Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 90

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

Archive 85

←

Archive 88

→

article 'in limbo' since July 2004

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I came across the HPM article a couple of days age. Initially I made an enquiry to help desk and was advised to be bold. After making some editorial adjustments I received a nasty comment on my talk page from the author of the article accusing me of vandalism.

Yesterday, I did a more thorough editing on the article's talk page. No one has responded to this. I am concerned because the discussion of this HPM article has been going on since July 2004! You can read all my comment so I don't need to repeat them here.

How is it possible that an article can remain effectivly 'in limbo' all this time? IMO wikipedia is a reference site, therefore the main priority is the quality of the information rather than the user's subjective personal processing of theories/ideas/practices.

Surely there is a time limit for which an article can remain in limbo? It would take a maximum of 4-5 hours to produce a quality article referenced from genuinely reliable accurate sources. Thankyou Fridakahlofan (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Te Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. There are however lots of rules, policies, and guidelines that must be observed, but a time limit for completing articles is not one of them. A voluntary, collaborative project like this relies heavily on people like yourself who discover articles that need cleaning up and/or expanding. 4 - 5 hours is good, sometimes it can take 400 or 500! As long as it respects our policies, please feel welcome to be bold as you have already been advised, and improve the article in which ever way you feel is appropriate. Once an article has been created, nobody can own it whoever created it. Claiming ownership is very much against Wikipedia principles, and can be met with sanctions. You may find however, that some comments, especially if made by administrators, may draw your attention to edits you have made that are not conform with our policies - in which case, you should follow their advice, and familiarise yourself with any rules that you might not be sure of.--Kudpung (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung. Should I put it forward as a conflict? I'm happy to re-write but not willing to put up with personal attacks. Thanks Fridakahlofan (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

For the moment, I do not quite see where you have been attacked. I can only see where you have not improved the article(s), but simply removed large chunks of content from articles that are undergoing regular attention from editors. It's probably not a good idea to make complaints about possible conflicts until we have finished looking into the problem for you here. I'll be back.--Kudpung (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You have not been attacked. An administrator, User:Cirt, has placed a standard warning template on your talk page because you have either blanked pages or removed large amounts of content without out previous discussion with other editors. Being 'bold' only really means making expansinos or minor edits that are not controversial. I have left a message on your talk page - do take a moment to read up on our core policies and editing instructions before making any new changes to articles.--Kudpung (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung. Thanks for your comments and support. I'm not sure if you had a chance to look at the article's talk page. I went back a couple of days ago and added several editorial comments on the talk page. No one has responded to these. My main point is that the entire article is of such poor quality that it doesn't make sense to spend a relatively long time making lots of 'minor' edits. The most logical thing to do as I pointed out before would be to scrap the whole article and spend 4-5 hours to present a new one instead. My mistake was that I should have mentioned a summary of the initial editing. The fact remains that no one is following this article any longer and it looks like no one is going to reply to the editorial comments I made. One of the items I initially removed looked very much like advertising/spam; the section at the very end about the Silva Method. I realize that there are rules to follow but each situation needs to be considered within its context. Regards Fridakahlofan (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

A couple of clarifications. First, the "nasty comment" related to another article, Golden ratio. Second, the major removal of material from the HPM article was done by another editor, not by Frida.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Then with all due respect, thers's absolutely nothing preventing Frida from taking the matter up with Cirt who will almost certainly apologise if he has made a Good Faith mistake.--Kudpung (talk) 06:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ito calculus

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Itō_calculus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) In my opinion, the second-to-last section, "Further extensions of Itō calculus: the quadratic covariation derivative" blows out of proportions a trivial fact (at least it is trivial for any expert in the area) and attributes it to a virtually unknown and very recent paper by Allouba. (If anything, it should just cite a standard textbook.) Several editors attempted to remove it a number of times, but the edit was always reverted (see also the discussion page). Furthermore, criticism of this section were met with unusually strong and irrational responses. I strongly suspect that the original addition, as well as the reversions were performed by Allouba himself for the sole purpose of self-promotion. (His webpage also prominently links to the article in question.) Hairer (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I have posted a comment at Talk:Itō calculus#Stochastic derivative in an attempt to help clear up this dispute. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Double Tables page (Wikified standards)

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Has the article now been properly wikified? I think have added a decent amount of internal links for now and add will in the future if necessary. If the standard has been met, when will the "wikify" banner at the top of the page be removed?

Comedian1018 (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Tag removed. --Kudpung (talk) 06:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

hrm

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

if england establish tyre manfacturing company wch leads by america then what its advantage or disadvantage.what the role of hrp in that orgnaization —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iqra.cs786 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:Reference desk is the place for this kind of question. WP:EAR is for queries about editing Wikipedia. I suggest that you clarify your question and write in good plain English if you expect help. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

New User

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I am a new user. How do I add a new term or word or event? Massi55 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Massi55 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. I have placed some useful links on your talk page. Check those out as an introduction to how things work round here. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

What started out as a theory that turned into disrespect and ended up deleted my an administrator unfairly.

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

We are working on this statement below so I'm just saying that I'm not really offended by Wikipedia but there appears to be some critics that shouldn't be editing/deleting Wikipedia without the proper education on the subject matter.Krunchlol (talk) 03:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

What started out as a theory that turned into disrespect and ended up deleted my an administrator unfairly.

So, will this theory be stolen from me? I gave you a copy. User talk:Edgar181 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Longevity_by_Cosmic_Acceleration_Theory Krunchlol (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
For reasons of respect please allow me to propose that a valid theory should not be deleted because an administrator just doesn't like the theory for there own personal reasons. Please change your decision of deleting Longevity by Cosmic Acceleration Theory. I can prove this theory thru Physics. Mark Williams, Electrical Engineer, Texas A&M University 2002

I started this thread to suggest that some Longevity myths may actually be facts. I really would like to keep credit for my theory instead of a thanks for the tip. This theory also involves Einstein’s Time Dilation by Relativity Theory, Applied Physics and Cosmic Activity. So, Time dilation is responsible for Biblical Longevity as an explanation after Noah’s flood because the earth is still rotating 365 days a year normally given that ancient records were recorded correctly. To clarify, this theory says that a living being can age slower or faster in its solar system since effects from within the galaxy or universe do not affect the earth’s typical orbit. Meaning the earth is still normally rotating 365 days a year however the speed of the galaxy traveling in the universe has changed do to gravitational effect from other bodies such as black holes were Time Dilation has occurred. Furthermore, the measured time of the clock will speed up during deceleration as the earth approaches the speed at creation which should be zero meters per second and in contrast the measured time of the clock will slow down as it approaches the speed of light since it is accelerating. So basically, you could start ageing faster or slower and you wouldn't know by examining your relative time at that instant but over a period of time a difference would be noticed since your time is based on the rotation around the Sun. Krunchlol (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Mark Williams, Electrical Engineer, Texas A&M University 2002 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krunchlol (talk • contribs)

Sorry but Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Maybe wou would like to try Alternative outlets. -- Alexf(talk) 20:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC) How would alternative outlets fix a valid theory? Why would you think that I may like your suggestion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krunchlol (talk • contribs) 20:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Krunchlol (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC) It's a theory not a thought. Alternative outlets don't fix the situation.

Sincerely, Mark Williams Krunchlol (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you may misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, focused on presenting well-sourced material as a reference work, not a publisher of new, original thinking as you are presenting here. Please read these guidelines regarding original research to get a better idea of why such material can not be included in Wikipedia. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

There are some useful links about Wikipedia works on your talk page. All articles should be referenced by verifiable and reliable sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

See the begining of this text. Krunchlol (talk) 03:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Articles on theories in Wikipedia need to be referenced to reliable sources, e.g. scientific papers, etc. If you wish to puiblsih your theory then you should write up a paper for the appropriate scientific journal. When it has been published an commented upon, undoubtedly someone will write a Wikipedia article. Do you understand that? Jezhotwells (talk) 11:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

la liga

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

how can Real Madrid and Barcelona have both won the title in the same year 2008-09 season have a look

77.99.27.19 (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't that just mean that in the first part of the competition, the teams were divided into groups, and those two teams came first in their respective groups? -- John of Reading (not a sports expert!) (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems clear to me from the article that Real won the title in 2007-08 and Barca in 2008-09. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Right. If you are thinking of "Real Madrid were the defending champions" in 2008–09 La Liga then it means they won the previous championship and tried (unsuccessfully) to defend it. If you mean something else then please explain and give the exact name of the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy blanking template

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Somewhere on Wikipedia there's a template or some markup that adds text to a G12 speedy template saying that the contents have been blanked due to a copyright violation. Can anyone tell me where this template/markup is? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean {{Courtesy blanked}}? If the page has been tagged with {{db-copyvio}} it shouldn't be around for much longer, anyway. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Usually only G10 speedy deletions are blanked; blatant copyvios (G12s) are usually deleted pretty quickly, and if it's a non-blatant copyvio, you can subst {{copyvio}} to blank it while its copyright status is checked and the issue is resolved. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Civility issue

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Please could someone tell me whether I or User:Dave1185 have broken any polices or guidelines in this communication ? Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 16:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

1) Dave1185 made this comment on WP:Articles_for_deletion/Qantas_Flight_32 about IP User:194.94.44.4 - "*Note: Firstly, I have to apologise if it offends anyone and I hate to say this but whenever an unknown IP editor open their mouth on AfD, I tend to shout sockpuppetry or vote fraud. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)" [1]

