Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 96

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

Archive 90

←

Archive 94

→

Conflict of interest with a quite rude, anti-fascist user on the talk page of "Jobbik"

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Jobbik#It_is_as_unbelievable_as_unacceptable

The story so far: he replaced the alignment part in the party's infobox with references saying, that they are fascist. On the talkpage he insulted Wikipedia for not taking his side (of course, people reverted his edits, because it's an obvious lie, even if he can provide four websites saying it), and further insulted the party with non cited statements.

I tried to tell him, why was his "opinion" wrong, and maybe I did mistakes, or misused stuff (we are humans after all), while his reply was a quite rude, and pathetic personal attack. I don't know what to reply, and the way we deal with these users on certain other sites is not appropriate for Wikipedia.

What can I(we) do with him? There are too many defamation attacks against Jobbik, because they are radical, unlike the most of the political parties, and Wikipedia should never be a place for people to show their hate filled opinions.

On a side note: the community already discussed these problems, and as I see, content calling them fascists and anti-Semitics were removed per consensus (as I can read from the previous posts).

--drhlajos (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

In a scenario like this, it neither matters what you nor any other editor thinks, only what reliable sources think. If reliable sources (especially many of them) call the organization fascist, that is an appropriate thing to notate in the article. Exactly how much weight that should receive is dependent on how strong the consensus is among reliable sources (not among Wikipedia editors!) that the organization is a fascist one. We always follow sources. It is not our job to reinterpret or dispute them, only to determine what they say. If sources themselves disagree, it is our job to state that there is dispute without taking a side, and simply to characterize the debate and how strong consensus is on each side. A critical test of neutrality for an article on a controversial topic is that, if someone came along and read it, they should have no idea what the person/people who wrote the article think of the issue. The article should characterize and summarize the debate, but never take a side. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for Citations

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't for the life of me figure out where to put this so I'm putting it here. I think wikipedia should have a colour coded system for citations (the little [3] numbers). The most reliable sources (scholarly papers, studies, encyclopedias and the like) could be a green number, less reliable sources (like mainstream newspapers, books and journals) could be a blue number, and more questionable sources (like blogs, or that are obviously biased) could be numbered red, so you get a general idea of how reliable the information is without having to chase down every source. 99.231.200.55 (talk) 03:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ideas such as this are probably best not placed here, maybe Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). But as a personal opinion, Wikipedia should only rely on the most reliable sources. Using such a citation method might wrongly encourage the use of less than reliable sources. Were this not the case, it'd be an awesome idea. Rehevkor ✉ 04:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Use of "America" or "American" is never appropriate

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

America is a pair of continents, not a country, nation, or people. America is often confused with the United States (AKA US, USA or United States of America). Misuse of the word America in Wikipedia is frequent and occurs throughout. Since this error is widespread in the Wikipedia, I am requesting a change of your Editorial Guidelines for future posts.

For example, using America to refer to the United States is like using Mesopotamia or Persia instead of Iraq. Mesopotamia is a region within Iraq, while Persia is a name for a region that includes several countries.

North America contains 3 large nations. Canada and Mexico have officially protested the use of America to refer to the United States.

--Drbits (talk) 07:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You're going about this the wrong way. A lot of reliable sources use "America" to refer to the US. We generally tend to follow what such sources do. If you wanted to change this, you would need to change the frequent use of this outside Wikipedia, and we would mirror that. But in common usage now, "America" usually refers to the US, and "North America", "South America", or "The Americas" to the continents. It's not our job to "correct" common usage, only to mirror it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Rude and Arbitrary Editing - Drmargi

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I have been tending the Richard Armitage (actor) Richard Armitage article for some months now. Now, in order to provide additional information, I linked to a couple of well managed very informative fansites , including one the Richard Armitage himself disseminates messages through.

I understood the sprit behind not wanting to clutter articles with fansite links, but to be honest, the additional external links were very poor. Even his agent has not updated his CV since last year. These were well managed straight informational sites.

Drmargi had been editing this page as well, keeping tabs on it also daily and correcting every edit to the “Spooks” related edits. He/she not said a word about these fansites, so I figured they were o.k.

Well, as you can read in the history, a user called Arimtagearmy tried to put in a link to the Armitage Army message board. A site that was nothing but a message board for fans. No information, the link was nothing but an ad.

Another user took the link down for obvious reasons. Drmargi reverted that edit, *putting the link back up*, stating: “Either remove them all, or allow them all to stay”

When I took the link back down and explained in the discussion page why this link was not useful, was just an advertisement, and how the other sites were different. Dramagi then yanked down ALL the fan links and lectured me about the very guidelines he/she was willing to ignore if the link to the ArmitageArmy message board stayed up. They also called me a “fangirl” and accused me of being “arbitrary.”

Needless to say I’m pissed off. If it was a matter of violating the guidelines, Drmargi should have said something months ago. OR, at the very least they should have taken them all down when the armitagearmy messageboard link was first removed. It was only at the last moment that they hid behind “the guidelines”.

I have removed all the fanlinks at Drmargi’s insistence and *threat* of lodging an “edit complaint” against me.

But the person who was arbitrary was Drmargi and editors being arbitrary and uncivil does not credit Wikipedia in the slightest.

KiplingKat

Fansites are rarely if ever appropriate reliable sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, particularly if used for content about a living person. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

KiplingKat has a somewhat myopic view of what happened. A bot removed the one link yesterday, which struck me as arbitrary, so I reverted thinking it was a bot error until I had time to review the whole link section. I came back later, saw they were all fansites, and that KiplingKat has reverted my edit, and removed them all per WP:ELNO. I attempted to discuss this with her on the article and my talk page, but she quickly reverted again. I took them out again with more explanation, then engaged in further clarification of the WP:ELNO policy. Since then, she's attempted to spin the sites as "informational", to designate one as Armitage's official site on the basis of a Christmas message left on it (which he leaves on each of several external fan sites, carefully avoiding preference for one), reverted a fourth time restoring the sites after I requested a good faith removal of a two-step edit leaving just one, and generally attempting to shift the discussion from the issue to the editor. I also warned her about WP:3RR, which she has now violated. Oh, and I didn't call her a fangirl. I referred to the issue of fangirls wanting to use Wikipedia as a fansite in the context of explaining policy. HUGE difference.

I loathe using of WP:OWN as a rule, which I find easy to fling around and hard to prove, but her own words make reasonably clear that she has ownership issues where this article is concerned. I am a casual, at most, editor on the page, usually making edits related to Spooks as she notes. KiplingKat seems to feel that because I haven't challenged (really, noticed) the links to the fansites in the past, I'm not entitled to challenge them now. I tried to explain my thinking, but she's so angry, I don't think she's hearing what's being said to her. Drmargi (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Mike Emmett

Resolved

– Article deleted. Danger (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This is regarding the article:

Mike Emmett

Some objections were raised by Kenu, a Wikipedia editor, that we believe have been answered. The talk page details the discussion. His concern was the notability of the subject. A published RELIABLE source has been given. The tags on top of the article should be removed. Thank you for looking into this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwemmett (talk • contribs) 15:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Mike Emmett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Rehevkor ✉ 15:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

One book with a one-liner about him really doesn't establish notability. Notability requires multiple unrelated and reliable sources to cover the subject to a reasonable depth, not just mention them offhand. Also, a couple of other things: Who is "we"? Wikipedia accounts are allowed to be operated only by one person. If multiple people wish to edit, they each need to have their own account. Also, it appears you may be associated with the subject in question, which generally means you should not be editing the article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

A very quick look at the article suggests real notability issues. Rather than removing the template you might want to concentrate on shoring that up. More generally it looks a lot like self-promotion (or promotion of a relative if you're not the subject). JohnInDC (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) A single source doesn't really address the issues. Reading the talk page and the article tells me that these are valid concerns by Kenu which you are failing to address. You may believe this person is perfectly notable but without strong evidence to satisfy WP:GNG. My first advice, would be to add inline reliable sources to support the text. That and strip the dozens of external links from the body, then replace them with internal wiki links where possible. Rehevkor ✉ 15:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't see anything pertaining to this person in the Google News Archive, perhaps you can have a deeper look. Rehevkor ✉ 15:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Now, this is suspicious. Rehevkor ✉ 16:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

IMHO it's articlespam and I have tagged it for deletion as such. If indeed Mwemmett is not the subject, there may be username issues too. – ukexpat (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Certainly a conflict of interest that I strongly suggest the enquirer looks into. Kudpung (talk) 09:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

My name is four letters long. Why is it so hard to spell correctly? --Kinu ^t/_c 19:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure, Kino. I'm quite certain I can spell it right. (Sorry, just couldn't resist that one.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I see what you did there. :P --Kinu ^t/_c 02:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

After an AfD and a bit of drama, the author blanked the page and the article was speedily deleted. I think this one can be marked as 'resolved'. JohnInDC (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Redirect of Hebrew Christian

Stale

– Editor making request has not edited since. No action taken. Danger (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Article on Hebrew Christian discusses a movement that began in the late 1700s and continued until the 1970s. User Jayjg has decided on his own this is the same as Jewish Christians and added a redirect, claiming a discussion that occurred on the Messianic Judaism page. Request Jayjg be blocked from wholesale redirect to related but different topic. --DeknMike (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing this with User:Jayjg? – ukexpat (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to inject some accuracy into this thread:

The article was originally a redirect, and only recently turned into a WP:POVFORK of Messianic Judaism by DeknMike.
Restoring the article to a redirect was discussed by several editors for three weeks at Talk:Messianic Judaism#Newly updated Wikipedia article "Hebrew Christian". There was no dissent.
DeknMike was aware of the conversation, and even informed specifically of it (by me), so he could comment.[1]
User:Zad68 was the person who first suggested restoring the re-direct, and it was he who eventually did so.

DeknMike, in my experience, has a great deal of difficulty accurately presenting what both sources and editors have said and/or done. This problem has been brought up many times with him. This appears to be another example of it. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Tasked with creating a new entry for a division of a large company

Stale

– Filer has not recently edited. Danger (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've been tasked for my job to create a Wikipedia entry for a lifestyle-oriented division of a very large company (who is a client of the company I work for). Knowing that Wikipedia is intended to be a user-generated and maintained community, but being unable to oppose the requests of an important client, I'm finding this to be an extraordinarily daunting endeavor. The client has requested that the article contain subsections that detail each of the various lifestyle marketing initiatives that they produce. This includes music & art events, CD releases, interviews with artists, and a variety of other projects, all designed as lifestyle marketing initiatives. The client has a general understanding that the text of the article must be written objectively, factually, and without sounding like a pitch or advertisement, but I fear that even this proposed structure may go against the general guidelines of how to approach writing a new article. I was hoping to get some insight from a more experienced editor who could help me understand the guidelines and provide suggestions for approaching this in a way that my time and effort will not be met immediately by a flag for speedy deletion. Thanks! Bray1286 (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you'd be best advised to inform the company that they don't have a chance in hell of getting articles structured the way they propose into Wikipedia. The most they could hope for would be a general article on the company, but even that will be open to outside edits, so negative as well as positive commentary may appear. This isn't an open forum for advertising, it is an online encyclopaedia, and articles are structured according to Wikipedia policy, not the wishes of 'marketing initiatives'. If they want to advertise, they won't be able to do it here. Sorry. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Since several of these initiatives are well documented in various media sources, would it be possible to list them under a general "Marketing" sub-header and provide references? For example, the company puts on an annual music festival that is open to the public and is attended by thousands of people. It's well documented by newspapers, news blogs, and other online sources. As long as it's made clear in the article that this is part of a lifestyle marketing campaign, would it adhere to the guidelines? I may be able to go back to them an suggest an alternate structure, so I'm curious what would be a good way to approach such things. I appreciate your response. Bray1286 (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Might I suggest that Bray1286 reads WP:COI. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input everyone. While there certainly will be a conflict of interest in this case, Wikipedia does not seem to explicitly forbid people involved with an organization from updating their page. It seems we'll just have to tread very carefully and obviously be open to other people's edits. Having read all the warnings, provisions, and recommendations, I now have some ammunition to go back to my client and recommend a more solid strategy for moving forward. Thanks! Bray1286 (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

