Wikipedia:Content noticeboard/Archive3

Virgin America article
If you would all be so kind as to review the issue being discussed at this article and weigh in with your opinion I would appreciate it. We'd like to incur a larger, more objective, unemotional share of input then what exists right now. Thank you very much for your time and we really appreciate it. 68.52.42.38 (talk) 05:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest: Folie à Deux
When you search for "Folie à Deux" and "Fall Out Boy," the first link to appear is apparently to the page about the Fall Out Boy album; however, when you click the link, the page "Folie à Deux" is only a redirect to the medical condition of the same name. The Talk page still exists, however. Is there any way to restore the information regarding the album and rename the page "Folie à Deux (Fall Out Boy album)"? MotherFerginPrincess (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Semi-automated stub creation
A discussion related to content creation could use further input: VPP. –xenotalk 14:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Pierre Picault
Hello; I hope this is the right place, this is my first time with this new system. Recently, User:NickOrnstein recreated the Pierre Picault article a year after its successful AfD, making no attempt to improve or change the article and not addressing the major problem ie. the lack of reliable, independent, third-party sources that make non-trivial references to the individual. His version was so similar to the old one, even despite the fact that Picault had died in the meantime, that CorenSearchBot tagged it as a possible copyvio of a Wikipedia mirror of the deleted version. Despite these versions being essentially the same, User:Juliancolton declined the speedy (I did not speedy it myself, as I was involved in the deletion discussion the first time) saying that they were too different to apply under the G4 criteria of WP:SPEEDY. I do not feel that it is a good use of the community's time and resources to drag out a 10-day-long deletion discussion of something that has already failed to pass an AfD when the article is so similar that a bot thinks the two copies are close enough to be identical, so I want to exhaust every option possible before it comes to that. I will notify both NickOrnstein and Juliancolton of this discussion immediately. Cheers, CP 17:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue is that the content is entirely different from the original version; the only similarity is the subject and perhaps the number of references. I therefore believe it would be inappropriate to speedy delete it. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Need help managing conflict on 9x19mm Parabellum
I am getting bogged down in discussions within article 9x19mm Parabellum. I have added quite a bit of content in direct response to a REFIMPROVE request on the article. However, other editors have taken offense to my mention of 9mm role in infamous crimes and other criminal use and rap music. I believe I have done my homework in finding WP:RS, but am getting accused of COI (why?) and POV-pushing. However, I believe the sources I have confirm that, particularly in the late 1980's and early 1990's the 9mm notoriety was primarily due to its role in crime. Now, I'm getting messy and probably spouting out way too much on the subject because I admit I got upset when editors removed some of the content I added cited to Newsweek, but kept other pieces. I felt when I originally added it that both pieces were needed to keep NPOV. Now I think it is time to ask for help in managing this conflict. If indeed "five editors" have spoken and I should walk away, fine. However, I think if some neutral parties could help perhaps not only could the existing editors "get along" better I might be more happy with the end result. Please help me here, on my talk, or at the article page (or everywhere). Thanks. Spectre9 (talk) 04:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charmouth
I would like my content removed from the following page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charmouth I will not sit back and let one person with a chip on his shoulder constantly edit my contributions. 21:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Whenever you edit a page you get a "Please note" underneith the edit summary space that says. "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia in the sense that anyone can edit it. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 22:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a user who does not understand the concept of WP:OWN. I am improving the Charmouth article but this user does not seem to appreciate it. To be honest the user should be reported for 3RR and given a little time to cool off. --Simple Bob (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI, user has just been given a 12-hour block for disruptive editing. --Simple Bob (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

User block for User:Clothahump is now indefinite, so I would suggest this request is closed. --Simple Bob (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that users cannot have anything they submit removed per WP:RGNP. GFDL revocation is legally not possible. Whenever you submit anything on wikipedia: You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0 and the GFDL. Momo san Gespräch 03:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for more input
Please see the discussion at the List of honorific titles in popular music AFD. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Overlinking
I'm off to bed, so if someone could please chip in here on an issue of WP:Overlinking where someone is using an unnecessary wikilink apparently as unwarranted emphasis, breaching WP:NPOV. . Thanks. Rd232 talk 00:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the article could also use some more general help re rewriting the lede. See the article talk page. Rd232 talk 00:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for reviews
For anyone who watches this page, we always need more reviewers at our quality-content assessment pages. Comments are welcome. See the following: Thank you. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Featured article candidates urgently needing reviews
 * Featured article review candidates urgently needing reviews
 * Featured list candidates and featured list removal candidates urgently needing reviews
 * Featured picture candidates
 * Featured sound candidates
 * Featured portal candidates
 * Featured topic candidates
 * Good article candidates (oldest)
 * Peer reviews:
 * Articles urgently needing peer reviews
 * Picture peer review
 * Portal peer review

Help in cleaning a copyvio
I need help in disposing of the copyvio charts in Head and shoulders (chart pattern). If I just remove the charts which clearly have watermarks that mark them as copyvios, then the rest of the article becomes nonsense. Can someone else take care of this problem? Jesse Viviano (talk) 03:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you fabricate a fake chart in Photoshop or some other graphics program? You could replace the copyvio images with your own art. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Should these PD images supercede a fair use image?
I uploaded a small image of Hazrat Ali a couple of years ago.

Last year 60 minutes broadcast a segment that featured a lot of video footage taken by "Dalton Fury", a special forces officer tasked with hunting down and killing Osama bin Laden. That 60 minutes broadcast contained footage of a guy CBS identified as "General Ali". General Ali looks a lot like Hazrat Ali. And the Geography was right. Hazrat Ali and some other local militia leaders set up a provisional government, the "Eastern Shura", in Nangarhar when the USA's attacks caused the Taliban to totter. Hazrat Ali's power base is about 50 miles east of Osama bin Laden's hideout in Tora Bora. So it makes perfect sense that he would lead the US special forces Afghan auxiliaries.

The GI's footage that CBS rebroadcast are better images than the first image I found, except they don't clearly identify "General Ali" as "Hazrat Ali". I didn't initially just replace the first image with the higher quality PD images because I thought that decision could be regarded as original research.

Here are the three images:

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Non-free content states, in part "non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met..." And criteria 1 states, unambiguously, that "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." If the person in the picture really is the subject of the article AND it truly is in the public domain, then its use should supercede that of a copyright image which is being claimed to be used under "fair use".  This is a core principle of Wikipedia's free-use values, and should be followed to the letter.  -- Jayron  32  03:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I just re-read your problem.  If your objection is that the person in the "free-use" picture is NOT the subject of the article, then it should not be included in the article, and the "fair-use" copyright image is still acceptable.  The issue is whether or not the person in the free image is the right person.  I have no opinion on that one way or the other, but depending on how THAT issue is solved will determin which picture should be used.  If it IS him, use the PD image.  If it is NOT him, then it would be silly to use a picture of someone else to illustrate an article on him... -- Jayron  32  03:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Chihuanhas
The soruces on Chihuanhas are a little sketchy, and the only semi-reputable source I can find is IMDB. This currently seems like either a hoax or some sort of viral marketing for a film that won't necessarily happen yet. Can I get a second opinion? --NE2 08:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The two blog sources aren't suitable but the IMDb one is. I don't see a hoax or attempted viral marketing, I see an editor who wanted to write the article before anybody else. The editor is a horror film fan yet does a lot of of other editing on Wikipedia. The editor has worked on upcoming film articles prior to this one. Binksternet (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that IMDB allowed user-generated content without much direct editorial control, and was therefore unacceptable as a reliable source. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. They allow user content with user oversight, much like here. I haven't been keeping track of the official Wikipedia stance on IMDb. Binksternet (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why we don't allow citations to ourselves (or most other wikis). Much of my concern is over its notability - IMDB has all sorts of non-notable films. --NE2 17:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally, IMDB is a marginally reliable sight for major release films where notability can be easily established through other means; it can be a convenient source for basic facts about those films. However, IMDB should never be a source for proving notability.  If something exists only on IMDB and other sources of spurious reliability, it likely would not pass WP:N tests.  If there are major, reliable, publications which review the film or discuss it at length, it may be notable.  If there are not, even with an IMDB entry, it is likely not.  -- Jayron  32  03:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

User Email
Hello. Someone posted their email address here. Should an admin purge it from the history? Not sure what to do here.--TParis00ap (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Remove the email and replace it with a little note that says, explaining in the edit summary what you are doing. Removing other people's email is a courtesy to them, to prevent malicious webpage searching programs from finding their email address and adding it to spam services.  Deleting particular revisions or WP:OVERSIGHTing the email address is overkill.  -- Jayron  32  03:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Pkjesrani
At both his user page and user talk page, Pkjesrani is making a rant against some YouTube video (which does not appear to be found in Wikipedia). WP:NOTSOAPBOX applies to user pages, and I think this definitely falls in that category, but I wasn't sure the right deletion review procedure for user pages, and especially specific content in user talk pages. Therefore, I thought I would bring the issue here as a content issue, and go from there. Singularity42 (talk) 04:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, it looks like he also created an article with the same rant here, which is being PRODed. But the user page and user talk page should probably also be dealt with. Singularity42 (talk) 04:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Take it to Miscellany for deletion, cite WP:UP as the reason for deletion. -- &oelig; &trade; 19:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Missed that one... :) Singularity42 (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Outside opinions wanted on a pov charge
I have a disagreement with another editor over a phrase used in yesterday's TFA on the Samlesbury witches, and I'd like to solicit some outside independent opinions before either of us gets to the point of a 3RR block.