2) I placed an Template:Attack template on Dave1185's talk page - [2]

3) User Dave1185 removed the template with the edit summary - "really a big thank you for proving you're a dick despite my apology there, you post it here one more time and I'll cite you on ANI for harassment" [3]

4) and I see that as I write this, Dave1185 has just written this on my talk page - "Wrongful accusation

What was this about? My question to you now is, have you even read through that particular message of mine before you jump to conclusion and start to accuse me of personal attack? FYI, I didn't make an apology beforehand for no logical reasons, ya'know? Furthermore, my comment was an honest assessment and experience after going through a couple of AfD/CfD/FfD/MfD in which IP editors (along with sockpuppets) barge in and attempts to swing the opinion of consensus, which can and have resulted in vote fraud, mind you. Again, I can forgive you if you misunderstand me but if you were to deliberately misconstrue my statement and decided not to AGF on an honest statement that I've already openly admitted to followed by posting another warning on my talk page again... I will take you to ANI for harassment. Take heed. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 15:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)" [4]

I suggest that you read WP:Don't template the regulars and forget about it. No personal attacks have been made and you appear to be making a mountain out of a mole-hill. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, I'm not a "disruptive" editor ! I wanted to add to the article "Noble gases" some words:

Comments anywhere such as: Note: Firstly, I have to apologise if it offends anyone and I hate to say this but whenever an unknown IP editor open their mouth on AfD, I tend to shout sockpuppetry or vote fraud, are clearly misplaced. Everyone on the planet is free to edit this encyclopedia within the constraints of our policies, guidelines, and instructions for format, and there is absolutely no requirement whatsoever for contributors to register for an account with a user name. All such contributions, if not obvious vandalism or garbled nonsense are to be considered made in Good Faith until proven otherwise by civil discussion. Editors who automatically assume bad faith will not be surprised if they are treted with contempt by the community. A misplaced comment can sometimes slip out in the heat of the moment; however, while everyone respects a genuine apology, making an apology before carrying out a wrongful deed does not provide licence for it. Inflammatory, irrational, or contentious statements do not lend weight to debates and will be ignored by the closing administrator.--Kudpung (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Threats of of taking people to Aunty ANI in situations like will fall on deaf ears because they too are inflammatory, and generally the people at ANI have more serious issues to contend with.

The conclusions are: keep cool, watch what you are all saying, and when you have something to say, say it in the right place, complete an edit summary, and sign your posts.--Kudpung (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Revert at Noble gas

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"Helium is also used as a filling gas in the nuclear fuel rods, especially for CANDU fuel elements". It is absolutely correct, I worked with nuclear fuels. I don't understand your blocking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.100.90.38 (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:109.100.90.38 please sign your posts. Your addition was clearly made to the article in good faith and a template warning was certainly an overreaction when civil discussion about your editing behaviour would have been more appropriate. However, a paragraph dedicated to the use of noble gasses in diving is probably not the best place to insert a mention of helium being used as a filler for nuclear energy rods, and will naturally invite some reaction from editors who are not only scientists, but reasonably competent writers of prose. Please remember also that all contributors, even those who chose not to register, are expected to complete an edit summary each time they modify a text or make a comment.
I'll be addressing the other points of these issues in a few moments. --Kudpung (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

@109.100.90.38: I have restored and referenced your addition and posted an apology at your talk. Unfortunately, your edit came right after a vandal edit, and I accidentally reverted and warned you. Such mistake would not happen if you provided an edit summary and/or cited reliable reference. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

evidence that my novel SOMETHING YOU DO IN THE DARK was not "self-described' as the first gay protest novel

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

REVIEWS of SOMETHING YOU DO IN THE DARK by DANIEL CURZON, over forty years

“Engrossing, powerful, and disturbing.” -- Joyce Carol Oates (front cover blurb, 1971 Putnam edition)

“Something You Do in the Dark . . . is a real novel, not a political tract. It deals convincingly and powerfully with the persecution of a minority, but it tells the story of an individual, not a representative martyr. Its hero is torn between rebellion and cowardice, love and rage; he is never too good to be true. I greatly admire Daniel Curzon for writing this book.” -- Christopher Isherwood, 1974

“Powerful and engrossing!” --Walter Allen, author of The English Novel

“I think Dark is truly ‘powerful and engrossing.’ --Michael Sarotte, author of Like a Lover, Like a Brother

“I read the book when I was young. It was a gift to all of us.” --David Mixner, Author/Activist

“At last, a true-to-life portrait of a gutsy gay male: fast-moving, up-to-date, healthy and courageous. We rooted for him from cover to cover, and we’ll remember him for a long time.” -- Lige & Jack, Editors, Gay (newspaper), 1971 (back cover of original Putnam edition)

“. . . Curzon’s novel surpasses its predecessors in harsh, beautiful honesty, in liberated grasp of the subtle varieties of homosexual character, in anguished, unsentimental protest and it its spirit of nowness.” -- Jim Kepner, The Advocate, Gay Archivist, 1971

“Almost three decades after I first read it, Something You Do in the Dark is still a powerful and provocative reading experience.” -- Jesse Monteagudo, The Lost Library: Gay Fiction Rediscovered, 2010

“SOMETHING YOU DO IN THE DARK certainly deserves a wide readership and should be on every list of classic novels with gay characters-- whatever that means-- and should be considered with CITY OF NIGHT, GIOVANNI'S ROOM and THE CITY AND THE PILLAR.” -- H.F. Corbin (Amazon Top 500 Reviewer), 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielcurzon (talk • contribs) 01:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this is Editor's assistance/Requests. If your comment is aimed at the first line of the article Daniel Curzon, then I sughgest that you post at the talk page of that article. I see that the statement "which is self-described as the first gay protest novel" is referenced to Curzon, Daniel (2004), Dropping Names: The Delicious Memoirs of Daniel Curzon, IGNA Books, p. 33, ISBN 0. As I don't have access to that book, I can't tell whether page 33 contains any wording that would support the statement or not. Your additions to the article have been removed as they are copies of the book jacket and unreferenced. You should perhaps lay out reviews with ciattions on the artcile talk page. You obviously have a conflict of interest in editing this page and it is nbetter if tyou just place material on the talk page and let other editors assess it. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

'Controversial' or 'disputed' categorizations

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you are having a discussion which is good. And someone has cited Categorization#What categories should be created which is also good. It is up to you editors to develop a consensus. This page, WP:EAR, is staffed by volunteers, some of who are admins. Please remember that admins are volunteer editors with additional sysops powers. The opinion of admins on guidelines is no different that that of other editors. What matters is editors woking on an article or area of knowledge developing consensus about editorial content. If you want outside opinions you could start a formal request for comment. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

searching !

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

how can i find the biography of a living person please ? i've lost more than an hour searching . thank you. m.bakir —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.241.34.48 (talk) 06:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk might be the best place to ask. Of course if you don't mention the name of the person then no-one will be able to help. It is also possible that Wikipedia does not have an article on the person you are looking for. Have you tried a Google search? Jezhotwells (talk) 09:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Requesting help with sources being misrepresented in an article

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The Article in question is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MonaVie

This article was added to WikiProject Companies recently. I currently have no connections to this company however this article has been around for a few years already. I have read all the sources used for this article of this company and found that the article has quite a bit of POV. Most of the Statements in the Lead are not at all Factual or supported by the references. Here are some examples of the statements made in the article.

"MonaVie has been the subject of controversy, as health benefit claims for its products have not been scientifically confirmed or approved by regulatory authorities,"

There are no sources that provide any proof of the MonaVie company making any claims that were not approved by regulatory authorities. The sources state there was an independent distributor who created his own website and posted some health claims that the FDA warned him about .However the MonaVie Company was never warned directly nor did the FDA say anything about any claims the actual company had made.

"its CEO was previously involved in false health claims of another beverage" I cant find any mention of the CEO of MonaVie Dallin Larsen being involved in any false claims. The only facts I can see in the source articles are that he had a senior post in Usana and left the company a year before the FDA shut it down according to the newsweek article.

"the business plan is similar to a pyramid scheme" after discussing with some editors about the article I was told that this sentence is justified by the wording of "“Team is one step ahead of all these juice selling schemes. It is a pyramid atop a pyramid. It is selling motivational aids to help MonaVie vendors move the juice" in forbes and these statements here ”In a 1979 regulatory action involving [Amway], the Federal Trade Commission attempted to draw lines between legitimate and fraudulent pyramids. The ones that are legit focus on getting revenue from consumer goods sold to retail customers. The FTC did not, however, define ‘retail’ in that case. That leaves plenty of wiggle room for guys like Orrin Woodward; he counts the vast majority of people in his pyramid, who seemingly try but fail to make money, as retail customers.”

The source used mainly for calling this company a pyramid scheme was this article here http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0811/050.html The problem with using this article to call the company of MonaVie a pyramid scheme is that this source is an article about Orrin Woodwards TEAM company and not of the Company of MonaVie. And I cant find anything in the article that makes calling anything a pyramid scheme possible.

"and very few distributors actually make a profit" This statement may need updating with new information about the income of distributors as a few of the articles used to source this are old however one source article mentions 1% see a profit however in another article we have numbers like 45 percent and 37 percent seeing profits. about 45 percent of the company's distributors earned an annualized average check of less than $1,600, while 37 percent took home about $2,000. About 2 percent earned an annualized average check of more than $29,000, according to a company statement. And just seven of MonaVie's 80,000 distributors took home the big money, more than $3 million. This information is from 2008 it appears and the company started in 2005 so this is still a young company. It is also possible many of these distributors are merely customers who are only using the products and are not interested in building a business. New information for 2010 needs to be found to update this article however it still is only a 5 year old company.