No, COI-tainted editors are not prohibited from editing articles where they have a COI, but they are strongly advised not to, but rather to use the article's talk page to discuss edits to the article. Also note that it is not their page it is an article on Wikipedia about the company -- very different. You may find that WikiCompany suits your needs better. – ukexpat (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It should be trimmed back further and merged into the Scion article. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

VascoAmaral edit summaries conduct

Discussion moved

– Wikiquette alert filed. Danger (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to know if someone from Wikipedia could ask VascoAmaral to improve his conduct towards other users. He usually shouts, harshly criticizes other contributors' work and also flatters himself in his edit summaries. I think he is a good contributor, and I asked him myself not to be somewhat rude, but he not only did not change his attitude, but now he even makes mentions to me when I have nothing to do with it and I even asked him to respect each other. I have seen that people usually ask him to calm down, not to shout or not to be rude. I hope that if some experienced editor asks him politely to relax and take the neutral point of view to his edit summaries too, the issue could be solved. Escorpión Canalla (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You could raise this at WP:Wikiquette alerts if you feel it meets the criteria elaborated at that page. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where you have taken this up with him on his talk page yet which would be the normal thing to do first - but I don't feel obliged to read Spanish. Please note that this is the English Wikipedia and editors are expected to communicate in English.--Kudpung (talk) 04:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just replied in the language he wrote to me, because I did first write in English to him on his IP talk page. But this is not some war between him and me, I don't want it to take it like that. It is about the community. It is not nice that he makes some minor improvement on some article and claims he has improved an "appaling and horrible display", for instance. I think that is not good if an editor tried his best, especially if their mother tongue is not English, and someone discourages him to keep editing in this way. But there is much more. Anyway, thanks for your replies, and I'll take Jezhotwells' suggestion into account. Escorpión Canalla (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I already posted this on "Incidents" but I don't know where it should actually go

Discussion moved

– to WP:ANI#Maybe this should be posted in edit warring? Jezhotwells (talk) 10:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the place to post, but have been having issues with the Fastenal page since I updated it with material that does not reflect well upon this company.

Specifically, a lead mention of a worker satisfaction survey has been repeatedly deleted by User:Muhandes, but also by User talk:Sleighty3, who claims to be employed by this company (see my talk page).

I talked to Muhandes about this on his talk page, but he has recently deleted that. I did not engage Sleighty3 as he claimed to be employed by this company.

most recent revert

The info. in question should be in lead per NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, as (emphasis my own):

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.

Please don't post the same stuff everywhere. Please read WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

should I repost?

I don't know what "discussion moved" means.

Someone at "incidents" said it didn't belong there.

Does it belong here? Fleetham (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion moved, in this case, means that the conversation was already started at AN/Incidents and that it should not be continued here. Discussions should only occur on one notice board. At incidents, they told you that the article talk page is the proper place to work out your dispute. You should attempt resolve the dispute there for at least more than a day before taking the issue further up the dispute resolution process here. --Danger (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine structure constant

Answered

– Danger (talk) 09:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Please, resolve recent deletion made by "Alphatronic" on 01/25/2011 in article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant. This type of censorship blocks the article from new results. 216.31.211.11 (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not publish ideas in scientific articles that have not received any attention from the scientific community. We do not publish brand new theories by random people. Please see Wikipedia:No original research. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Spelling of Henry Christophe name

Resolved

– Posted at article talk page. Danger (talk) 10:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

All the many letters letters sent from King Henry Christophe to Thomas Clarkson, an Abolitionist who served the King's interests in England and elsewhere in Europe, are signed Henry, using the English spelling. The King despised and feared the French, although he did have Clarkson make overtures on his behalf to re-establish trade relations. He had assistance from Clarkson to employ teachers, artists, and doctors to help set up educational, cultural and health systems in the new country, and was an admirer of the Kings Henry of England. His official proclamations as well as his correspondence use the English spelling, "Henry". One source for documentation of this spelling is the collected letters and papers of Thomas Clarkson, now in the rare books and manuscripts section of the British Library: Add.MSS 41,262A-C. This note is based upon a viewing of that collection. LeGrace Benson/ Arts of Haiti Research Project and Associate Editor, _Journal of Haitian Studies_.

I suggest you post this on the article talk page where it will be seen by the editors most interested in the subject. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Inline Citations

Resolved

– Danger (talk) 09:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Jones http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Cite_errors/Cite_error_refs_without_references I just cannot figure out how to fix the apparent problem with inline citations. I thought referencing the following page would help but I can't make it work: http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/databases/cef/001042-119.01-e.php?&id_nbr=339139&interval=20&&PHPSESSID=ovb92edordbuahsma14d3ot3a1 Any assistance changing the page would be appreciated. Thanks. --AbilityGuy (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what the problem was as such, but it seemed to be something to do with a general reference masquerading as an inline citation. Removed the ref tags, rearranged slightly, and it all seems to be fixed. Rehevkor ✉ 21:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The presence of two Reflist templates probably didn't help either. Rehevkor ✉ 21:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Foolkit

Resolved

– Filer blocked, article deleted. Danger (talk) 10:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I added the page Foolkit - the free legal toolkit.

It was flagged as having multiple issues. I have tried to address each of these.

I would be grateful if somebody could review the page again and give further advice as to what else is needed.

Many Thanks.

Mumblerr (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It reads like a product brochure. In order to survive a deletion nomination, you would need to show it has significant coverage in third party reliable sources such as newspapers and generally meets notability requirements. . If by any chance you work for the company, please review the conflict of interest rules.Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It got speedily deleted while I was writing the foregoing.Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The WP:COI was pretty evident from the user's edits, including editing the user page of one User:Foolkit - Legal, whose existence an uninvolved user should theoretically not know about. I've blocked as a spam account/possible sock per WP:DUCK. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Editor Tcla75

Resolved

– Tcla75 blocked for edit warring. – ukexpat (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This editor has commited any number of violations of Wikipedia policy over the last week. Firstly this editor accused me of vandalism for a good faith edit. When I requested an apology this editor reiterated the accusation of vandalism when I was simply upholding the consensus. I know we should not read too much into past behaviour, but this editor vandalised Wikipedia as recently as 8 June 2010. I have never vandalised Wikipedia, and it is very difficult to keep cool when subjected to such an uncivil personal attack. Therefore I will not engage in any further discussion with them. In any event, editor Ukexpat explained things on the talkpage. Nevertheless this editor has engaged as an edit warrior against several other editors who have formed a consensus. I believe there is also a neutrality issue at stake here given the wording of the entry. Your help would be appreciated. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Editor's assistance isn't the best place to sort out behavioral issues. For incivility and personal attacks, I suggest you submit a report here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Red Star Lodge and Sawmill

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I'm new so please bear with me. If I have posted in the wrong venue, I apologize. I have personal knowledge about this Lodge as it was built by my Grandfather and is presently owned and operated by Deborah (Dahlem) Christiansen's son Mike Christiansen and wife Betsy. (Elizabeth) Betty (Dahlem) Woodruff and son Keith Dahlem no longer own or operate the Lodge, nor do they own the Sleeping Giant Ski run.

Henry and Bertha (Simpers) Dahlem were the original builders and owners. They had three children my mother , the oldest, Mary Helen (Dahlem) Daly, Clarence Dahlem, and Harry Dahlem father of Keith and Deborah.

The Lodge was originally called "Star Mill and Mercantile" and later nicknamed "Red Star Camp."

Harry Dahlem and friends created a ski club in the 1930's and began skiing the slopes around the Lodge. In 1952 Harry Dahlem obtained a permit from the US Forest Service in his name and started managing the ski run. Harry died in 1954 and Betty became the manager.

In 2004 the ski run was closed. The Neilson family purchased the ski run in 2007. It reopened in 2009 and is now run by the Yellowstone Recreations Foundation and funded mostly by donations and grants. I am unsure of the Nielson family relationship at this time.

I am unsure how to validate this information, other than through personal knowledge. What are your requirements? Thank you. Beaucheval (talk) 10:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in improving the article. However, one of the core policies of Wikipedia is that readers must be able to verify the information for themselves. So, you are most welcome to add information that has already been published in reliable sources such as books, newspapers and journals, with references to show where the information is coming from; but please don't add information that has only been handed down. For more detail see Wikipedia:No original research. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It may be that some of what you remember like the former names can be verified in old newspaper articles. RB 66.217.117.185 (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Having trouble with administators of a wiki page

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I recently created an account with Wiki to start with editing a page, and left a comment on why I believe the comment was necessary. After the edit was undone, I then reverted to 'discussion' only on why the page should be edited back to my edit. Since not logging on to wiki yesterday I have now have been accused of being a sock puppet of another user (who I think I might know from a fan site?). I am not a 'meat puppet' though. It is a very small point that I am arguing. All the administrators of the page keep rejecting our comments but their own reasoning comments go against the 'agreed' criteria of their page. There are 3 criteria, and our argument relates to the 1st of the 3 required. I am trying to use common sense in my arguments and being very polite but I feel they are just making up the rules as they go along? Can I get someone neutral to get involved? The page in question is "Honorific Nicknames in Popular Music" and my edit would be to remove "Mary J Blige" from the title of "Empress of Soul". There is only 1 cited reference to her being called that title, and she is 'commonly' introduced as "The Queen of Hip Hop Soul". I would love Mary to be called the "Goddess of Soul", but this is not the case. Mary and Galdys Knight are my 2 all-time favorite singers in the world, so I am just trying to prove a factual point here, not insult any artist. Cheers...ColeCole Hayes (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

"who I think I might know from a fan site" this suggests you're being less than honest. I particularly liked "These guys on the wiki page are fucking idiots and morons in the extreme!" If you want assistance it's best to be upfront. Rehevkor ✉ 17:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Rehevkor is posting comments I have made off-wiki, whithout my permission, which I believe is frowned upon by the Wiki Arbitration Comitte? I have not made those remarks to the editors in question (or named them off-wiki. Rather my frustration coming out when talking to 'friends'. Anyway, he/she is only posting bits that he/she likes, not my full correspondence. If you look at the sock puppet investigation for Comprendo, you will see all correspondence to Rehevkor and my questioning on whether I am considered a 'meat puppet'. I am happy to post my own correspondence on the fan site I belong to, but not others. It will show that I am a huge fan of Mary J Blige as well (and way before) Gladys Knight, and that I am also arguing with 'Comprendo' and others over the issue.

Anyway, I am asking for third-party review of the 'page' and my discussion with the 'administrators', not about the sock/meat puppet issue. I am sure someone is already there to make a ruling on that.

I am just feeling a bit downtrodden because of how I feel I am being treated, so would like 3rd party input, especially as I was not aware of all the rules, and everyone else seems to be throwing them at me.