The dispute is outlined on the article's page, but basically it revolves around the phrase "a product of the Scottish Reformation", as used to introduce King James I. It occurs in the opening sentence of the Background section, which says: "King James I, a product of the Scottish Reformation, came to the English throne in 1603. James had a keen interest in witchcraft and by the early 1590s was convinced that he was being plotted against by Scottish witches." The objection basically boils to down to the other editor's insistence that that implies that James's interest in witchcraft was in some way connected with the Scottish Reformation, which I dispute. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps clarification. By itself, "a product of" is most closely associated with a sexual union. Jamie Lee Curtis is a product of Janet Leigh and Tony Curtis. I think you're referring to James I's attitudes toward witchcraft...wait, maybe his ascension to the throne. Can you clarify it? As it is, it seems James I was parented by the Scottish Reformation (those randy Scots), but the rest of the meaning isn't clear to a poor American whose intimate knowledge of the political views of England and Scotland in the 16th century is just sad. --Moni3 (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I mean "product of" in the sense I might say that the Rolling Stones were a product of the 1960s. And I'm referring to James's attitude towards Catholics, not witches. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's what the source says: "James was a product of the strict Scottish Reformation, and took an intense scholarly interest in Protestant theology, including the theology of witchcraft." --Malleus Fatuorum 19:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What about: King James I came to the English throne in 1603. Strongly influenced by Scotland's departure from the Catholic Church in the Scottish Reformation, James became intensely interested in Protestant theology, focusing much of his curiosity on witchcraft. --Moni3 (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I could probably live with something along those lines Moni, thanks. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Are wikipedia editors too focused on quality standards?
I know that wikipedia does not have storage issues. However, an alarming development that I have seen is aggressive modification to meet virtual standards. As an example, look at the Myst pages. Over time, it has been judged that there were too many smaller pages, so some of them were merged. On it's own, there was no problem there.

However, the consolidated page was later deemed impossible to reach high quality, and then merged/removed into the primary Myst page. But, then the new sections on the Myst page were removed. The overall result of this is that many pages of information, most of it valuable to many people, has been utterly deleted by the actions of quality zealots.

I propose that wikipedia learns a new standard: Have all the high quality pages as it is now, but allow "data pages" of the in-depth information that are linked to only sparsely, primarily from their companion-page. This way, no information is lost to quality zealots, but on the whole wikipedia can be even MORE organized up front. Consider that often the choice has to be made between a quality page and keeping information not available elsewhere. If they could simply move the information, the choice is a no-brainer, however, when the options are delete the information for a higher quality page, or keep the information because many people would be interested in it, either option reduces the overall quality of wikipedia, by either giving too much information to casual browsers, or removing the detail that makes wikipedia such a valuable resource.

There is no server space issue, so why turn wikipedia into an imitation of a paper encyclopedia, only able to give brief information and a directory of in-depth sources? It violates two of what wikipedia is not: a dictionary (brief data) and a directory (all of the real information is stored elsewhere)

-Qwertyuiopas from the Dwarf Fortress forums 70.81.242.178 (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What kind of material was deleted? Trivia? Cheats? Was it cited to reliable sources? Was it encyclopedic? --Moni3 (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Overall, general knowledge about a notable game-series. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myst_canon&oldid=229826465 Now redirects to a very brief summary of the plot, and D'ni used to link there. D'ni now redirects to the plot section, despite being used otherwise in other pages. 70.81.242.178 (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, this is actually a recurrent major problem in all fiction articles. There are those who want minimal coverage of plot and characters, and  some of them do this as a standard technical: Step one, get agreement or decide unilaterally to merge an article;  step two, merge in only a little of it, leaving a redirect behind, as necessary for the licensing. Step three, remove all the remaining material, step 4, remove the redirect because it no longer redirects to something in the article. This is destructive editing, not quality improvement, and we see quite a lot of it. It can show up anywhere, but some of the wikiprojects are noteworthy for it--consider the Film  Good Article guidelines, which prohibit a section on characters.
 * Fortunately, Wikipedia has provisions for wider consensus. The first step is to be aware that is happening, and keep watch on any such merge to make sure the full material remains. Second, when necessary, ask for general community input. The fiction minimalists can only succeed in this if nobody opposes them--I doubt very much they represent the community consensus. There is at least one fortunate thing about merges and redirects--they can be as easily undone as done, following the principle of WP:BRD. In a case such as you mention, the material is in the history, and the first step might be to boldly restore it. It will probably then get to AfD, where the results are a little chancy, because those who insist on doing this have made very sure there is no consensus on general guidelines for fiction. In order to succeed in arguments there, it is necessary to gain some experience with the style of work, so it helps to participate in other things there also--and it helps to get a user name, so you will be recognized as a reasonable person who wants to keep the good stuff, not everything regardless. You might also want to become aware of the WP:Article Rescue Squadron
 * I am, as you will realize, very much expressing my own opinion. If you take my advice, be sure you realize that this is an area where arguments can get very bitter, what with the people who want to keep excessive chilsish articles on minor characters, and those who want no character articles or subarticles or lists at all.     DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've had to deal with editors and IPs moan and complain about the Myst articles for a while. But the fact is that I and a few other editors turned absolute piles of cruft into 10 high-quality articles. The "general knowledge" about a notable game series was all unverifiable; Myst is indeed a notable series, but there was absolutely no reliable sources for much of the info—simply a smattering of fan sites. Merging is the only way to present most of the information in a coherent way that meets notability and verifiability standards; after years of being untouched, people only started complaining once improvements were made. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 18:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Beethoven
WTF: This is the introductory paragraph:

Ludwig van Beethoven (English pronunciation: /ˈlʊdvɪɡ væn ˈbeɪtoʊvɨn/ (US), /ˈlʊdvɪɡ væn ˈbeɪthoʊvɨn/ (UK); German: [ˈluːt.vɪç fan ˈbeːt.hoːfən] ( listen); baptised 17 December 1770[1] – 26 March 1827) was a German composer and pianist and son of the Greek god Apollo. He was a crucial figure in the transitional period between the Classical and Romantic eras in Western classical music, and remains one of the most acclaimed and influential composers of all time, especially among fellow vampires.

Yes - good for a laugh - but for heaven's sake...

I have no idea how to correct the problem. When I tab on Edit This Page, this paragraph reads normal.

How to fix?


 * Cached vandalism, try purging your cache if still there. Cenarium (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Can a brother get a copyedit?
I got reverted, with the instruction to "Get someone who can good english [sic] to give it a copyedit if you want to". It should only take a minute or so to look through the relevant changes, and I would appreciate any improvements to the prose given that this sickly article is up at WP:GAN. Thanks! 90.197.107.184 (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Opinion on neutrality
Hi. I wrote this page user:reneedowning55/Canyon Ranch on the health resort company. I used many of the company's materials as the basis of the article and am concerned that it is still too marketing-y. I would very much appreciate any suggestions/opinions people might have.

The current page for canyon Ranch is skeletal and coded as a disambiguation page, but it looks more like a stub to me. But I'm a newbie, so I'd appreciate any insight into that issue, as well.

Thanks!Reneedowning55 (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This might be a case of Notability. If there is little information about the company in newspapers or business journals, it might not deserve a Wikipedia article. If you have exhausted worldwide publications like LexisNexis and other search engines, you may just have to wait until it makes news. --Moni3 (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You need more reliable sources independent of the organization, to demonstrate notability and satisfy the sourcing requirements of Verifiability. The text also needs some rearrangement, try to see the WP:MOS and most importantly WP:NPOV (for the structure, weight, etc). Cenarium (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for weighing in. I will follow your advice.Reneedowning55 (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

To what project do tools belong?
I'm trying to find a WikiProject suitable for torque screwdriver and similar articles. Any idea? Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:WikiProject Technology, I guess. There doesn't appear to be a construction wikiproject. –xenotalk 01:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A good wikiproject would be what the tool's main use is, for instance Hammer is in WP:WikiProject Metalworking and WP:WikiProject Woodworking. -- &oelig; &trade; 03:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring in original research
At The Princess (poem), User:Ssilvers insists on edit warring in original research that he does not understand does not belong in a page about a poem. The events:
 * 1. This is my removing the original research. It had nothing to do with the reference it was cited to, and implied that Tennyson was actually against the school, which contradicts all biographies (his friends worked at the school and he was excited for them).
 * 2. Sslivers removes it with this edit with the summary "ce" or "copyedit". This was not a copyedit
 * 3. The section's original research is expanded further and I removed it here. As you can see, the users confuse the term "college" (Queen's College is a highschool for all intents and purposes in this conversation) with the term dealing with universities. There are no sources connecting Tennyson with Wollstoncroft, Mills, or anyone else. And it also claims "but in Britain, Girton and Newnham Colleges were not opened until 1869 and 1872 respectively," even though the poem is talking about the Queens College which just opened. These are two completely different types of schools that have nothing to do with the poem. They add a footnote (which I removed) saying that Queens College wasn't really a college, which only verifies that they recognize that the poem is discussing a different type of college than the original research is trying to introduce.
 * 4. This shows him reverting and saying it is "well-referenced". Half of the references of the section merely link to when schools were founded. None of them deal with Tennyson.