Could we receive assistance here with checking the statements in the sources and comparing them to the statements made in the article? Thank you for taking the time to read this. DavidR2010 (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you seem to have done that, according to the talk page. If you need further input then you could consider raising a request for comment. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a complete advertisement. Many questions are asked openly about where the funds go and his involvement in a recent death. Any comments are summarily removed and this is not a marketing brochure. Help please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.21.194 (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you should start by opening discussion on the article talk page. That is why the talk page is provided. BLP policy requires that any controversial material is cited to verifiable and reliable sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

This IP appears to be forum shopping. I have already responded at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Rabbi_Pinto. RolandR (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Icon (Jessica Andrews album) created today, has a Good Article tag

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icon_(Jessica_Andrews_album)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Icon_(Jessica_Andrews_album)&action=history

This article was just created today, but somehow has a Good Article tag. It's not listed at GAs, nor is there anything on the Talk page about nominations, etc.

Thanks!

We hope (talk) 01:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Someone incorrectly used the template it looks like.Cptnono (talk) 02:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Adbusters

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I have been trying to edit the "adbusters" entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adbusters with more references on alleged anti-Semitism. This is always reverse as vandalism. It isn't. I even quoted other wikepedia entries and the NOW journal. I don't see why you cannot link to Blogs either if they provide information.

The user who reverses me menace of block.

Please advise

Thank you

Pitiricus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitiricus (talk • contribs) 18:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I note that the last message on your talk page is from Ma8thew (talk · contribs), who says "Could you please engage in a discussion with me?". So I suggest you begin a conversation by posting at User talk:Ma8thew. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

South Buffalo, New York

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Over the last several months the article describing the neighborhood of South Buffalo, New York was butchered and altered back and forth by a person or persons who are insistant in portraying their views of this neighborhood, which in many cases are factually wrong, if not just inaccurate by mutual convention of the neighborhood's residents. This person or persons main contentions were over the ethnic make-up of the neighborhood,(claims that this neighborhood is not largely Irish-American when evidence and convention clearly states otherwise) the accepted boudaries of the neighborhood,(Insistance on extending the neighborhoods northern boundary to include a seperate part of the city known as "Kaisertown" which is a clearly separate area from South Buffalo) as well as what seemed to be an obsession with Roman Catholicism and the anti-abortion movement,(This is not the place to register any complaints against abortion and their are other religions represented in South Buffalo besides just Roman Catholicism). This person or persons was dilligent to say the least in altering this article to fit their perspective, no matter how inaccurate they are. As you can see from the article's hsitory over the last two or three years, a virtual war was raged with stubborn regularity. Wikipedia eventually stepped in and ruled on our behalf, but they also locked the article to keep this person or persons from probogating their own deluded views. Could Wikipedia please revert this article back to its original form and lock it down once again?80.195.95.86 (talk) 08:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you speak as if Wikipedia were some supreme authority that rules and makes decisions. In reality it is a collective of volunteer editors. If an article is being heavily vandalised you can request page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Otherwise, if you remove uncited statements and warn the editor adding them, that should be sufficient. I note that the article needs a thorough cleanup to meet Wikipedia standrads. Currently there is a heavy emphasis on trivia and little real encyclopaedic information. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Adbusters

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I have posted changes to the adbusters article with references (some to NOW, a magazine, other to another wikepedia article) and they were deleted by another user who now menaces me of block.

For instance this was deleted by the other user:

This was soundly condemned not only from the mainstream but also from the left. Klaus Jahn, an anti-WTO activist and philosophy of history professor at U of T, finds the piece and the list that goes with it very alarming. "Whether listing physicians who perform abortions in pro-life tracts, gays and lesbians in office memos, Communists in government and the entertainment industry under McCarthy, Jews in Central Europe under Nazism and so on," he says, "such list-making has always produced pernicious consequences." ^[1]

lthough it is neutral and has a real reference.

Please advise

Thank you

Pitiricus

This is a diff of your most recent edit which I reverted. The word 'spurious' is inherently biased, and has no place in a Wikipedia article. Maybe you could reply to me on the article's talk page or my own talk page rather than going behind my back and reporting me. Matt J ^User|Talk 17:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why I should talk to you. I have absolutely no reason to. The word spurious describes exactly the comparison. As simple as that.

Pitiricus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitiricus (talk • contribs) 17:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You should be writing that on the article's talk page. Matt J ^User|Talk 18:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ma8thew has offered to discuss this with Pitiricus. that is the only way forward. Editors are expected to assume good faith and work with other editors to achieve consensus and work together to improve the encyclopaedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Singularitarianism Article: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky quote

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a dispute with editor User:Loremaster regarding a quote by Eliezer Yudkowsky which describes Singularitarianism, the Singularity.

Here is the Article diff:

The quote is from webpage by the prominent AI researcher Eliezer Yudkowsky but Elizer's webpage (where the quote originates) was last updated/Revised 05/14/2001, and the webpage includes as disclaimer stating: "This document has been marked as wrong, obsolete, deprecated by an improved version, or just plain old." My point is that the quote is valid for the following reasons:

1. It describes Singularitarianism. 2. It was made by a prominent AI researcher. 3. There is no updated definition of Singularitarianism by Eliezer Yudkowsky therefore his 2001 definition should stand. 4. Merely because a quote is old this is not a reason for omitting it.

The disclaimer is obviously a catch-all-disclaimer and considering the web-page is live, there is no up-dated page, and the page is 9 years old, I am inclined to opt for the latter part of the disclaimer, that the page is simply "just plain old". Simply because a quote is old this is not a reason for prohibiting inclusion. Loremaster also states the forecast in the quote is "foolish" and not likely to be a correct forecast, it seems the personal bias of Loremaster is inhibiting the accuracy of the article. I have discussed this issue with Loremaster on his discussion page but he has finally resorted to insulting me despite me being courteous at all times. Loremaster said: "So let it go or, better yet, get a life." ("So let it go or, better yet, get a life." --Loremaster (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)) Loremaster objects to the quote because the sentiments of Yudkowsky are supposedly unrealistic. Our personal views about Articles or quotes should not cause biased editing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Loremaster#Singularitarianism

Loremaster has now archived the discussion (which seems to excessively rapid archiving) and you can see the diff here

Have I logged this dispute correctly? Nobody has replied yet, please tell me if I have logged it incorrectly. Thanks in advance for your help.

I shall call myself User:JackBlack. --81.151.128.36 (talk) 07:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The quote by Yudkowsky does not on his own admission, represent views that maybe held today, 9 years later. I would suggest that the Yudkowsky quotation be left out of the article completely. If it is to be retained, it should be done so for purely historical purposes only, must not lend weight to current encyclopdic descriptions of Singularitarianism, and must be accompanied by a very clear disclaimer that the information is considered to be 'obsolete, deprecated by an improved version, or just plain old'. This does not excuse or condone Lormaster's breach of civility which may lead to formal warnings if it persists. If between you you cannot agree on either of these solutions, we can invite neutral, dispassionate editors to make the decision for you by consensus. However, please use correct links when citing source, and respect the Wikipedia page format for Internet links and update the page. Cleanly presented pages lend more credence to their content. The correct URL is http://yudkowsky.net/obsolete/principles.html. --Kudpung (talk) 01:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

As I explained in my last comment on the Talk:Singularitarianism talk page, I am no longer interested in editing or watching over the Singularitarianism article so User:JackBlack is relatively free do whatever he wants with it. As for my breach of civility, I sincerely apologize to him and the Wikipedia community. --Loremaster (talk) 04:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

After I posted this dispute another editor User:Michael_C_Price has stepped-in and reinserted the quote without any prompting by myself diff. User:Michael_C_Price justified the quote being inserted by putting the date regarding when Yudkowsky made the statement; so considering User:Michael_C_Price is backing-up my viewpoint and Loremaster has stated he no longer wants to challenge the article then perhaps we can say this issue is resolved. Regarding the URL for the Yudkowsky quote: I used the bookmarked segment of the page in question, which I didn't realize was a mistake; I shall insert the URL without the bookmark extension. I am relatively new to Wikipedia editing. Please forgive me if I make any mistakes. I will also step-up my attempts to contact Yudkowsky to ask if he can either update his page and/or clarify his current views regarding Singularitarianism. -User: JackBlack-81.151.128.132 (talk) 08:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

PS. I accept Loremaster's apology --User: JackBlack-81.151.128.132 (talk) 08:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I've just noticed on the Sinularitarianism talk page that Loremaster has reposted the discussion I had with him on his user talk page, and two more editors (User:Strebe and User:Red_Bulls_Fan) are voicing support for the Yudkowsky quote therefore as far as I am concerned, in light of Loremaster's sincere apology and his desire to no longer contribute to the article, and in light of the other editors supporting the inclusion of the quote, you can consider this dispute closed. -User: JackBlack---109.152.130.223 (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto assist please. Have single use accounts whitewashing edits. assist pls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 04:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLPN, as you have been told several times. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Ksaine

Discussion moved

– To ANI, now archived. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Ksaine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user (and his sockpuppets) is blocked in Ru-Wiki. Now he has started to do some similar edits in En-Wiki: renaming without discussion in (for example, President of Russia), superfluous wikification, mass creation of redirects and some others.