Cheers...ColeCole Hayes (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe I already linked you to the policy relating to off-wiki personal attacks - which you made in a public forum in a topic related to Wikipedia, findable with a simple Google search - which state the attacks are "admissible" and "attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community". If you have a problem with this, don't personally attack other editors, here or otherwise. As for the content issue, I have nothing to say. Rehevkor ✉ 00:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes my friend, you did show me (as a brand new editor) that reference after you had copied my comments to Wiki. How is that being useful to my learning if you 'shame' me and then show me the error of my ways afterwards? That just makes people want to avoid wiki in the future, rather than learn and keep going. I didn't even know the rules when I made my personal comments. And the site in question is not a 'public forum' as you have to be one of the limited 150 fans to comment. I did not mention any editors names so I'm not sure if I would call it a personal attack, and I did not write any similar comments on wiki (where I realized many millions of people could see them). I did not even realize you could 'google' my posts on the site. Now that I am aware of this policy I will stick to it. However, am I not entitled to free speech to friends? Or is this against Wiki policy too? I think you are simply doing what you shouldn't and wikilawyering me before I have a clue as to the policy's. I should not have to be an expert at Wiki policies before even starting. The first idiom or whatever of Wiki is to BE BOLD, no? I never meant any personal attack on the editors I was referring to - if I did I would surely have commented on wiki - to them personally, not on a site that I thought was secure. My username on Wiki is the same as my fan site name, my face book account and my email address. I am not trying to hide from anyone. So, I would appreciate you schooling me in future with a little more kindness in future, otherwise please leave the schooling to more friendly people please. Cheers...ColeCole Hayes (talk) 04:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Just so you know, this isn't a good response after saying you "never meant any personal attack." --Kinu ^t/_c 21:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Questions about wikilinking led to angry response

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I saw User:Sf5xeplus merging two successive Wikilinks into one in the Tecnomasio and again in the China Railways HXD3B article. Not having come across the Wikipedia policy on this yet, I asked him about this on his Discussion page. He answered on my Discussion page, helpfully pointing me to the appropiate WP:MOSLINK point. Checking WP:MOSLINK, I found another point that to me seemed to allow successive links in the above cases, and noted this in reply. To which I got a quite angry end-of-discussion reply. What did I do wrong? (I note that in recent weeks the two of us worked together on several articles in what I thought was a constructive cooperation, which makes me even more stupefied.) --Rontombontom (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

How do you differentiate the example you give from the one given in the policy: "When possible, avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link, as in Irish Chess Championship (Irish Chess Championship). Consider rephrasing the sentence, omitting one of the links, or using a more specific single link (e.g. to Irish Chess Championship) instead." Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean the company name example? That may be rephrased as "CNR subsidiary Dalian Locomotives" or something similar in an article body (as in the example). I asked however because I saw this used in several articles and places, including uses of the Template:Infobox locomotive, a list of technical data where such a long form would IMHO be out of place. Regarding the other example, the two wikilinks in a motor type, I see that as a perfect example of "Articles on technical subjects might need a higher density of links than in general-interest articles, due to their larger number of technical terms that general dictionaries are unlikely to explain in context".

What about the behaviour aspect? I note that there wasn't any edit war, I left Sf5xeplus's edits and only started discussion to sort out the policy. Was I acting improperly, and what now. --Rontombontom (talk) 12:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking)#General points on linking style is absolutely clear and unambiguous on this point, and it's also basic common sense. Some rare exceptions are allowed, but even then a wokaround should be considered. The comments made by the user on your talk page appear to be uncalled for, and of an extremely vile nature totally unacceptable for Wikipedia communications. If you feel strongly about the filthy abuse, take it to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, but investigate first (and it might take a while) to see if the editor has a history of gross incivility - it may help your argument. Kudpung (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Definitely take this to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. The regulars there will look at the editor's past behaviour. Copy this "diff" into your report (including the square brackets).

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARontombontom&action=historysubmit&diff=410687846&oldid=410666224]

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Legitimacy of List of armed conflicts and attacks, 2011

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

List of armed conflicts and attacks, 2011 is the latest addition to List of terrorist incidents articles. The problem is, the article does not follow or adhere to the same narrow and specific criteria used to include incidents. See List of terrorist incidents, 2010, List of terrorist incidents, 2009, etc...etc..

I am most concerned about whether or not the article is a legitimate extension of the List of terrorist incidents family.

I believe List of terrorist incidents, 2011 should be moved to a unique, independent article rather than acting as a simple re-direct to List of armed conflicts and attacks.

I've filed other issues at OR noticeboard with little cooperation from editors involved in the dispute. Fortunately, most of the content has since been removed by uninvolved editors. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I see that this article was not recently moved from List of terrorist incidents, 2011, so I'm a bit confused about you calling it that. It seems, at least to me, that the scope set out by Passionless is both well-defined and reasonable for an article titled "List of armed attacks, 2011" (since conflicts themselves are not listed). That title has the added benefit of avoiding the POV trap set by the phrase "terrorist incidents". It also allows for both state and non-state actions to be listed without the need for debate over the legitimacy of the idea of state-sponsored terrorism, which seems to be an issue in this case, or over which state actions are within the scope of a declared war and which are not. If the list is restricted to notable events with their own articles, it may even become a manageable beast.

But if there's a real desire to keep the "List of terrorist incidents" moniker, I suppose it could be split off, even though, in the words of Admiral Ackbar "It's a trap!" of bickering and needless neutrality issues.--Danger (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, a lot of the discussion was about previous edits. this is the original version. 90% of the article lacked any sources, reliable or not. So in the talk discussion you'll see I was never opposed to the article, but it's difficult to stomach the idea of placing the US military alongside acts committed by registered terrorist organizations. Narrow, explicit perimeters exist to define "terrorism" that are considered standard at List of terrorist incidents, 2010, List of terrorist incidents, 2009, etc. If the article remains part of the List of terrorist family, the events imply acts committed by both Western forces and registered terrorist groups are in the same league.

Now, if editors could find reliable sources that place the US alongside Al Qaeda, then the edits would be acceptable but right now it is a radical change from what was seen as the norm for List of terrorist incidents article. Other involved editors seemed to disagree with the complaints made by Passion and his ANI was closed.

Editors principally responsible for the content didn't seem to grasph how reliable sources work. Passion claimed this source supported his edits, but I told him several times that the source could only be used to support the Iranian parliament POV. The Iranian parliament is not an authority on terrorism.

In any case, the article is okay right now on its own but I don't see any similarities to List of terrorist incidents. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

If the article is okay on its own, then what are you asking? As far as I understand, you are free to split out the redirect at "List of terrorists incidents, 2011". --Danger (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

All right sounds good. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I had to search for this conversation, the one that Wikifan referenced in his edit summary when he created a point of view (POV) fork. A content fork, especially one for the purpose of WP:LABEL, does not follow wikipedia's rules, so I have put the content back onto a single page. And for the source you requested wikifan, if you do not accept government X's label, how can you accept government Y or Z's label? Passionless -Talk 05:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Passion, I think you misunderstand what constitutes a content fork. If you are referring to the MSNBC source that included statements made by Iranian politicians, I can refer you to WP:USEBYOTHERS. The Iranian Parliament is not an authority on terrorist organizations. Statements made by members can only be attributed to those members, and cannot be used to support claims that the CIA is a terrorist organization independent of the Iranian parliament. I made this more than clear in the talk discussion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I know what a fork is and what you did was a perfect example of one. And what you made "more than clear" is only your opinion, just because you think something and write it down, does not make it true, do you understand this? You can say "The Iranian Parliament is not an authority on terrorist organizations." all you want, but that does not make it true, it is merely your POV. Passionless -Talk 08:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

12th Planet (musician)

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Will someone please take a look at my Sandbox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dambuleff/Sandbox) to see if the article I have written on 12th Planet (musician) is appropriate to release on Wikipedia. I will add an appropriate photo that fits to the Wiki guidelines if I get an editors approval that I have enough reliable sources and neutral information to make this page live. Thanks :) Dambuleff (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You put a lot of work into this and it is well written and arranged. Unfortunately, he seems a little light on notability. Sourcing to Facebook here is practically verboten, and blogs and nonnotable sites are equally disfavored. Once you move this to mainspace, you may have to contest a proposed deletion or nomination for deletion and your subject may lack the degree of third party coverage, awards, etc. that would survive a challenge.Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I have done a little bit more research and found an article on Beatportal (a division of Beatport) on 12th Planet as well as an award as one of URB Magazine's Next 100 for 2009. If I remove facebook as a source would I then have an appropriate page? I am just slightly confused as the notability for this particular artist, as I feel the notability of the page I created is much higher than other DJ wikipedia pages (like Le Castle Vania's, for example). Thanks again! Dambuleff (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Anything you can do to add more reliable sources will be a good thing and you might take a look at notability criteria for entertainers and musicians. Notability is something of a moving target here and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS a disfavored argument. After you have done all you can to improve it now, the best way to find out if your article has staying power will be to take it live, see if anyone proposes it for deletion and defend it as best you can. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

my Sandbox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ratnapriya5/Sandbox)

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Will someone please take a look at my Sandbox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ratnapriya5/Sandbox Thanks in advance, Ratnapriya5 09:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)09:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)09:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)09:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratnapriya5 (talk • contribs)

That link doesn't work, and looking at your contributions, you've never edited a sandbox as a sub-page of your own userpage, you've only edited the main Wikipedia:Sandbox, which gets over-written by anyone who wants to use it. So unless there is another link you can give us that I've somehow missed, then you need to go to User:Ratnaprya5/Sandbox and start the article there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Answer

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Editor,

According to an article found on Yahoos Associated Content, if you ever question a celebrity death Wikipedia is the first to know and will let the public know if it's a hoax or not. I'm doing a college research project on celebrity death hoax's on Twitter and was wondering if I could possibly have a moment of your time to discuss this subject with you.

Sincerely, Greta Crouch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.158.150.70 (talk) 07:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You could start with the article Reliability of Wikipedia and the other articles and references linked from there. Wikipedia articles should only report what has already been published in reliable sources. But even that does not guarantee that the report is correct; see for example the history of the Gabrielle Giffords article where early news reports turned out to be wrong. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Ducreux meme

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a fairly heavy content dispute, I would suggest that you raise a request for comment. Instructions at that page. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Friends of the Five Creeks / Pacific East Mall

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a classic case for a third opinion. Instructions at that page. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I did read that. So would I ask for a third opinion on each page or can I make a joint request like I did here? m.cellophane (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)m.cellophane

It seems like a third user has gotten involved on Friends of the Five Creeks, so third opinion may not be appropriate. I suggest trying to work it out for a few more days and if you all still haven't reached an agreement, try the neutral point of view noticeboard, where you can definitely list all three articles like you did here. With regards to a discussion that's spread over several articles, I would try to keep the main discussion on a single page if possible.--Danger (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Nortrax Headquarters

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I updated the Nortrax headquarters in their wikipedia section, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nortrax, and it was rejected/reverted a few days afterward.

Based on Nortrax's website in two separate locations, Tampa, Florida should be their headquarters, not John Deere's Moline, IL location. 1) http://nortrax.com/about/index.html 2) http://nortrax.com/branches/?region=FL&submit=region&x=0&y=0

Brian Oster Nehlsen Communications, PR agency for Nortrax <contact details redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.64.161.59 (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you continue with the discussion at Talk:Nortrax#nortrax. Talk pages are where edits can be suggested. As you have a self declared conflict of interest, that is the best route to follow. I removed your contact details as per the notice at the top of this page. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

personal promotion

Resolved

– Article was speedy deleted. Danger (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not a biography, but a job CV. There are million experts across the globe with better profiles who would want to be here. As a fair public service organization, either you should also grant them such opportunities or delete such profiles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.113.51.130 (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You can propose that it be deleted by following the instructions at WP:DELETION. It's certainly short of good references, and arguably doesn't have a clear claim of notability. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Active Banana has nominated the article for speedy deletion. If that is declined, I imagine an AfD will follow. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Treaty of Guadealupe Hidalgo Vandalized

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Treaty_of_Guadalupe_Hidalgo

The page here has been vandalized. I don't know how to fix it, but I figured y'all here could help fix it.

Dlazzaro (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC).

The article has been fixed; thank you for bringing this to our attention. Instructions on how to revert vandalism yourself can be found at Help:Reverting. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Updating an existing article

Resolved

– Enquirer blocked by User:OrangeMike. Kudpung (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi

We wanted to add the following information in the "Reverse Auction" page:

[Promotional content redacted].

