an 'Edit War' that is going on in the wikipedia article on 'Charles Harrelson'. I beleive I have been adding factually accuracte and verifiable content to the article only to have it deleted by the user Nkgal and others. The facts that I have added are specific to the murder of Sam Degelia Jr. One of the accomplices in the murder is a man named Pete Scamardo. It appears from the edits that there is a systematic attempt to keep any unfavorable about Pete Scamardo off Wikipedia. Can you please review the article edit history and the current edits and advise accordingly. How do I keep the facts and reference material on wikipedia? Should I use WP:DR? Thank you for your help and consideration with this matter. Sam Degelia (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you try to understand that you uploaded to Wiki Commons are not WP:RS. The discussion at the talk page has raised issues which you have not addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I note that your user name suggests a conflict of interest here. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

new user help desk problem

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 07:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I asked a question on the new user help desk but it posts with a light blue box around it and does not format to fit the page. I have tried to correct this but I can't. Can you fix this for me please? Also, please tell me why it happened. Thank you.Pdos123 (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdos123 (talkcontribs) 03:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That happens when you indent, you need to start typing all the way to the left. "It's not a bug, it's a feature." --CliffC (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
And if you want to deliberately indent, use a colon (:) to provide the indentation. More information on this and other aspects of formatting at Help:Wiki markup. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

User refusing to discuss

Discussion moved: to WP:AN/I Jezhotwells (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Simbagraphix (talk · contribs) refuses to discuss his edits to Southern Adventist University. I was wondering if someone could coax him into discussing. See the threads I posted on talk page [1] and [2]. I also asked him for comment on his talk page. If an admin or someone doesn't mind just telling him the importance of discussion to collaborating here and try to get him to discuss, that would be great. BelloWello (talk) 04:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears you have already escalated this to WP:AN/I. Posting the same request at one help page or incident notice board is sufficient. Please follow rthe discussion there. Thanks.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, my apologies. I intended to remove it from this board when moving it there and it slipped my mind. BelloWello (talk) 04:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

bias descriptions of organization and incident involving MV Mavi Marmara

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

MV Mavi Marmara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) _ the description of IHH _ the organization which purchased this ship for the Gaza Freedom Flotilla AND the narration of the account of the raid are biased

"The IHH is also a close supporter of Jihadist movement in Bosnia, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Chechnya. It has been accused of holding links to al-Qaeda and its leader is allegedly active in recruiting and arming would-be jihadis"

"Israeli Naval Forces communicated that a naval blockade over the Gaza area was in force and ordered the ships to follow them to Ashdod Port or to be boarded. The boarding started at 2 a.m. on 31 May 2010 and was completed by 8. Unlike the other vessels on the flotilla who came peacefully, dozens of Mavi Marmara's activists armed with knives, bats and metal pipes confronted the Israeli naval raid and immediately attacked the soldiers.[8] [9] In the violent clash that followed, nine activists were killed (according to the UN Report[10])"

PIDFweb (talk) 06:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources. And "PIDF = Palestine Internet Defence Force" does not lead me to believe you care that much for neutrality. So how about an admin formally notifies him of the sanctions and counsel him on NPOV.Cptnono (talk) 10:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
This sourceIsrael Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center is hardly neutral either. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

hmm _ thanks for response and for the information concerning the author of this _ however your decision over our neutrality based upon our name is a little tough! this is obviously not the place to continue any discussion on our neutrality but i feel i have a right to respond to the comment _ we exist to defend against israel 'Hasbara' efforts (a page on wikipedia that is also in dispute btw!) _ Would we be allowed to edit the Mavi Marmara page to at least counter the definition of IHH and maybe add a link to them in some way _ and also supplement the lack of details on the actual incursion by IDF? If you would be kind enough to tell me that's okay then we will have a go at our first edit on Wikipedia and _ i assure you _ do all we can to respect the neutrality that is obviously so important for this encyclopedia (I hope i've replied in the right place btw _ i did click your link but it said you reply on the page so hoping this is the right place PIDFweb (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggest that you read our conflict of interest policy and suggest possible edits on the artcile talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hoping to add several external links across several articles, but don't want to seem spammy.

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I have links to a large amount of free media (produced by the John F. Kennedy Center for the Perfroming Arts), including media specific to arts topics, but also non-arts topics that influence or are influenced by the arts (some are audio, some video, most with contextual articles or teacher instructions). These resources are created with subject-matter experts and are intended to be distributed for free and without advertising. I would like to add these resources as external links to corresponding Wikipedia articles, as appropriate.

For example, we have a multi-part audio series about the influence of the space program on the arts (including episodes on Sputnik and Voyager). These seem like appropriate additions to the Sputnik and Voyager Wikipedia pages.

But understandably it would seem suspect if I started adding dozens of links to dozens of articles in a short period of time. Is there a recommended way I can do this without setting off the spam alarm? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennyneal (talkcontribs) 21:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well the best wat would be to upload these free files to Wikimedia Commons so that they can be used in Wikipedia in many languages. If there is a lot of material, please contact: Sue Gardner, Designated Agent, Wikimedia Foundation, c/o CT Corporation System, 818 West Seventh Street,Los Angeles, California 90017,Phone: +1 (415) 839-6885,Facsimile number: +1 (415) 882-0495, who wil put you in touch with the right people. If you just want to add ELs to a few articles, I suggest that you announce your intent on the appropriate article talk pages. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Ágnes Heller

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Ágnes Heller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Ágnes Heller article urgently needs editorial attention and arbitration. There are ongoing political events in Hungary on which opinion is highly polarized. Individuals are being vilified[1] without factual basis or justification. This happens in the Hungarian partisan press, and the practice is now spreading to Wikipedia entries. There are far more people ready to smear than there are people able to defend against smears. Stevan Harnad 03:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The first step in dispute resolution is to discuss the issues on the article talk page. I see no discussion there at all from the involved editors in this dispute, please take it there first. Nor do I think you need to attract the attention of more uninvolved editors - I see that User:DGG has now started cleaning up the article who is a very experienced editor whom I have a great deal of respect for. There is also uninvolved User:Demiurge1000 who has made this very complaint on the talk page, that the people at war in the article are not discussing where they should, on the talk. There are also a couple of IP editors on the talk page who seem to agree with you about the bias and may be willing to help with some encouragement. Edit warring is not tolerated here and I advise you to follow that link and read the policy. This edit in the article by you is totally unacceptable. Commentary should not be placed in the article (talk page is for that) and sarcastic WP:POINT commentary should not be placed anywhere. I wish you the best with cleaning up that article but I think it is too early to start to call for arbitrators. SpinningSpark 16:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

EDITING an article

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I found an article with gross errors, but no 'EDIT' button..?? I checeked with FAQ and HELP and everything says "push EDIT button"... So, how do I correct obvious and gross erors in an article..?? By the way, the page was on Barry Soetoro and the first paragraph had at least 3 factual errors... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The article, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, is currently semi-protected because of Repeated addition of unsourced or poorly sourced material. Semi-protection means that only user who have registered a username and have done 10 edits and been around for at least 4 full days can edit it. You can request changes by going to the talk page, Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and adding a new section with this template, {{Edit semi-protected}}. Then in th the section clearly explaining what needs to be changed. Both what it says now and what it should say. Be sure it is either non-controversial changes or that you provide reliable sources to back up your changes. GB fan (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Help with somebody changeing personal information

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Tiki Ghosn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


My name is Steve Morales. I'm with a media company that handles all Tiki Ghosn's online media. Somebody keeps going into his page and changing the win-loss record to reflect a loss from an opponent.We have all the documents and proof of a win. We know who is doing it and I change it back everyday. I was told to contact Wikipedia so the account can be frozen. How do I go about this? (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Steve Morales

I think you need to contact the OTRS team about this, prove your identity and have them make sure the article is not edited to give incorrect information about your client. See Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem/Factual_error_(from_subject) about how to do that. --Deryck C. 22:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Just as a note to other editors, the article is Tiki Ghosn., have you taken a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability? As it stands, the source given[3] shows Genki Sudo as winning the fight against Tiki Ghosn (assuming that's the fight you're talking about). - SudoGhost (talk) 22:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead and changed it back, since the source given reflects a loss, and it matches the rest of the article which states 8 losses. (Also after noticing Genki Sudo's last name, just wanted to note that my user name is from the UNIX command Sudo, and has nothing to do with this person). However, after doing some digging, I found this[4] which shows that Tiki Ghosn won the fight., do you have any other sources that can verify this? - SudoGhost (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
This is not a matter for OTRS, it is irrelevant whether or not Mr. Morales is who he says he is. Mr. Morales needs to point us to the official results of this sport. Is there a governing body with an online page showing official results? The article cannot be allowed to disagree with sources the article itself links to on anybodies say so. The only way it can be changed is to provide better sources. Only after that is done would we consider locking the page to protect it. SpinningSpark 09:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Grading question

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I just edited a stub, making it bigger with more references, but I need some help with grading it. It is still categorized as a stub, and I do not know how to change this, and if another editor has to grade it. The article is Allomerus decemarticulatus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Please help, and thanks. Riceowl2014 (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Any editor (including the editor who wrote it) can give any article any grade from Stub, Start, C or B as appropriate. In this case I think the article is B class, and I've taken the liberty to edit the talk page for you. The WP 1.0 bot has already been set to update quality statistics automatically using the grading we've provided on the article's talk page. --Deryck C. 21:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
A nice clean, well sourced and well researched article. I concur with 'B' class. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Article Sweden-United States Relations

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It became better when Thorbjörn Fälldin became Swedish prime minister in 1976, and following Olof Palme's death in 1986 and the succession of Ingvar Carlsson as new Prime Minister, Swedish-American relations significantly improved. This also due to the official excuse from the american vice president Walter Mondale in 1978 stating that "In the case of Vietnam, you were right and we were wrong".

Where did the author find this information? It cannot be found elsewhere. It would be helpful to give references for this statement.

Friederike2009 (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You should tag the suspect passage by placing {{cn}} after it. If there is no response after a reasonable time, you can then delete the passage. Alternatively, you can delete it straight away if you are reasonably convinced it is wrong. SpinningSpark 11:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

How can I contact the author?

Friederike2009 (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The talk page of the article, Talk:Sweden – United States relations, is the best place to contact the author(s) of the article. You can also check the history to identify who added what to the article; in the case of the Mondale quote, it was added in January by an unregistered editor.[5]C.Fred (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

How do I determine who edited changes?

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Richardson, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I recently discovered an entry in this work titled: Richardson, Texas. Upon reading it I found it to be rather one-sided and biased and I attempted to add some paragraphs to balance the information. However those paragraphs subsequently disappeared without notice or comment and I am trying to determine who did this so I can determine what I did wrong.

As it stands the article is largely copied straight from the website posted by the municipal administration and seems to have come from the Chamber of Commerce. My posts presented facts derived from the city-manager's most recent budget, a 500+ page document available publicly which tend to be more realistic than the website. I also linked to a site which is contracted by the city to publish the City Charter and Code of Ordinances, factual, public information which is publicly owned.

Please direct me to a person with whom I can discuss changes to this article. Thank you. Cor resident (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You can look at the Help:Page history of the article to see the record of edits to it. Sounds like this would be a good topic to discuss on the WP:TALKPAGE of the article. DMacks (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
The OP had already posted to the talk page but has not had a response. This edit in removing one of the OPs posts has the summary "Deleted unreferenced, opinionated and inaccurate information. Also deleted a dead ref. link". However, the ref provided by the OP was not linked anywhere so could not have "gone dead". The other editor would seem to believe that only online sources are acceptable which is a misunderstanding. SpinningSpark 22:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
As it stands, the article reads exactly like a municipal promotional piece, and needs a thorough rewrite for encyclopedic neutrality and tone. Any material taken verbatim or closely paraphrased from another website is a copyright violation and can be removed at any time without further discussion. In extreme cases, the Wikipedia article may also be speedily deleted.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Repurposing (television broadcasting)

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Repurposing refers to the practice in which a series is rebroadcasted in order to make additional revenue, either on the original network that it was aired or another cable network. Repurposing may occur in a short period of time, it may happen in a very short window such a few months, a few weeks, or even just a couple of days.