I don't ask to blocked him, but ask to point him to his errors. I am one of admins, who blocked him(them) in Ru-Wiki, so I suppose, he don't be very happy to listen me again, and vice versa. I have tried to explain him his errors, but he has not understood or don't want to understand. His action on my user talk is very close to harassment (harassment in en-wiki, because of my action in ru-wiki, there he is blocked) or/and trolling. Alex Spade (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to take this up at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Instructions for posting at that page. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Alex Spade (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

McCains birth place.

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

An editor on the page natural born citizen named Britcom keeps changing McCains birth place to Colon Hospital in Colon Panama when all the reliable sources say he was born on the Naval base. All the reliable sources, including every major newspaper, the U.S. Senate, and McCains own autobiography. He does this based on a fake birth certificate filed in court hearings by Fred Hollander (was dismissed) who was suing McCain during the election. I don't believe Fred Hollander counts as a reliable source, especially in the face of so many other actual reliable sources saying different. Mystylplx (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, I see that you have an inconclusive discussion going at the article talk page. Perhaps, if both editors agree, you should make a formal thrid opinion or start a request for comment. Another route would be to open a discussion on the biographies of living person's noticeboard. The only way this will get resolved is by consensus amongst editors. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

User deleted almost an entire article which was established, cited, and accurate 71.97.55.109 (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Please advise the best response. An editor spent 5 hours rewriting the Wiki article on Trinity Broadcasting Network Trinity Broadcasting Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). They deleted several entire sections that were cited, neutral and factual information about this network, they disrupted the formating of existing content and photos, they added unauthorized photo's (copied from the web and not an original jpg). This article has been updated by multiple Wiki editors over the past year, is accurately sourced and historical. The editor Scoutstr295, deleted all the content of these editors, and replaced it with a poorly written and incorrectly formatted article that has many inaccuracies and negative bias. The Trinity Broadcasting Network is a page that is a target for vandalism, and edits with bias. Generally speaking, this article has benefited from beneficial and collaborative editing by Wiki editors that have added neutral content or corrections in formating. Many of these historical edits were deleted by Scoutstr295, and replaced entirely with content that is inferior to the original article. Please advise how this matter should be undone, and addressed? Thanks. 71.97.55.109 (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking over the changes by that particular editor, it looks like they were generally constructive - the version they started with seemed to be somewhat promotional in areas. Having said that, it's probably better to initiate a discussion of your specific concerns with the edits on the article talk page - I see there has been no discussion there thus far. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Without dwelling on the recent changes whoever they may have been made by, the article is still very promotional, has claims that are unsupported or that have vague or unverifiable sources, and has statements and/or entire sections that do not belong in the article at all. Basically the article needs completely copy editing by independent editors, all the references need systematically checking for accuracy, and all irrelevant, inappropriate, and unsourced content should be deleted. There may also be case for some level of page protection which might mean that no IP contributors will be able to edit it. Care should be taken to correctly identify vandalism, isolate it, and remove each case with a single edit, with a standard template warning to the vandal. --Kudpung (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

my posts in pez are taken down every time. Pez Outlaw

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

≈My Blog is Pez Outlaw at pezoutlaw.com. check it out I believe you will find, it & I have definite relevance in searches for Pez. For 10 years I had more impact than any single individual on Pez Corp, Pez collecting or the dispensers that exist to this day. Crystal pez & Glow in the dark pez would not exist if not for my order of Pez product. No single individual ever impacted the hobby of Pez collecting more than I did. All I keep trying to do is have pezoutlaw.com entered as an information source on pez. Every time I put it up somebody takes it down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.167.27 (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal blogs are not recognised by Wikipedia as reliable sources. Please see WP:RS for more information.--Kudpung (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Also see WP:COI, WP:SPAM, and WP:AUTO. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Prison riot

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I am disputing the information a New Mexico State Police officer wrote in your article of the 1980 New Mexico prison riot. I'm a retired New Mexico State police officer who, did the crime scene of some of the murdered inmates, which included Larry Smith, a child molester who they cut his scorum off with a blowtorch and carved baby fucker in his chest with a kniofe. The officer said he was a marksman with the State police, however I don't know of any marksmen with the State Police at that time, and especially in a guard tower that had a view into cellblock 4. There was no gang rapes or violence in the yard after the swat team and nat'l guard went in. All the inmates were huddling up in groups to keep warm with blankets provided by the Nat'l Guard. I was wondering who this Marksman was ? Thanking you in advance ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jj5956 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 11 November 2010

Since the words "former State Police marksman" are not properly linked to a reliable source I have removed them. As it says at the top of the article, "unsourced material may be challenged and removed" -- John of Reading (talk) 04:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ratcatchers or Rat guards

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

To block on board coming of rats a special tool is used. Pictures can be found at:

Category:Ratcatchers
Category:Rat guards

Being a not-native speaker of the English language, I have a question: are both categories correct? I assume that these two categories have to be combined. But under which category? --Stunteltje (talk) 07:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Your question relations to image categories at Wikimedia Commons Ratcatchers and Rat guards. This is English Wikipedia, which is a different site than Wikimedia Commons. You should pose your question probably at Commons talk:Categories. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Updating Kevin Sampsell's entry on Wikipedia

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The note at the top of Kevin Sampsell's page: "This article may not meet the notability guideline for biographies." This is dated November 2009, before his book was published by Harper Collins. Talk:Kevin Sampsell contains additional citation to clarify why Sampsell is a notable author:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kevin_Sampsell

To address this note: "This article needs additional citations for verification." (Nov 2009) I added citation to address his current city of residence and marital status and removed the sentence that needed citation: "Additionally, his essays and reviews have appeared in several newspapers and magazines."

I found an comparable author's Wikipedia entry and include it here as an example of how Kevin's would look without the two notices above the entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe_Ballantine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mason Clegg (talk • contribs) 17:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The references help, but there are still several un-cited statements in the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Technological utopianism: extending the Lead Section; adding an early 21st century section regarding Post Scarcity; and adding two articles to the 'see also' section.

Discussion moved

– Talk:Technological utopianism#Rfc: Content of the Lead. New section Early 21st century section. Additions to 'See Also' Jezhotwells (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I have previously had problems regarding user:Loremaster regarding his editing where he resorted to insulting me: "Forgive me for being insulting but if you truly believe the quote by Eliezer is a realistic scenario I regret to inform you that you are foolish and need to get a life." The reason I mention that previous issue is that I suspect it is unfairly impinging upon the current article I am editing. Ironically Loremaster accuses me of biased editing but it seems that Loremaster's editing is biased.

The issue regarding the Technological utopianism article is that the Lead section has been flagged since June 2010 because it needs a extension: "This article's introduction section may not adequately summarize its contents. To comply with Wikipedia's lead section guidelines, please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of the article's key points." So I did as requested and provided an appropriate summary, but Loremaster objects to it. Here is the Article Diff and here is a another version of my rewrite that Loremaster also objects to Diff

Three issues have arisen from my attempts to extend the Lead Section.

1. Loremaster basically will not allow any of my edits for the Article Technological utopianism, which is evident when he reverts my additions to the see also section (Abolitionism (bioethics) and Post scarcity). Both Abolitionism (bioethics) and Post scarcity) are clearly relevant to Technological utopianism.

2. Loremaster will not allow my any summary I make regarding the Lead Section no matter how minor an edit I make. See this Diff

3. Loremaster will not allow the addition of a new Section regarding the early 21st century, Post-scarcity.

See my discussions with Loremaster on these matters: Talk:Technological_utopianism#Dispute_over_new_lead

I have been looking through Loremaster's archived discussions and perhaps it is pertinent to note he has been blocked on a number of a occasions for edit-waring. See this example: User_talk:Loremaster/Archive01#October_2010

user:JackBlack81.151.134.241 (talk) 10:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Well you have opened a request for comment at Talk:Technological utopianism#Rfc: Content of the Lead. New section Early 21st century section. Additions to 'See Also' so there isn't really much more to say here. You can always report other editors at WP:Wikiquette alerts if you feel that their behaviour is impolite, uncivil, etc. It would be expected that you had posted to their talk page about the matter first. But whatever you do, don't posts at several places at once. Let the RfC run its course first. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, Jezhotwells, sorry for the double posting, which I did because nobody had responded to the RfC. How long will the RfC take, approximately, before someone independent comments? I am wondering if maybe I have logged the RfC incorrectly therefore this is the reason why nobody has commented? User:JackBlack86.173.28.149 (talk) 08:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I have discovered it should be a third opinion that is needed not a RfC because there are only two editors involved —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.71.181 (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive deletions by Ekwos

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

This concerns the contents of the page Gottlob Frege. Following some detailed discussions on the talkpage, I added a properly sourced sentence here. This was reverted by user Ekwos here. I pointed out at the talkpage that he is in a minority of 1 here. Ekwos himself acknowledged the point here. Based on the mutually agreed-upon facts concerning his isolated position, I urged him to restore the material he deleted here. However, Ekwos refused to cooperate by saying I've given my arguments repeatedly. Note that the material he deleted had been on the page for a year. Numerous editors worked on the page since, without deleting it. It would be helpful if Ekwos could be encouraged to understand that he cannot impose his minority opinion by unilaterally deleting material he does not like. Tkuvho (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, 2 out of 3 is not necessarily a consensus. If you can't achieve a consensus at the talk page then a request for comment might be in order. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Creation of new item in musical instrument infobox template and subsequent edits.