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Commissionitltd (talk • contribs) 15:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

On the face of it, looks like marketing material that won't go over well and may be quickly reverted by other editors if added. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Attempting to edit Book:Avril Lavigne

Disregard

– I'm over it by now. : ) –Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like assistance regarding the ability to edit {{lb|Avril Lavigne}}. I had been reading through several other book compilations and enjoyed how they were organized. Thinking I could re-organize (diff) Book:Avril Lavigne, I found that my edits were immediately reverted without explanation (no edit summary filled out). Discussions on the talk page have not been resolved. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Enquirer blocked for using Wikipedia for promotional purposes. --Kudpung (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Request to Overturn a Vandalization Ruling on the Warped Tour 2011 Page

Stale

– Filer has not edited since; no activity on page. Danger (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Today a partial block was issued on this page citing vandalism as a cause. The vandalism in question was, in bulk, a reference to "poorly sourced material" in the form of a reference to a playlist on iTunes Ping. The playlist in question should not be considered "poorly sourced material" for the following reasons: The playlist is created by and featured on the account of Kevin Lyman, the creator of the Vans Warped Tour to which this page refers. His iTunes Ping account is verifiable, as it is listed on the iTunes Featured People homepage.^[1] In this playlist, entitled "vans warped 2011," Lyman features bands that, according to the byline, "will be playing on the 2011 vans warped tour."^[2] This is also referred to in an update on Warped Tour's official website, stating that "he'll be adding new songs each week as new bands are announced to the tour."^[3] Lyman adds to this list periodically, as seen in his Recent Activity record.^[4] The official Warped Tour website also releases band information periodically, as illustrated by their statement, "More bands will be announced weekly..."^[5]

In this Ping playlist are twenty-nine bands. Twenty-two of them are confirmed as verified on the official Warped Tour website.^[6] As of sometime later today, February 2, 2011, the official Warped Tour website will announce seven bands that will play the tour this summer.^[7] One of the seven artists that appears on Lyman's playlist but has not yet been confirmed on the official website is Stephen Jerzak, who announced tonight that he would indeed be featured in Warped Tour 2011.^[8]^[9] Please note that both social networking links are verified as belonging to Jerzak by his official website.^[10] Given the evidence provided, I would like to suggest that Kevin Lyman's Vans Warped 2011 iTunes Ping playlist be listed as an official reference on the page specified. Furthermore, I would like to suggest that the state of Semi Protection currently imposed on the page be lifted for a trial period so that editors with a relevant interest in the subject may update the page in a timely manner, thus allowing interested parties to view the information before its official confirmation, as Lyman logically intends by releasing these bands through his playlist ahead of official confirmation. Should the page continue to see vandalization, it stands that it may then, once again, be placed under a state of semi protection.

AmyEliSomething (talk) 07:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Denied. Once a page is protected, it stays that way for a given length of time, in this case 10 days. ArcAngel (talk) ) 07:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Can the reference at least be added by someone with the capacity to do so? On an aside, will the ban automatically be lifted after ten days or would I have to repost this request somewhere? AmyEliSomething (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The ban (or rather, the semi-protection) will be lifted automatically when the ten days is up. You wouldn't have to post anything new here to get that done.

Reading through the explanation of what you want changed on the article, I feel that Wikipedia doesn't need to interpret that "Lyman logically intends by releasing these bands through his playlist ahead of official confirmation" and use that interpretation to source material in the article. This would be rather close to WP:SNYTH which we don't do. There is WP:NORUSH and the confirmed bands will doubtless appear in an official confirmation soon enough - Wikipedia is not fighting to be the place to have the very latest news on this. If the interpretation about the significance of the playlist is widely held, then possibly a reliable secondary source (for example a music magazine, a newspaper, or a major editorially independent music website, not a music blog) will discuss it before the official confirmation happens; if so then this might be sufficient grounds to mention that discussion in the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The band announcement made on the official Warped Tour website today verified every band listed on Kevin Lyman's iTunes Ping playlist; every band listed in the latter can now be matched up with the former.^[11] I suppose what I'm having trouble understanding is, ignoring the poorly made argument at the end of the original request, why a reference that is run by the event's head, verified by the event's website (as in link three), and endorsed by the application on which it is hosted is not considered a viable source. AmyEliSomething (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it is an acceptable source, but given that it's somewhat unusual, it would've needed a clear explanation to the other people editing the article. I notice that no-one has discussed this (or indeed anything else!) on the talk page for the article, which would be the obvious place to make that explanation. That's probably why there's been this confusion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the talk page is nearly always the first port of call during disagreements, I'm unsure why it seems to have been taken here first. Rehevkor ✉ 21:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Renaming an article (also, sourcing Eng. translations of foreign wiki articles)

Answered

– Danger (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a rather inexperienced contributor with only one "original" article to my credit: namely Mermaid (film), which is my own translation of the article Русалка (мультфильм) from Russian Wikipedia.

When I created the article, I used the English title "Mermaid (film)" to be consistent with the link/citation on the English-language article about the work of Russian animator Aleksandr Petrov. However, it was subsequently brought to my attention by a native Russian commenter that it would be better to transliterate the Russian title Русалка (as Rusalka) instead of using the translated title "Mermaid." (Since the Slavic rusalka is only sorta-kinda similar to our Western concept of "mermaid.") Also, since the article is about a 1996 animated short and there happens to be a live-action, feature-length Russian movie from 2007 called Rusalka, for disambiguation the title should arguably be "Rusalka (1996 film)". HOWEVER, as a newbie, I'm not sure whether the preferred practice is to translate foreign titles.

Aside from all that, someone flagged my article as "lacking sources" -- for my future reference, would a link to the original Russian Wikipedia article qualify as a source? What's the proper procedure when preparing a new English article that translates an existing foreign-wikipedia article?

P.S. The short film in question can be viewed on YouTube and has no dialogue, making it easy to follow if you're not a Russian speaker. And it's well worth your time, since Petrov's labor-intensive "paint on glass" animation method is just fucking gorgeous!

Thanks for your help and guidance! Throbert McGee (talk) 10:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It's quite straightforward. See WP:translate for full instructions, including the attribution template that has to be put on the article talk page. Be sure that what you make is a true translation and not a near interpretation of the original text. Note however, that not all Wikipedias hold their articles to the same criteria of sources and references as the en.Wiki - you may need to find additional reliable sources but they can be in Russian if they are verifiable. Kudpung (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I see you've added the attribution, and I've added the sources from the Russian page. Note that when you do a normal page move, the talk page automatically goes with it. Kudpung (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for help with this! Throbert McGee (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Notability

Answered

– Danger (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I have a question about notability. Just for an example, I'll use the Playboy magazine centerfolds. I fail to see how everyone of them has "received 'attention from the world at large,' achieved "enduring notability" and there certainly hasn't been "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" for the vast majority of them. If any "enduring notability" was achieved by all of them, it seems to have been done indirectly by association. Yet, I believe there is an article on every single one of these women.

Also, I have read several times where something is rejected because it's "not encyclopedic." I am confused by this since there have been a number of articles on people and topics that one would never find in Encyclopedia Americana or Britannica.

So basically, I'm asking if Wikipedia's guidelines are suppose to apply in all cases?TL36 (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes they are but given it is the "encyclopedia anyone can edit", with volunteers of differing levels of skill and commitment, some stuff squeaks by that shouldn't. However, if you follow the deletion debates at WP:AFD for a week or so, you may be reassured that there is a squad of people highly interested in making sure that articles meet high standards of notability. If you see articles you don't think belong here, consider nominating them for deletion yourself. However, in deletion debates please be aware that the argument that other stuff exists is not usually taken sympathetically. Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the question another way. Yes the guidelines apply, but the guidelines are applied to each article on its own merits and decided by a consensus of those editors who happen to be participating at a particular discussion at a particular time. And therefore differing interpretations can happen. Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

About the last question: WP:UNENCYC is a known fallacy. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Rick Scott - Redistricting Amendments

Stale

– No activity on article talk. Danger (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

My concern is accurately representing Florida Governor Rick Scott's withdrawal of a part of Florida's Constitution from Department of Justice approval.

There is currently an editing disagreement regarding how best to state Scott's actions. User Collect keeps deleting links to explain various concepts in the event that wouldn't be obvious to readers on two bases

The articles cited don't say what I say they do. However, all information I provided comes from the articles.
The facts do not present a balanced point of view. Instead of editing them, he deletes the section. I also disagree with his claim that the facts do not present a balanced point of view, especially when they're presented in chronological order and include no weasel words.

Here is my wording:

In the 2010 elections, Florida voters passed constitutional amendments banning gerrymandering of congressional and legislative districts.[51] In February 2011, Scott withdrew a request to the Department of Justice to approve these amendments, which according to The Miami Herald may delay the implementation of the redistricting plan because the Voting Rights Act requires preclearance of state laws likely to have an impact on minority representation. Scott said he wants to make sure that the redistricting is done properly.[52] Several advocacy groups sued Scott in federal court to compel Scott to resubmit the acts to the Justice Department.[53]

Here is Collect's wording:

In the 2010 elections, Florida voters passed constitutional amendments concerning the drawing of state and federal legislative districts. In February 2011 Scott withdrew a request to the federal government to approve these amendments, which according to The Miami Herald may delay the implementation of the redistricting plan. Scott said he wants to make sure that the redistricting is done properly.[51] Several advocacy groups sued Scott in federal court, seeking to reinstate former Governor Crist's pre-clearance of the acts with the Justice Department.[52] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.41.13.193 (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

These sorts of debates are absolutely integral to the process of improving articles. Please use the talk page - Talk:Rick Scott - to hash this out with Collect and any others who are interested. And, as a side note, it's often considered good practice to let other editors know if you mention them here. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. Longtime user of Wikipedia, but new to editing. Part of the problem may just come from me being a law student. We tend to write directly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.177.19 (talk) 05:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Norwegians with Pakistani background

Resolved

– Danger (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

70.96.29.227 (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Two users involved in this edit war have been warned. --Danger (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

How can I make our page semi-protected like Apple's page

Answered

– Danger (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apple_Inc.&action=edit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.228.130 (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

1) its NOT "your" page

2) you shouldn't be editing "your" page

3) pages recieve protection only when experience has proven that the "cost" of fixing and preventing vandalism outwieghs the value of having everyone be able to contribute, at which point you can make the request at WP:RPP. Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Contacting Kenya

Answered

– Astray. Danger (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like to contact Kenya's birth record's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.205.73 (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck.--Orange Mike | Talk 20:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Photo error

Answered

– Discussion on wrong wiki. Danger (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

A number of pages use this as a photo of Fay Wray:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fay_Wray_Argentinean_Magazine_AD.jpg

It is attributed to an Argentinian magazine, from an ebay auction.

It is not Fay Wray. I have collected King Kong photos for decades, and I know Fay Wray when I see her. This is absolutely not her.

How do I contest it?

Thanks,

Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknyc (talk • contribs) 04:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The image is on Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia, so you'd need to discuss it there. This is probably the best initial place to ask for help there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Disagreement over a phrase

Stale

– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

An editor (RC) changed the following sentence by adding the bolded phrase before the comma: "Although the Coens are coy about an explicit confirmation, the St. Petersburg Times's Steve Persall wrote that it was a retelling of the biblical story of Job in the modern American era,; others find the connection spurious." Putting aside the extra punctuation (which I just noticed), I reverted the edit because I couldn't find anything to support the assertion in the cited source. RC reverted back.

After opening a discussion on the Talk page, I discovered that RC's source was a link on the cited page to a 47-minute interview. Why that wasn't cited still isn't clear to me. Fortunately, I also found a link to the transcript of the interview (I really didn't want to listen to a 47-minute interview), and I asked RC to identify what part of the transcript he (if RC is a she, I apologize) was relying on. His response made no sense to me (still doesn't). So, I asked again for him to quote some portion of the transcript. His response was unhelpful: "You said you saw the transcript, so you are aware that my summary is accurate. If you know of any contrary evidence, feel free to share it." His edit summary implied that he couldn't quote a negative.

I dunno. Perhaps I'm dense, but I can't figure any of this out. I also don't like the added language ("coy"), which I think is unencyclopedic and improper editorializing by RC.