It is obvious that this user wishes to preserve original research and use inappropriate headings. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The only thing that is obvious is that User:Ottava Rima does not understand what original research means. The background information that s/he keeps trying to delete is appropriate and well-referenced.  User:Tim riley agrees with me.  User:Ottava Rima's reverts are inappropriate, and I welcome input from additional editors.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Tennyson is just one of the major authors I know, and I currently have 6 biographies of Tennyson on my desk. When I first saw the statement when Shoemaker and myself were going through various Tennyson poem pages to fix them, I looked it up. Not -one- discussed women's rights, feminism, or anything else. The only information on the matter is simply 1. girl's school was created and his friends worked there and 2. Tennyson wanted to set the scene in such a school. Original research, by definition, is making claims that are not connected to a work and connecting it to a work. Three of the references merely stated when schools were founded, and they had nothing to do with the poem. That should be enough for anyone to see that the edits were original research. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps just confused. I can't see the Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History information, but it indeed seems as if that content refers only to when colleges accepted women students. Perhaps dropping all of it to a footnote, if the article claims the first college to accept women is Queens College? It is tangential, yet if a major source claims a tangential fact that is disputed, it's worth it to provide what other sources claim. If I understand it right... --Moni3 (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Moni3 - the article isn't claiming (or shouldn't claim) anything about first female colleges. Queens College is a highschool. It always was. The term "college" did not mean the same as now. So, all of the information about the first colleges is using a very different definition of the word than Tennyson's. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Why can it not be clarified in a footnote? Certainly a discussion about whether it was a high school-level or a college detracts from information about the poem. But when I read the Anne of Green Gables series I was perennially confused about their education levels and how old they were compared to our current levels. --Moni3 (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would it matter enough to need clarifying? If it is about one school, it doesn't really matter what the format of the school is in comparison to other uses of the word. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Because I have to compromise sometimes and incorporate information into articles I write. Because it's a community collaboration. You could, of course, get a mediator and go through dispute resolution. --Moni3 (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not writing the article. I removed original research found in an article someone else wrote. There is nothing connecting Tennyson's poem to that line of claims. It is 100% original. That is not what Wikipedia is about. The lack of Tennyson sources is a major tip off. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The entire poem is about the idea of higher women's education, in the context of 1847 Britain. A brief discussion of the history of higher women's education in Britain is central to understanding the poem. Why is this controversial? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The poem is based on Queen's College, not "higher education". Ottava Rima (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Queen's College point is dealt with in a footnote, which Ottava Rima might like to read. The subject of the poem, however, is education of women. If you care to read the poem again you will, I think, find it difficult to suppose that Tennyson intended us to think that the prince was invading a secondary school. The princess's college is patently not a town house in central London, as Queen's College is. Ottava Rima is, naturally, entitled to his/her views, but to keep deleting well-researched and referenced relevant material is not comme il faut. Tim riley (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Tim, the "Queen's College point" is to point out that mentioning of other schools and when universities were founded were off topic and original research. And well researched? You have a reference to a book that doesn't deal with Tennyson and then three links to pages that merely state when a college was founded. If that is "well-referenced" I really don't think you understand what either of those two words mean. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So be it. Ottava Rima has his/her view, which I don't understand (perhaps I'm too dim). It would be helpful if other editors can put their minds to it. Perhaps they could also explain to me how Ottava Rima's conception of "original research" squares with WP:OR which one has followed these past years. Tim riley (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * At the very beginning of WP:OR, it clearly states: "Take care, however, not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source". None of the sources discusses Tennyson or are Tennyson sources. There was a completely original argument being made about Tennyson's place in feminist theory, especially with reference to Wollstonecroft and Mills. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The entire poem is about women's higher education, and plenty of sources noted in the article support the connection between women's higher education and Tennyson's views expressed by the poem. See the entire critical response section, among others. Ottava Rima cannot have read the poem if s/he thinks otherwise. S/he is also patently wrong that the poem is "based on Queen's College". It was, according to one source, in part a "reaction" to the founding of Queen's College, but it is an examination of women's higher education and, in the larger context, feminisim. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ssilvers, Tim riley - Original Research states that we are not to create a new argument. You cannot discuss Tennyson's relationship with feminist education theory -unless- you have Tennyson sources that do that. We are not to create a new argument. We must only follow arguments that already exist. Furthermore, most of the sources -when- talking about education in The Princess say that the school merely reflects Tennyson's own education and that it is far different than any of the previous views held before about girls education. Your claim that it deals with feminism has no source and shows a streak of original research that must be stamped out. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

As I have said on the article's talk page, the edits made by Ssilvers are perfectly valid, are well sourced and properly referenced and support his clearly expressed facts about the poem. I really do not understand what the problem is. Jack1956 (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If OR is claiming that a connection between the poem & the College & other institutions is not verifiable, or supported in academic work, a quick google search suggests otherwise:, , and many more. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't want to turn the return of "Defence of OR formulas with bogus citations" into an edit war.
I deleted these statements that refered to a value that had a formula as a reference.

The sole citation used did not have the value, so I recognized the formula and value as SYNTHESIS, along with the supported grand statements.


 * "Relative to the Sun, therefore, the density is:

where $$\begin{smallmatrix}\rho_{\odot}\end{smallmatrix}$$ is the average solar density." - note #1 of 2 in article.
 * $$\rho$$
 * = $$\begin{smallmatrix}\frac{M}{M_{\odot}} \cdot \left( \frac{R}{R_{\odot}} \right)^{-3} \cdot \rho_{\odot}\end{smallmatrix}$$
 * || = 0.123 · 0.145-3 · 1.41$$ kg/m3
 * || = 40.3 · 1.41$$ kg/m3
 * || = 5.68$$ kg/m3
 * }
 * || = 5.68⇭⇭⇭ kg/m3
 * }
 * }

This is the secondary (also bogus) citation that was added after to return said synthesis to article.

The 2nd book that is being cited is actually a users manual for a program called "Starry Night Software" '''not astrophysics! '''

Therefore, looks just like another bogus reference to include the formula synthesis, that was not added in good faith the first time.


 * Would someone with admin level authority check if I am seeing this correctly to avert an edit war??

GabrielVelasquez (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Potential Superpower quote
Hi, an IP has been editing Potential Superpower and is just including the quote:

"So why do Europeans continue to assail American "hard power" as bad for the world? Because America's military might magnifies the preponderance of US power and influence on the world stage, thereby exposing the fiction behind Europe's superpower pretensions. Because the United States has set the standard for what it means to be a superpower, European elites seek to de-legitimize one of the main pillars of American might, namely its military hard power." + - - -Soren Kern, Senior Analyst for Transatlantic Relations at Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos (Madrid) + - -

which I feel is added with no context and could probably be better presented by being incorporated into the article. Any thoughts? RaseaC (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Virgin America
Orginal post that was deleted:If you would all be so kind as to review the issue being discussed at this article and weigh in with your opinion I would appreciate it. We'd like to incur a larger, more objective, unemotional share of input then what exists right now. Thank you very much for your time and we really appreciate it. 68.52.42.38 (talk) 05:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If we don't get enough outside participation to create a landslide in a particular direction then mark my words this article along with the ones about LA, LAX, and the rest of the Virgin brand are about enter a serious rough patch that won't end until the argument gets fully resolved. 68.52.42.38 (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:POINT – túrian  patois  19:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 68.52.42.38: Your last paragraph and this edit suggest that if consensus does not go your way, you will disrupt these articles. That my friend would be sufficient grounds for you to be blocked. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just about to say the same as Zzyzx11. You've already canvassed a number of contributors (who will happily put forward their views if they want to) and tried to raise the point here (which was not deleted, it was archived because no one gave a damn) so I would argue that you're canvassing now, which is getting a bit annoying to be honest. RaseaC (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline
There is a dispute occurring at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline regarding the use of a link to a surreptitious recording made without the knowledge or permission of all of the participants. I believe endorsing that recording comes under the principle of bringing the project into disrepute. Please advise.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As an outside editor who responded to the RfC, I do want to stress that the RfC only started slightly over one day ago, and I believe moving the debate here is forum shopping could be seen as getting close to forum shopping at this stage. Let the RfC continue, and see what the resulting consensus is first. Singularity42 (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. However, the editors endorsing the link have continued the discussion independently of the RfC, and the RfC has not touched on the concern stated above.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 04:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've fixed up the RfC to make it easier to join in and add comments on the seperate issues, including the privacy issue. I've also asked editors commenting outside the RfC to add their comments to new RfC setup. Hopefully that will help. Singularity42 (talk) 04:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

May WP:Consensus be invoked to trump WP:Verifiability and WP:Neutral point of view
In a dispute about a claim in an article which lacks sources, let's say some editors refuse to either provide sources for the disputed claim or rephrase the claim to circumvent the dispute. Let's assume for the sake of argument those refusing are in the majority of active editors, and those invoking WP:V and WP:NPOV are in the minority. Can WP:Consensus be invoked by the majority to override WP:Verifiability? Under what circumstances? For how long? (Assume that this is not "stylistic" issue, such as citing something in the lead which is clearly equivalent to something mentioned and cited elsewhere in the article.) Gimmetrow 00:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * From a purely wikilawyeristic perspective, NPOV (though interestingly not V) is an exception to consensus choice as a founding principle of the WMF. In general, I'd be wary of going against consensus (every troll, fringe loon and POV-pusher thinks they have a better handle on policy than the majority does); if the majority of editors in question are simply inexperienced, uninformed or have a conflict of interest, it's probably best to seek wider participation.