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

A new field (General MIDI) has recently been edited to the musical instrument infobox by dogman15. This field is not appropriate in this context as it does not, in any clear way, give any useful information about the musical instrument in the article. Directly after adding this new field the user in question proceeded to edit every musical instrument article and add the new field. In many cases this involved creating new infoboxes. Some of these do not appear to have been formatted correctly and look messy. In some cases these infoboxes are unwanted.

Some of these changes have already been reverted independently in a number of the articles by various editors eg. hapsichord, bagpipes, piano,bass_guitar.

Although it seems these changes were made in good faith, it does seem to have caused a bit of a mess. Is there any easy way of clearing out these particular edits? Is there some WP process that needs to be followed? Dinobass (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I see you have reverted the infobox changes [5] so any value assigned to MIDI or midi in an article should just be ignored now (or possibly after a purge) with no need to remove it from the article. I also see you have posted to Template talk:Infobox instrument. If you are not opposed then I'm not sure what more you are looking for. If you need help fixing problems in musical instrument articles or want to discuss them then you can post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Instruments but I don't know how active it is. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'm mainly trying to make sure a) I've done the right thing and b) find out if there's an easier way of addressing the unwanted/unnecessary/poorly formatted new infoboxes rather than locating and reverting each one or waiting for editors of, in some cases moribund, articles to get around to it. Dinobass (talk) 04:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

They should be easy to locate by going through Special:Contributions/Dogman15 - many of these are just midi parameter additions and can be ignored. If an infobox addition caused misformatting and the infobox only used the midi field and an image already there then reverting seems OK to me. If it added other fields and gave a useful overview then consider fixing formatting problems without removing the infobox. I have only looked briefly at a few of the articles but misformatting may be fixed by a procedure at WP:BUNCH. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I'll have a look at WP:BUNCH and plug away at the infoboxes - it may take me a while as I'll feel constrained to look up the correct classifications etc. for each of those boxes. Dinobass (talk) 05:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources, Links and Notability?

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

User:EggsAldo/Peter Jarrette

My article Eggs Aldo: Peter Jarrette Artist/Author/Multi-Media is currently being built step by step. I'm adding details as I learn more on Peter Jarrette. To be fair I cannot navigate my way easily and quickly around the various pages suggested one should review before and as one build's an article. It's dizzying. I would very much like to establish this "notability" but really cannot fathom what it is you require...same for sources. I understand in theory what you are directing to but beyond the names of national and international magazines, publishers, radio stations, etc that are already in my article in reference to my subject's works and achievements what more do I need include as a "source"? As for links, this will be more about my lack of computer knowledge but how do I insert links to websites within my article? Any help please?--Eggs Aldo (talk) 14:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Start by reading WP:CITE for your citations. As far as notability, read WP:BIO. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You may also benefit from studying Wikipedia:Your first article and the pages linked from there. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Kanmaw Kyun

Resolved

– requested moves made by Plastikspork Jezhotwells (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I received a request for assistance from User:Dr. Blofeld. I tried to assist but got it wrong and can't figure out how to fix this without maybe botching it up some more. Dr. Blofeld is writing an article about an island named Kanmaw Kyun. Kanmaw Island and Kanmaw Kyan should be redirects to Kanmaw Kyun. Thanks.--Rosiestep (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I need an admin to move Kanmaw Kyan to Kanmaw Kyun and redirect Kanmaw Island to Kanmaw Kyun, Hope this is clear.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The move has been made. You could have done this yourself, Dr. Blofeld, see Help:Moving a page. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No I couldn't, I'm pretty sure of that. On the previous Kanmaw Island page I selected move and tried to move the page to Kanmaw Kyun. It wouldn't let me because it already had content on it as a redirect . Somebody with admin tools is able to overide it, unless I am mistaken. The message "request an admin to move" even comes up when you try to do it.. Unless I am mistaken.. Are you saying if I'd have blanked Kanmaw Kyun I'd have been able to do it? Mm not sure.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know that Kanmaw Kyun already existed. In that case the standard procedure is listed at WP:Requested moves. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Or just give me page moving tools...♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

In the future, if it's an uncontroversial move, you can put {{db-move|1=source page|2=reason}} on the target redirect page that you need deleted. This sort of delete falls under CSD#G6 as an uncontroversial maintenance speedy. Turnaround on these is usually as quick as any other speedy, provided the rationale actually is uncontroversial. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Though I should also note that upon closer review of this situation, a histmerge was performed. My experience with {{db-move}} is usually in the situation where the redir page is all trivial edits, and usually is just a redir to the source page. I'm not entirely sure about the requirements for a request where it's evident a histmerge is necessary, or about the turnaround in that situation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

ABOUT GATSIS CHRISTOS PAGE

Resolved

– page deleted Jezhotwells (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

85.72.132.243 (talk) 08:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC) GOOD MORNING. I AM TRYING FOR WEEKS TO CREATE A PAGE ABOUT A PERSON, FOR ENCYCLOPEDIC USE O N L Y AND YOU KEEP DELETING THE PAGE TELLING ME THAT I AM PROMOTING THE LIVING PERSON. I HAVE PUTTED 4-5 REFERENCES AS A PROOF AND YOU STILL KEEP DELETING THE PAGE. WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO?!!?!?!?! DO IT FOR ME SO THAT IT MEETS ITS WIKI REQUIREMENTS THANK YOU ! 85.72.132.243 (talk) 08:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well the only contribution I can see under your IP address is this request. Please don't post it capitals, it is the equivalent of shouting and is not pleasant to read. You cannot create a page on wikipedia unless you have an account and have made a minimum number of edits. I have posted some clues on the talk page: User talk:85.72.132.243. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Current article is at Gatsis Christos, created by contributions yesterday. Christos Gatsis has been deleted twice, once via PROD and once via A7; the PROD'ed one was evidently created by Targsec1. Note the user names, and also note that the article subject is supposed to be the CEO of "Target Sport" and "Target Security". I don't see any notices about promotional editing (just the COI one), so there might be yet another account involved here. The person or persons creating these pages might be going with single use accounts.

Anyway, looking towards improving this article, we'd probably need someone who speaks Greek to hash out the notability; I see no indication that this subject has much English-language coverage. The provided refs are either not significant (trivial entries in long lists) or from unreliable sources (companies connected with the subject). The most significant claim appears to be that he's a commentator on Eurosport, but there are no evident reference to support it. The claimed connections to Kalamata F.C., Panathinaikos F.C. and Panathinaikos BC are probably not substantial enough to confer notability.

Frankly, I see this article getting deleted again, probably by AFD this time. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Excellent detective work - how did you work that out? Jezhotwells (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I lucked out in noticing that the lede of Gatsis Christos had "Christos Gatsis" rather than "Gatsis Christos". It's worth noting as well that this article probably belongs at Christos Gatsis given the convention for Greek names seems to be "[Given name] [Surname]". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy deletion - again. – ukexpat (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

And now deleted. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Deb Webber

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

If there is a personal attack towards a person on a page, how can we remove it.... it is against the law to attack another and we would like a page taken off Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddddd123 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about the page above. I don't see any personal attacks there. I don't see any comments about this on the article talk page. If you have concerns about the content of biographies of living persons, you can post them at the WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, where editors experienced in this area will comment. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you think you mean by alleging it is against the law to attack another; but you are probably wrong, and we don't take kindly to hints about legal action against this encyclopedia. I am also concerned by what you mean when you say we would like something. Who is the "we" in question? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate what Jezhotwells suggests. Take it to WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. It doesn't appear to be a personal attack as the phrase is used on Wikipedia, but since the whole article is devoted to "Controversies" you could try to make a case that it violates the Wikipedia neutral point of view policy. Also the citation for the first controversy doesn't appear to be a reliable source. As Orangemike indicates, you should avoid legal threats. You can be blocked from editing for issuing them. Susfele (talk) 00:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

My first impression is that this should be merged and redirected to Sensing Murder or a section therein. The only reliable sources in there have to do with criticism leveled at the show, though in connection with the subject's role in investigating the Disappearance of Aisling Symes case. I haven't searched for other sources at this time, however. 98.212.13.156 (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Getting flamed for trying to improve an article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War

Discussion moved

– To Talk:Mexican Drug War. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen/Ladies:

In the past couple of days, I've been posting corrections, additions and elaborations to the "Mexican Drug War" article. My focus was specifically related to Gun Smuggling and Firearm Tracing and fully backed up with citations. I've been researching these subjects for some time now, and have written articles (published elsewhere on the internet) on the subjects.

Specifically, I removed a previously posted quote and citation because it cited an unsupported editorial opinion rather than fact. The cited Boston Globe editorial was filled with factual errors completely unsupported by any facts.

The poster "BatteryIncluded" promptly undid my change.

I posted a couple of qualifications to the the quote indicating it was a quote of an opinion rather than fact, and posted my reasoning on the discussion page.

Rather than a civil discussion, as far as I can tell, I got flamed. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mexican_Drug_War

I have no interest in wasting my time and energy with this. Why bother? At this point, I don't know if Wikipedia is interested in fact or in giving voice to some personal opinion....which happens to be supported by another "published" opinion.....

In my "opinion", "BatteryIncluded" has a separate agenda, and it isn't getting the facts or educating the public.....