I know it's just a phrase, but can someone help sort this out?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that it's really a question for the WP:ORN, since I think the question is whether a conclusion is being drawn from hints and clues. It also seems to me better to leave the Coens out of it, unless a source characterizes them as "coy" on the point, and just focus on what the various sources actually say. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Another noticeboard I was unaware of. :-) I'll wait a bit to see if other editors comment before taking any additional steps.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW I don't think the phraseology with 'coy' is particularly encyclopedic either, and to use it implies WP:OR. Edit summaries were never intended to be a way of 2-conversation to avoid talk page discussion and do not help resolve the situation. However, this is being discussed in a reasonably civil, if not outwardly friendly manner, on the article talk page and still has some way to go before dispute resolution needs to step in. The appropriate, very short part of the interview transcript should be reproduced on the talk page (with attribution) for evaluation by the wider community involved in that article, as to whether it is acceptable as a reliable source and allays suspicion of original research.Kudpung (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be great, but I haven't had any success getting RC to do that.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand your position, but as you were the one who discovered the transcript, perhaps you could either do that, or clearly demonstrate that the transcript does not address the issue - which ever the case may be. Kudpung (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem I see is that barring this sentence appearing in a quote, I have trouble imaging what could be said in an interview primary source that would substantiate the word "coy". If, for example, the Coens danced around the issue, hinting that (whatever this is about) is true, that still wouldn't substantiate the word, but rather a neutral statement such as "Although the Coens have not provided an explicit confirmation..." "Coy" characterizes the Coens' speech, as judged by the person adding the source, and thus smacks of original research. On the other hand, if an outside source itself provided a characterization of the Coens' statements as "dancing around the issue..." then rephrasing that as them being coy would seem okay.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's the transcript - [2] - in case anyone wants to give it a look before I get around to it later today. JohnInDC (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I resisted doing this because the burden is on Ring Cinema to justify his assertion. However, that clearly isn't going to happen, so I looked at the transcript. Let's look again at the assertion (bolded) in the following sentence:

Steve Persall wrote that it was a retelling of the biblical story of Job in the modern American era; others disagree, and the Coens declined to confirm the connection in a National Public Radio interview with Teri Gross in 2011.

I did a Find in the transcript. The word Job is mentioned only once. Here is the passage:

Gross: What was the germ of this idea for the film of this man who is beset by problems, not boils like Job but, like, 1967 kinds of problems and he goes to a rabbi...

Ethan: No boils with his brother has a sebaceous cyst on the back of his neck.

Joel: What was the germ? What was the beginning of it? ... Is that the question

Gross: Yeah.

Joel: Well, interestingly, the beginning of it, it proceeded from a very early discussion we had about possibly doing a short movie about a rabbi that we did know when we were growing up who was sort of loosely based on the eldest rabbi, the rabbi that's called Marshak in "A Serious Man," who was a sort of mysterious figure who each of the bar mitzvahed kids would go in and see just after their bar mitzvah. But we weren't really quite sure what happened in that room with this rabbi after you were bar mitzvahed and you went in and you had a little chat with him.

There's more discussion about the film, but Job is never mentioned again. So, how does this support the assertion that the Coens "declined to confirm the [Job] connection"? They weren't even directly asked. They were just asked what triggered the film, with Job mentioned in passing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

They weren't directly asked? They are asked "What was the germ of this idea for the film of this man who is beset by problems, not boils like Job but, like, 1967 kinds of problems?" That's direct. Job is mentioned in the question and Gross even tries to lead them to it by offering some evidence that implies the connection, yet Joel Coen mentions something else! Keep in mind that Gross is not concerned with the question that concerns us (i.e. was Job the basis of the story?). She's doing an interview and inviting them to say what they want on the subject. This is our best evidence on the subject and it doesn't confirm anything more than the possibility of an inadvertent allusion to Job. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least you apparently agree that this is the passage you're relying on. That's some progress. Even if you interpret the Job allusion as a direct question about whether the source is Job (which I don't think it does at all), the Coens' answer hardly qualifies as "declined to confirm". That would mean, for example, that each time a politician doesn't directly answer a question, a fairly common occurrence, you could say he declined to confirm. That's crazy, and it's certainly not worth even mentioning in the article. Just because you think this is the "best evidence" on the issue doesn't mean it's good enough evidence of anything. In any event, the Coens talk some about what triggered the film, and they never mention Job or deny Job. They just talk.

The phrase you added should be removed - it's simply your interpetation and, in my view, is unsupportable. Maybe now that I've narrowed this down, other editors will come back into the discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"Declined to confirm" is not supported by the transcript. You might safely say "have not confirmed" perhaps. Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"Have not confirmed" implies that they haven't commented. They have and we have them in front of us. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Assuming one could say "have not confirmed", first, what would be the reason for putting that in the article? Second, how would it be phrased? Would we say that in the interview, the Coen brothers did not confirm the connection? That would imply that they were truly asked about the connection (which I don't see). We could also say that they didn't confirm that they eat eggs every day. I see such a statement in this context as misleading, as well as trivial. Just because we can say something doesn't mean we should.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Because Ring Cinema thinks the interviewer's question is "direct", I'd like to parse the question. Here it is again: "What was the germ of this idea for the film of this man who is beset by problems, not boils like Job but, like, 1967 kinds of problems and he goes to a rabbi..." First, it's not a complete question as the ellipses indicate. The interviewer was apparently cut off. Second, it doesn't ask the interviewees about Job or even about "1967 problems"; the question describes the protagonist, meaning it's the interviewer's understanding of the character. Third, the Coens clarify the question in their follow-up, and their clarification is simply "What was the germ? What was the beginning of it?" The clarification has again nothing to do with the supposed Job connection. Then the Coens answer the clarified question. Not only did they not decline to confirm, they didn't even "not confirm" as they weren't asked to confirm anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

One really has to strain to avoid concluding that they are being asked if the Book of Job is their source. They are asked for the germ of the story and the interviewer in the same sentence brings up the parallels to Job, except implying that it's being framed in 1967 terms. Ethan gets the allusions and chimes in with one of his own, right? So it's really quite clear. Yet, even though they are asked explicitly for their source, explicitly asked how Job fits into it, Joel repeats the question and says nothing at all in any way about Job in even the slightest way. In other words, my friends, we are asked to accept that if the Coens actually had based their story on the Book of Job that they, when asked about their source and the parallels to their main character's 1967 type problems, would still have said nothing about Job but instead talked about some rabbi who wasn't even their own rabbi. Now, please, this is not difficult. They were invited and they declined the invitation. Let's try to get this right in the article. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The way to get it right is leave out our own inferences. If it takes four or six sentences to explain why one person's interpretation of the exchange is the correct one - and *still* leave some people unconvinced - then both sides are probably injecting too much of their own thinking into the process. At best the interview is subject to varying interpretations; and as such it is not very strong evidence of much, one way or the other. In my view the best solution is to offer no inferences at all about what conclusions can be drawn from the interview. JohnInDC (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Just so your view isn't open to interpretation (smile), you are saying that the phrase and the citation to the interview should be removed from the article. The interview isn't being cited for anything else.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry, your inference, JohninDC, is kind of illogical. You're actually criticizing my argument for being complete. No, I think a criticism would be if something is missing. Completeness is a virtue. (I'm not going to waste time on your assertion that no one was convinced, since obviously you are making that up.) So, on the substance, Bbb23 still can't explain why the Coens would say the story's germ was the old rabbi when the interviewer had invited them to connect it to Job. (See, there it is in one sentence for those of you who want the brief version.) Until I hear that explained, I'm going to be quite certain that my view is superior. His smile reveals that he's not trying to make the article accurate. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so I'm making up arguments and Bbb23 is trying to corrupt articles. You should tread more lightly, RC. It's unbecoming. Otherwise - I stand by my reasoning and argument. Report what they said, not what you make of it. JohnInDC (talk) 04:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

(Which, in fairness I must add, your recent edit would seem to do.) JohnInDC (talk) 04:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You still want to maintain that some others were unconvinced, JohninDC? Is there a secret page where others are responding to my post? If there's not, then let's quantify the number of comments after my post and before your claim that some others were unconvinced: zero. In fact, no one has challenged the accuracy of my summary in any meaningful way. You've offered opinions, but in cases where we can check the basis of your words, evidence is lacking. So forgive me if I insist on accuracy. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, and with thanks to John for trying to draw all concerned parties to reason, this discussion has gone on long enough here, and I suggest you all take it back now where it belongs: the article talk page, and I won't accuse anyone of forum shopping if they later escalate it to a dispute resolution board decided by admins. Kudpung (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be all sorted now. And it probably wouldn't hurt, once this discussion is archived, to create a link to it from the article's Talk page (inasmuch as all the talk seems to have taken place here). JohnInDC (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I hate to disagree, but although I believe it is better, it's still wrong. With respect to my original complaint, it now says:

The Coens themselves have allowed that, while there may be allusions to Job, the "germ" of the story was a rabbi from their adolescence, a "mysterious figure" who had a private conversation with each student at the conclusion of their religious education.

There's no support for the Job part of that sentence - only the interviewer alluded to Job, not the Coens. A better, and supported, wording would be:

The Coens stated that the "germ" of the story was a rabbi from their adolescence, a "mysterious figure" who had a private conversation with each student at the conclusion of their religious education.

Second, RC has changed the opening part about Persall. It now states:

Steve Persall wrote that the main character would remind Bible readers of the Book of Job despite some important differences.

Persall's only statement in the article was:

If this sounds vaguely familiar, you've been reading the Bible. The Coens turn Larry into a modern-day Job (actually 1967), but even Job eventually caught a break.

Apparently, the phrase "despite some important differences" is RC's gloss. A better wording would be:

Steve Persall wrote that the main character might remind Bible readers of the Book of Job.

I'd make these changes myself, but my assumption is that without some support here, RC would revert any change I made.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Factually wrong, Bbb23. Ethan mentions the brother's cyst as analogous to Job's boils. That's an allusion. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

There's an error in the transcript there. Ethan actually says, "No boils [i.e. like Job] but his brother has a sebaceous cyst on the back of his neck." --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It's an offhand, humorous comment and doesn't support what the article now says. You also don't address the "despite some important differences" phrase.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If there's a suggestion to improve the article, I'm in favor of that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

For whatever reasons (exhaustion?), no one has chimed in on these two issues, so I'll reluctantly leave both incorrect (one last dig) assertions in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

For the record, Bbb23, your views have apparently been rejected on the merits. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

LOL, I shouldn't respond, but you've confirmed my faith in your capacity as an editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Accepting the challenge to comment. I think the reason this thread lost other editor participation is it went on way too long, with too much churning. Here is an opinion and a suggestion.

Both these phrases contain synthesis:

The St. Petersburg Times's Steve Persall wrote that the main character would remind Bible readers of the Book of Job despite some important differences. The Coens themselves have allowed that, while there may be allusions to Job, the "germ" of the story was a rabbi from their adolescence, a "mysterious figure" who had a private conversation with each student at the conclusion of their religious education.

Neither is exactly what the sources say. Persall does not reference "important differences" and in the Coen interview, the "cyst" reference does not support that the Coens were acknowledging any link to Job. My suggestion:

The St. Petersburg Times's Steve Persall wrote that the main character would remind Bible readers of the Book of Job, "but even Job eventually caught a break". The Coens themselves stated that the "germ" of the story was a rabbi from their adolescence, a "mysterious figure" who had a private conversation with each student at the conclusion of their religious education.

Jonathanwallace (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Article: "Gamma Beta"

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi

I know in the past the article "Gamma Beta" was deleted, but I was hoping to have some help get this article active. The article is about an Asian-Interest Fraternity, which is currently the largest in Texas.

Some assistance on this would be very much appreciated. Hawee (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The article has already been subject to numerous deletions and I don't see much chance for it surviving another attempt to get it published on Wikipedia. However, this was the most recent AfD discussion, you can ask the deleting admin if he will userfy the deleted page for you.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamma Beta (3rd nomination)

--Kudpung (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The admin isn't responding and seems to have retired. 67.9.148.238 (talk) 05:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Well User:One last edited 2 February 2011,[3] so is still active. But you need to establish the notability of the subject, which I believe has not yet been established. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Jezhotwells for the help. I've tried to get in touch with One regarding this issue and just haven't been able to receive a response. I understand that notability hasn't been established very well, but I can find multiple articles on other fraternities and sororities that are in the same position. They've just received less criticism from others and haven't been attacked as we have. When our article was established, it was constantly attacked by rivals.