Once the television and broadcasting companies adapted to cable, it was said that the practice of original run repurposing marked the first significant adjustment to distribution practices beginning in 1999. Some will argue that the role of conglomerated ownership actually caused concern as networks announced repurposing arrangements that actually favored products from commonly owned studios such as [2], [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beedom (talkcontribs) 20:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have something you need assistance with? GB fan (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
It may have had to with three near identical articles with merge banners: Repurposing (Broadcasting); Repurposing (television series); Repurposing (Media Industry). Having examined them, I have performed the merge and redirected the pages to Repurposing (television series). Jezhotwells (talk) 06:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Inadequate cite

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Boutonnière (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The article on boutonierres inadequately cites my book History of Men's Fashion: What The Well Dressed Man is Wearing (Pen & Sword, 2008): the list of flowers for persons and occasions clearly derives from my book (at pp 160-163) and there is no note to reflect this; the same probably goes for the earlier reference to the gardenia. Moreover the publication details of my book need to be cited, please. Nicholas Storey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I've standardized/improved the format of the Storey citation and cited it for the list following "Traditionally, certain flowers are associated...". Hope this helps. --CliffC (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Listing for Indian Journal of Scientific Resaerch

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Please included my journal in the name of Indian Journal of Scientific Research(IJSR) published from Varanasi,India on behalf of Global Academic Society in the month of July and December.All the journal information are available on journal website —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what your request is. If you are asking for it to be added to List of scientific journals then you should post at Talk:List of scientific journals for consideration by other editors there. However please note the text at the top of that article states "The following is a partial list of scientific journals. There are thousands of scientific journals in publication, and many more have been published at various points in the past. The list given here is far from exhaustive, containing only some of the most influential, currently publishing journals in each field. As a rule of thumb, each field should be represented by more or less ten positions, chosen by their impact factors and other ratings." Check out Talk:List of scientific journals#Inclusion criteria for details of the criteria established for the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

writing an article

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

In writing a new article - how long do i have to write it? For instance, I would start, write about 50 words then have to log off to do something else...Would my first essay be deleted after x amount of time or can i come back to it when time is available? Sources - whilst i understand the basic concept of sources, as I regularly use these when writing a book, I have read the advice on this, but is there a 'template' article that shows how to include sources and citations for editors? 12:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PgdeLC (talkcontribs)

Start work on the article in your WP:user space and then get WP:Feedback on it before moving into main space. I am placing some useful links on your talk page. I also recommend that you read Wikipedia:Your first article. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

editing a document

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Can an uploaded document be edited at the source and the changes show in wiki?

Rbcrump (talk)Rosanne Crump

No. Articles posted in Wikipedia must be edited in Wikipedia, not elsewhere. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
This answer seems poorly stated (perhaps the question as well), and even incorrect. It suggests that all text must be manually typed on-line in the WP edit box, no off-line editing allowed; I doubt if this is the meaning intended.
I suspect the question is more of a technical nature, of whether text uploaded to Wikipedia can be made to track subsequent changes made in an original source document located outside of Wikipedia. The answer to that is no; otherwise Wikipedia would be just echoing someone else's text, subject to different editing standards and process, and possibly different copyright. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
That was what I understood the querent to be asking: whether a dynamic link could somehow be maintained, whereby a document not in Wikipedia but hosted elsewhere could automatically update its Wikipedia echo; and of course, as you say, the answer is no. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Just in case that is not what they are asking, the OP may be intereseted in mw:Manual:External editors SpinningSpark 18:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

1986 NLCS

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I have recently edited and cleaned up the article on the 1986 NLCS 1986 National League Championship Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Thank you.

WhateverJones (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ummm, thanks. You may wish to add other references than just the stats database, but thanks for helping out. You may wish to join WP:WikiProject Baseball as I am sure they have other articles that need work. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Mohammad Shaikh

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Editor, Mohammad Shaikh asked me to help rebuild his Wikipedia page, as it was deleted. I would appreciate any and all help you could provide for me. We want to ensure that Mohammad Shaikh’s Wikipedia page is excellent and accepted into the Wikipedia Encyclopedia. Thank you kindly, Glenda Lenderman-Harris for Mohammad Shaikh Glendafaye (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you may wish to read up on our conflict of interest policies. I see you have links to Wikipedia policies on your talk page, please read up on those. Might I suggest that you start work on the article in your WP:user space and then get WP:Feedback on it before moving into main space. I also recommend that you read Wikipedia:Your first article. I note that this article has been previously deleted.
  • 08:54, 12 October 2010 Cirt (talk | contribs) deleted "Mohammad Shaikh" ‎ (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Shaikh (2nd nomination))
  • 01:14, 15 April 2010 SchuminWeb (talk | contribs) deleted "Mohammad Shaikh" ‎ (Speedy deleted per CSD G4, a substantially identical copy of a page deleted via a deletion discussion. using TW)
  • 10:00, 4 December 2009 Cirt (talk | contribs) deleted "Mohammad Shaikh" ‎ (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Shaikh)
  • 09:33, 27 November 2009 JohnCD (talk | contribs) restored "Mohammad Shaikh" ‎ (65 revisions restored: Restore prep to re-AfD)
  • 22:00, 26 November 2009 SchuminWeb (talk | contribs) deleted "Mohammad Shaikh" ‎ (Speedy deleted per CSD G4, a substantially identical copy of a page deleted via a deletion discussion. using TW)
  • 20:20, 10 November 2009 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted "Mohammad Shaikh" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
  • 11:41, 31 October 2009 Alexf (talk | contribs) deleted "Mohammad Shaikh" ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: apparent claim to notability, but no reliable sources to verify)
  • 00:00, 13 July 2009 DragonflySixtyseven (talk | contribs) deleted "Mohammad Shaikh" ‎ (as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Shaikh)
  • 09:11, 28 July 2007 Coredesat (talk | contribs) deleted "Mohammad Shaikh" ‎ (CSD A7, no assertion of notability (bio))
Please note that you will need to establish the notability of the subject, using verifiable and reliable sources if it is to survive. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Dispute over adding information to article

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Greyshark09 and I are involved in a dispute with User:Randam. After I added references to the 2011 Kurdish protests in Turkey, which Randam recently edited to add WP:ORIGINAL and WP:POV statements in an apparent attempt to alter the meaning of the page (since reverted), Randam decided to belatedly weigh in on a request for consensus and rolled back the edits. Greyshark09 and I have expressed concerns over whether this is proper, especially considering the user's apparent bias.

I'd like admin arbitration, if possible. I don't want to start an edit war over the content of a fairly major page. My concern is that if one partisan can keep meaningful edits from being made because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I think that compromises the quality of the article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration is premature IMO. Not enough to support it. I suggest you guys read WP:DR. Consider third opinion, informal mediation, etc...before arbitration enforcement. That should always be a last resort. I would weigh in but Grey and I have a collaborative history which could be construed as a COI. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Article draft

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Baigelman/BookEnds (edit | [[Talk: User:Baigelman/BookEnds|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I continue to work on the new article page (BookEnds). I wonder if someone could take a look and see if it is ready to be published yet. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Baigelman (talkcontribs) 00:55, 29 April 2011

Well, in my opinion, there is nothing there to establish the notability of this subject. You might get more input at WP:FEEDBACK. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
In particular see WP:ORG. – ukexpat (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Editor insists my sources shouldn't be posted, despite the fact that they are all from a world renowned university

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I have posted three studies to the article on Amygdalin from world renown, highly respected Kyung Hee University in South Korea. The editor named Yobol has removed them. His reasoning is that "everyone agrees Amygdalin is quackery." This is fallacious reasoning and a biased opinion at best, it has no place in an objective encyclopedic article.

Here is my version of the article, my addition is the entire "Recent Studies" section on this link. There is nothing unreasonable, faulty, or improper about these sources. If there is something wrong with my choice of words, please tell me so I can correct it. I'm new to editing, and I don't want to waste a lot of time arguing with a person who is obviously aggressive about his opinion on Amygdalin, as you can see by the revision history.

These sources are valid, they are important, they have proper citation and can be viewed immediately by anyone for validation, since it is an online pdf. They must be included in this article because it is pure scientific research and extremely important empirical evidence on the subject. He essentially told me in a message that we should pick and choose which evidence to put on here, and that the one he likes is the only one that should be included. But the THREE studies I cited are just as important as the ONE study he claims should be the only one present. They are also more recent, and most importantly of all they come to an alternate conclusion than the study he endorses.

Please help. Thank you.\u2014Preceding unsigned comment added by Clairvoidant (talk \u2022 contribs) 01:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

His edit-summary for the removal was "please see WP:MEDRS, we do not use primary studies to contradict secondary sources. See also WP:UNDUE". That's a pretty good guideline. MEDRS is a pretty good standard...the recent study may be from a "prestigious" place and a "valid" source, but that doesn't make the source "reliable" for this particular result--not *unreliable* but not proven reliable either. And an unproven claim of "importance" is importance. Especially for science, need to have verifiability of the information, which in medicine means other publications and scientists have taken note of it. If this is worthy research, it obviously will be of interest to other researchers, and will be confirmed by their own tests and cited in other publications and review articles on the subject soon enough. WP really needs secondary sources, not just primary reports of research results. It's not "his preferred" content it contradicts, but a massive pile of well-regarded (based on other scientists' analysis) other sources. DMacks (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes. I've not looked at this in detail (not a subject I know much about), but I think Yobol's edit summary explains his reasoning. If the 'three studies' are all primary research, they don't reach the standard we require for articles regarding medical research: not because they are necessarily incorrect, but because Wikipedia isn't qualified to judge their validity - this is why we rely on assessment from qualified secondary sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

File:America (US Army Brass).ogg

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Apologies if I'm not doing this correctly. I'm a relatively inexperienced user.

A friend pointed out an error in the following Wikipedia page:

I added comments about the nature of the error in the discussion for the page, but it is not clear to me whether this is all I need to do to ensure that the error will be corrected. Could someone please give me guidance on the best way to ensure that errors such as this are corrected? Thank you. JCNSmith (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I have left a note on the uploader's, User:TonyTheTiger, talkpage. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Turkish admins terrible

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hii Im wikipedia user (ozgur-usa) I will add some information turkish wiki pages but turkish wikipedia admins they not allowe this...all pages lock ( we can not change any pages we can not any add. so if we can not change anything, whats is us role!

Thanks wiki user user name: ozgur-usa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozgur-usa (talkcontribs) 16:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Turkish Wikipedia is separate from English Wikipedia, so there is nothing that can be done here, I am sorry. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
The only people with the power to do anything are the Wikimedia Stewards. But they probably will not do anything if there are local processes/admins/bureaucrats in place to deal with the situation. SpinningSpark 18:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Intl Filipino Moels

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I am wondering why when i do a search on Filipino International Famous Models. No real Famous Models that made it Internationally. There is a page with a bunch of guys that are locally Famous. But none have really been Top Intl Models. I wish us Male and Female supermodels that made a name in the Intl scene like myself, Mimelanie Marquez, Rose Ranola, And Anna Bayle...etc etc could be given acknowledgement on your site. Thanks Robby Tarroza Stewart.. --Robbytarroza (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, our notability guidelines require verifiable reliable sorces. Facebook doesn't meet those criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
It maybe that no one can find reliable sources that can confirm your notability for a Wikipedia article. You may wish to repost your request at WT:TAMBAY, the Wikipedia Philippines project.project. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Maria Orsitsch

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


I would like to reinstate the deleted passage on Maria Orsitsch. She obviously was a German citizen and even though some of the stories that come from her can not be completely scientifically proven, her involvement in Hitler's Germany should be should be noted with a disclaimer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christiian203 (talkcontribs) 20:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The noticeboard for requesting the restoral of deleted articles is WP:DRV. Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Chris Dold article Assault Charge deleted several times

Discussion moved: Talk:Chris Dold Jezhotwells (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


I've been updating an article on a sailor from Canada named Chris Dold with a section on a sexual assault charge that he faced and that he was recently exonerated in court from. I cited the section appropriately with 3 different newspaper articles from a local newspaper covering the court case. Someone (or a few people) have been section blanking this part of his article. How do I resolve this dispute? I'm new-ish to wikipedia but do consider giving a fact-based entry on this court case an important component of his wikipedia article. The case lasted two years and did garner considerable local press in Kingston, Ontario, but he was also recently proven not guilty in court. Thank you.