Sincerely, (Computer Guy 2 (talk) 01:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC))

Well the discussion at the talk page appears to have escalated into a flame war as you suggest. It seems to me as if neither editor is listening to the other. One of our core principles is to assume good faith. Perhaps bothe of you should assume good faith and examine each statement and reference dispassionately. I will post a link to this discussion on the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

ComputerGuy wanted to remove a referenced statement because his POV is that it is a lie/mistake by the reporter. Read WP:Truth and do your math. Then he debates the issue saying the info is "completely false" and when faced with 5 quality references that disgree with his POV, he denies whe wrote what he wrote. In my opinion, he is not aware of the pilars of Wikipedia. My assessment is that he wants to spill some kind of gun-control controversy into Wikipedia instead of in a forum. Cheers, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, "BatteryIncluded", I don't know what you're talking about....

1. I didn't say that the statement (the quote) was a lie or a mistake. What I said was that the citation was a completely unsupported editorial opinion from the Boston Globe. In fact, it says "Editorial" at the top of the cited webpage, and contains no quoted facts, footnotes or references. Editorial opinions are a poor substitute for facts. I certainly was surprised by your passionate reaction to my questioning of such a trivial quote. The original quote stated that 55% of guns seized were assault rifles. Did this mean selective fire assault rifles (illegal in the USA) per the Wikipedia definition? or Semi-auto assault rifles that might have been sourced from the U.S.? The cited source doesn't say. Even if factual (which has not been established), the quote is meaningless and doesn't illuminate the issue. A more meaningful statistic would be the percentage (or number) of semi-auto "assault rifles" sourced from the United States. Now, that means something in a paragraph called "Tracing".

2. When I responded and quoted the entire editorial paragraph from the cited source, I mentioned that a couple of other points made in the editorial were completely false and have been discredited by the DOJ OIG (Office of the Inspector General) in 2010. In fact, they've been discredited by ATF and the Congressional Research Service, among many others.

3. It has nothing to do with my point of view.... Personally, I don't give a flip what the percentage is.... I'm interested in an accurate picture of gun smuggling and firearms tracing - as best we can determine.

4. No, I didn't deny what I wrote, and I don't deny what I wrote. The focus of the discussion was the original trivial 55% quote. As a side note, I mentioned the editorial contained a reference to a verified false statement; "90% of the guns seized in Mexico came from the United States", which has been discredited by the DOJ Inspector General, CRS and even ATF. BatteryIncluded started talking about "90% of confiscated guns that could be traced by the ATF, originated in the United States", which is an entirely different issue - which I am not addressing. The OIG Report addressed this very well.

5. I have no idea why BatteryIncluded wants to bring a "gun-control controversy" into the discussion. This was not mentioned by me, nor am I interested in debating gun control.

6. I'm interested in the accuracy of the original quote, not some abstract "truth". Maybe God knows the truth, but the rest of us mortals are victims of our own perception.....

7. Your statement on the discussion page stated, "Please feel free to cry 'conspiracy'", and again, I have no idea what you're talking about. I never mentioned conspiracy.

8. I welcome a rational discussion of the issue, and other issues - from you or anyone else. Instead, up until now, I got "flamed" by you and stand accused of bringing in a "gun control controversy" and "conspiracy" for daring to question..... I don't believe Wikipedia was intended to be a forum for one editor to "flame" and try to intimidate other sincere editors. With a forum such as Wikipedia, there should be no shibboleths or "sacred cows"..... or am I wrong?

9. I am going to assume good faith and I personally invite you, "BatteryIncluded", to put aside our personal differences (if any) and engage in a rational discussion of the issue. I promise not to "flame" or try to intimidate you. Will you will do the same?

Please respond.

Sincerely,

(Computer Guy 2 (talk) 01:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC))

As a footnote, I see you're using a new source, Colby Goodman's "U.S. Firearms Trafficking to Mexico", published September, 2010. Although you're certainly free to use anything you want, you might want to double check Goodman for accuracy...... He repeats the discredited claim that 90% of guns seized in Mexico originate from the United States no less than three times in his paper. Again, the DOJ OIG discredited this claim this year. In another article, he retracted that claim, but it's central to his paper.

Further, he also claims that unmarked "parts kits" are being used from the USA to create unmarked AK47 assault rifles. His claim is completely specious. A firearm receiver manufactured or imported into the USA must be, by law, marked with the manufacturer or importer and stamped with a unique serial number for that mfg or importer. Any unmarked AK47 could only have been manufactured illegally in the USA or was a "sterile" AK brought in from elsewhere.

Many of Goodman's sources are suspect and not authoritative. How you say in English? Hearsay....? Speculation? Conjecture? Well over 100 of his footnotes are anonymous telephone conversations or interviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Computer Guy 2 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "rain on your parade", but just thought I'd let you know.

Sincerely,

(Computer Guy 2 (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC))

I made a quick review of the text on the talk page. I see CG2 is trying to question a source and the article content supported by that source. I don't see this as inherently problematic. We should not slavishly repeat whatever any source says, even if it does meet our somewhat subjective reliability criteria. If a source is uncontroversially incorrect, even (or perhaps especially) if you need specialist knowledge to notice it, and even if there is no reliable source that explicitly says that the first source is incorrect, it is entirely within the realm of editorial discretion to partially or completely exclude that source and its claims. This would be a clear application of IAR, but one you would have to be prepared to defend on a talk page.

What else I see, and concerns me, is the immediate assumption on the part of BI that CG2 is POV-pushing (diff) and not addressing the merits of his argument. I just don't like the tone there, especially directed towards an editor with very few edits. Maybe there's something I'm not seeing, but I think there's an unwarranted assumption of bad faith going on here. It's important to realize we all have viewpoints, and while those viewpoints influence our editing, that influence is not necessarily disruptive. And even if it is disruptive, that disruption is not necessarily willful.

As to the actual dispute, I would be surprised if the US NRA hasn't already articulated many of the points CG2 seems to be making. Would it not be appropriate to include a viewpoint sourced to such a piece? Coverage of controversy is a very good thing, especially when neutrally worded and where the viewpoints are clearly attributed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

How do you handle people who ignore WP:BRD?

Answered

– Advice given. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope this is the right place to ask this. If not, please just say so. I have had this problem with several different editors in the past and it is the same pattern every time. They make an addition to an article that is extremely, EXTREMELY pov and sometimes a BLP violation (Bold), I disagree with the edit vehemently and undo it (Revert) and then wait for them to start a discussion, or sometimes start a discussion myself. (Discuss) But what happens instead is that they simply re-revert. This is where the problem starts. I typically revert another time or two, as I find that sometimes skirting the 3RR will inspire someone to discuss where just one revert wouldn't. When that doesn't happen, I'll send them a talk page message, or an alert, or tell them to discuss before reverting again in the edit summary when I revert. Some manner of attempting to communicate. However, they often simply refuse to communicate. If they are reverted enough, they might start making some rude and mocking comments, or claim that I am a shill for whatever organization their edits "expose". But no consensus is sought. True discussion is ignored and any reverts and just undone by said editor without comment.

The dilemma is in that, as I said above, these edits are typically extremely pov, or blp violations, or maybe unsourced and very questionable. In other words, they definitely don't belong in the article - at least not worded in the way the editor wants it. But if they edit, then I revert, then they revert, then I revert, then they revert, then I revert, then they revert, we have both hit our 3RR limit and their version is sitting improperly in the article.

Now they have technically broken no rules yet, they have not discussed their edits at all, and any further reverts of their edits cross the 3RR. Hence, essentially, their ridiculous edit is in the article, gets to stay there, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

I tend to consider it at that point, if the person won't discuss their edits, for it to be disruptive editing, in which case the 3RR doesn't apply. Yet when the back and forth reverts get going, some third party invariably comes along and I find myself warned (have managed to escape a block thus far) because of it, meaning that the admins/moderators don't consider the other editors edits disruptive editing.

But then that leaves the dilemma of how are we supposed to handle editors who push their edits and refuse to discuss them. Essentially, the policies are set up so they "win" as far as I can tell. How else is someone supposed to handle such a situation but to essentially say "damn the torpedoes", continue to revert, and risk being blocked even though their intentions are good?Farsight001 (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If you wish EAR to process your enquiry, please provide links to diffs of specific examples.--Kudpung (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, BRD is neither guideline nor policy. It's a practice that many of us try to abide by, and requires the participation of both/all parties to work. Many editors are not aware of BRD. So, when you revert an editor's bold edit, and he/she reverts you, then (provided there aren't serious policy violations such as copyvio or BLP) it's up to you to start the discussion.

When discussion doesn't get started, or is clearly not moving forward, it's time to elicit the input of other editors, via 3O or a relevant WikiProject's talk page. If it's a serious policy violation however (e.g., BLP), you may be in the right to revert again, but I would generally recommend escalating to the appropriate noticeboard after that second revert, and then stepping out to avoid looking like an edit warrior.

Using 3RR as a strategy is not valid, and a track record of such behavior may be considered general edit warring. In my experience, it's important to escalate early in deadlocked discussion, so that new entrants into the discussion will not have to wade through mountains of text, which usually rehashes the same points ad nauseam. We are volunteers after all, and it's very easy to move on to help in a simpler dispute. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Could somebody else please help this new editor?