 * If you're talking about an unambiguous flaunting of V and NPOV, then their local consensus is overruled by the broader consensus supporting those policies. The difficulty is that the application of these policies to any specific article must be determined locally – so in this sense your question is flawed in assuming one interpretation of local application is correct. Hope this helps,  Skomorokh  00:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, also, consensus is NOT defined as "however many friends I can get to show up that agree with me". At Wikipedia, votes in support of one side or another article should only "count" in that they are clearly supported by well-established policies or guidelines.  Insofar as someone says "I think this article should say X" without any qualifications on why it should, then such an unsupported statement does not count for much.  If I were an admin closing a deletion discussion or an RFC, and one side in the dispute had ZERO policy or guideline based justification to support their arguements, I would close in favor of the other side, regardless of how many raw "votes" either side had.  -- Jayron  32  01:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As I interpreted the question, it was the majority asserting that V/NPOV did not apply in this instance (policies often being mistakenly applied). I agree that it's clear that simply defying the policies is not an option. Skomorokh  01:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, speaking in the hypothetical, as we are doing here, is also highly irresponsible of us (me included). We have no idea if the real situation the OP is refering to should actually be characterized as he is doing, so he should NOT use the statements that I or Skomorokh have made as any justification for any action or opinion on a real situation, but only in response to his purely hypothetical questions.  If he can provide a link to an actual situation for us to review, than we can give an actual usable opinion.  -- Jayron  32  11:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that one should only apply speculative analyses with caution, but there definitely is value in discussing issues in the abstract. Policies and guidelines are dependent on it. Skomorokh  11:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, there is value in such discussions, however the deal is that the OP clearly has a real content dispute in mind, and we as respondants have no idea whether or not his particular characterization of that dispute is actually what is going on here... -- Jayron  32  12:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OP is a greybeard, and I'm sure won't try and misconstrue anything said here about general principles as support for a particular position in a specific case. Skomorokh  12:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am guessing that Talk:Catholic Church is the specific hiding behind the generalization here. Uncle G (talk) 11:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Directly relevant external links?
Is a link to a BBC article on "the shortest time measured" appropriate in the External links section of the Zeno's paradoxes article? Gabbe (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly. Does the BBC article discuss Zeno's paradoxes directly?  If so, it may be a valid reference for the article in question.  The BBC is both reliable, and not spam, so if it is relevent as well, it COULD be a useful link... -- Jayron  32  22:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The BBC website is now so enormous that news publishers all over the world are complaining about the competition. Some of it is a reliable news source, but many other bits are just blogs under another name, or written by unpaid interns (ie students, effectively). Johnbod (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've noticed that the BBC is copying our content for bibliographies on singers and bands. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but at least they credit us! Johnbod (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course, if the BBC where discussing it directly, there would be no question. But there's not any mention of Zeno's paradoxes in the BBC article. 85.229.41.77 (talk) 05:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Waiting in vain for more opinions at NPOV noticeboard
Hi. I raised a question at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding a dispute I was having at Ahmed Deedat. I was hoping for feedback from multiple people, much like what happens when an article is nominated for deletion. But I have only had one person offer feedback, and this editor is (in my opinion) excluding my edit by following some very narrow criteria, ignoring other arguments I offer. Where do I go to ensure a dispute gets opinions from multiple editors? Peter Ballard (talk) 09:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to dismiss your legitimate concern over the neutrality of the article in question, but the reason that you aren't getting more responses is because of a very important principle called WP:TLDR. Anyone that wanders accross the thread you cite above is unlikely to be willing to put in the effort needed to parse the whole thing, indeed I just spent five minutes going through it and I cannot make heads or tails of the debate between you and ScienceApologist over the issue.  From my reading, the question seems to be over the objectivity of sources; that is whether sources which merely provide criticism of the subject and his position are valid for use in the article, or whether or not objective scholarly sources, such as those one might find by qualified religious studies scholars, are required.  My feeling on these issues is that re-reporting the personal opinions of published authors, either positive or negative, is rarely helpful, even if the opinion is being offered by someone otherwise notable.
 * Let me make an analogy which is not directly related to this issue, but which may explain what I am talking about. Lets say the New York Times researches and publishes in its paper a biographical article about Senator John Doe.  That may be useful as a reliable source in our article, since the New York Times and its articles are generally considered reliable.  However, lets say a guest editorial in the New York Times Op-Ed pages states "Senator John Doe's policies prove he is a bad person"; that would be insufficient to state "Senator John Doe is a bad person" or even "Some people state that John Doe is a bad person" in the Wikipedia article, since such op-eds are not really journalism so much as opinion.  In general, when such a debate works itself into a Wikipedia article, it becomes an edit-war by proxy over whether John Doe is a good person or a bad person, because my Op-Ed states he's bad and your Op-Ed states he's good, so we MUST put both op-eds in the article to make it "Neutral".  Usually, the best path to neutrality is to leave BOTH op-eds out of the sources, and instead focus on works which lack any bias.  -- Jayron  32  12:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe Jayron could be right. In that way, we leave out the answering-islam-articles, and delete all (or at least a lot of) the islamic websites as source. The article would become considerably smaller, but in that way it would improve a lot. (See for example those silly death-bed stories that were inserted in the article). Jeff5102 (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There's nothing in WP policy against including opinion, as long as it is has prominent adherents and is properly attributed as such (see WP:NPOV). Also I am merely linking to it for further reading, not trying to incorporate it into the article. This happens all the time on WP and I've found the resistance quite puzzling.
 * I do understand the WP:TLDR issue though. The problem is I keep getting drawn into long debates; when I answer one objection another is raised. While I expected that from the Muslim defenders of Deedat, I was quite surprised to get this at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Perhaps the objector there is right, but my opinion is that s/he is interpreting the rulebook too strictly. I'll try to restate my argument succinctly - and restrain myself from answering back - and hopefully get a variety of responses, such as (usually) happens when article is nominated for deletion. It still seems to me that the NPOV noticeboard is the best place for this, unless there are other suggestions. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Math League
Should Math League be pointing to the particular competition of that name, or should it reference the general subject of math teams, with the current Math League article being disambiguated in the title? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't the general subject not be a proper noun? Uncle G (talk) 00:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but I'd rather not make the distinction between "Math league" and "Math League", if I can help it -- I come from a long line of case-insensitive programming languages. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We have articles on Mathletes and List of mathematics competitions, so I don't see what the problem is here. Math League can safely be about the specific competition, as there are other articles which can be expanded to handle information on the generic concept of "mathematics competition"  Currently Mathematics competition redirects to the list article, but I don't see why that could not be made into a more generic article, or the lede of the List article could not be expanded with the relevent info.,  -- Jayron  32  04:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Out Of Control Administrator?
An administrator socalled Enfermero has invaded all the beginning articles I have authored on China and Japan and filled them with mostly unneeded tags. Please take an objective look.You can find her at my Ling Mengchu article and elsewhere. See also Qian Qianyi, Juliet Winters Carpenter, Wang Heqing, Zhu Hong, Yuan Zhongdao, Xu Zaisi, Dijing Jingwulue. Just for starters! --Iwanafish (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, User:Enfermero is not an administrator. Though I agree some of those tags may be redundant, the complaints are valid. Consider using broader tags (for example, instead of and, consider simply ) or coalescing tags into . Generally at Wikipedia, unref templates are considered unnecessary on stub-class articles, so they can be removed.  Intelligent  sium  23:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Paul Butterfield
I made the additions to the "legacy" section of Paul Butterfield's bio. I am not a professional writer so I am sorry that I did not post all the quotes in the proper manner. What I am though is a 40 year+ admirer of Paul's work and know all the information (quotes) I added were verbatim. I thought it very sad that all the information I added while 100% true was completely removed because 1 person made the statement that the "legacy" section was "seriously messed up". We who have the honor of helping The Paul Butterfield Fund and Society are for the most part all longtime admirer's of Paul's art so we do the best we can which sometimes does not seem to be enough because we are not "pro's". Thank you, Steven Arredondo, Paul Butterfield Fund and Society (PBFS) Director Of Public Awareness & Outreach
 * User:Blusero, first things first: please sign your name, using four tildes. I had a hell of a time trying to figure out who you were and what edits to the article you were talking about. I had a look at the article and its history. The quotes you added indeed were justifiably removed, for a number of reasons. First of all, they were formatted incorrectly, and it did mess up that section--being written in all-caps (no shouting!), not properly referenced, not properly laid out, etc. Besides, the addition was nothing but a collection of quotes, just praise without any context or much content. Anything that is added to a WP article must be referenced, and that you can vouch for its accuracy doesn't mean much to the reader. See WP:V, for starters. As far as formatting goes, look at other articles and see how those sections are done. You don't have to be a pro, but you do need to know some of the conventions--and one of them is "no random collections of information" (see WP:NOTDIR), so you'll have to write a section. I agree that the legacy section needs work, and I've made a tweak or two to it. But I wonder, why isn't there any mention of the hall of fame anywhere? Why not start there? And then, try writing the section from scratch: read the introduction on the WP:SANDBOX page. Good luck, and drop me a line if you need a hand. Drmies (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

User:TheFarix
User:TheFarix added unsourced material to the pages Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu and Pokémon Pocket Monsters. When asked to provide sources, he refused and instead repeatedly added the same unsourced content. --Kalium-39 (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this is the right place for this. If there is a dispute you need to take it down dispute resolution. As far as content is concerned if it's not sourced then it shouldn't be on WP anyway. If it is sourced but notability is disputed then this may be the place to bring it. RaseaC (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This issue is under discussion at WT:ANIME, and relates to how certain manga series are categorized. You'll want to discuss it there first. I note that the Pokemon article was semi-protected earlier today as a result of this dispute. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 20:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * @Kalium-39 No forum shopping please. The discussion started here and will end there. --KrebMarkt 21:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: A sockpuppetry case has been initiated on Kalium-39. —Farix (t &#124; c) 21:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Symi, the Greek Island of
CONTENT moderation is sought from neutral source(s) re the above entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lmoench. A purile fight has been raging for some time, to the detriment of this beautiful and otherwise friendly island in the Mediterranean, as to whether links to competing websites, SymiGreece and Symi Visitor, should be allowed. Opinion, please, on whether both or neither should be linked to the entry on Symi. Symicat (talk) 09:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been to Symi, a beautiful place. Where's this dispute taking place? What are the links to the two web sites you mention? What are the arguments for and against linking to them? --Malleus Fatuorum 10:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The most recent argument has been taking place on this page:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lmoench also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Symi/Archive_1 which has now been archived (click the `extended content` button at the foot of the page) Symicat (talk) 10:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