It's a growing fraternity, the largest of its kind in Texas, and it still doesn't have a place on wiki? But you have another of the same that is just a local fraternity that has an article of its own. I'm not trying to argue but understand why it is the way it is. This would make more sense vice versa.

Hawee (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:COI: the former explains that we look at each article on its own merits and do not take into account that other similar articles also exist; the latter explains what you should and should not do if you have a conflict of interest. – ukexpat (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Denver Police Department

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The "Controversies" section has been removed three times by three different editors. The controversies section (when present) makes up the bulk of the article and makes the article lose its focus. A user has reverted the deletions three times. I added an "unbalanced" thing at the top of the page, and there has been some unsuccessful discussion on the talk page. The question, I guess, is whether to retain the "Controversies" section or not. Thanks, Jeffrey Beall (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC).

What should the "focus" of an article about a police department be? If its notable for beating people, that may be the bulk of the article. Removing the controversies section is inappropriate. Cutting down the description of the second and less significant incident to a sentence or two would make sense. The purpose of Wikipedia is to give a neutral overview, including controversy. Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

True Jonathan, but we can't give excessive attention to a minority point of view. See WP:UNDUE:

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

Controversy sections in general are frowned upon. Perhaps the incidents could be merged into a history section? Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of the "controversies" where actually situations where violence by police was alleged, and is stated in the article as having had occured, but the police were acquitted. With the police officers being named, its also a WP:BLP issue in addition to being this laundry list of allegations used to attempt to paint a picture that doesnt seem to be true. Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

If it is considered to be a BLP issue, then WP:BLPN is the appropriate venue. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Lets not get too concered with the name of the section, as that is easy to change. "Alleged Spying and Brutality by Department" would be accurate, "Controversies" seems more genteel in this case. I am confused by your mention of "minority" viewpoints; we are talking about a description of events, not Noam Chomsky or someone's opinion on the department. In the article as it appears right now, there are only two controversies. One is historical spying from the 1950's and the other is a more recent incident reliably sourced to the Denver Post. The only applicability I see here of WP:UNDUE is that the latter probably does not need to go into quite so many sentences of detail.Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

There has been a lot of coverage in the Denver Post, the local general circulation newspaper, of recent problems and controversies regarding the department, ACLU wants Denver police to reopen probe into traffic stop, Denver Police beating probe reopens amid outcry Son's beating by Denver police stuns Pueblo sheriff's deputy and this from last October, Chief Whitman transfers two officers after secret recording ("a department already in turmoil over discipline controversies"). Something is clearly going on, and can be reliably sourced. Our job is neither to report it like a newspaper nor to protect the department against any mention. I think two or three sentences describing these issues, with links to these articles, would be proper. By the way, a department failing to take action against an officer doesn't make a story not notable nor WP:UNDUE. One of the articles above reports a local judge finding officers behaved inappropriately. Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Please add

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello I just want to tell you that you forgot to list 3 important people in our multicultural community that is from Ruston LA that is NOTABLE IN RUSTON LA. Here is the following: Michael Brooks(RHS Graduate, Attended LSU and NFL Vet), Michael Green( RHS graduate, Northwestern University and NFL Player and Kenneth Wright(RHS graduated, Northwestern University and NFL players.

Please make a note of this and add to the Ruston LA search. Thank you so much for your time.

Tiffany Brooks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.9.42 (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Provided these people have Wikipedia articles you are welcome to add them yourself. You may have to dig around a bit to find the correct page name, since there are several Wikipedia articles about people named Michael Brooks, Michael Green and Kenneth Wright (these links may help you). -- John of Reading (talk) 09:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Help requested with adding references to an article posted today

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sir I am a bona fide researcher in Pakistan and today, added an ongoing note/article on Pakistani poet and scholar 'Omer Tarin' in good faith. However, there seems to be some problem that the article (Living Person Biography) cant be added without adequate, dependable references. I have been trying to add some references and have more than 20 such but there is an issue that for some technical reasons an error emerges and I cant seem to be able to post the references on this article, now scheduled for deletion; not is it possible to access the page at times for corrction. Might I request editiorial help please in posting at least some of the main references relating to this article ? These are given below:

1. "A Select Bibliography of Pakistani Literature in English" ed E Rahim, Islamabad 1999

2. Section on Pakistani English poets/writers in "The Oxford Companion to 20th Century Literature: ed Ian Hamilton, 1994

3. "Poetry International" (Asia section), Ed by Prof Edwin Thumboo, Vol 7/8, SDSU Press, CA, USA, 2003. [sdsupress.sdsu.edu/2003/poetry/international]

4. Review of Pakistani Literature in English "Journal of Commonwealth Literature ", 1997

5. Alamgir Hashmi, "Pakistani Literatura in 1993 and 1994" pub in Revista Alicantina de Studios Ingleses , No 13 (2000)

I would be very grateful for your assistance/help in this regard please as I am keen to develop this article further and otherwise it will be needlessly be deleted.

Thank you Khani 100 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khani100 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you had trouble adding the references. Did you make a note of the error message you saw?

I have copied them into the article and marked it for review instead of deletion. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Richard Hack

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Richard Hack was not born in 1951. He was in my third grade class at Lynnewood Elementary School in 1953. So, that would make him about 8 years old. The man was born in 1945. He graduated from Haverford High in 1963. He lied along with the plastic surgery to make him look younger. ~ ~ ~ 16:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.163.8.213 (talk)

If he was born in 1951 that would make him 2 years old in third grade. Not. 173.163.8.213 (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources for this information then please place it in the article talk page for interested editors to consider. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

COI and a request

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like to create a page for the website I work for. It is a news site, cited numerous times in Wikipedia and (I'm assuming) considered a neutral source by most editors.But it seems it's a violation of policies. The site is bdnews24.com.

Any solutions? Anubisthefoxhead (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It's use as a source in articles is independent from Wikipedia's notability guidelines, I don't see much discussion on it's reliability as a source either, searching seems to mostly bring up spam reports (the first page does seem to be 50% advertisements, not good for a first impression) - so I cannot comment on that. As for creating an article, I would advice you first read out conflict of interest guidelines, creating the article yourself would not be advised. Perhaps the best bet would be to create a draft in your userspace, User:Anubisthefoxhead/Bdnews24 for example, then submit it for review. It would need to be reliably sourced, address notability issues and be neutral. Good luck. Rehevkor ✉ 22:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Rehevkor. I will follow that. Anubisthefoxhead (talk) 10:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

women's rights

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, could someone have a look at the women's rights article. There are ongoing issues in relation to the ancient Greece, Rome and Islam section. User:Athenean alleges various, such as unsourced and NPOV, its not possible to engage constructively, without personal attacks and reverts. I think the problem is that any edit I make is perceived by Athenean as fundamentally bias against ancient Greece, or bias in favour of Islam, at least that is what Athenean alleges. Historically I have edited the women's right article quite a bit, and I am happy for others to edit and improve what I have written. I could do without the personal attacks, and I am happy to continue working on the article (needs a bit of work). But edit warring by Athenean is not helpful. The article needs quite a bit of extending, eg other ancient civilisations, religious scriptures, property rights. In the moment I don’t have a lot of time to do this, though working on the article right now is not possible in any case.--SasiSasi (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Recently I made some edits to this article [4], all impeccably sourced, which were almost entirely reverted by this editor [5] in somewhat impolite fashion. First he claimed that I misquoted the sources [6], which is fundamentally untrue. Then he claimed that because a source I used was no viewable online, that it's not verifiable [7]. Again untrue. Regarding personal attacks and reverting, this editor is just as guilty. In fact, he was the one that reverted my edits to begin with. He even undid the way I had formatted the refs using the harvnb template, which is preferable for situations where different pages of the same source are used throughout the article. It is my impression there is some WP:OWN on this part of the editor as regards to this article, and that he carefully cherry picks sources to portray the ancient civilization section in as negative a light as possible. So far, every edit of his so far has been to that effect. For the above reasons, I do not think I can work with him, and any outside input would be highly welcome. Athenean (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, you are in the beginnings of an edit war, which could lead to blocks and is not productive. You need to assume good faith and learn to work with each other, if you are to improve the article. WP:RS have to be verifiable, but they do not need to be available online. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I have been involved in a protracted dispute with two editors, Jrtayloriv and Ebanony regarding Thomas Jefferson's Indian policy. They started reversing all my edits to advance their own point of view. Ebanony claims "There are direct links between US policy and the Holocaust". I put a Neutrality and Expert needed templates on the page, but was repeatedly reverted. I also noticed that the main contributor to the Native American policy section was Jrtayloriv.

I would appreciate if someone who is completely neutral could take a look. This is the link. Thanks. Tobby72 (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

That looks like a heavy duty dispute. I think that the best way forward would be to raise request for comment, with a suitably neutrally phrased condensation of the issue. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You also might like to invite comment from relevant Wikiprojects. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Neal Cassady article--bad facts re: drinking, strange and bureaucratic attitude toward factual integrity by "Apostle"

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion section of the Neal Cassady article sets forth the issues in contention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.208.71.231 (talk) 03:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you read our policy on reliable sourcing? Your post has been answered on the talk page several months ago. If you have an issue with User:Apostle12 then please take it to WP:Wikiquette alerts which is the appropriate venue. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

dispute over name change

Answered

– Danger (talk) 06:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I put together an article called west point sword the problem I have is that someone changes the word sword to the word Saber. I have 100's of references calling it a sword but I can not find one supporting the word Saber. The maker of the sword it's self calls it a Sword. I have seen the spec's that were putting put out for bid calling it a sword and the Army's name for it would be in every case Sword and not Saber. What do I do.

Thanks

Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy2159 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Well you have reverted the changes. I see that you did briefly have discussion on the article page itself, which is not good. Try contacting the IPs and asking them to provide references for their edits. Jezhotwells (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean that it is good that there was discussion on the talk page. But I could be wrong. --Danger (talk) 06:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I want to add my review of V.S.Naipaul's book "A Bend in the River"

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

A_Bend_in_the_River

Dear Sir

I want to add my review of V.S.Naipaul's book "A Bend in the River" (Link: http://hota-hai.blogspot.com/2011/02/bend-in-river-review.html) as an external link to the Wikipedia page. Please accord me permission for the same.

Chinmay email removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.241.170 (talk) 05:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless you're an established expert in the field of literature, the link would be inappropriate. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Someguy1221. Whom should I send my credentials to know whether I fit in or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.241.170 (talk) 06:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

If you are a widely notable literary figure, then someone will already have created an article about you on Wikipedia. That's how you know. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

If you're are a recognised expert then you should have no problem having your review published by a reliable publication - blogspot doesn't really fit the bill. Rehevkor ✉ 14:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Further request for editorial assistance please

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sirs

I have been working on an article about the Pakistani English poet, Omer Tarin, and earlier requested help to put up various refs and citations. However, since I have been facing difficulties in doing so by adding inline citations for verifiability purposes, I have taken the liberty of adding citations in parentheses in the main text. All these are from reliable secondary sources and critical/analytical reviews made by senior scholars and literary critics in mainstream Pakistani print media sources which regularly review the work of writers. I shall also be adding additional printed morthng to fix other articles and I am keen to add this article and others, in due course, with your assistance, for public benefit and knowledge.

Once again, thanking you for your cooperation

Yours truly

Khani 100 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khani100 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 6 February 2011(UTC)

Well I have tried to clean this up a little but more needs to be done. Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners is worth looking at. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Isle of Ely slow-motion edit war

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I happen to have Isle of Ely on my watchlist, and have noticed with concern that two editors User:English Bobby and User:Wee Curry Monster are constantly reverting each other, although never at sufficient speed to invoke WP:3RR. They seem to have an argument over the use of the word "Saxon" or "English" in the article. The edit history reveals these to have been the only edits made to the article in the recent past [8]. I have no idea about the merits of either side of the argument and have never had any dealings with either editor, but this is getting ridiculous and rather childish. Anybody have any ideas how to proceed? Lozleader (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

No attempt seems to have been made to resolve the issue on the talk page by either editor - I'll will suggest that both editors do so. If that had no effect, perhaps page protection might be an idea to encourage such discussion. Rehevkor ✉ 16:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm following this too. Just added my comment, I'll see what happens next. --Der yck C. 00:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

St. Ranieri

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea if I'm placing this at the right point; rather cryptic this.