Resolved

– Editor has been adopted. Kudpung (talk) 04:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

:

Userpage draft is User:Eggs Aldo/Peter Jarrette. The subject matter is boring and contemptible (at least as presented; he might actually be a decent human being nowadays), and the gossip-rag tone is so vilely smarmy and fawning that I am almost physically nauseated. I stumbled upon the draft article and cannot read it any further without my skin crawling. Could some other editor who has different tastes please help the editor here? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look now.--Kudpung (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I've now spent exactly 60 minutes looking into this. In that time I could have rescued between 10 and 20 worthy but unreferenced BLPs. Mr Eggs Aldo, or 'Alter Ego' of the subject, needs to be advised that apart from dozens of his own populated social networing site templates, not a word has been written about him, that I could find. 'Salt' of the earth...--Kudpung (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I get generally the same feeling from a once-over. With all due respect to Eggs, who has clearly put a lot of work into this piece, it is unacceptable. In mainspace, this would be a clear G11 candidate: it needs to be fundamentally rewritten. Ignoring the fact that it is completely unreferenced, the draft is riddled many of the hallmarks of promotional editing: peacock terms, copious name-dropping, extensive spin, excessive irrelevant detail (and insufficient relevant detail), and others that I'm not picking up on. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

QwerpQwertus has adopted this editor. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Vin Diesel Wikik Page

Resolved

– Offending item removed by editor consensus. Kudpung (talk) 04:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

:

Hello,

I am part of Mr. Vin Diesel's public relations team and I need to delete the following from his page because it is not true.

"While Diesel was visiting the Dominican Republic in October 2005, a 23-year-old architecture student accused Diesel of trying to have her kicked out of the bar for refusing to go back to his hotel room. Diesel denied the allegations, citing the club's history of problems unrelated to him.[11] Despite the incident, Diesel has expressed his love for the Dominican Republic, and how he relates to its multicultural facets.[12] He is also acquainted with President Leonel Fernandez, and has since appeared in one of his earlier campaign ads. "Los Bandoleros", a short film directed by Diesel, was also filmed in the Dominican Republic.[13]"

Could you please help us in doing so? I tried to delete it myself but the page is blocked.

Many thanks.Wahine23 (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not impressed with the quality of reference used for the accusation portion (I assume that's what you're objecting to, rather than the connection to Fernandez or the short film). The source used indicates that the story was reported in Clave (a free weekly newspaper in Santo Domingo), and that it was reported in the international press. I found a New York Daily News article that reports the story too, and notes that it was reported in El Nacional.

Here's the thing. I don't see any indication that the accusation didn't happen. We're only reporting on the accusation, without passing judgment or drawing conclusions. Whether it passes WP:UNDUE is questionable, I'll admit. Apart from the NYDN article, which contains a lot of other gossip-like stories, I haven't found any major reporting of this story. I'm leaning towards removal at this point on that basis. I would suggest bringing the issue up at WP:BLPN, the noticeboard for biographies of living persons. The people there are more experienced with this sort of issue and may be able to make a more clear-cut determination. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Why not just remove this five year old sketchily sourced BLP allegation? --Diannaa ^(Talk) 06:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I've examined this quite thoroughly too and I concur with all the points mentioned by Mendaliv. And as Diannaa says, why not? If there is a hinge policy , it is WP:UNDUE. However, there are three further points that need to be considered: With all due respect, there is no proof that User:Wahine23 is not requesting the removal simply because s/he does not like it being in the encyclopeia; on his/her own admission, s/he is closely connected with the subject thus there is a clear conflict of interest. Secondly, irrespective of the quality of the references (which are poor and unreliable), there is the question whether the section is of truly encyclopedic/biographical value, and would the Wikipedia suffer for it being deleted? Thirdly, and perhaps most important, anything that is contentious, lacking 100% proven accuracy in reporting and sourcing whether it is true or not, and possibly damaging to to the subject, then, echoing the words of Jimbo Wales, with or without an external request, it should be removed: I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. Based upon which, any editor can delete such content at any time without recourse to consensus.
Finally, the proper venue for this discussion is the article talk page, where User:Wahine23 can still participate even as a non-autoconfirmed user, and one with a COI. And that is where I suggest it should now be continued.--Kudpung (talk) 07:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the material. Even the "source" mentions it only as a tiny blurb within a tiny blurb, so quality of sourcing aside, I see mentioning that in the article as having significantly undue weight unless other sources mentioned it in more depth. Given that it's a BLP, and it's questionable at best, it needs to stay out until and unless someone can find much better sourcing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Good removal. I didn't act on this because I wanted more input rather than acting unilaterally. A major publication like the NYDN carrying a story suggested there might be more I was missing, either in non-English sources or in less-accessible sources. I still think a thorough look into this should be performed; hopefully by somebody with access to LexisNexis. (calling all university students!) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

History of the World content error: dates

Answered

– Referred to talk page. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The article entitled History of the World contains what I believe to be an error. Under section 2. Antiquity within the heading "Religion and Spirituality" it states "Beginning in the 6th century BCE a set of transformative religious and philosophical ideas developed. During this century Chinese Confucianism, Indian Buddhism and Jainism, Persian Zoroastrianism, Ancient Egyptian Monotheism, and Jewish Monotheism all developed."

This statement implies that all of the early world religions developed in the 6th century BCE, which is not true. The foundations of many of these philosophical and religious systems had been established long before 1000 BCE, as Wikipedia's Timeline of Religion verifies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_religion). Examples include: 2150 - 2000 BCE: The Epic of Gilgamesh, 1250 - 950 BCE: The Torah is composed. On the Wikipedia article entitled Monotheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism) it states that "The earliest known instance of monotheism dates to the reign of Akhenaton of Egypt in the 14th century BCE."

It is true that many Eastern foundational philosophical views were formally established in Jainism, Buddhism, and Confucianism. Therefore this portion of the statement is not untrue. The other three religions involved in this statement were not developed in the 6th century BCE.

207.118.61.40 (talk) 13:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This is really something you should bring up at the talk page, Talk:History of the world. The people there are going to be much more knowledgeable about the topic. Though given there isn't much activity there, you might not get a rapid response. The history WikiProject considers that article to be of top importance, so leaving a note at WT:HISTORY referring people to the talk page discussion would be a good idea. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Articles like these are sadly often very bad, as they get ignored. Timelines though are even worse. That one has a date for the Torah which differs from the dates given in other articles and is almost certainly far too early. Dougweller (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, there are good arguments that Atenism wasn't monotheism, that Jewish monotheism developed as a result of the exile, etc. The Torah is not wholly monotheistic, after all. It isn't straightforward. Dougweller (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

receiving the 'vandalism' message

Answered

– Referred to talk page. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Greetings:

I submitted information regarding the Oskee Wee Wee cheer, which differs from the Oskie Yell. Oskee Wee Wee originated in 1925 at NHL Hamilton Tigers games by Vince Wirtz. He would orchestrate the cheer wearing a big fur coat and bowler hat. The hockey team moved to New York so the cheer transferred to the Hamilton Tigers football team of the Canadian Football League. The tradition continued with Vince's son, Bill, and eventually with Pigskin Pete who continues to perform the chant at Hamilton Tiger-Cats (as the team is now known) games.

I've now received a message stating that my edit was deleted as it was not constructive and is tantamount to 'vandalism'. I've received a further message that other attempts to edit may result in me being barred. My edit was clearly constructive, provided additional relevant information, and came with a link to a radio interview that validated the new information. I'm not as informed about Wikipedia protocol as I should be, but don't want to be barred when I'm clearly making a positive contribution to Wikipedia. Here's the link to the radio interview. It follows a short clip of the Oskee Wee Wee cheer as performed at Hamilton Tiger-Cats games. http://wn.com/Oskee_Wee_Wee__Hamilton_Tiger_Cats

Any help/advice would be much appreciated. Not sure what to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.196.223 (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think what you did was clearly vandalism, but it was right for the other editors to revert your edits. You shouldn't have kept going back and re-adding them, but rather asked for help sooner. The Oski Yell article is not the right place to discuss the "Oskee Wee Wee"; if it's significant, a new article might be in order. I don't know enough to tell you if there should be one. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't read the changes quite correctly. At any rate, I still don't see your edits as clearly vandalism, but you should not have continually re-added them if they were being removed and you were being warned. You should have asked for help sooner. You need to discuss your proposed changes at Talk:The Oski Yell. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Side-by-side tables break mobile functionality

Resolved

– Single-column format restored and has remained unchallenged. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The "Regular season standings" tables in the "2010 NFL season" article is listed side-by-side.

Mobile Phone devices, such as the Android Browser, renders the tables on top of one another, therefore, could not be read.

Changing it to single column tables fixes the problem on the mobile devices. However, a day after the change, the page was edited back to the table being side-by-side.

This discussion has been raised in the talk page Talk:2010 NFL season in the "Regular Season Standings table" section. However, the users who change table to side-by-side fail to provide valid reason for abandoning mobile phone users.

I believe the purpose of Wikipedia is to facility communication, not only to provide "pretty" formatting for desktop users. By shunning the mobile phone users, this purpose of communication is broken.