As usual, Symicat has not presented the situation as it is but has once again misrepresented it grossly. The "spat" as he describes it, is no such thing. Neither LMoench nor myself have resorted to personal attacks or puerility, and our disagreement has nothing at all to do with rival websites. The discussion also has nothing at all to do with the Archive on the Symi/talk page; this has all been resolved. The dispute is between myself and LMoench regarding an "edit war" because of the posting of links and text which I believe to be advertisemnets for the business Symi Visitor. I have edited her text to remove these, and she has been restoring them. LMoench has also removed references which have been on this wikipedia page for over two years without supplying alternative ones or ones of better provenance. Moderation does not require either LMoench or myself to present our case, we have both done this already on LMoench's talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lmoench.--Symiakos (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, this is fun. Such a pretty place, such sad fights. Symiakos, I assume you are referring to this article, which Symicat removed a while ago? It had a rather misleading title in the link to it, "Number on Electoral Roll 2006." 120 may be the number, but the claim that the editorial reflects the roll is not made reliably. Anyway, Symicat removed the link perhaps incorrectly motivated, but they could give a proper reason: this article, from The Daily Telegraph, is much more reliable than symigreece.com, for obvious reasons. That the Telegraph article also has an ad for real estate, well, I'd rather not see that either, but come on, the article dates from 2006--it's hardly a constant barrage of new ads. There may be more in the history to fight over; this is as far as I've got. I've restored the Telegraph article in a proper template. Drmies (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The editorial just quoted the number given by Giorgos Zahariadis in his article for Ta Nea newspaper. I have replaced the link to the editorial with a link to the translation of the Zahariadis article, which was, in any case, linked to from the editorial. Zahariadis is a prominent journalist with Ta Nea, and Ta Nea is one of the top few national newspapers in Greece. I hope that this source can be accepted by all parties as being reliable. I dislike the Telegraph Article on many levels, and it doesn't seem very relevant to me as to why it needs to be there. No, it is not a constant barrage of ads and if it had been placed by itself I may have left it, but it was one link among many that LMoench placed up on the page over several days, all of which were direct or indirect ads for one business, Symi Visitor. The intention was plain, to use the Symi page on Wikipedia to promote this business, and it seemed better to just delete all of the links. I would also add that I disagree that the Telegraph is necessarily more reliable than SymiGreece.com; the reasons are not at all obvious to me. The Telegraph is very well known for it's right-wing bias and panders to a particular type of reader in the UK, as do most papers.Symiakos (talk) 00:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Telegraph has a bit more of an editorial board than Symigreece--which is a website anyway. The article has some interesting facts to offer on the island and the modern development thereof. I'll not venture into LMoench's edits, but in this one, Symiakos, you went a bit too far in your summary. I will grant you that some of LMoench's edits are a bit fluffy, and this edit is pretty much a WP endorsement of a commercial link. Anyway, I hope that the presence of editors such as User:ChildofMidnight can function as oil on the waves; he has expressed an interest in relocating and might be interested. All spammers on Symi are encouraged to send him brochures. Seriously, both links, Symigreece and Symivisitor, are not to be placed in the EL section since they are far too commercial. Symigreece pages (such as that editorial) can be cited, though with caution--they express certain feelings about what is going on on the island and as such verify certain kinds of facts, but they should not be used to verify facts about history etc. Drmies (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree I removed too much in the edit you mentioned, but you can see that I restored half of it later on. I would like to add again, that SymiGreece is not commercial; it is not a business and has never made a single cent in its whole existence...it is a tourist info and news site. Symi Visitor is a private business that aims to make a profit and their English Language Newspaper disappeared many months ago. The two sites are very different, in both purpose and content. The Symi Visitor paper's absence has been overtaken on Symi by the Symi Municipality's own paper (Ta Nea tis Symi) which also has an English edition (The News of Symi) produced by SymiGreece, with official endorsement by the Municipality. I say this to point out that SymiGreece (and through it the News of Symi) is now the only source of "official" news about Symi direct from the Municipality that appears in English. As such, its "editorial board" is not as limited as you may think, and it is more than just a website.Symiakos (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the lead needs expanding. "Small historic island" doesn't tell me much. What do I yell when I throw plates on the ground in celebration? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Opa!!! -- Jayron  32  06:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Safe sex
Hi, I'm having a content problem with another user reverting all my edits in this article instead of using tags and editing specific text. At the same time he doesn't express what could be improved in those edits and doesn't suggest specific changes he thinks to be important. He defines my edits as vandalism and bad faith.--Nutriveg (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't change the article to "safer sex." The term is "safe sex" and the article uses that term. The term "safer sex" can be brought up in a sentence subsequent to the first paragraph of the lede and again in more detail within the article. Binksternet (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I provided reliable sources "a position statement of major health organization" that support the use of that term, where you can compare that the former unreferenced definition.
 * The problem is not the title, but other users not saying what text they have a problem with and just removing all my edits, including text referenced by reliable sources by WP:MEDRS, arguing it's vandalism at the same time they don't care to keep or insert unreferenced text.--Nutriveg (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * They could use this: "Safe sex means taking precautions during sex that can keep you from getting a sexually transmitted disease (STD), or from giving an STD to your partner..." or similar reference from established sources. You should not try to change the article into "safer sex" which is a term that came after "safe sex" and is nowhere near as popular in usage. Binksternet (talk) 02:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Pater familias
Is there anyone who can give the current editor of this a hand? His first effort was a huge chunk of copyvio, now he's writing a sort of 'help you understand' article with questions, etc. I don't have the time or I'd do it myself. Dougweller (talk) 06:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed! His/her other main contributions, to Women in Ancient Rome should also be checked out. Where was the copyvio from? Wholesale reversion may be best. Johnbod (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Places notable?
Hello, I came across Lyons, Texas as part of a number of unincorporated municipality articles created by User:Acntx while on new page patrol. I was wondering if there was any consensus on whether we allow these kinds of pages? As far as I could tell we don't have a guideline about that, but if going from a similar vein of WP:SRHNN these kinds of things aren't really notable. Martin Raybourne (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC) However, AFD doesn't run on precedent. This is an encyclopaedia, not a law court. Articles stand and fall on their own merits as subjects. The problem here is that people are looking for blankets. There are no blanket provisions. Blanket provisions are shortcuts that don't work in practice. Some places are notable. Other places are not. It is very likely, by their very natures, that inhabited populated places will be the subjects of multiple non-trivial published works from independent reliable sources. The world takes censuses of them. It variously writes history books, tourist guides, or archaeological/geological/economic/political/demographic reports about them. However, asking whether there are blanket provisions about such pages is asking the wrong question, and employing a bad shortcut instead of good criteria. Note, in contrast, that when we discuss mass creation of place articles by 'bot, as we have several times over the years, the focus is largely upon what sources the 'bot will be using. The existence of multiple independent published works documenting the subjects in depth is the focus, not "Have we voted before to allow/prohibit elements of class XYZ?". Notability is not a blanket. Uncle G (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If a US unincorporated municipality is a currently or formerly inhabited place broadly comparable to a village then I would have thought that WP:DEFACTO is the more relevant policy. But I'm not sure we've yet set the threshold as to the minimal notable community below the size of a village, or got a definition for village that works across cultural entities as diverse as Masai Bomas, English hamlets and indeed American unincorporated municipalities. Clearly having a pub a Post Office and a parish church is not a definition one could apply to settlements in Pakistan.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It really becomes hard to define a line to say "this community is notable enough for an article" while "this other one is not". Granby, Vermont (pop. 86) is incorporated.  Arlington, Virginia (pop. 200,000) is an unincorporated community.  In many places, gazetteers have been published with extensive data on every single town, village, hamlet, and crossroads in a state.  here is an 1890 Gazeteer with detailed info on the history of all ~300 or so named cities and towns in Massachusetts, regardless of size.  People are generally pretty detailed about catalogueing the history of places where they live, and as noted above, any named place with a "pub, post office, and parish church" is likely to have extant reliable sources, which is why most such places are deemed likely notable as a given.  -- Jayron  32  03:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Haven't AFD worked out a policy? This used to come up all the time there, when I used to see it. Johnbod (talk) 04:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OUTCOMES indicates that, based on precedent at AFD, "Cities and villages are acceptable, regardless of size, so long as their existence can be verified through a reliable source". So, that is AFD's stance on the issue.  -- Jayron  32  05:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * More or less what Uncle G said. Until we have a guideline or similar, we can't really apply blanket terms. Arlington, Virginia (hometown FTW) is a county, while still fitting the aforementioned term, but you'll be able to find plenty of sources beyond what is required to prove its existence. Smaller places? Who knows. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 14:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the opinions, I was just wondering Martin Raybourne (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Boris Tadić
Coming here as an uninvolved party to request feedback at Talk:Boris Tadić. The core question concerns whether it is appropriate to include details about a letter from Putin to Tadić and, if so, in what manner this should be presented. The article has recently been fully protected following a content dispute on this question, and more input is necessary to secure consensus. There is an ANI thread at, which should not be required reading for those willing to donate a little time to this. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The parties seem to be discussing it amicably and not in circles, and the matter itself does not seem hugely significant (at least, until credible sources see something sinister in it). I'm sure something can be worked out. Skomorokh  19:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback. Maybe somebody else will feel like offering the requested input at the talk page. :) It is of enough significance to the contributors who were edit warring about it to cause a fairly large thread at ANI, and they do not seem to feel that they are working it out (nor, if the ANI thread is to be considered, are they really all that amicable). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to update, there is now a second ANI thread about this dispute, here. Further input on the issue at that article talk page discussion would be appreciated. Since I've already used my tools in this one, I don't believe it would be appropriate for me to now take a side. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Are red links acceptable in featured lists?
See. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. We're judging the list, not what the article links to. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Climate change denial
Looking for more eyes/opinions on the matter of whether the sources indicate that more than one organization has 'misrepresented' current science. Bottom of the talk page.Treedel (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Stream of Life
Hello, I'd like some expert opinions on whether the inclusion of the full lyrics in Bengali, their transliteration in English and their English translation is in line with our practices or if replacing them with the simple interwiki link to the wikisource text would be better. Thanks. MLauba (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