As search for St. Ranieri redirects to "Raynerius of Spalatro" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Ranieri). A search for St. Rainerius leads to his page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainerius) where it is noted that "His name may also be spelled Raynerius, Rainerius, Rainier, Rainieri, Ranieri, Raniero, or Regnier." I think that a disambiguation page is needed but have no idea how to request or set one up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdgillen (talk • contribs) 17:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are used where there are several articles about people or places or subjects with the same or similar names. Redirects re used where there are variants of the spelling of a name. I'm not sure exactly what name you think needs a disambiguation page. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

(It is rather cryptic, isn't it? Weeds out the weak, I suppose.) I think you're right, it does look like there's overlap on these saints. I think that putting a hatnote on top of each might be the way to direct lost travelers. If one of them is more prominent than the other, and it looks like St. Ranieri is, you can make redirects for the alternate spellings to that page. Let us know if you need any help doing this. --Danger (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

La Maison Tellier

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I decided to set myself a challenge and create an article from scratch on a subject I have no previous knowledge of using sources written in a language I don't understand. The result is here. I'd like some input on this if possible, obviously I don't speak French which makes the sources hard to understand and judge. Do they seem reliable? Is there sufficient coverage to support notability? Are they a "band" or a "group"? Rehevkor ✉ 03:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You did fine. I made a couple of small fixes. The sources support all of your statements. "Band" and "group" are interchangeable I think. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Based on the sources, I think its appropriate to describe them as a "French rock group with American country and folk influences", and I changed the lede accordingly--hope that's OK.Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Cheers Jonathanwallace. I've moved the article now, hopefully it should stand as it is. Rehevkor ✉ 16:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Dodge Morgan

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Dodge Morgan's article needs to be corrected with facts.. <potentially defamatory content redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.163.103 (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

If you have any useful information, with of course reliable sources to back it up, please post at the revelant article discussion page. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly sorry to hear your story. However, Wikipedia is based only on facts that have been published, so that anyone can verify them. (I don't imagine you'd like our Australian readers calling you in the middle of the night!) Thus, we can't put anything into an article based only on what someone says. I hope this makes sense. --Danger (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Mick De Giulio

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like to request that someone with interior design expertise please review my entry for MICK DE GIULIO, which has been proposed for deletion. The reason the current editor gave is "lack of reliable sources," which is quite odd considering the sources--Architectural Digest, Wall Street Journal, CNN, Consumer Reports, as well as top national --and international--shelter publications. See below:

Interior Design, October 2003.
Kitchen and Bath Business, December 2005.
KitchenCentric, Balcony Press, 2010.
Media Such As:
Renovation Style “Kitchen Wisdom,” Summer 2010
Bon Appétit, “The Kitchen Designer,” March 2010
Beautiful Kitchens, “The Art of Reinvention,” Spring 2010
House Beautiful, “Kitchen of the Month: Glencoe, IL,” December 2009/January 2010
Decorati.com, “Classical Redux,” posted April 2009
Luxe “Domino Effect,” Volume 3, Issue 1
Woman’s Day Kitchens and Baths ¬ “Rule Breaker,’’ Summer 2008
Consumer Reports Kitchen Planning & Buying Guide 2008, “The Perfect Kitchen,” April 2008
Detroit News, “Kitchen Magic,” April 2008
Veranda, “Passion for Provence,” September 2007
Nouveau Maison Francaise, 10-07 and 11-07: “Une Cuisine a Tout Prix”
Ottagono, 10-07: “BeauxArts”
Wohn!Design, 7-07 and 8-07: “Stilmix aus Deutschland”
CasaViva -- COCINAS + BAÑOS, Number 44
Domus, 6-07: “BeauxArts—Design: Mick De Giulio”
Domizil 6-07: “Klassische Kuche Neu Inszeniert”
Chicago Tribune, “Five Things to Know About Top Trends in Kitchen Design,” November 19, 2006
Wall Street Journal, “The Mixed-Up Kitchen,” June 23, 2006
Architectural Digest, “The Merchandise Mart, Chicago,” December 2005
HGTV ¬ “Sizzling Outdoor Kitchens,” April 2007
CNN Open House "Meredith Test Kitchen, Interview with Gerri Willis,” July 2005
ABC/CBS/WBBM-FM "Tabitha House,” April 2005
Rolf Willers, SieMatic, “De Giulio Celebrates 25 Years,” July 6, 2009.

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE REVIEW THIS ENTRY AND/OR EXPLAIN TO ME WHY SUCH SOURCES ARE NOT "RELIABLE"? ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karinhedwards (talk • contribs) 16:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Mick DeGiulio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rehevkor ✉ 16:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment:Part of the issue here may be the term reliable sources. Of course "Interior Design" , "House Beautiful" and "Better Homes & Gardens" can be reliable sources; however, the concern is not about the published source of the reference, but the substance of the references. Specifically, there is a difference in a one or two line quote from the individual and an article about the individual. In addition the references may be only primary in nature and the article may lack secondary sources. For example, an interview with the individual is a primary source, but an article about the individual is a secondary source. All articles must be supported by secondary sources. The issue here is not getting someone to review the article that has "interior design expertise", but rather being able to validate the substance of the references. ttonyb (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

A big problem I see here is that we have a long list of references, but no indication of how they support the text. I'd suggest reading WP:REF for starters, to get an idea about how, when, and why to cite sources. Just to pick one sentence as an example: "Says Rolf Willers, C.E.O. of SieMatic Mobelwerke USA, “DeGiulio is a major force in shaping the Kitchen Business….He put ‘Design’ into ‘Kitchen Design’.”" -- ok, interesting quote. But in which reliable, verifiable source was this quote found? As a reader of this article, I have no idea. Without that match-up between the text and the sources, the article is in all practical terms unreferenced.

With so many sources apparently available, this more than likely has the potential to be a thoroughly referenced, informative article (keeping in mind of course the points User:Ttonyb1 raised above). Katherine (talk) 11:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I should mention another useful read also: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. That gives some good information about tone, balancing criticism and praise, external links (but do see also WP:EL on that subject), and talks more about sources specifically relating to this type of article. It's also worth checking out the article on Jesper Olsen (runner) -- totally different field, of course, but a good example of referencing in action (you can see how it reads: Statement->Source... Statement->Source). Katherine (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Commentaries on the work of a creative professional, like a designer, are valid sources for a biography of that person. It seems that in this case, the amount of third-party commentary on his body of work indicates notability. Primary sources like interviews can be used for non-promotional or controversial facts about a person's life and for referencing what a person claims. There is plenty here, even discounting sources hidden behind paywalls or in magazine archives (few of these sources are more than 5 years old and the subject has been working for 25), to build a biography that covers both the course of DeGuilio's career and the critical reception of his work. What more could you ask for? --Danger (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Michael Cherney

Resolved

– Danger (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's what I said on the article's Talk page:

I reverted two edits by Moscowrussia. The first was a straight copy from the source, which is an impermissble copyright violation. The second was a report on a conversation in Israel. Putting aside that the addition was poorly worded, there was nothing to make the conversation notable to warrant inclusion. I reverted the first and the second edits. Moscowrussia reverted my first reversion (labeling it "vandalism" - I left a warning on his Talk page about the use of the word "vandalism"). I have restored the article to before both edits. Not sure how long that will stick.

It didn't stick long. Moscowrussia has already reverted one of my reversions, again labeling it vandalism. I don't want to get into an edit war, so I need some assistance on this. (As an important aside, the copyright vio edit, if reworded, may be worth adding to the article.)--Bbb23 (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the two edits by Moscowrussia again for somewhat different reasons, that neither of his sources is reliable, and have posted something on the reliable source board to get some opinions and eyes on the issue over there. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

He reverted those edits as well. I've put a 3RR warning on his Talk page. JohnInDC (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

He also inserted the same (or similar) text into Oleg Deripaska, which I've also reverted. JohnInDC (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like this user needs a stern lesson in good faith, contributions are littered with false accusations of vandalism. Rehevkor ✉ 16:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe he is up to four reverts in 24 hours. Last edit has a summary that he is adding sources but if you look at the content, he also re-included the material sourced to Izrus.il which is being discussed at the WP:RSN noticeboard.Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I think in fact it's 5. I am not sufficiently well-versed in 3RR lore to know whether changing sources and reinserting the material, again, is sufficient to reset the counter, as it were. I'd think discussing it first on Talk would be well-advised at least and it's a shame he didn't. Perhaps an editor with a better sense of where the line is here would like to have a look. JohnInDC (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:3RR makes clear any edit over-ruling someone else's edit counts as a revert. It doesn't have to involve clicking the "Undo" button. Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be a clear 3rr violation to me. I'd report to WP:AN3 and let an admin decide either way. Rehevkor ✉ 20:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Done and the user was blocked for 24 hours within minutes. In his last edit, he replaced the PRNewswire site with two Hebrew sites (suspiciously with identical headlines) and he has also restored the isrus.il site which is in Russian. I will probably revert these both shortly, but the whole article really needs an overhaul and many of the refs are in foreign languages I don't speak. Jonathanwallace (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this. I translated the one Russian cite using Google and could see enough to know what it was about. That was the one that I didn't think was even sufficiently notable to include in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

And now there is a possible sock making the exact same reverts and also claiming "vandalism". Would any passing admin mind taking a look? This is a high maintenance article and way outside of my area of interest--I'm just a passerby myself. Jonathanwallace (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I've done it by the books and reported here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moscowrussia. Rehevkor ✉ 18:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked, a checkuser declared the accounts technically unrelated but it was blocked anyway per WP:DUCK. Moscowrussia's block increased to 48 hours. Rehevkor ✉ 19:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. However, I'm going to beam back up to the Enterprise now and stop policing planet Cherney, as I just received an admin warning on my talk page (after making two reverts in the last 24).Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That'd put me off trying to help too. Rehevkor ✉ 21:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm still watching Cherney.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Just reverted User:Internationalcriminallaw's reversion of Jonathan's edit. Can someone please check the user? He's new, his only changes so far has been to Cherney and to Oleg Deripaska. He used the label "vandalism" in both edits. Very suspicious. Cherney article has now been fully protected. Should I report Internationalcriminallaw as a possible sock puppet? Never done that before and am a little out of my depth.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Something sinister going on here, checkuser found no connection between the first two accounts. But there're too many similar editing patterns to be meatpuppets/new users. Rehevkor ✉ 02:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

There is now another possible sock commenting over at WP:BLPN noticeboard. We'll see if he makes the same edit when protection lifts.Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you meant WP:RSN, but in any case I had the same thought. These new editors are sprouting up like daffodils in the spring. JohnInDC (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Disagreements over sources and content

Stale

– Danger (talk) 03:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Lately there has been complaints made by an IP over the content and sourcing of the episodes and broadcasting of the episodes. The IP only makes claims of they saw it on TV and they know it to be true. They demand that we add the claims simply because they (Cartoon Network) say it and provides nothing that can help out in the long run. The source currently being used is from the listing from the official TV Guide website - a third party source. It has made no claims of a second season that has been reported, and has archived all current and future episodes. The IP insists that we ignore their information on the grounds they have no relevance with the show.

My argument is that although Cartoon Network is the authority on what's what regarding their programing, they provide nothing long term. As they only provide information in regards to the current week and they never archive their information on past scheduling information, whereas TV Guide does. On the day (January 29) that the IP made the claim of new episode's February 7 broadcast and the provided programing guide listing, the information had not been posted on the link they provided as the info was far too advanced to be listed. So from my stand point, this makes the guide unreliable due to it's ever changing content.