Achapman2009 (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Andrew Chapman

Given that he was found not guilty, to include details of the case in such a short article might be seen as giving the issue undue weight. Frankly, I can see little merit in including it - particularly if it only received coverage in local papers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Achapman2009 has started a discussion on Talk:Chris_Dold and responses should probably go there to consolidate the discussion. GB fan (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Leroy Mendonca

Resolved: see article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


You state in your article Leroy was Filipino this is incorrect. Leroy was 100% Portuguiese. Leroy is my wife's Uncle, Adele Gibbons Spacher. Adele's mother, Gen Mendonca Gibbons, is Leroy sister and is sponsor of the ship named after Leroy USNS Mendonca. Leroy received the MEDAL OF HONOR when Hawaii was not yet a state.

Our son who is a teacher in North Dakota was questioned about Leroy from your article. Of course our son knew the correct answer but the student called your article and very first line said Leroy was Filipino. Can you correct this so if you call up LEROY MENDONCA you get the correct facts.

Gen died June 5th of last year but feel free to contact my wife Adele anytime <phone number redacted>. The family is very proud of Leroy's actions and his sacrifice.

Thank you

Art Spacher <phone and email redacted>—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I note that three references state he was Filipino and two (one a dead link) that he was Portuguese American. I suggest you state your concerns on the article talk page, Talk:Leroy A. Mendonca. I removed all contact details as this is a highly visible page. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit Dispute at Patent encumbrance of large automotive NiMH batteries

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello All,

Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. In this discussion, editors are asking the question "Who has the burden of proof when editors wish to insert a negative assertion?" In this case, the debate revolves around the proposed insertion of the following language: "It is unclear whether ECD Ovonics will continue to adhere to Cobasys' prohibitive minimum order sales policy." Proponents of inserting such language suggest that, because there is allegedly no proof to the contrary, they are justified in inserting this text. Opponents suggest that such a negative claim still constitutes original research unless it is supported by a reference from a reliable source. Who is correct? Many thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Obviously any such claim would need to be supported by highly reliable sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Project Management Professional

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Project_Management_Professional (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I made some changes in the article. The percentage of questions asked in each domain are incorrect. I changed it to the recent correct one. I also provided a link from the PMI website verifying the same. I added that out of the 200 questions asked, 25 of them are pretest questions which are not marked. My changes have been reverted under Vandalism. I have no clue how could this be classified as vandalism. I want to contribute and it was just a start but I have been road blocked for no reason at all it seems.User:Ultapultanikhil 10:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Trying to look into this for you, but please read the instructions before posting on help pages, and sign your posts - it makes our work easier. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
We are not specialists in your article's topic and cannot vouch for the authenticity of your additions which of course must be reliably sourced. However, your edits were clearly not vandalism, and the reverting editor has been asked to assume good faith. Generally, the first place to discuss problems of this kind is on the article's talk page - which has not seen any movement for almost 2 years. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC) page 18.Pm master 11:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Allevo page (29 April)

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your feedback and explanation.

However to us is very hard to understand why more than a few of our international competitors and partners feature hosted articles on Wikipedia, while to us is applicable the policy you have provided us. For your information please check the information available on S.W.I.F.T., LOGICA, ACOTEL, AXWAY, MISYS, FISERV, SMARTSTREAM, etc.

I would very much appreciate your further advise on how we may sort out this issue on competitive open information space. I would suggest to schedule a conference call at your very earliest convenience.

Thanking you beforehand for your understanding and cooperation, I am

Corina Cornea, Marketing Manager Allevo mobile: (Redacted) office: (Redacted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corina cornea (talkcontribs) 12:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Since I am not an administrator I cannot see the deleted page, so cannot comment on it in detail. But the tone of your message here suggests that you have not understood that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising medium. The articles on S.W.I.F.T., Logica and so on were not written by or for those companies, but were written by volunteer editors; and they were not written using text provided by the companies themselves, but were written to summarise what has been written in reliable sources such as newspapers and books.
The FAQ page for organisations will talk you through most of these issues. If you still have questions after reading through those, please post again here. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Without more information I have been unable to locate any deleted or other page(s) that refer to Allevo in this context. Is the user on the right Wiki? User had a history of other declined promotional material here on en.Wiki. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Two References Wrongly Deleted as "Synthesis"

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Natural born citizen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Citing two references is not synthesizing. Synthesizing is combining two references into one new statement. Case in point, citing the Law of Nations in the US Constitution is one reference. Citing the natrual-born citizen term from the Law of Nations is another reference. This is acceptable citation. Synthesizing would be taking both such references and combining them into a new statement, which did not exist in either reference. I did not do that.

The following two editors are unjustly deleting my referenced contributions:

RE: Fat&Happy (talk), Loonymonkey (talk)

Sempi (talk) 05:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well as you cannot reach consensus on the article talk page, I suggest that you raise a request for comment. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Sempi insists that connecting and conflating two non-identical but roughly contemporary things called "law of nations" does not constitute synthesis, and refuses to back down, in defiance of all logic and indeed chronology. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Really? How is it that a "natural born" reference from a dictionary is a possible source for "natural born citizen," in the US Constitution, yet a title actually contained within the US Constitution, and used by the writers of the Constitution, "Law of Nations," with a direct "natural born citizen" reference, 'not' a possible source for "natural born citizen?"

Law of Nations.png Sempi (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

creation of article for Cindy Cox, composer

Resolved: Draft article OK and moved to mainspace. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This is an attempt to create a valid page for Cindy Cox, an emerging composer. I do not know her personally, have never met her, and have attempted to gather information about her. I do know her music, and I was disappointed that wikipedia does not have an entry for her. Apparently, an entry was recently deleted, though I had no part in creating the recently deleted entry. I would welcome any assistance in giving this emerging composer a deserving entry.

Alphawave (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)alphawave

WP:FEEDBACK is a goodplace to get detailed feedback. The article is a start but much work needs to be done to make it accord with then manual of style. Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia is well worth studying. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Is "emerging" the latest euphemism for "up and coming"? Because, with all due respect, subjects need to have already become notable before they get articles here. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Cox is clearly a notable, well established academic (prof at UCB), and the article is well referenced with verifiable, reliable sources. I have rearranged some of the content so that the biographical information precedes the eulogisms. The block quote could do with paraphrasing into encyclopedic prose, adding the sources to the reflist. Ready to be moved to main space. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your improvements and suggestions! My understanding of "emerging" is that it is a term for artists at the earliest "notable" stage of their career. There is sufficient evidence that this person has a notable reputation as a composer and a performer. May I move this article to Cindy_Cox in main space by completing the "Move" tab in the userspace article? Or is "Move" reserved for use by admin? Alphawave (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)alphawave
I think it should be alright for you to move the page now. Cox is an established member of the serious music community already, and a high ranking academic. For such people, terms like 'emerging' and 'up-and-coming' are best avoided - thy feature heavily in articles about garage bands and rappers who have no notability whatsoever but who post around 500 new articles a day here, and hence the words awake immediate suspicion with many of our page patrolling editors who do not always check the cited references. You can do the move your self, it's quite easy (technical features resrved for admins are generally not visible to other editors). If you need further help do not hesitate to contact me directly on my talk page. Good luck, and happy editing! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Kudpung for your feedback and help (I won't use "emerging" again). Thanks Orange Mike for completing the move to main space! -- Alphawave (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)alphawave

factually incorrect statement continually re-reverted in The Songs Lennon and McCartney Gave Away

Discussion moved: to Talk:The Songs Lennon and McCartney Gave Away Jezhotwells (talk) 10:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

In The Songs Lennon and McCartney Gave Away, it states that Lennon and McCartney were "especially prolific in the late 1950s."

In actual fact, in all available sources, only a very few songs are said to have been written by them before 1960. McCartney wrote the music for "When I'm 64," but not the words, in the 50s. McCartney may have written "I'll Follow the Sun" in the 50s. Lennon probably wrote "Hello Little Girl" in the 50s.

That's a total of 2 1/2 songs. If anyone else knows of any others, I doubt the total will reach double digits. That is not "unusually prolific," or even "prolific," by any definition.

The reverter recently added four so-called "sources," three of which I don't have at hand. The one I could check said nothing whatsoever about how many songs they wrote before 1960. As for the other 3 sources: after a lifetime of Beatles study, I am certain they do not reliably cite any "especially prolific" songwriting occurring before 1960, or even very much songwriting at all beyond the 2 1/2 songs I've mentioned. (In fact, L&M had barely written FIFTEEN songs, if that many, before 1963 -- nineteen-SIXTY-THREE! -- as far as can be known.)

The statement that they "were especially prolific in the late 1950s" is flat-out false and should be removed. (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I wrote above: "The reverter recently added four so-called "sources," three of which I don't have at hand. The one I could check said nothing whatsoever about how many songs they wrote before 1960."
Via Google books, I've been able to check one of the three remaining so-called "sources." It says NOTHING about them being "prolific" or even about them writing much at all. It refers ONLY to a McCartney-HARRISON song, "In Spite of All The Danger" (which was never covered by anybody, much less included in "the Songs L/M Gave Away".)
Again, the simple fact is: L/M did NOT write many songs in the late 50s -- a few at most. To the extent they did write songs, it is NOT relevant to the article.
Please: Remove this factually incorrect statement about them being "especially prolific in the late 50s." (talk) 06:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, so now my REMOVAL of two irrelevant sources which do not support the statement to which they are appended ("L/M were prolific in the 50s") has itself been REMOVED. Does this encyclopedia prefer to have FALSE information? (talk) 06:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
If anyone disagrees with the above, please name (say) nine songs attributed to Lennon or McCartney prior to 1/1/1960 in any source. You can't. WHY? Because they weren't "prolific" -- MUCH LESS "especially prolific" -- prior to 1963. SOURCES PLEASE? (talk) 06:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
You have posted this already on the article talk page, please don't post two indentical threads on different pages, it is called WP:FORUMSHOPPING and leads to confusion in responses. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Cinco de Mayo page

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 09:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Cinco de Mayo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The entire Cinco de Mayo page has been edited to reflect opinion rather than facts. It quotes op-eds as fact rather than opinion. The summary section is a mess.

There is more information on the Cinco de Mayo holiday page about the Battle of Puebla than on the actual Battle of Puebla page.

Any time someone tries to fix it others change it back. Cdiasoh (talk) 14:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I see you have taken part in one discussion on the talk page, you should create a new section there and explain what your concerns are. I would recommend taking on one problem at a time and work a solution and then move on to the next one. GB fan (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


Resolved: page deleted Jezhotwells (talk) 09:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi I am getting the message that the above page is an advertisment. but I cannot see anywhere on it where it advertises any services that CRS Consultants provides?

Can you please help as the page is being created as my boss, Clive Steggel, would like people to be able to know a little history about the town he lives in and the company he created.

Thanks Andybridgewater (talk) 09:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Andybridgewater/CRS Consultants
I'm sorry, but your boss has asked you to do something that is much harder than he realises. The page is unlikely to be suitable for Wikipedia, even if the flowery language is removed. Wikipedia requires significant coverage in multiple independent sources for articles on organizations and companies, as described here. Please work your way through the FAQ page for businesses, and ask again here if you have more questions. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Profanity in an article

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 09:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I was studying for a test and came across this website and I think it was translated wrong or someone purposefully messed it up. I tried to edit it, but it's at the top of the page and I don't see the edit button for this section. It says (right under the title) "Cesar Is A Sexy Beast" and in the 3rd paragraph "The Nuremberg Laws classified people with four German grandparents as "German or kindred blood", while people were classified as Jews if they vagina from three or four Jewish grandparents." It obviously doesn't make sense and I was just letting you guys know if you have time to change it. Thank you for your time.