173.51.232.99 (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised that this was changed back. I've restored it and asked for discussion in my edit summary. I seem to recall that multi-column stuff is generally discouraged, but the closest I can find is MOS:SCROLL, which talks about scroll boxes. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Accused of being a sock

Resolved

– Blocked as a sockpuppet of contributions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I commented on a thread at the administrator noticeboard, and this resulted in being accused of being a sock by a user requesting removal of sanctions against themself. What can I do about this? I have no idea who the user I'm accused of being a sock is, and I am NOT this person. How do I go about getting the message removed? [6] BEARinAbasket (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

PS I hope this is the right place - it says Editor Assistance and I guess I'm an editor :) BEARinAbasket (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The specific discussion is currently on ANI (thread). Keep in mind that the suspected sock tag isn't going to cause a block or ban on its own. Nonetheless, from my perspective, this seems a bit hasty. While I'm obviously not in possession of the full story, I can't see anything damning. Just being a newish user and bringing up an incident involving a blocked editor on ANI doesn't seem like substantial evidence of socking. Removing it yourself is probably just going to get reverted. I'll ask NeutralHomer to comment, as it seems like a good first step. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response, I had a nap and then caught up on recorded shows on my DVR. I just seen Mendaliv's message about the EAR thread on my talk page. I would like to err on the side of caution and suggest a Checkuser on BEARinAbasket, Mynamismik, and 98.82.190.226. For BEAR, having only 30 edits and finding the ANI thread, the Elen of the Roads thread, and then EAR, just seems suspicious to me. If all turns out find, I will personally issue (via talk page) a written apology and rescend the template myself. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to that course of action if you feel your suspicions warrant investigation, just please do follow through on this. My main concern was leaving the suspected sock template up there without anybody investigating; in the event it were wrong, BEAR might take it as a sign he/she simply wasn't welcome. I feel we should be doing all we can to soften to learning curve for new users here, even if it comes at the cost of delayed enforcement of community sanctions. By the way, I think you're going to have to start a SPI case to get the CU, as I don't think many CU's lurk this page. That or ask a CU directly. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

BEARinAbasket has been confirmed as a sockpuppet, but he isn'tMynameismik. BEARinAbasket appears to have been created after User:SunHwaKwonh was blocked. User:Elen_of_the_Roads blocked SunHwaKwonh, which explains why BEARinAbasket was watching Elen's talk page. BEAR's socks aren't newcomers to AN/I, ER/A, deletion discussions, and such. I had some trouble with the SunHwaKwonh sockpuppet in the past. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Continuation of getting flamed for trying to improve an article

Discussion moved

– To Talk:Mexican Drug War —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

After being flamed by BatteryIncluded, I offered to engage in a rational discourse to discuss the issues. It didn't happen. Instead, another editor, Grsz11 joined in and, along with BatteryIncluded, started vandalizing my posts.

1. Grsz11 made significant removals last week of my posts and made comments on my talk page. I didn't undo them.

2. I responded to Grsz11's comments on my talk page with hard data, but he didn't bother to respond.

3. For no justifiable reason (which I could determine), BatteryIncluded removed my recent subsequent posts, which I reversed.

4. Immediately thereafter, Grsz11 removed significant portions of my post, under the pretext of "removing redundancy", and with the claim that I did not "present a balancing POV". The alternate POV was already presented - which I did not remove. I presented the alternate POV quotation (verified and with an authoritative citation) - which Grsz11 removed. I did not, and do not consider changes of this nature to be "removing redundancy", rather the changes altered the meaning of the article section as I posted. I respectfully disagreed and undid the changes.

5. Grsz11 immediately accused me of an "Edit War" as noted on my "Talk Page", and threatened me with being blocked from the article - without any discussion.

6. Rather than an "Edit War", this appears to be vandalism of my posts - particularly since BatteryIncluded and Grsz11 have refused to engage in any rational discussion of the issues, but simply vandalize my posts.

7. Further, I stand accused of not allowing any edits to the article other than my own - which is not accurate. The only area of my interest has to do with firearms trafficking and the reported numbers and statistics.

I reiterate.... I have no intention of engaging in an "Edit War", but do have an interest in protecting the meaning and content of this section of the article and mitigating the effect of absolute unverified opinions and dogma not backed up by facts.

(Computer Guy 2 (talk) 03:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Computer Guy 2 (talk • contribs)

I'll point Computer Guy to Wikipedia:Not everyone who disagrees with you is a vandal. The only text I removed was from a source already used to say the exact same thing. And another edit, where I formatted choppy text, was blindly reverted. He clearly didn't look at it or he would have seen it was productive, rather, just reverted it because I made it. I warned him of WP:3RR completely within policy. Regarding his claim that he has no POV on the issue, labeling sourced information as a "myth" certainly implies otherwise. There is no issue other than Computer Guy's unwillingness to work with others. Grsz¹¹ 03:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Response:

Your statement, "The only text I removed was from a source already used to say the exact same thing." doesn't correspond to the history file..... Check the changes from last week.

Perhaps you could point to where you responded to my attempts to discuss the issues in your deletions? See Mexico Guns; Response, on the discussion page.

(Computer Guy 2 (talk) 04:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC))

Quoting your statement, "Regarding his claim that he has no POV on the issue, labeling sourced information as a "myth" certainly implies otherwise.", I'd like to direct your attention to the following citation from the article:

^ La Jeunesse, William; Maxim Lott (April 2, 2009). "The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S.". Fox News. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/02/myth-percent-small-fraction-guns-mexico-come/. Retrieved 2009-04-03.

Another quote, "There is no issue other than Computer Guy's unwillingness to work with others.."

Here's my reply, "I'll be happy to work with you. Will you do the same?"

To reiterate, on 9 November 2010, I posted (above), "I am going to assume good faith and I personally invite you, "BatteryIncluded", to put aside our personal differences (if any) and engage in a rational discussion of the issue. I promise not to "flame" or try to intimidate you. Will you will do the same?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Computer Guy 2 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't say it any more clearly.....

Sincerely,

(Computer Guy 2 (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC))

Might I suggest in that case, given we have a viewpoint and a reference where that viewpoint seems to be expressed, that the advice I suggested in the earlier EAR thread about this same article be followed? That is, we use the phrasing "(xyz source) commented that (viewpoint)" to incorporate a mention of the viewpoint. This would largely avoid skirting NPOV, as it's addressing a real viewpoint, and it would ensure adequate coverage of the issue at hand. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll second that motion!

(Computer Guy 2 (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC))

Related To Personal Appeal

Answered

– Linked to more information on donations. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I would love to make a nomination. It would be great if we can pay through different currencies as well. (I'm in India)

You can contact me at <email redacted> Would love to help a good cause.

Regards, Shilpi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.241.119.225 (talk) 11:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your interest. Information on other ways of donating is available at this link. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Can sections here that are marked Answered still be discussed?

Answered

– In short, yes they may. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not visit here very often, and have posted a comment on a section that has since been marked Answered more than once before. Unfortunately, it appears that such sections are archived without a response to my comment. I wonder if there is anything I can do to remove the Answered tag before the machines take over? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You can continue to respond to sections marked answered. At this point, mostly owing to the very subjective archiving timelines that get used here, this page is not archived by a bot. It shouldn't be necessary to remove the tag; we volunteers use those partially for ourselves so we know what's going on in a thread at a glance. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The guidelines for tagging and archiving are at the top of this page. If further comments need to be made threads can be un-archived. A search box is provided in the archive box. The main aim is that once something has been answered it probably should be archived unless there is a continuing discussion. I see this page as somewhere to answer initial enquiries. The problem may continue to be discussed at the article talk page or on a more formal noticeboard. There is no point in having long extended discussions here. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty sound assessment. Most often these threads result in referral. For those that don't, however, discussion of related issues before the original issue gets cleared up or answered may end up distracting things. A new thread, or asking someone at his or her user talk page might be more advisable in those situations. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

copyrights on animal breed standard

Answered

– Referred editor to Polish Wikipedia. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I had information removed about http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mewka_anatolijska on two occasions by admins for infringement on authors rights, information was about breed standard that information is a public domain and is supported by http://www.entente-ee.com/englisch/index_englisch.html which I had linked to in the second posting but that was overlooked and post was removed. Is the animal breed standard information consider by Wikipedia a copy right or is a public domain since is not claimed by any breeder club and promoted by any club associated with the breed using the same facts and wording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sd8303 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyright laws and the interpretation of them varies from country to country. This is the requests board for English Wikipedia. If you have an issue about the Polish Wikipedia you need to enquire there. I am sorry but my knowledge of Polish is pretty much zero, so I cannot point you to the correct page there, but this page may be a good place to start. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank You for posting back —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sd8303 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Move Bill Bennett

Resolved

There are several Bill Bennetts. Of interest there are Bill Bennett (B.C. Liberal Party politician) and Bill Bennett - both provincial politicians from Kelowna, BC. The only thing that distinguishes them is one was a member of the B.C. Liberal Party, the other the B.C. Social Credit Party (plus being Premier). Bill Bennett (B.C. Liberal Party politician) was removed from the B.C. Liberal Party today, so his article should probably be moved. Does his article title have to distinguish him from the other Bill Bennett, or would Bill Bennett (politician) be fine even though they were both "politicians"? --maclean (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Mmmm, a page name move would seem to be appropriate. But as to what the new name should be, I am uncertain. I would suggest a request for comment be raised and input invited from Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It was moved to Bill Bennett (politician) [7] regardless of the other Bill Bennett also being a politician. maclean (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto please assist

Discussion moved

– Talk:Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto Jezhotwells (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) page has been whitewashed repeatedly by sock puppets. Dont have the knowledge on how to show it here but if one simply looks at the page they will see that its clear propogands rather than facts. Even check the sources which show half negatives and half positives (ie he didnt meet Lebron - Lebron paid him.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.21.194 (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Your posts here have already been answered several times. Your posts at the artcile talk page have been addressed. If you have genuine grounds for concern, please post at WP:BLPN as you have already been advised. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Date incorrect, Please can it be changed?

Resolved

– Correction made. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

When you search Heaven 17, the last info on them is that they are playing their last gig of 2010 at the Devils arse in Castleton Derbyshire on the 20th Dec. this gig is actually on 10th Dec. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.65.56 (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, with a reference. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

^ http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=140833

[1] ttp://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=140833

[1]