ArXiv
ArXiv has been under attack from an ax-grinding anonymous editor. More eyes on the page would be welcome, especially as I have something of a conflict of interest myself (I am one of the moderators on arXiv). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * While its true that ArXiv has been at the center of some controversies (most of which by fringers who try to do science by press conference), that I.P. is just inserting baseless/unreferenced slander. I'll keep an eye out on the article, but try asking for extra pairs of eyes at WP:PHYS too. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing at Reincarnation research
This edit introduces text very closely modeled on this source (starts at a boy in Beirut). A point-by-point comparison of the next few sentences show that, though not a literal copy/paste, the material was substantively copied. There is discussion at Talk:Reincarnation research regarding whether this is allowed summarization or plagiarism due to the closeness of the paraphrase. Please advise. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Opined. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson
OK I understand that michael jackson is a hot topic but frankly the the amount of Fancruft becomming embedded in the article is now becomming ridiculous. Twice i have requested that we have a debate about the size of the article (currently stands at 139kb) and each time everyone agrees that the article is too big but there is little/no consensus on how to solve the problem and there has not been any attempt to improve the situation. In the last 7 days alone the article has grown by 2kb in size, at this rate the article will be un-navigatioanal very soon. It already breaches the guidelines for article size. I have a relatively new laptop/notebook with a 2gb dual core processor but even i find that it takes a considerable while for the article to load. Please can we begin some sort of mass wikipedia project and/or a mass clean-up? (Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC))

Gaelic Athletic Association
There's a dispute going on at Gaelic Athletic Association in which the user:Mooretwin insists that the primary unit of the association is the Roman Catholic parish. He has quoted some sources that supposedly agree with this claim, but the GAA's actual rule book, the Official Guide, shows that this is completely untrue.

The words "although it is primarily organised according to Roman Catholic parishes" is something that I would consider to be weasel words, in that the parish only becomes relevant in some little-used rules that deal with player eligibility. Players may only play with clubs within a certain geographical area which may or may not be a parish. To say that this means the association is 'primarily organised according to Roman Catholic parishes" is a bit of a stretch. One of the sources cited, does not even back up this claim, all it does is defines what a parish is. The second source contradicts the Official Guide and is therefore incorrect. I would have thought that a primary source would have been more reliable than a secondary source that purports to quote the primary source. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that Eamonnca1 is relying on original research, i.e. his own interpretation of the primary source (the GAA rule book). I have quoted various secondary sources which support the statement that the parish is the primary unit of administration.
 * Note also that the claim that the sentence which he disputes is weasel words is completely false. The sentence is properly attributed with a reference.
 * In addition to the Garnham source already noted, I have other sources to support the statement that the parish is the primary unit-
 * ... the GAA’s great strength is that it is by and large based on the parish unit, as players go out to represent their families, their parish and their club.Dungarvan Observer
 * It should be no surprise, therefore, to find that the parish is also the basic unit of the GAA and the linking of each club to a parish, and each member to their native parish (unless validly transferred), is enshrined in the Official Guide. An Fear Rua
 * Here's an RTE GAA show called Pride of the Parish.
 * Officials all over the country have been requested to organise local events which will show the modern GAA in a positive light in every one of the GAA’s parishes all over the country. Mullinahone Parish web site.
 * And they're games that were incredibly well suited to rural Ireland at that time, because the GAA's master stroke was basing the organisation of the games around the local parishes. (Mike Cronin, speaking on "Irish Sport & Nationalism", The Sports Factor, Radio National [Australia], 19/01/01. Available here.


 * Mooretwin (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Mooretwin is claiming that a primary source can be discarded in favour of secondary sources. WP:OR actually allows the quoting of primary sources as long as it is referenced to a secondary source.  I submit the following secondary sources which back up the primary source that states that the club is the basic unit of the association:   --Eamonnca1 (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The erroneous secondary sources may say that the parish is the primary unit, but they are contradicted by the primary source and now also by the secondary sources that I have added below. The only mention of parishes in the primary source relates to something completely unrelated to the association's structure. Erroneous secondary sources combined with vague language about the association being 'primarily organised according to' a certain unit, without fully explaining how that unit supposedly fits into the organization, counts as vague and misleading enough to qualify as weasel words. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that a fundamental part of the problem here is that Mooretwin is being perceived as trying to attribute too much weight to linking the GAA with the Roman Catholic church and sectarianism. But I believe many of his edits appear justified and supported.  Is it possible to create a short list here of those edits/changes that are deemed objectionable?  --HighKing (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a forum for helping with content, so that would not be appropriate, no. In general, secondary sources are superior to editors' interpretations of primary sources, but the secondary sources invoked here in support of the claim that parishes are the basic unit of the association are I agree ambiguous. The concept of "basic unit" is inherently vague and open to interpretation, and we should not be surprised to see that sources seem to differ in their presentation. The best route here would be to avoid making direct claims, but instead have a paragraph in the article discussing the role of the Church in the development of the association, and the relationship between club, county and parish. Have you consulted any of the authoritative histories of the GAA to see if they discuss its no doubt complex and close history with the Church? I had a quick search on Google Books for 'GAA Catholic parishes' which turned up the following sources which you might like to investigate for yourselves:
 * They seem to support the notion that parishes were originally (circa 1884) chosen as a basic organisational unit, but as far as I can make out none of them make any claims that such is the case today. Skomorokh  19:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * They seem to support the notion that parishes were originally (circa 1884) chosen as a basic organisational unit, but as far as I can make out none of them make any claims that such is the case today. Skomorokh  19:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * They seem to support the notion that parishes were originally (circa 1884) chosen as a basic organisational unit, but as far as I can make out none of them make any claims that such is the case today. Skomorokh  19:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * They seem to support the notion that parishes were originally (circa 1884) chosen as a basic organisational unit, but as far as I can make out none of them make any claims that such is the case today. Skomorokh  19:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * They seem to support the notion that parishes were originally (circa 1884) chosen as a basic organisational unit, but as far as I can make out none of them make any claims that such is the case today. Skomorokh  19:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that this is the first time that Eamonncr has provided any kind of source. Note also that a source saying that the club is the basic unit is not necessarily contradicting the sources referring to the parish as the basic unit. Why? Because clubs are, in many cases at least, based on parishes:
 * If we look at rule 6.8 (page 65 of the Official Guide) it says that A County Bye-Law may confine membership of a Club to a Catchment Area, which may be a Parish.
 * Here we have an example of a "parish club": Gortnahoe/Glengoole, which refers to the "one club in one parish rule". Here's another example: Coolderry.
 * The neutrally-named(!) The Fenians club tell us: From the early 1900s through to the formation of the Fenians in 1968, Johnstown had been home to many different teams, joining forces with neighbouring areas such as Beggar, Galmoy, Urlingford and Tullaroan. This came to an end with the parish rule of 1954, forcing teams to form within their own parishes alone. 
 * The Dromard club, as with so many others, appears to be clear that the parish is a very significant feature of the GAA structure: What the GAA meant to Dromard and to every Parish- ‘It has been and remains a binding force within the community, a source of excitement and pleasure for player and spectator, a cause of fierce local pride and loyalty in a parish. It is still the focus of parish unity and cohesion, its influence on youth still most beneficial, its legacy despite immigration and poverty one which all of us are proud to reflect on and to commend to the youth of generations to come.
 * The GAA guide begins by saying: "The Gaelic Athletic Association today is an organisation which reaches into every corner of the land and has its roots in every Irish parish".
 * Meath GAA tell us that, to be eligible for scor, one "Must be living in the parish or area covered by the club in question", and that "Every club has young musicians, singers, dancers etc. in their club and parish area" Mooretwin (talk) 08:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside the incorrect assertion that this is the first time I have provided a source (I'm not going to use the word 'lie') these sources do not support the preposterous notion that the Roman Catholic parish is a unit of the GAA. It is no such thing, the Official Guide spells it out in black and white, and I have provided secondary sources to corroborate it. Repeating the same claim over and over again is just getting argumentative. Anyone who know anything about the GAA will know that it is a British invention, the county, that is by far the strongest identifier in the GAA. Is the GAA biased towards the British? --Eamonnca1 (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There are other sources which have been provided which say that the parish is the basic unit of administration. Despite this, a compromise has been suggested by which the text would no longer state that the parish is the primary unit of administration. Mooretwin (talk) 10:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Compromise
Now, let's step back and think about the relevance of the sentence with Eamonn is disputing. The section is about perceptions of nationalism and sectarianism. (Maybe it would be better entitled "perceptions of exclusivity", but that is another question.) Essentially, the section explains why GAA is associated with Irish nationalism, and is effectively (especially in Northern Ireland) exclusively played by the Catholic/nationalist community, and viewed with suspicion by the Protestant/unionist community. This is all sourced. A source tell us that the GAA identity was founded on an interweaveing of "the threads of nationalism, Catholicism and rurality". The GAA's use of Roman Catholic parishes, then, (while notable in itself, as it is surely unique for a sport to use the administrative boundaries of a religious denomination for its own administration) is relevant here as an example of how the sport is part of, and has grown out of, Catholic/nationalist culture, and - as a consequence - is not a part of Protestant/unionist culture. The quoted source (Garnham) says: "the choice of Catholic parish as the basic unit of administration reinforced the religious identity of the association". Eamonncr denies that the parish is "the primary unit of administration", but I do not think that he denies that the parish plays some kind of role in the GAA. It is clear from a quick survey of sources that the parish is a marker of identity within GAA circles, with the word appearing frequently in GAA sources and GAA rules. I still think we should stick to the source, but I would agree to a change of Eamonncr's sentence to read-


 * "... although rules provide that Roman Catholic parishes may be used as the basis for clubs, which are the basic unit of administration."