Nuremberg Laws (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Thank you for reporting this and for trying to fix it. This vandalism was caught and fixed on April 25th. One way to edit the top section of a Wikipedia page is to click the "Edit" link at the very top of the page. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Editing Difficulties

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 09:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Paulo Francis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm having difficulties with an editor who is deleting information from known and public sources that he thinks are "opinions" detrimental to the article's subject (who has, by the way, died fourteen years ago)Cerme (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I can easily put the thing the other way round; I am having difficulties with the editor above (blocked previously editwarring in the same article) who insists on placing biased, opinative and partial content on the aforementioned article. The fact that the opinions are expressed by public sources doesn't give anyone the right to use such opinions as if Wikipedia was somehow 'condoning' or 'accepting' these opinions. There is already a discussion under way on the talk page, but it's gradually being used more for personal attacks against me ("It's difficult to discuss with people who don't realize what an encyclopedia is") than to really discuss the problem. RafaAzevedo msg 19:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Template help

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I have done some work on {{History of South Asia}} to make the colors more compliant with accessibility guidelines. I have two outstanding issues with the template: the Iron Age is not properly centred; and the header for "Kingdoms of Sri Lanka" jumps to the left when you click on "show". I don't know whats wrong. If anyone can help with this template that would be great. --Diannaa (Talk) 23:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

ok, well, you're main problem here is that you're reinventing the wheel. You should be using the {{infobox}} meta-template. things would be much simpler to fix if you used the standardized template. --Ludwigs2 00:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
P.s. sorry, that was a little abrupt - got a phone call. I think we should convert the template to the infobox format. Do you want some help doing that, or would you prefer to go at it on your own? Face-smile.svg --Ludwigs2 00:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
That's ok, RL stuff takes precedence. :) I know how to do an infobox format, but the main issue was to do a quick fix to get the colors compliant, as I have a lot of stuff going on right now. --Diannaa (Talk) 00:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Here is a good model for the way the re-write could be done : {{Sri Lankan former states}}. It's got child nav-boxes. See how much clearer it is what the function of everything is. --Diannaa (Talk) 00:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's the value of the infobox meta-template. If I get a chance this weekend I'll see if I can convert it. --Ludwigs2 00:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Using old sources when an organization changes its name

Discussion moved: to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radha Madhav Dham/ Jezhotwells (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If a company or organization changes its name, and the wikipedia page's name is changed to reflect that, it may happen that there are hardly any sources using the new name of the organization. My question is whether you can use sources that cite the old name as reference for the new article. E.G. Suppose a church called "church x" is renamed to "church y", and there is a source which states "church x is the largest church in America" - can you therefore say on the wikipedia page "church y is the largest church in america", using the old source as a citation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Specifically, someone has deleted the entire contents of this article The article used to be Barsana Dham, but was renamed to Radha Madhav Dham. The same person has tagged it for deletion because it is non-notable. However it is the largest Hindu temple in north America, and there are plenty of sources to say that, albeit referring to the old name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

If it is exactly the same organisation, then perhaps sourced information should be included in the article to reflect this name change. Remember that while an article is under discussion for deletion, you are always free to edit it, and revert any other edits. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll add to what I said above: If this is an entirely new organisation, then the Barsana Dham redirect should be undone, and the article should contain a mention such as 'On dd/mm/yyyy the temple community was disolved and the complex was sold to another organisation.' If the only thing that has changed is the name, the redirect was perfecrtly the correct thing to do, and the lead section should begin with 'Formerly known as Barsana Dham, the temple complex was renamed Radha_Madhav_Dham following the change of its managing guru and committee,' Both you and the deletion nominator must be clear on this, and references should be provided. At the moment, the AfD looks like a strong conflict of opinions rather than a discussion of sourceable encyclopedic facts that assert notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes its exactly the same temple/organization that was founded in 1990, as announced via a press release [6]. Its still being run by the same international organization as Barsana Dham - Jagadguru Kripalu Parishat (JKP) [7]. The temple and ashram buildings are the same, the people are the same. All that has changed is the name and the board of directors. The claim of the person who nominated the article for deletion, that it is an entirely new temple/organization, has no basis in any sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I have commented at the AfD page, that is where the discussion is taking place. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Problematic edits at Cinema of Cambodia page

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello -

There are some problematic edits taking place on an ongoing basis at the following page:

Where a variety of malicious users are repeatedly removing notable references to that country's cinema indsutry, especially related to one of the indpendent organiztions, Camerado SE Asia, which has verifiable objective notable involvement in that country's development.

Kindly note that several key adjustments (removals) have taken place in proximity to edits pertaining to the Cambodian Film Commission, a French-founded agency launched by Film France. It appears that some competing inter-organizational interests and biases are eroding the 'notable' and objective standards of the Wikipedia space.

Can some editorial monitor be placed on this page to determine that foreign organizations might stop diminishing verifiable, objective and noteworthy content in this area?

Thanks, not sure what or if any remedies besides posting and re-posting might resolve this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncmorley (talkcontribs) 07:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You should start by discussing this with the other editor. That and discussions on the article talk page are the usual first steps. I see that neither option has been used by you. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

External Link to Boca Raton entry

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Boca Raton, Florida

I added am external link to The Coastal Star at the bottom of the Boca Raton, Fl, entry where it says "External Links." This is a credible monthly newspaper with a Boca Raton edition. It is not a shopper. You have links to the Boca News that no longer exists. I think it should be replaced with The Coastal Star. Thank you Dhartz (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

As this appears to be a content dispute you should discuss it with the other involved editors on the article's talk page.  – ukexpat (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Please read the guidelines for what external links are appropriate WP:EL. Just because a newspaper is from the city, does not mean it is an appropriate link. Active Banana (bananaphone 00:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Lasting power of attorney

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 01:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The existing article under the name Lasting power of attorney is inadequate, as editorial comments already indicate clearly. I wish to take up the invitation to replace it, and have a partially completed draft in hand - it's a fairly complex subject, so I will probably need another week or so to complete the draft. Adding the completed piece to Wikipedia would, in practice, require deletion of the present one, mainly because of its discursive and non-encyclopedic style, and I am not clear how to achieve this without needless discourtesy to its author.

I would be quite happy to submit the completed draft for review, preferably to an editor familiar with the relevant Act of the U.K. Parliament, which is the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Please advise.

J.martin.leonard (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

(Martin Leonard)

The article is about powers of attorney in many different legal systems. You appear to be referring to a UK act. Suggest you rewrite the England and Wales section only. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Old AFD needs action

Resolved: as per comment below, nomination had not been completed. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Can someone take care of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of events on Distraction (game show)? The AFD was created in February and has had no action since. Additionally, the debate does not appear to be linked anywhere (aside from this comment as soon as it posts). RJaguar3 | u | t 00:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You would be best off posting at WT:Articles for deletion, I think. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I added it to today's listing and added {{afd1}} at the top of the article. GB fan (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I need assistance writing some new articles.

Answered: Purple bees wear rubber armbands. Danger (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


I was planning on writing some articles on the singles from the R.E.M album Collapse into know but I cannot create a page on the lead single "mine smell like honey" because for some reason "the page exists" but when you search it you keep getting re-directed to the page on collapse into now (its album). please help

JTG.Turbo —Preceding unsigned comment added by JTG.Turbo (talkcontribs) 15:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Mine Smell Like Honey is a redirect. To exist on its own page, such a single would need to establish the notability of the song as per Wikipedia:NMUSIC#Albums, singles and songs:

"Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. If the artist associated with the work does not have an article, or if the artist's article has already been deleted, an article about a musical recording that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant is eligible for speedy deletion under criterion A9."

Hope this helps. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem, but the story about Alabama, Fort Dale and the Oglys is not exactly true. The Oglys were occupants of a house beside probably, the Old Federal Road about 3 miles South West of Fort Dale at "PopularSprings" (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC). This is where the massacre took place.

What has the above to do with REM singles? Jezhotwells (talk) 10:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Most of R.E.M's singles were notable enough to have their own pages. What makes the singles of collapse into now different? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JTG.Turbo (talkcontribs) 14:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps they do nto meet the guidelines I qwquoted above? Please remeber to sign your posts using four (~) tildes. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

ommission of historic hotel from your hotel list.

Answered: Danger (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Following the links from 'Hotel' to 'list of hotels' (hotels of historic or other significance), to 'Slovenia', I'd like to suggest 'Vila Bled' be included. (

In the grounds of the Summer Palace to the Yugoslavian Royalty (between the two World Wars), the current building was built for the late Marshall Tito following his takeover of Yugoslavia and establishing a socialist state at the end of the second World War. Although updated to provide guests with modern conveniences, momentoes to the past are to be found, particularly the huge wall mural in Tito's cinema room depicting the Partizan's perspective on the 1941-1945 period and the post-war re-building of Yugoslavia.

Kind regards Simon —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You should post this information on the relevant article talk (discussion) page. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Altar call

Answered: Danger (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Altar call (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I posted a view of scripture that supports the term given by charles finney as alter calls by scriptural relevance here the point of this article should be to direct people to the truth of what a term represents not just a one sided view but the view as a whole. The term alter call was used by Charles Finney but the bible shows on many different occasions that alter calls were used in the bible! (according to the present terminology Alter Calls is walking down an aisle an making a profession of faith). If you look at Abraham who listen to God to go and bring his son isaac to the alter an was about to sacrifice him at that time was Justified as righteous or if you looked at Saul who listen to Jesus went to Damascus and was Justified as righteous by Ananias each of these instances are alter calls and there right in scripture and there are others Cornelius, Moses etc etc. I know that this is not a battleground but I know the truth about what alter calls are and how they existed before Charles Finney! The term didnt, but the reality of it did! If your going to represent the truth then either delete this webpage because you feel is creates a battleground or list what I had on there as an alternative view! IT IS BIBLICALLY BASED! But according to this article it isnt Quote... They argue that there is no example in the Bible of its use!... end quote its unfair to post something that isnt the whole truth especially when I proved it by scripture! Saul hears the Lord goes down the aisle and is baptized by Ananias. Abraham hears the Lord goes down the aisle to the alter and is justified by God Gen 22:18 Rom 10:17 acts 9:6 BTW this isnt just by what ive read this is how I came to faith which is by hearing a LIVING GOD Heb 4:7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leprechaun67 (talkcontribs) 21:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

We appreciate your concerns, but there is little to be gained by evangelising to us on this help page as we must remain neutral in matters abstract such as, especially, religion and politics. That said, the Altar call article as it stands is practically original research, and needs a great many more cited sources. When those have been provided, the article, that indeed provides a definition of 'altar call' would be fine. I have placed inline flags at the ends of the sentences or claims that need supporting by reliable sources according to Wikipedia requirements. The tags can be removed when sources have been supplied. For instruction how to display cited sources, please see WP:CITE. Do remember also that the initial place to address problems is on the article's talk page, which in this instance has not seen a posting for nearly three years. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Gmjensen personal memoir - USS Sarasota (APA-204)

Answered: Danger (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

USS Sarasota (APA-204) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Gmjensen initiated a discussion on my Talk page regarding the USS Sarasota article. In a nutshell, he is trying to insert a long personal memoir of his time aboard the ship. I removed it from the article on 3 May 2011 and he reverted my edit today.

This material was removed once before by Gatoclass on 12 March 2011 and reproduced in full on the article's Talk page.

I have tried to explain the No original research policy, but Gmjensen has been unwilling to review it, and has expressed the view that he should be able to disregard the rules in this case. The conversation is on the verge of turning antagonistic.