As for the claim for the second season, a website had reported the the new episodes are a new season. But TV Guide has yet to accommodate this grouping the episodes as a part of season one. Yet the IP insists that we follow what the promo claims, simply because they say so. I am skeptical over such information as nobody has provided proper sourcing to verify that the new episodes were apart of a new season such as sourced production numbers proving that a second season has begun. Plus, TV shows often produce seasons in at least two waves. There has been instances (which the details escape me) where a TV show production season waves were promoted as two separate seasons, or vice-versa. Without the real production codes from a reliable source, there's no real way to know whether this is a true second season or just a marketing strategy. It was my understanding that we really had no way of sourcing promos.

But am I wrong? Is the network's program guide suppose to be used as a source?

When the IP started showing acts of incivility, I reported them to WQA and was ignored. So I guess they don't see them as a problem. Just thought I'd throw that out there. Sarujo (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You properly posted a related issue about Tvguide.com as a source on the reliable sources noticeboard. Some editors replied to you there that they agree its a good source. The second part of your question, whether Cartoon Network information (as argued by the other user) is reliable or not, belongs over there as well. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto

Answered

– Danger (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

page is biased and user with single user account user:beobjectiveplease - scrubs info doesnt want to appear, biased. Help Please. Babasalichai (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly a content dispute. Please use the article's talk page first to discuss with the other contributor(s). – ukexpat (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

OneTravel page issues.

Answered

– Danger (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The OneTravel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) page still has a tag saying that it is written like an advertisement. The language is very neutral, states the services the company provides, and is similar to many other pages for companies in the field. How can this issue be resolved?— Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeTravels (talk • contribs) — MikeTravels (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The article is written like a brochure and completely fails to establish notability per our WP:CORP standard, which says, "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Ratings system for books and movies

Answered

– Danger (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we add a ratings system for books just like movies and TV to wikipedia? (i.e. V for Violence, AC for adult content, etc.) I was trying to find out more about a book on your site and while it sounded good on paper I found it to be X-rated in reading. Needless to say, I didn't finish that book. It would be nice to have ratings added so people could know beforehand what the content is like--or whether or not it is age appropriate. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehealthymind (talk • contribs) 21:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No, because Wikipedis is not censored, and we don't do content warnings of any kind. – ukexpat (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

In addition, since there is no standard rating system for books, we would be doing original research to apply any such tags. Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I have wondered though, we list ratings for games in the infobox, why not films? Rehevkor ✉ 21:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Globally, there are so many ratings systems, it would just be unwieldy in an encyclopedia article if added just for the sake of it, unless supported by reliable sources -- see WP:FILMRATING for details. There is also a failed proposal on a general ratings system at WP:Rating system. – ukexpat (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for assistance on editing of kneeling page

Stale

– Danger (talk) 03:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I would be grateful if an editor could help me a conflict with the editor of the kneeling chairs page - the editor is Wenttomowameadow

I have been involved in ergonomic seating for 25 years. I co-organized the 2nd international conference on the topic, held in Tokyo in the late 1980's. I publish extensively on the topic and one of my three edited books was on the topic. I have consulted for all the large US contract furniture manufacturers, most of the medium sized manufacturers and many small. I have a seating research laboratory to perform experimental research on the topic. I have participated as a member of the American National Standard Institute committee on the topic (HFES 200) and participated in many other international standards. I present and publish extensively on the topic.

On these links, I have expressed my concerns regarding the editor Wenttomowameadow, who I believe has a conflict of interest on the page. He has blocked the development of completely valid new page on the Balans chair, which is different than the larger umbrella category of generic kneeling chairs.

These pages express my concerns. As Wenttomowameadow does not respond to my comments I don't know how to proceed without additional assistance.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rani_Lueder/Kneeling_chair

Thanks, Rani Lueder — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rani Lueder (talk • contribs) 23:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Your article on the Balans chair was deleted by consensus after discussion at WP:AFD and redirected to Kneeling chair. The other user has completely explained his choices on the article talk page, and they look proper. Please take a look at our conflict of interest policy which says:

Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant and conforms to the content policies. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion.

Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Why were Thomas Nast external links deleted?

Resolved

– Danger (talk) 03:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello-

My link was deleted from the Thomas Nast page. I am trying to connect users to our original collection of Thomas Nast Art at The Morristown and Morris Township Library and someone took my link down. Can you explain why? This is an excellent link to some of Thomas Nast's original art, some of it unpublished. We own this art physically, which is in the public domain, and wish to share it with the public.

This is the page I would like to link to.

http://www.jfpl.org/digital_collect.cfm

This is a link to the database, which is an external database, this does not count hits.

http://cdm15387.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm4/browse.php?CISOROOT=%2Fp15387coll2

Study2much (talk) 04:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate post

It seems to have been lost during an outbreak of vandalism. Is it now ok? Hmains (talk) 06:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for editorial assistance in resolving dispute about article

Stale

– Danger (talk) 03:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Re Article > Khattar

Dear sirs I am a researcher and doctoral candidate and have made an extensive study of a number of topics regarding the North Punjab and its history and culture, and have have edited a number of pages. I have also edited a page/article entitled 'Khattar' about a North Punjabi indigenous tribe, of Jatts/Rajputs; but some members of the Wikipedia community here in Pakistan have changed it again and labelled my serious, bona fide changes as 'vandalism'. Basically, they insist that their orgins and geneaology is different than what has been given in the article and which is borne out by all scholary sources from at least the 1820s and 1830s to date. I have listed these sources in detail and can be easily refered to.

At the same time, in the interest of consensus and realising that people do have their own versions of family/tribal history, I would like to suggest that (a) the sources refered to should please be consulted by experts (b) objective conclusions drawn and (c) some sort of annex or brief attached to the article is question, to reflect both points of view of fairly. I would please like to submit this article for editorial evaluation and arbitration. Thank you Yours very sincerely Khani 100 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khani100 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a very problematic article with mostly unsourced information. The formating is also very messed up and long sections of probably non-notable information about heritage and genealogy don't display properly as a result. Even if you are personally an expert on the group's history, you shouldn't be adding assertions that represent personal opinion or your own unpublished research. Everything in the article needs to be attributed to reliable third party sources. In editing the article, you should also be careful not to engage in edit warring. Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(Jonathan got here just a few seconds before me :) )

Please sign your posts on talk pages and noticeboards by putting four tildes after your comment.

The article you mention is in an appalling state - vast unreferenced and nearly incoherent sections, huge lumps of text that have been copy-pasted in from somewhere (and therefore a possible copyright violation) without any regard for whether the formatting used actually worked on Wikipedia, and about half of the wikilinks in the infobox didn't work (I have fixed some of those now).

If you have edited the article but your changes have been reverted, then the talk page for the article would be the place to discuss with other editors the sources you have available and the points of view you believe are being ignored. At the talk page, click "New section" at the top and remember to sign your post with four tildes. A tilde looks like this: ~

You should also consider asking for assistance and feedback at Wikiprojects whose members might have interest or knowledge in the area, for example Wikiproject Pakistan --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Poker Face

Answered

– Danger (talk) 03:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, i just made a account 2day and i want to edit the Poker Face (lady gaga song) page. i see that there is a photo missing there is another official Cover for the song and i wanna upload it. how can i do that? i did change the text file and in the place of the foto, there is just a red coloured file name. how can i upload? Jamie — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiscoPhoenixGaga (talk • contribs) 15:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

For instructions on how to upload, provide proper licensing and place in an article, see WP:IMAGE. Note that the album cover is WP:COPYRIGHT and may not fall within Wikipedia's "fair use" guidelines. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It is more accurate to call it non-free use. "Fair use" has specific connotations in copyright law and Wikipedia's non-free content criteria are more stringent than "fair use". – ukexpat (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Conflict over appropriate content for a high school article

Answered

– Danger (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi.. I think I'm right in what I'm telling Robertebecker but I'd love another pair of eyes and opinion. The editor wishes to include information about the misconduct conviction of a high school wrestling coach at Voorhees high school. The editor seems intent on including it and I don't want to get into an edit war over it. Is it possible for someone to look at our discussion on User:Robertebecker's talk page and the information information that they wish to include? I just need to know if I'm telling them the correct thing or not. Thanks! Wikipelli ^Talk 17:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking over your conversation with Robertebecker and the information he wants to add, I agree that the information does not belong. The person is not notable. Robertebecker has stated that the purpose of the information is to notify people that this person broke the public's trust. That is not the purpose of wikipedia. The information is not of encyclopedic value to the School's article, it is a news story. ~~ GB fan ~~ 17:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks... Wikipelli ^Talk 17:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Editing company page

Answered

– Danger (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Trying to make corrections to our Wikipedia information that is incorrect. The new information(edit) being provided is being rejected. Please advise. WGSA TV WGSA (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)<e-mail redacted>

While correct information is important, it is also important to note the conflict of interest guidelines. If you provide a reliable source for your suggested change, it is more likely to be accepted. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Edits by Winston 786

Answered

– Redundant to ANI thread. Danger (talk) 03:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Kindky look into the numerous edits by user 'Winston 786' ( eg History of Pakistan) and decide: Are they in good faith? His maintenance of Talk page is also unusual. I request appropriate steps be taken to keep WP a dependable sourse of info. Thanks and regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.215.134 (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks good faith enough to me. You should be more specific with what you need assistance with though. There's a current ANI thread here: Wikipedia:ANI#WP:Reliable Sources, perhaps you'd have more luck chiming in there. Rehevkor ✉ 02:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

18S ribosomal RNA

Answered

– Danger (talk) 03:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, this article states that it incorporates CC-By-2.0 text from the reference Meyer 2010. Is it possible? The Meyer's article seems to be a usual copyrighted article (see [9], chapter Background). Thank you for your attention. --Vojtech.dostal (talk) 07:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

When I downloaded the pdf, the license notice on the first page indicated that the paper was under CC-By-2.0, though said with many more words. Since pubmed hosts articles of various copyright statuses, one has to look at the article itself to conclude anything about it. --Danger (talk) 08:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Kim Thomson birth date

Answered

– Danger (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

My entry is immediately undone on the basis of a newspaper article which offers no source whatsoever. I offer a birth certificate as a source, but am told this is not good enough!!! what exactly is the criteria here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realfacts2 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I see you claiming a citation to a birth certificate but not any link to an image or a copy. Facts on Wikipedia need to be verifiable, and a simple assertion of fact doesn't meet the test I'm afraid. JohnInDC (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) This has been discussed before. There are no reliable sources for Thomson's birthdate, so the best we could do was to narrow it down to one or two different years based on the sources we had. You keep trying to change the article without a reliable source for your change. You don't cite to a birth certificate (which is problematic anyway), you cite to the words "birth certificate". See here. You're going to have to find a reliable source that states when Thomson was born if you want to change what is there.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Reynolds

Answered

– Danger (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I have a distant relative, named Thomas Reynolds, born in England in 1817, who participated in the Civil War. He came to USA in 1853 and settled in Wisconsin with his wife Elizabeth and daughter Eliza. I have been told he died in Cleveland pn his way back to Grant County, Wisconsin. Where can I find colaborating evidence that this is true? Thank you for any help that you can provide. Sincerely, Ab Tapper in Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.154.236 (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you ask at the Humanities reference desk, and the volunteers there will do their best to help you. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

"the Simsons"

Answered

– Astray. Danger (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, More than 50years ago I read a book in Germany. All I can remember is the title (and even there I am not absolutely sure) The story was published in 3 large volumes of about 500 pages each sometimes between 1920 and 1940. If I remember correctly, it was a sort of "Buddenbrocks" edited for daytime soap. But that may be to harsh, as I said, I read it about 50 years ago and I left it behind when I fled East-Germany. Your assistance in providing information that would give me a chance to track the books down would be very much appreciated.

Thank you and best regards,

Roger Jahn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerjahn (talk • contribs) 03:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Miscellaneous reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

[1] [10]

[2] [11]

[3] [12]

[4] [13]

[5] [14]

[6] [15]

[7] [16]

[8] [17]

[9] [18]

[10] [19]

[11] [20]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]