This seems to be a compromise between mine and Eamonncr's sources (both of which should be included in the text. Mooretwin (talk) 08:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Offer rejected. Roman Catholic parishes are not the basis for clubs. Communities are the basis for clubs whether they are part of a parish or happen to coincide with the entirety of a parish (a few examples of which Mooretwin provides as if those exception prove his imaginary rule). Club plays against club, county plays against county, but parish does not play against parish. Let me propose the following compromise:


 * "although it sometimes uses Roman Catholic parishes as a geographical demarcation for player eligibility, which leads some northern Protestants to think (incorrectly) that the Roman Catholic Parish is a unit of the GAA. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 10:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Very disapponting that the compromise has been rejected, with Eamonnca again giving primacy to his personal interpretation rather than those of the sources, both which I had combined in the compromise proposal. The compromise proposal merely stated that parishes may be used as the basis for clubs, thus clearly implying that they are not always. It also directly quoted from his own source about the club being the basic unit of administration. We don't appear to have much of a spirit of collaboration here. Mooretwin (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Very disappointing that my compromise has been rejected. Even more disappointing that I am being accused of using a personal interpretation rather than those of the sources, even though I have cited the sources loud and clear. If anyone is using a personal interpretation of sources it is Mooretwin. None of his sources say that the Roman Catholic parish is a unit of the GAA, and yet he still persists in his mission to bend, stretch, twist, and misrepresent those sources to try and imply that the GAA uses Roman Catholic parishes as part of its structure. It is completely and utterly false. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 10:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your "compromise" can hardly be described as such, since it is even more of a departure from the original text than your first amendment. It is also unsourced, and hence can only be a personal interpretation. As for the claim that the sources which I have given do not say that the parish is a unit of the GAA, I'm not sure what more I can do other than restate them again:
 * the choice of Catholic parish as the basic unit of administration reinforced the religious identity of the association (Garnham)
 * ... the GAA’s great strength is that it is by and large based on the parish unit, as players go out to represent their families, their parish and their club.Dungarvan Observer
 * It should be no surprise, therefore, to find that the parish is also the basic unit of the GAA and the linking of each club to a parish, and each member to their native parish (unless validly transferred), is enshrined in the Official Guide. An Fear Rua
 * And they're games that were incredibly well suited to rural Ireland at that time, because the GAA's master stroke was basing the organisation of the games around the local parishes. (Mike Cronin, speaking on "Irish Sport & Nationalism", The Sports Factor, Radio National [Australia], 19/01/01. Available here.
 * The onus is on Eamonnca to get an agreement to his proposed changed to the text. Despite this, in good faith, I stopped reverting his change on the main article pending this process. Yet there appears to be an unwillingness to compromise, and an unwillingness to assume good faith here. Mooretwin (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If this compromise is accepted, can we agree to revert the other six changes which have been made arbitrarily, without sources, and which change the meaning of the text so that it no longer matches the sources. These are:
 * 1. Removing the words “and sectarianism” from the subtitle.
 * The sub-section deals with both perceptions of nationalism and perceptions of sectarianism, and therefore the subtitle is appropriate. Perceptions of sectarianism are dealt with in the third paragraph, and the sources refer to perceptions of sectarianism within the unionist community. There is no apparent reason, therefore, to alter the subtitle, and none has been offered.
 * 2. In the first paragraph, replacing the words “the cause of an Irish Republic” with “the cause of Irish independence”.
 * The source refers to “the cause of an Irish Republic”, and not “the cause of Irish independence”. No reason has been given for this change.
 * 3. In the first paragraph, inserting “can” into the phrase “that excludes the broad Protestant unionist population”, so that it reads “that can exclude the broad Protestant unionist population”.
 * This change significantly alters the meaning of the sentence. The source does not say that the GAA’s stressing of political aspirations can exclude the broad Protestant unionist population: it says that it excludes (i.e. that it does exclude). To say that it “can exclude” the broad population does not even make much sense – the author was referring to the Protestant unionist population collectively, not to individual members of that population.
 * 4. In the first paragraph, replacing the words “According to one sports historian” with “In the view of one British sports historian”; and “another noted” with “Another British sports historian has contended”
 * The perceived nationality of the historians is not relevant and can only have been added in an attempt somehow to discredit them (presumably based on the crude assumption that British historians are not objective).
 * 5. In the third paragraph, removing the words “or sectarian” from the the statement that “Certain GAA practices and rules reinforce a perception within Northern Ireland unionist circles that the GAA is a nationalist or sectarian organisation”.
 * As above, the sources refer to perceptions of sectarianism within unionist circles. No reason has been given why this should be removed.
 * 6. In the third paragraph, removing completely a sourced sentence about a debate in the Northern Ireland Assembly in relation to sports glubs facilitating the commemoration or glorification of terrorism.
 * No reason has been given for this deletion. The sentence refers to a very relevant debate prompted by activities referred to in the previous sentence (i.e. a hunger strike commemoration on GAA property). The debate of such an event, and the passing of a motion, in the elected legislature of Northern Ireland is surely notable.

Mooretwin (talk) 09:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There having been no discussion about these other changes, I shall restore the original text, leaving the one remaining change in place (i.e. re. parishes) as an indicator of good faith, awaiting compromise as above. Mooretwin (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * MT, we've had some discussion on the issue of "parish" in the past. In fairness, I believe that the GAA used to organize based on the unit of a Roman Catholic "parish", but I'm not sure of the relevance to the parish, in reality, any longer.  Perhaps a sentence which emphasises the historical nature of using a parish is a good compromise?  --HighKing (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources say that it is still used. What's wrong with "... although rules provide that Roman Catholic parishes may be used as the basis for clubs, which are the basic unit of administration"? Note the use of "may", which suggests that not all clubs are based on parishes. Mooretwin (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just so there are no hidden agendas here, if you want to "compromise" by referring to the Irish parish as "Roman Catholic parishes ..." on the basis that parishes were established by the Christian church in 1152, then it is only fair to mention that "British imperialist counties" are also used for organising the GAA because the counties were established by imperialists from Britain. Dunlavin Green (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you ever heard of the Reformation? It divided the Western Christian Church. As a result, in Ireland, there is more than one set of parishes. The GAA elected to use the Roman Catholic parishes for its administration. Mooretwin (talk) 08:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to insert the compromise text into the article now. Mooretwin (talk) 08:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Kilmichael Ambush
Could we get some eyes on Kilmichael Ambush that have no connection to Ireland, the UK, or any of the involved editors? There's a fairly lame slo-mo edit war going on over a couple of sentences, and maybe some uninvolved input will jolt the involved parties (me included) out of the rut. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed Article
Hi, can anyone explain why this article is being removed from this section of Kuwait?

WikiProject Kuwait —Preceding unsigned comment added by InventKuwait (talk • contribs) 2009-10-02 17:26:09


 * For the reasons that were very clearly explained to you, twice, on your talk page in November 2008, and a third time in May 2009. Uncle G (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Final warning given on User talk:InventKuwait. Uncle G (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Dev Alahan
Hiya, I just wanted to report that this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dev_Alahan) is littered with ridiculous "Devendra Bud-Bud Ding-Ding Two-Ninenty-Nine Buy-One-Get-One-Free Alahan" comments practically everytime his name's stated.

Please could someone edit this? i thought I'd bring it to your attention as I'm afraid I don't know how.

Many thanks,

NRS


 * Should be fixed now. Binksternet (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Reporting marks
This is the second time I'm having this argument. A reporting mark is an alphabetic code assigned by the Association of American Railroads to railroads and owners of equipment that is carried on railroads. The current flareup relates mainly to edits on Reporting mark and Illinois Railway Museum (see the history and talk page discussions). In particular, there seems to be some confusion over what's a reporting mark, and the use of sources that simply use an abbreviation without calling it a reporting mark, or are unreliable. I would appreciate more eyes. --NE2 16:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See also past discussions:
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive105 (July, 2009)
 * Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_35 (July, 2009)
 * Talk:Reporting mark


 * The 3RR case was between and . Wuhwuzdat has not been active on this issue lately. NE2 has been disputing a bit with  over at Reporting mark. I am notifying TimberWolf of this discussion. NE2, can you clarify what sort of review you are looking for here? I note that the Reporting mark article is tagged for improvement, and anyone who knows something could certainly help out by working on that article. Since TimberWolf Railz appears to have knowledge on this topic, it would seem useful for NE2 to attempt a longer discussion with TimberWolf before taking this to a wider audience. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm looking for a review of TimberWolf Railz's "knowledge", which doesn't seem to be backed by any of the sources, and doesn't match anything I've read on the topic. There's a definite conflation of reporting marks with other codes, such as the ones used by the Federal Railroad Administration. --NE2 17:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact remains that TimberWolf Railz has added referenced material, and NE2 removes this material, along with the references, without discussion, and with cryptic unreferenced reasons like "Z is for trailers...". NE2 also brings up the Illinois Railway Museum, which seems to be the main target of his current reversion mania, while ignoring most of the other rail museum articles that TimberWolf Railz has added reporting marks to. I freely admit I have a COI, as I have been a member of, and volunteer at, IRM for the past 23 years. Does NE2 have an issue with IRM that is manifesting itself in his edits?  Wuh  Wuz  Dat  21:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Calling this "referenced" is a misnomer, since none of the references back up the statement that the IRM has a reporting mark, except for a self-published list from an unreliable source.
 * I'm also going to say right now that I have never had any substantial dealings with IRM or any other railway museum (I went to the B&O museum when I was young, and I've been to the subway museum in Brooklyn, but no others that I can remember and I've done nothing but tourist things). I have no bias in this matter, and I'm not sure that you do either.
 * The only issue I have is ensuring that our information is correct. I removed the ones ending in Z, since it's implausible (without an excellent source) that a museum would have a mark reserved for trailers. I'm going to have a look at Timber's other reporting mark additions to see if they can be referenced. --NE2 23:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And what, besides our previous disagreement, prompted you to remove reporting mark IRYM, from the Illinois Railway Museum article? It surely doesn't end with Z..... Wuh  Wuz  Dat  23:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If by "our previous disagreement" you mean the first time I removed it, I removed it again since conditions have not changed: there are still no reliable sources for it. --NE2 00:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ....and, can you provide a reference for your oft repeated statement that "Z is for trailers"?. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  23:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually can't find a totally reliable source for that; the closest I see is . But that was just a red flag that prompted me to examine it in more detail. --NE2 00:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and may I also ask for a reference stating that your precious RailInc UMLER database is an absolutely COMPLETE listing of all AAR reporting marks? Wuh  Wuz  Dat  00:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody said it was complete (although I believe it to be, at least for railroad reporting marks - those not ending in U, X, or Z). What's needed to add a reporting mark is a reliable source stating that it is one, which nobody has provided for the IRM. Such a reliable source could be Railinc or an Official Railway Equipment Register, or another source that states what the reporting mark is. --NE2 00:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Evening folks, I was recently made aware of this via administrator EdJohnston's message. Let me say I can confirm it certainly was never my intention in any way to spark a conflict, let alone the idea of an "argument", between user NE2. I have no association with him and all edits of mine were neutral and only went into improving the articles at hand, with a possible discussion on two articles that only needed slight improvements. Though after studying over my watch page, I'm extremely surprised to the following unexpected overreaction by NE2, whom appears to have been heavily offended by this and has assumed very little good faith in his recent reckless ownership over several articles. These following actions, with accompanying edit summaries, shouldn't exactly be tolerated on Wikipedia without a formal discussion first:  (5th revert by NE2)