If possible I'd like to find a solution which will satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines and his sincere desire to share valuable information. Is there an appropriate place where these memoirs could be easily published? Or is there another course of action that might avert going to dispute resolution? Nick Number (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

With the greatest of respect to Gmjensen who undoubtedly has the very best intentions, and is civil and cordial, he must understand that his own original material cannot be used in this encyclopedia, and unfortunately we are unable to bend the rules. If his information were published in book form through an established house, it could be cited and used. That's it I'm afraid. You can refer him to this Editor Assistance page, and if he would like further links to policy. I will be happy to oblige. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the input. Nick Number (talk) 06:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

St Anger Genre

Answered: Danger (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I know there must be a few of these sort of things, however, there has been extensive editing regarding the genre of the St. Anger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) recently. The Majority of the discussion and sources point to heavy metal as the sole genre, however non-verifiable genres nu metal and alternative metal are added by IPs... I am worried about getting involved in an edit war. Is there anything else I can do to resolve this other than reverting edits and attempting discussion or is it best left alone?? (I'm sorry if I've done this through the wrong means as well :/) Dims25 (talk) 12:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You might get some useful input at WT:WikiProject Metal. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I was just at

Answered: Danger (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC) and I noticed that some of the names listed were in italics, while most were not. I tried to figure out why this might be, getting ready to fix it, but could not. Any suggestions Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion is to go ahead. There's no explanation on the list or talk page as to what the italics mean, so they're just confusing to a reader. If no one reverts you're golden, if they do, that could kick start a discussion on why they're in there and how to explain them if they're to remain. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

My problem (see my wife for a longer list) is that i do not know where the italics are coming from. I do not know how to remove them. if i did they would already be gone. Carptrash (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

HINT. All the names that are in italics come from article that are redirects. So . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... this means what? Carptrash (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
That's the fact of how WP:CATEGORY cat pages display: exactly as you found, redirects are in italics. A WP:REDIRECT isn't a page with content other than a pointer to some other page with content. DMacks (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

So having those manes appear on a list or category is okay? Is there any way to remove the italics? Perhaps I'll try a thing or two. Carptrash (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:RCAT#Technical_note it is the way the software works. GB fan (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
The only way to remove the italics would be to remove the category from the actual redirect page, such as GB fan (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
If you're desperate not to see these names with italic formatting, there's probably some magic you could place in your Special:Mypage/Skin.css to turn it off. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh I am okay with this, it's the random drive-by reads I \'m thinking about. Magic is just pseudo-science, so never mind. Carptrash (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Help with linking sections within article

Answered: Danger (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm having trouble trying to add links within my article - Ocean Beach Public Policy. I have a bulleted list (separate from the TOC) that describes the sections in our article and I want it to jump to tha section when you click on the bullet but it's not working. I've tried the code for linking to sections: Section linking But it doesn't seem to be working. Do you know what may be going wrong? Thanks so much! Amy — Amybekah (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I've edited the first bullet point as an example. However, these sections are all listed in the Table of Contents just a few lines up from your bulleted list, so I'm not convinced these links are necessary. In particular, a reader seeing a blue "Ecology" will expect it to be a link to the Ecology article, not to an Ecology section further down the page. Ideas, anyone? -- John of Reading (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, they shouldn't be section-links. It's just a topic-paragraph for the content that follows, so readers will just read further to learn the details about these words in the context of this article. The whole article is formatted oddly, with intent-italicized "goal" for each section. See WP:MOS for specific guidelines on formatting, or maybe easier just to browse other articles. Right now it reads more like a press release or corporate website than an encyclopedia article--tons of bullet-points rather than prose. DMacks (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Citation clean-up problem

Answered: Danger (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

George Baxter (lawyer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have just been cleaning up the above article. In the process, I identified some references, to the New York Times and the Star-Ledger, that the original author had obviously tried to put into the article but totally messed up both their formatting and the positioning. I've tidied up the formatting (and added a References section), but working out which statements they were intended to verify requires access to the original articles, which I haven't got. Can someone please help?

In addition, there is a WP:BLPPROD tag on the article - assuming that the sources are reliable, at what point should it be removed? PWilkinson (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The NYT reference is available online here, and does mention George Baxter briefly in the context of the Snyder case. I think that's enough to remove the deletion template, by my reading of the first paragraph at WP:BLPPROD. I haven't found the Star-Ledger articles though. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. PWilkinson (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Request to Redirect to a differnt page

Answered: Danger (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Http://'s_Tottenham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


Dear Admin,

I would be grateful if you could automatically link St Paul's Church in Tottenham to St Paul Tottenham

Many thanks

Em (talk)xem2011

It's actually entirely possible for you to do that. Unfortunately, St Paul Tottenham itself had to be deleted, as it was a direct copy and paste from a copyrighted source. Please see our guidelines on copyright compliance for more details on how to write an article that is not a copyright violation. Generally speaking, it is acceptable to use a reliable source as a source for the ideas and concepts in the article, but not to exactly or very closely copy a single source's wording and/or organization. The use of many sources unrelated to the subject is very helpful in avoiding taking too much from one, and also helps with establishing notability. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Tom Cruise

Answered: Danger (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello I just want to enquire why the movie Legend that Tom Cruise stared in with Tim Curry is not listed with all other movies that Tom Cruise made. Roxanna Braaksma —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxanna Braaksma (talkcontribs) 17:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you tell us where it's missing? I looked in Tom Cruise filmography and it shows Legend just fine. -- Why Not A Duck 18:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
If you mean the article Tom Cruise then it doesn't claim to mention all his films and several others are omitted. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Advice and help with rolled-back edits

Answered: Danger (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I recently made edits to the World Vision International and World Vision India pages that were rolled back by another user. The problem is that I don't really have a ton of editing experience, so I am rather hesitant to roll them back to the version I had without knowing if I am correct in doing so or not.

My edits, I thought, were made to accurately state what was being said in the articles that were linked to, and to remove the bias present (as well as clean up the small portion of text I was editing). The big thing here is that they are criticisms of the organisation, making it a bit trickier to edit them in a non-biased way. I am hoping to get some help with how I should go about this. Matthewgreyling (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Just looking at this quickly, your most recent edit to World Vision International removed a reference from the article (apparently), which might be part of the reason it was reverted. The one thing you haven't done on that article is to discuss the proposed changes on the talk page, which is at Talk:World Vision International. This is part of how Wikipedia works (known as Bold, Revert, Discuss, WP:BRD) - you boldly make a change to an article, someone else reverts it, then you discuss it on the talk page to try to come to an agreement on a way forward. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Reverting users are not required to discuss in any kind of meaningful manner why they revert what you do. Whereas you are encouraged to seek consensus and work towards agreement and have to learn that you can say edits are devious misleading stupid or whatever you want but you cannot say a person is silly. Anybody familiar with wiki can be the law to provoke you and can easily dominate a board to create systematic bias and the appeals procedure is just suited to people who know you are going to get ground down. Wiki must be a scamAndrewedwardjudd (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Correct useage of the term disc/disk

Answered: Danger (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Whilst earlier reading the page on the Roswell UFO Incident, I noticed two different versions of the term used to describe the UFO in the second paragraph. I thought about rectifying this but I am unsure whether "Disc" or "Disk" is the correct term to describe the UFO and whether or not this is something that needs modification. Please help. Thanks JTG.Turbo (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

This might be of some help.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 20:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Recurring personal attacks using offensive language.

Answered: Danger (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The User Channarichan has posted content on my page ( not on talk ) which violates wikipedia's policies regarding posting on other people's pages, personal attacks and offensive language. This is a recurring problem with this user. This is unacceptable. The user Channarichan's post on my page " dare question why sherpas are included in the momo profile page?? lol...they are tibetans u idiot, plz go research before you try to make blant accusations..newars are nothing but can't deny that...your culture is heavy influences by the indians and so is your appearances. Also, just to make you calm down, i have actually put a newar link on the momo you wouldnt bark too much." The administration of Wikipedia needs to take action to stop this vandalism once and for all. BobbyCtkr (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Channarichan has received a final warning. If he continues, please let us know. --NeilN talk to me 22:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
That attack was made over 3 months ago, and Channarichan hasn't edited since 2/15, so this issue might be somewhat stale. That doesn't excuse the behaviour, but it does imply that Channarichan isn't likely to respond immediately. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

list of bear attacks

Answered: Danger (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Somehow there seems to be a lot of fatal bear attacks missing like the cyclist chased down by a grizzly on highway 93 in B.C. in the 80's.Then a 70 year old women was killed by a black bear in B.C.There is also no mention of all the Swan Hills attacks one of which a driller was dragged off a drilling rig and killed.There have been many more polar bear fatalities too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

List of fatal bear attacks in North America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
You are welcome to add to this list, provided you can provide a reliable source to back up each addition - a book, newspaper article, or such like. Have a look at the other entries there to see how to do this, or read Wikipedia:Citing sources for full instructions. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Picture Policy

Answered: Danger (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi - I'm trying to get a feeling for wikipedia's policies on use of pictures. Is there any preference for using pictures that may or may not promote other things? For example, if I own or work for an institution, and have people who have wikipedia articles in at this institution, and photograph them, and then try and post these pictures in any article I can (infoboxes, elsewhere), with links to my institution (let's say it also has a wikipedia article), is this in any way discouraged? PermanentVacay (talk) 05:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Before editing any article about your institution, you should carefully read the guidelines on conflict of interest; it is very easy for a new editor to run into accusations of bias, advertising and such like. But as described in this section, the addition of relevant photographs is an exception, and is encouraged.
If Professor X works for University Y, and both have Wikipedia articles then I would normally expect to see a picture of Professor X in his own article, but not in the University article. I can't find an explicit guideline on this, but you can form your own impression by reviewing some of the quality articles listed at Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines#Example articles. I would also expect Professor X's article to contain a blue link to the Wikipedia page for University Y; I would not expect it to contain an external link to the University's web site.
I hope that helps. Feel free to ask again if you have more questions. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Quite helpful. What about this situation: Professor X works and University Y. Wikipedia User M works at T Casino. Professor X is asked to speak at T Casino. Wikipedia User M (re)places pics on Professor X's wikipedia page with pictures taken at T Casino, along with wiki links in the description linking to T Casino (i.e. Professor X at T Casino). Wikipedia User M does this for as many people as they can who have spoken at T Casino. T Casino page also feature "Picture gallery of famous people speaking at T Casino". PermanentVacay (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd revert all these edits by User M, give User M a conflict of interest warning, and delete the gallery posthaste. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah thanks. I'm actually mostly asking because I have encountered such a situation and no one seems to have done anything, so I wondered if wikipedia actually does not discourage things like this. I tried replacing one of the pics with a pic I took at a non-commercial institution, and it was immediately reverted (it was researching what was going on that led me to realize the situation). Does it change things if User M is an administrator? PermanentVacay (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Heck, no! We're just folks with special mops and buckets. But be sure to be very clear on why you're doing this, in your edit summary and on the articles' talk pages. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Article Title Problem - Hamburg, germany

Answered: Danger (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Article ([{{fullurl:{{{1}}}|action=edit}} edit] | [[Talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] | [{{fullurl:{{{1}}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:{{{1}}}|action=protect}} protect] | [{{fullurl:{{{1}}}|action=delete}} delete] | [{{fullurl:Special:Whatlinkshere/{{{1}}}|limit=999}} links] | [{{fullurl:{{{1}}}|action=watch}} watch] | logs | views)

The title of the article for the city Hamburg, Germany is misspelled with a lower case 'g' (i.e. Hamburg, germany). I understand that the current solution to the misspelling is a redirect to the page called simply 'Hamburg' and, for the most part, this is an acceptable solution. The problem is that any website or database that pulls a Hamburg, Germany reference from Wikipedia will pull the misspelled name since lower case 'g' comes before upper case 'G'.

The most well known (and most irritating) example of this issue is for individuals who would like to set Hamburg, Germany as there hometown in Facebook but are forced to put Hamburg, germany. I have contacted Facebook several times regarding this issue and unfortunately every time it is fixed, the fix is only temporary because Facebook updates its database based on the incorrectly spelled page every few days (based on the referencing issue described above...'g' comes before 'G').

I understand that Wikipedia isn't Facebook and that therefore issues such as misspelling one's hometown is not really a Wikipedia priority. However, I along with thousands of other Hamburg residents would be extremely appreciative if this issue could be resolved and if someone could correct the lower case g or perhaps just delete the "Hamburg, germany" page altogether. Thank you for your time and consideration of this issue. (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

When I go to Hamburg, Germany, I am redirected to Hamburg. There is no "Germany" in the article title. So, the name is correct on the WP page. WP has no control over what Facebook does. Perhaps you should leave a note on the Facebook page to have the correction made there. Bielle (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not quite sure what article is being referred to. Our English Wikipedia article about the city in Germany, is clearly entitled Germany without any disambiguation needed in the page name. There are other Hamburgs, but the one in Germany is a major world city and has primacy over any other Wikipedia articles about places with the same name. Redirects are another thing - they are there among other reasons, for the purpose of helping people who misspell an entry in the search box - although this is an implausible redirect and has been deleted leaving just the talk page. Please see Talk:Hamburg, germany and Orange Mike's explanation. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Area for various States of the United States of America - conversion error sqmiles/km2

Answered: Danger (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

To whom it may concern,

I have recently used this site to create an xl-sheet with the 50 states to summarize their capitals, size, population etc... Only now did I realize that for a certain number of states the conversion to km2 is incorrect. I can only hope that the area in square miles is correct.

Whoever has done this work should double-check on the figures. I can only hope that for the rest of the countries of the world the figures are correct... This includes their respective states/provinces/cantons or whatever.

Perhaps you should even state which is the original?

Yours truly (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for catching this. The source is given at List of U.S. states and territories by area; it is this PDF file from the US Census Bureau, especially table 17 on PDF page 71. This gives the area in square miles. In the table at List of U.S. states and territories by area, the km2 figures are calculated automatically from the square miles figures, so are more likely to be correct. I have fixed the Illinois article. Can you post a list of the other states with incorrect conversions? Or you could be bold and correct them yourself - click "Edit" at the top of the page, find the line "TotalArea =", fix the incorrect figure, and save. But please explain each edit by filling in the edit summary box; an unexplained random-looking change to numeric fields is likely to be mistaken for vandalism. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Karen Harrison

Answered: Danger (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


I made a comment regarding the passing away of Karen Harrison. However at 21.55 BST on 11 May 2011 the post was withdrawn.

I could understand if the post i put was not factual or indeed malicious. It still appears that Karen Harrison is still alive, when quite the opposite is fact. I was at her funeral.Keithysau (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

That sort of statement will usually need a reliable source. Is there something you can find in a newspaper to support it? --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
To clarify, we have a very strict policy regarding edits to the biography of a living person, and while I don't disbelieve you and am sorry for your loss, we do require a source for a statement that a person has passed away. A citation to an obituary in a newspaper of record or other reliable source confirming the statement will generally do. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

--Keithysau (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Hi,

Thank you for replying to me message, i am sorry the only thing i have at present is the memorial order of service. Nothing has been made in press yet.Keithysau (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly disruptive editor

Resolved: Apparently sorted itself out. Danger (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe that an editor is intentionally disrupting an article about a [|Hindu temple]. First he stubbed the article, then nominated it for deletion (see deletion discussion log here: [8]. The result was keep. Now he has added a large section about controversy of the founder of the temple (who has a separate wikipedia article). Look at the discussion page on the deletion page, and on the talk page for Radha Madhav Dham, and it is obvious that the editor has a personal agenda, and is potentially coatracking. Other senior editors have said the same thing on the talk page for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Irving Williamson series

Answered: Danger (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Your order of stability in regards to the irving williamson series is wrong. Copper is more stable than nickel. I tried to fix the sign, but there was no link to

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alythezon (talkcontribs) 13:35, 12 May 2011

Irving-Williams series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Thank you for catching that - a recent edit switched one of the inequalities. I have undone that edit.
The simplest way to edit the first part of an article is to click the "Edit" link in the bar across the top; other ways to do it are described here. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for help regarding new article

Answered: Danger (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I have signed up to Wikipedia, as I wanted to submit an article - I now realise I might not be the best person to do so. I work for a magazine called Style (Buckinghamshire) which it part of Johnston Press, but Style is not currently covered on Wikipedia, whereas other media titles (both magazines and newspapers are).

I don't really understand the coding etc required to create a page from scratch, but I do, obviously, have lots of information about the magazine that would be relevant.

If anyone could help, please let me know?

Kindest, Alex Gardner Style Magazine --AGardner85 (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for disclosing your conflict of interest. Take a look at WP:Requested articles. – ukexpat (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
At this point it's only a wp:coi if you assume bad faith; that advancing outside interests will be more important to them when editing than the goals of Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
No, a conflict of interest exists in this situation, period. The key issue is how someone with a conflict of interest actually edits. If they can maintain a neutral point of view etc, all will be well; if not, it's a problem. – ukexpat (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
What you are saying conflicts with wp:coi; the first paragraph of wp:coi defines this pretty clearly. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Marshall Strabala

Stale: Danger (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Marshall Strabala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) page

Editor NovaSeminary is extremely difficult to deal with and has been for the past month on the Marshall Strabala page. I have been writing and editing on Wikipedia for 4+ years and never encountered such a difficult and "stalking" editor like NovaSeminary and oen who is so quick to edit before he has any facts from which to make them. It is downright scary.

Most recently, NovaSeminary has entered potentially libelous information about "Strabala being let go from Gensler" even after repeated times my telling him/her that this is potentially libelous. I recognize the article said similar statements, but whether he was fired or left a job on his own is irrelevant for Wikipedia. It is quite another matter for Wikipedia to quote and emphasis that subject. Based on his actions, NovaSeminary appears to have a general disdain for Mr. Strabala and has been spending an extremely inordinate time dotting every I and T on his page. Look at NovaSeminary's past history on Marshall Strabala's page, and you will see how he is "stalking the page" and doing little else over the past several weeks. NovaSeminary also deleted reference to Mr. Strabala being LEED Certified, even though that information had been documented with sources and on the page for two or more years. Evidently, NovaSeminary wanted proof as to what specific LEED certification that Mr. Strabala has before he permitted it. I don't know that information, but NovaSeminary deleted it for the time being, even though it was properly sourced.

In addition, despite my corrections, NovaSeminary has repeatedly placed reference to architect Adrian Smith (architect) on Marshall Strabala's page. I don't believe that another architect needs to be referenced on a different architect's main profile page. Sure, Adrian Smith and Marshall Strabala worked together on some projects. But, it is just as innappropriate for Strabala to be referenced on Smith's page, as it is for Strabala to be referenced on Adriana's. It just is not relevant, and getting into the nitty gritty of business. It's not a place for Wikipedia to judge or position what specific role an architect played in a given architectural project (except maybe on that project page (i.e. Burj Khalifa page), but not on the main page), whether they worked 10 days on a project, or 10 years, it's not Wikipedia's role to get involved in that utter minutia, is it?

One more thing. For my clarification, is it appropriate or inappropriate for Mr. Strabala to have a direct link to his firm (2DEFINE Architecture, ) on his page. NovaSeminary had deleted it, and I don't fully understand why it is not permitted. Many other business professionals have their company link under External Links or Also categories on their pages, and I can provide you a list if you would like.

I look forward to your response. If I cannot obtain satisfaction here, I will consider possible next steps. Downright negative and libelous remarks do not belong on Wikipedia as your editor has done so. And, my relationship to Marshall Strabala, whether one exists, has nothing to do with these comments. Actually, it has everything to do with treating Mr. Strabala fairly and accurately. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mykjoseph (talkcontribs) 14:41, 12 May 2011

Hi, Please review WP:NLT and consider revising your post. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Please also try to focus on content, rather than contributors. Comments such as "Doesn't this editor have a life?" aren't consistent with a collaborative project. btw, do you have any particular involvement with the subject? A conflict of interest wouldn't explicitly prevent you from editing, but I would recommend following the suggestions at that link, should you have any involvement. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
The above is was, before it was edited, clearly a legal threat and I was seriously considering an ANI report, but have issued an NLT warning instead. – ukexpat (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
This post is the OP's last edit at this point, so xe might be offline; let's give xer the chance to reconsider before we escalate. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Mykjoseph, thanks for toning down your remarks a little.
On your first point about Strabala's reasons for departing, we should follow the reliable sources on the subject. I'll take a look, but that'll require more time. As long as we don't give any particular incident undue weight, there's no hard and fast rule about whether that issue should or should not be included.
As to the architect Smith, if xe is pertinent to the article on Strabala, then xe should be wikilinked. That's one of the benefits of an online encyclopedia. And Strabala's website could be listed as an external link if it adds to the context of the article. The relevant policy is at WP:EL.
You're quite right that libelous remarks don't belong here, and we take that seriously. But negative descriptions can be appropriate if they're well-sourced. Please note that NovaSeminary isn't "our" editor, any more than you are or I am. We're simply volunteers who choose to edit here. Any of us who have a relationship with a subject are encouraged to be open about that; a conflict of interest tends to make it more difficult to establish one's neutral point of view. So, it's not irrelevant, but nobody can be compelled to disclose anything either.
By the way, please excuse my linking to policies and guidelines rather than restating them here. I'm just trying to avoid any inaccuracies that might creep into my restatements. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Andrew for your response. My point about Adrian Smith is that he is not pertinent on Marshall's page. If he is, and he is mentioned there, then why shouldn't Marshall be referenced on his page. (i.e., Marshall Strabala assisted him on his projects, Burj Khalifa, etc.) Why not? Because that would make no sense whatsoever. NovaSeminary is trying to make something pertinent that simply is not and is open to interpretation. Look at Adrian Smith's page, does it say anything about other architects who worked with him on projects. No. Point made. As to how Strabala's departure from Gensler is positioned, I have previously given my neutral suggested words to NovaSeminary and he refused them and the source that backed them up. So I welcome your taking a look at that at your convenience. Also, you never addressed my point about it being referenced that Strabala is LEED certified. It was clearly worded and sourced that Strabala is LEED certified, but NovaSeminary declined it because it didn't specific which of the 4-5+ types of certification he had. His point, in my view, is minutia that doesn't belong here. Plain and simple, he's LEED certified. Can that be put back in? Thank you again. Mykjoseph (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Add me as community member

Answered: Danger (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sir/ Madam i am a journalist working for an english news daily in Jaipur, Raajasthan India. I belong to Rawat Rajput community on which you have a page on wikipedia please add my name on this page as community member so that people can contact me for any need related to history, culture and traditions of the comunity. name - Arvind Singh profession - journalist location - Jaipur Rajasthan India —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Wikipedia is not a directory of contacts, it is an encyclopaedia so I don't think such an addition would be appropriate. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Dispute in Auteur Theory

Answered: Answered on article talk. Danger (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Auteur theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There has been an editing dispute going on, on the Auteur Theory page, where a user created a section attempting to marginalize the "Criticism" section by using original research. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, but as a long time reader, I found the addition to be in direct contrast to Wikipedia's neutral policy. You will find a lengthy discussion on the discussion page for Auteur Theory (it's the at the bottom), that outlines the positions. I am at a loss for what to do as this user seems to have trouble in the past and I'm so new I don't know even how to set up my own talk page. So, I am looking for advice on how to resolve this issue as the back and forth between the two of us (though another user came in and edited the section in question down and also called for it's possible deletion before being reverted back) seems to have resulted in a stale mate. Thanks and any advice about protocol and etiquette that I may have missed while attempting to make Wikipedia a better place would be greatly appreciated. --Lindhorst (talk) 12:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


Answered: Danger (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was Wiki policy to give a hyperlink to any object mentioned that has its own Wikipedia entry. However, on making a trivial addition to the Bobby Howes article I thried to highlight Mr. Cinders. This came up red instead of blue. Then I saw that none of his shows were clickable. Is there a reason for this? Shall I check them all?Fleapit (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not wikipedia policy to link to everything that has its own entry. The only things that should be linked are non-trivial articles. A sentence such as this, The brown fox jumped over the [[fall]en log, is wrong because those are all trivial links. In this case if any of his shows has an article they should be linked. If any shows are notable and don't yet have an article, they should still be linked and those links would show up red. Then when the articles are created they will be linked. Hope this helps. GB fan (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

insults from another user

Resolved: Requester blocked as sockpuppet. So it goes. Danger (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi wikipedians. I posted some stuff I found on the Simon Wessely talk page as it seems some of the editors are known for pushing POV and I thought it could be discussed and a compromise reached. I mean if they are pushing POV and claim to be neutral then surely evidence that JFDwolff and Sciencewatcher are considered controversial is relevant right? Hey well I'm new so maybe I did the wrong thing. Then sciencewatcher goes on about me being a banned user. This seems really insulting when I've just started editing. Now I know I got mad and posted stuff I saw on facebook about WEssely- ie that he thinks soldiers should be shot at dawn for cowardice, though I put that in his heart he thinks its a bad idea. I also put about him writing articles for the insurance industry and gave the reference and it all got deleted!! Surely a doctor who is involved in the health care industry should be in the article??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catherine Sanderson (talkcontribs) 17:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Page Color Vision

Discussion moved: Now appearing on the article talk page. Danger (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Color vision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am concerned about the this page (Color Vision). It is not reliable. I tried to insert some corrections that were not accepted (even with references). Color Vision is a science, and it needs to be addressed with right definitions and the references. The disputer does not accepted the references and prefers to keep the misleading definition without references.

This page should state less than B-class.

Where are your sources for this [9]? --NeilN talk to me 23:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

My sources that were not accepted: 1 - url: written by Peter Gouras is a Professor of Ophthalmology at Columbia University, and has many books and papers in color vision. 2 - Shevell, 2003. The Science of Color. Professor of Experimental Psychology at UChicago. url:

The definition stated in Color Vision page does not present any reference for the first and second paragraphs. Moreover, the third paragraph that presents 2 references (one from 1967 that is obsolete, and another one that was not necessary in an introductory section) - they are not related to the explanation of the color vision stated there - and part of the explanation is wrong.

Feitosa-santana (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)Feitosa-SantanaFeitosa-santana (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I see a dialog has been started on the article's talk page. I recommend you copy the above to there so we can continue the conversation where interested parties will see it. --NeilN talk to me 00:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you please give the exact link for the talk page discussion. I am new editing in wikipedia, and I only started this because I am specialized in Color Vision and I consider more than necessary for teaching purposes to improve the Color Vision page. I am also adding some more books that are essential for Color Vision definition and discussion: 1. Color Vision - Perspectives from Different Disciplines. 1998. Edited by Werner Backhaus, Reinhold Kliegl, and Jack Werner. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. 2. Kaiser and Boynton. Human Color Vision. 1996. Washington DC: OSA. 3. Color Vision. 1983. Physiology and Psychopysics. 1983. Edited by J. D. Mollon and L. T. Sharpe. New York: Academic Press.

There are many correct assumptions with references in the Color Vision page as well as incorrect ones. The content must be improved, and I am having trouble to edit it. Moreover, I don't see any well recognized color vision scientist being part of the construction of that page. For example: John Mollon, Peter Gouras, Steven Shevell, Joel Pokorny, Gerald Jacobs, Jay Neitz, Jack Werner. At least one of them should be a part of the discussion to improve the page. I will try to contact few of them.

Feitosa-santana (talk) 04:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)Feitosa-SantanaFeitosa-santana (talk) 04:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Every article has a talk page which can be accessed by clicking on the tab labelled "discussion" at the top of the article. Here is the direct link: Talk:Color_vision. --NeilN talk to me 04:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Can't put photo on appropriate page

Answered: Danger (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I uploaded a photo here:


It was supposed to go on this page:

But nothing I can do puts it there, and every time I try something like Revert, it just duplicates the photo.

Question one: how do I get the photo on the page? Question two: how do I delete all those duplicates?

FairchildFilm FairchildFilm (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The file page describes the file, but that by itself is not enough to make it appear in an article - the system cannot guess where each picture is supposed to go. I have edited the article to include the picture. The extra copies displayed on the file page are harmless, I think.
You need to edit the page File:VelekaGrayIn1985.jpg once more to indicate what rights you are granting to others to use this picture. If you are placing the picture into the public domain, you should add {{PD-self}}; another common choice is {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}. You can read about this at WP:ICTIC. If you do not do this, the image is likely to be deleted, I'm afraid. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality: Generic vs. Vendor Specific term: "App Store"

Stale: Danger (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia App Store article is written in a way that assumes the term refers to the Apple Inc iPhone App Store. While Apple has applied for trademarks on this term, this is an area being hotly contested. Even the United States government has applied the term App Store to their own venues, e.g:

There is legal current controversy in the EU over a trademark granted there.

Thus the overall form of this article seems to violate the neutral point of view (NPOV) guideline. Of course, I don't want to claim to be completely neutral myself, but to me it seems more like common sense that term shouldn't be assumed to be vendor specific until the matter is solved. The issue has been raised on the talk page without any resolution. What's next?

--Burt Harris 18:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burt Harris (talkcontribs)

Jack Beutel

Answered: Danger (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I am terribly upset. You have my father, Jack Beutel also spelled Jack Buetel, as being born Warren Higgins. This is definitely not true. This is false information!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am his daughter Cynthia A. Beutel. My step-father is RIchard L. Bare the director of Green Acres. I live in Newport Beach, CA. My father was born Jack Beutel so please remove the Warren Higgins!!!!!!! If you need to contact me PLASE DO!!!!!!!!!!!!! For legal reasons I don't need this false information to be out there on the internet any longer. Thank you,

Cynthia A. Beutel Daughter [details removed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Please don't make even implied legal threats. Also, although not against policy, you don't need so many exclamation points to get your point across. In any event, I've removed the Higgins assertions from the article as unsourced.
I might add, for the benefit of other editors, that the article is a mess. It has NO inline sources, and the only source it has is a book. But without inline sources to the book and to page numbers, it's tough to tell what is supported by the book and what isn't. The article needs to be stripped back - or reliably sourced (not IMDb, for example).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

unfair article deletion

Answered: Danger (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia, Someone is deleting many of my articles, even though they are well intended and formed, and similar to many other articles on Wikipedia. The deletions are done by the same user which look odd and spiteful. Please help... here is the page where i got the deletion notices: Thanks

N.B i'm a software consultant with over 13 years of experience in this field, and i think i can contribute to Wikipedia articles in this field

Franklin90210 (talk) 12:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:N and WP:Reliable sources.  – ukexpat (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any citation of sources in the articles in question. We do not accept articles or material based upon editors' personal knowledge, regardless of how extensive that knowledge may be. Rather, all material must be attributable to a reliable published source. If that is the case, please cite your sources, and you are not likely to receive additional challenges. If you are writing based upon personal knowledge and experience, while I am sure your intentions were good, it is not the purpose of this project to accept such material. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

error made for the results of the 1964 olympic bobsled event in innsbruck austria

Answered: Danger (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

In 1964 the ice was so bad and accidents so bad another team was need to hold the event. The new team put together was made up using an itialian, a canadian, a german, and an american. Having only 3 days to practice, using an old swiss podar sled, they were setting unheard of records. They won the gold! It was the only time in olympic history where 4 national anthums were played for one gold metal. Chanel 12 news, in phoenix, did a series on that fact interviewing bill baker. The series was shown nationaly at the salt lake winter olympic games. Thank you for looking into this and making the correction, Susan Baker —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Bobsleigh at the 1964 Winter Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
You are welcome to edit the article (have I linked the right one?) but you will need to provide a reliable source for the new information. The article is currently sourced to this web page, and with a Google search I found another web page also saying that Canada won the event. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Here is an official source with no indication of mixed teams in the medals. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

SUDAN NOW pg. meeting Wikipedia standards?

Answered: Danger (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Would like to create a page for Sudan Now, which has had behind-the-scenes impact.

Would the following meet Wiki standards?

Endorsement and embracement by major groups as justification for notability - AJWS announcement of joining, SDC, GI-NET, SGN/i-ACT, IAG, HU, plus occasionally joined by HRW or Crisis Action.

There is no official documentation saying that Sudan Now moved the administration to act on Sudan. There is anecdotal evidence and one could claim cause and effect.

Below are a few Sudan advocacy organizations, to learn more and get involved:


Citation of press received through George Clooney?

(Here's my original comment from Jespah's Talk page, hope Jespah will forgive my cleaning this up for her): You can probably answer your own questions if you take a look at WP:reliable and WP:verifiable and consider whether anecdotal evidence, or endorsements by like-minded advocacy groups, can be shoehorned into those general sourcing requirements. Also, a question like this is going to draw next to no attention from other editors if posted here - perhaps four or five, max, watch your Talk page. Try at WP:EAR (for instance), which will have a much larger audience. JohnInDC (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Don't know what happened to remainder of your comment, but thank you, read it. --Jespah (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
(By way of background - the page was previously created and then speedily deleted under A7; a bit of discussion on the subject can be found here.) JohnInDC (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

If there is only "anecdotal evidence", I am afraid this does not meet our requirement of a reliable source. We don't accept what someone thinks or says is true, only what can be sourced. If that does not exist, the article is not possible as there is no basis for it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! --Jespah (talk) 01:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Image/Map format issues

Resolved: Appears to have figured it out on zir own. Danger (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello I am trying to move a map from the info box into a text section- however the map uses a geotag to generate a red dot at a location on the map- which means the markup language is pretty confusing and I can't figure how to format it so it makes a normal thumbnail like any other image. If anyone could help with the correct language, the map is posted on the talk page for this article, and you can see what the formatting is doing wrong there. (talk) 02:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Ajl772/AfC/Shame On Me (song)

Answered: Danger (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to repost this request here, since I haven't received a satisfactory answer from any of the other places I've posted it. – AJLtalk 03:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Second discussion from the relisting of the "2011 April 16 Request for Feedback" (first discussion collapsed below)
First discussion from the 2011 April 16 Request for Feedback.

I've been working on this article for a little bit, and I have been doing lots of Google searches to find information about it.

I'm worried though, that if I move this to mainspace that it might get CSD'd/PROD'd/AFD'd for lack of notability because of a (possible) lack of reliable sources. Are the sources I have provided so far reliable enough? I believe the song is notable, since it is being played on many different radio stations, and is not an "independent record label". Granted, the label company is brand-new, but I am also working on creating that article as well. Please feel free to take a look at that one here). I also plan to make an article for the singer as well.

I do know I need to work on the {{cite web}} references more. – Ajltalk 23:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I know I also need to add it to categories too. – Ajltalk 23:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Hmm...Katrina doesn't have an article. Is that because she's not notable or just that nobody's bothered? I haven't edited any music-related articles so maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, I've done a quick search on Google and the song doesn't seem to be very notable (once you get past the itunes/youtube/katrina's own website results). Also note that one of your references doesn't seem to work. [10]. The second reference is from her own website. And the third one, from iheartradio, just proves that the song exist. I don't think it's a notability-provider. Anyway, this seems like a non-notable song, it will probably get AfDed. Though, as I said, I have not dealt with many music-related articles before so you might want to wait for an expert to comment. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 14:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
They would have a better understanding of that, yes. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:Notability (music) you really do need multiple neutral, third-party refs for Notability. This doesn't mean that the song is literally not "notable", it just means that we don't have enough citeable info about the song from anyone not directly involved with it to be able to write a neutral article. Maybe just keep the draft here, move on and write some other articles, and in six months see if there's any news coverage about the song that you can use to establish Notability. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
@Zlqq2144: Hmmm, that's odd... it worked when I first retrieved it.
@MatthewVanitas: Ok, thank you for your comments. I will hold off on it for a while.
Ajltalk 23:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
What type of information counts as "third-party"? Do radio station events (i.e. a lounge performance) count as being notable enough? Or if they are not notable by themselves, do a number of them add up to being notable? – Ajltalk 23:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Can I get some answers please? – AJLtalk 01:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Assuming you want answers to what "third-party source" is, you could consider looking at this essay and this guideline, or just take my definition that a third-party source is one independent of the subject. As for the radio events, if there is a plethora of them then it may be acceptable; I am not sure of the guidelines for that. A few more notes about the article:
  1. You linked to and another sales site. This is generally not allowed under WP:ELNO.
  2. It may not be notable, as shown above. Neither the singer nor her album has an article yet, and a Google search for the album doesn't show many reliable sources, if any.
I hope that answers your questions. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Alright then. I suppose I should ask over at WikiProject Music what the standard for multiple radio station events are? – AJLtalk 07:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, they would have a better understanding of the criteria for that subject. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


So then, my question, as stated above, is "What is the standard for multiple radio station events?" – AJLtalk 17:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Feedback 2

So, here's the questions:
  1. Where should I be posting this to get feedback?
  2. And as stated above under "Feedback": What is the standard of inclusion for multiple radio station events?
Sorry for being a burden here. – AJLtalk 03:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Notability means that a reliable source covered the subject in depth. It doesn't mean "fame" or "notoriety" or anything of the like—simply that there's sufficient source coverage to sustain a full article. "It got played on the radio several times" is not an article. You'd need sources that cover the subject extensively and in-depth. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Marshall Strabala Page Questions

Answered: Danger (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Your help would be much appreciated on resolving some differences of opinion on the Marshall Strabala page. This includes some disputes that were never resolved when I first contacted Editor assistance/Requests last week. I will number these issues for clarification:

1. Under the heading “Professional Positions,” it states that “ In 2010, Strabala left Gensler under circumstances still in dispute as of December 2010.” And sources this information to a Shanghai China-based online publication called Urbanatomy. I have asked editor NovaSeminary to consider rephrasing this to something more neutral such as, “In 2010, Strabala left Gensler “ (and then continue on with the next sentence. I suggest this because: a) There is only one Chinese publication of unknown repute publishing this negative and questionable claim. I would think this kind of claim would require two or more credible sources that English-speaking readers have at least heard of before. b) It has been over five months since this story was published and it’s quite possible that such a dispute has been settled, so this would be old and meaningless information in that case. c) It implies, by positioning a large global company like Gensler against one lone architect, that Strabala may have done something wrong, and doesn’t provide Strabala a chance to give his side of this story. The author may have misunderstood what Strabala meant on this topic. Isn’t that what Wikipedia is supposed to be about, being neutral and giving both sides of a situation? d) The dispute information really adds nothing to the story. How many people do you know that leave their employer on their own or otherwise that don’t have disputes. Many of course. This situation would be quite different if Strabala (or his employer) won a lawsuit against the other party in regards to his departure from the firm. That would be relevant information if it happened and was made public and appropriate for Wikipedia. But, that is not what we are talking about here.

2. Personal Information For over two years, Strabala’s page has had personal information about where he lives and this information has been approved on numerous occasions by multiple editors. NovaSeminary uses the his own Wikipedia rule of “cruft,” which he never explained, to delete at 15:12 on 13 May: "==Personal== As of September 2010, Strabala divides his time between homes in Shanghai,Houston, and Chicago." and sources, Houston Business Journal, Marshall Strabala gives new meaning to 'super-tall', Sept 27 2010, What is the rule of “cruft” that NovaSeminary has evidently created for himself. I k now the definition of cruft and don’t believe it applies. And, more importantly, why is this information about where he lives not appropriate when the same information is included on thousands of other personal pages for business executives on Wikipedia. This simple one sentence about where Strabala lives tells readers he lives on three different continents. That’s different than most people, and not something that the readers would otherwise know by reading the story. Afterall, Strabala could live in one city and have offices in three cities, but he doesn’t. If this personal information is not permitted then that will be good for me to know. Because then I will be on the lookout to “properly edit” thousands of Wikipedia pages for business executives that likely require editing of this “cruft”personal information (i.e. including Steve Jobs (whose residence city is provided); Todd Stitzer, whose two residences are provided; architect Campion Platt); architect John_ C_Harkness, and I could go on and on.

3. LEED Certification Again for more than two years, Strabala’s page had included this copy: “A member of the American Institute of Architects, Strabala is LEED certified which recognizes that distinguishes building professionals with the knowledge and skills to successfully steward green building practices and principles. [3]” The publication Architecture Week was used as the source (see In April, NovaSeminary deleted reference to the LEED certification, without any official WP reason, and for a time NovaSeminary had wanted to know the specific type of LEED certification (there are five I believe) that Strabala had. Well, that type of minutia is not sourced information, but his LEED certification has been sourced in Architecture Week and many other credible media that have covered him. For example, see EArchitectUK, and Houston Construction News:

This LEED certification is pertinent because it is a level of certification that relatively few architects have received. I would like to have that LEED reference put back in the story. I look forward to your comments. Thank you for your assistance.Mykjoseph (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

These issues are more appropriately discussed on the article's talk page, maybe with an RfC pointing there. And as I have noted elsewhere, in several places Mykjoseph has claimed to personally represent the subject at his PR firm. But since Mykjoseph is calling me out here, here are my quick thoughts (in the order Mykjoseph raised them). 1) The language is neutral and comports with the source which was added by Mykjoseph with this edit. If the source is not reliable, it should be removed along with the other facts it supports. 2) This person is notable for his work. His residences are irrelevant to that, and in light of the context seem to be intended to portray the subject in a certain light. 3) As noted in my ES, LEED certification applies to buildings, designers are accredited and there are very different types of accreditation (per the accreditor's website). This can certainly go back in after being clarfied and properly sourced (I had initially tagged it as such but no clarification came). Novaseminary (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Pi

Answered: Danger (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Pi and theCube, with the Cylinder,Sphere, and Cone are a Universal Unit and the Foundation of Physical Geometry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pi and the Cube, with the Cylinder,Sphere, and Cone are a Universal Unit and the Foundation of Physical Geometry.

I am a bit confused as to why the quick delation, as the material is brand new, explaining the meaning of Pi(Π). And it maybe of some assistance to some one, is why I posted it on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Htrow (talkcontribs) 19:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I've no idea why the article was deleted, but we already have one on Pi. If the material was 'brand new', that may explain its deletion though. We require articles to be sourced from external reliable sources, and do not publish original research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The person to talk to is the deleting administrator, NawlinWiki. GB fan (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The deletion log is our friend: A1: Not enough context to identify article's subject – ukexpat (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The only thing saved at Pi and theCube, with the Cylinder,Sphere, and Cone are a Universal Unit and the Foundation of Physical Geometry was a placeholder with no real content. In particular, there was nothing about Pi, geometry or mathematics. Instead you saved something on your user page at User:Htrow. Some of it is already in Wikipedia and the new parts look like original research which doesn't belong in Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

editing problems

Answered: Danger (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to contact John of Reading but everything is so complicated.

I would like very much to contribute but it is most dispiriting to remove an article with no explanation.

Humphrey Brown was written by me for my own Society's Bulletin - see but was updated and reworked just for wikipedia.

In order to fill in gaps in Tewkesbury's History it is inevitable that I will work in this way.

Because ofthe complications of using Wikipedia then it is inevitable that I will write off-line so that as many mistakes as possible are eradicated before posting.

I am meticulous about referencing when I edit our own publciations. We have mdoernised the style to some extent to be comprehensible to the more general reader who does not know Latin.

I just cannot follow your advice and do not know how to access it.

John —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Tewkesbury (talkcontribs) 22:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks like you are new to Wikipedia. You might want to take it slower in order to make it more enjoyable for you. John of Reading might be watching your talk ("discussion") page in which case you can just write on your talk page in response to him. In case not, just click on his name in his signature on your talk page whihc will take you to his pages, and click the "discussion" tab and then "edit"and start writing. Enjoy! North8000 (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
You posted a message on John's Talk page and have been conversing with him and another editor who deleted an article you wrote. Since your original post, you have not contributed to the conversation. Just click on the link here and then click on "edit" to the right of the section header and say whatever you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Let's continue this at User talk:John Tewkesbury; I'll reply there in about an hour. (Real life gets in the way sometimes...) -- John of Reading (talk) 07:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

? about use of descriptive text

Stale: Danger (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I changed the post below. Second version in bold is mine. An editor undid my change stating that my post was not neutral but puffery. My contention is that it states the mission of the organization and is not puffery but fact. Would appreciate other opinions. thank you.

John Prendergast (born March 21, 1963) is an American human rights activist, author, and former Director for African Affairs at the National Security Council. He is the co-founder of the Enough Project, a non profit human rights organization affiliated with the Center for American Progress. Prendergast is also a board member and serves as Strategic Advisor to Not On Our Watch.[6]

In the latter half of the 1980s and the first half of the 1990s, Prendergast worked for a variety of organizations in the U.S. and Africa,[7][8][9] focusing primarily on peace and human rights. At the end of 1996, he joined the National Security Council as Director for African Affairs[10] and thereafter served as a special adviser to Susan Rice at the United States Department of State.[11] As a special adviser, Prendergast was part of the facilitation team behind the successful two-and-a-half-year U.S. effort to broker an end to the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea.[12] Prendergast left government in 2001 to become Special Adviser to the President of the International Crisis Group on Africa issues,[13] and in 2007, with Gayle Smith he co-founded the Enough Project, housed at the Center for American Progress.

he co-founded the Enough Project to build a permanent constituency to battle human rights crimes like genocide, rape as a war weapon, and child soldier recruitment.

thank you. --Jespah (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The matter has been discussed at the article's Talk page, here. Elsewhere on the same page are various discussions about chronic POV problems relating to the article, which interested editors may also find instructive as context for the immediate issue. JohnInDC (talk) 23:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Here as well: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_49#John_Prendergast. JohnInDC (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

re: vandalization of Lars von Trier site by User:Mr. Stradivarius

Resolved: Quack, quack. Danger (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Lars von Trier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In attempting to represent a fair, proportionate, and as far as possible without bias, an article relating to the recent comments by Lars von Trier expressing his admiration for the Nazis, Mr. Stradivarius believes that all comments relation to these recent turn of events should be whitewashed and deleted from said article claiming that they were biased and lacking in "balance". It should be noted that all comments relating to this story including Mr. von Triers apologies in subsequent interviews have been published and that all significant views are by reliable sources.Yourfriend1 (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Yourfriend1

I just noticed this thread from looking at User:Yourfriend1's contributions. My intentions were certainly not to vandalize the article; I merely think that too much coverage on von Trier's recent comments is affecting the balance of the article. Note that in the version I reverted to there is still coverage of the comments (in the "2000s" section), and also that Yourfriend1 hasn't yet participated in the talk page discussion. I have also filed a report at WP:3RRN for Yourfriend1 breaking 3RR. Mr. Stradivarius 07:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
An update - the 3RR report (new link) has been closed with a warning for Yourfriend1. Mr. Stradivarius 19:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Another swift update - Yourfriend1 has been reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yourfriend1, and the AN3 link has changed again, to this.
Well, that's pretty open-shut. I think this request can safely be closed. Any editors interesting in engaging in the continuing melee at Lars von Trier are welcome to it though. --Danger (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Hungarian Academicians Blast Government Over Inquiry Into Research Funds" American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) ScienceInsider 4 February 2011
  2. ^ Chris, Cynthia. “Can You Repeat That? Patterns of Media Ownership and the ‘Repurposing’ Trend”. The Communication Review, 9: 63-84, 2006
  3. ^ Lotz, Amanda D. (2007) "The Television Will Be Revolutionized". New York, NY: New York University Press. p. 124-125