 * While I will stay neutral on this subject and not get involved in any conflicts of other editors, I am always open to a proper discussion should NE2 feel he needs to bring up, in addition to anyone else's second opinion of any edit of mine. The goal of Wikipedia is to improve and expand upon it, and to find suitable workarounds to ideas that may come into conflict, but overall I'm rather displeased with the unneeded compromise that has occurred with these harmless good faith improvements; especially after an attempt to discuss them were taken completely out of context. I'll continue contributing to articles I feel need to be addressed or fixed, including finding a consensus to the existing articles mentioned here and invite others to assist. Smile.svg TimberWolf Railz (talk) 09:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Global consensus is that we need reliable sources. You have not provided any. That's all there is to it. --NE2 19:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you study over what is being discussed, you'll see reliable sources were provided via the Federal Railroad Administration, though the issue mainly stems between two different uses of the markings. One database is for UMLER reporting marks in which most carriers whom handle interchanging freight equipment use and another database is used by federal branches such as the FRA to identify various types of railroad operations. I've already provided a plausible solution at Talk:Reporting mark, further discussion should take place there. Smile.svg TimberWolf Railz (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

In an (probably futile) attempt at settling this, I have created 2 new templates, infobox rail museum, and infobox SG rail museum, based on infobox rail, and infobox SG rail, respectively. These new templates differ from the originals in the substitution of the new parameter FRA code for the old, disputed (in the case of this article) parameter Marks. I have substituted the new templates for the old in the Illinois Railway Museum article, thereby removing the disputed phrase "reporting marks". The new parameter, FRA code, has been referenced to death already in this articles case, so hopefully this will leave nothing to argue about anymore! Wuh Wuz  Dat  15:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What is an "FRA code"? Reporting marks allow unique identification of rail equipment and lookup of physical characteristics. But what use is an "FRA code"? Is it used as anything more than a convenient abbreviation? --NE2 20:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you please respond? --NE2 04:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you have not replied, I am removing the "FRA codes". --NE2 23:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Due to starting a new job, my time on the wiki has been somewhat limited. However, due to your blatant reaassertion of your ownership of your edits, I will take precious time away from family and friends to provide you with the following definition. An FRA code is the Official US goverment abbreviation for a railroad, and as such is a unique identifier (just as unique as a reporting mark), and a listing of these may be found here (see appendix A). I fail to see why I was singled out to reply to this by NE2, when another editor actually placed the code in the article. I simply incorporated it into a new template. Satisfied? ....Somehow I doubt it! As I stated above, My effort at peacemaking was probably futile, and I thank NE2 for proving the futility of my efforts, and showing his true colors. Wuh Wuz  Dat  23:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not some sort of "Official US goverment abbreviation". It's simply the abbreviation they want you to use for an accident report. There is no evidence that it means anything outside of an accident report. --NE2 23:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And what part of the FRA accident report form is NOT an official US goverment document? I would thank you to stop your overly aggresive reversion until this issue is settled. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  00:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing that one part the government uses this abbrevation in one report. I am disputing that it's relevant to the bigger picture. --NE2 00:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Allow me 2 weeks to research your inquiry (no reverts, please...sigh).....In the meantime, I would suggest you do what I plan to do with most of those 2 weeks....Go SEE the "bigger picture" with your own eyes, on this and other subjects(I suggest OTHER subjects)...and get your head out of the wiki for a while...you might just enjoy it..... (I am calling a TIME OUT).  Wuh  Wuz  Dat  00:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Two weeks, no more, and no extensions after-the-fact if you haven't gotten all the facts. --NE2 00:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I thank the God Emperor of the US rail articles for this time. (Now, try not to turn into a monstrous sandworm in my absence)! Wuh  Wuz  Dat  00:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Back to the original question: I hereby dispute the all-inclusiveness of the "Great and powerful, all inclusive, cannot be disputed, all knowing, all seeing UMLER database" (Sarcasm intended, DEAL WITH IT!). The UMLER database does not include the reporting mark "FRVR", which was used by the Fox River Valley Railroad from 1988 to 1993 (and presumably by their successors, for a short period of time, at least until the FRVR equipment could be remarked/renumbered). This railroad obviously existed, and owned rolling stock with the FRVR reporting mark, yet somehow it doesn't show in the UMLER database! (I'm sure there are other MIA RR's, but lets work with this example for the moment).

If a 214 mile long railroad can somehow slip past the all seeing eye of "The Great and Powerful UMLER", it wouldn't surprise me in the least if UMLER somehow omitted a 5 mile long railway museum with no interchange fleet, who uses their reporting mark only occasionally, to ship new acquisitions to their property. Specifically, until an official NON UMLER listing of reporting marks can be found and referenced, I would say that non-inclusion in UMLER is NOT a criteria for declaring that the mark "does not exist", "isn't true", or "Isn't a reporting mark".

I'm sure that the editors of the Pere Marquette Railway, and New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad would be screaming bloody murder if you removed the PM or NH marks from those articles for non-inclusion in UMLER, so why should you be able to do it to a smaller RR entity for the same reason? Wuh Wuz  Dat  23:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? UMLER doesn't include FRVR, PM, and NH because they're not current. UMLER is a current database. FRVR, PM, and NH do appear in previous editions of the Official Railway Equipment Register. For instance, http://www.nakina.net/other/report/reportf.html shows FRVR as being listed under the Fox River Valley Railroad from 1989 to 1994, and as successor Fox Valley and Western Ltd. through 2000. --NE2 11:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What are YOU talking about? Nobody ever said IRYM was a current reporting mark! You previously claimed that you believed it was a complete database of all reporting marks, which it obviously is not! Wuh  Wuz  Dat  21:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The onus is on those who wish to include information. That means you have to show a reliable source that has IRYM as a reporting mark, current or former. --NE2 09:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

As for the use of the FRA codes outside of the accident report form ("the bigger picture", as referenced by NE2, above), as mentioned above, I would invite those interested to do a Yahoo search (or other search engine of your choice) on:
 * "Petition for Waiver of Compliance" CSX, (CSX previously having been declared by NE2, properly, to not be a reporting mark)
 * "Petition for Waiver of Compliance" WCL, (Wisconsin Central Limited, also not a current mark, per UMLER, although WC is)
 * "Petition for declaratory order" CSX
 * "Petition for declaratory order" WCL

These searches should provide links to quite a number of DOT, FRA, and STB documents, all of which use these same (non AAR) codes, exactly as listed on the accident report. A similar search for "Petition for Waiver of Compliance" IRYM, should bring up a smaller numbers of documents, referencing the Illinois Railway Museum in the same manner.

As for the real "bigger picture", lets face facts here: outside of the folks who deal with these inane alpha-moronical codes (be they FRA codes or AAR reporting marks) in the course of their employment, both sets of codes are little better than Foamer-Cruft. Wuh Wuz  Dat  23:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So, in other words, they're convenient abbreviations and nothing more. --NE2 02:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As are reporting marks as well! Reporting marks are an abbreviation issued by the AAR (under jurisdiction granted by the authority of agencies of the US, Canadian, and Mexican governments), and these FRA codes are used by a branch of the US goverment, and by the railroads that file various petitions with them.
 * Furthermore, as it is blatantly obvious that your opposition to including IRYM (which I personally KNOW have been used as reporting marks, and can, and have, provided links to photographic evidence thereof) in any way, shape or form, in the Illinois Railway Museum article will NEVER be swayed by any argument, I hereby call for 3rd party mediation. I have personally witnessed these marks being stenciled on equipment being readied for shipment to the museum, and have witnessed, on multiple occasions, equipment being delivered to the museum bearing these marks. The FRA, Union Pacific and Chicago & Northwestern all recognize (or "have recognized" in the case of the CNW) IRYM as reporting marks for the museum. I just wish I could use my own personal experience as a reference. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  10:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, reporting marks are used as the method of identifying interchange equipment. That's more than a convenient abbreviation. --NE2 01:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thus you may be ultimately agreeing with User:Wuhwuzdat on this disputed issue. Any marking that is used to identify any type of interchange equipment and/or car owners are classified as Reporting Marks according to the American Association of Railroads, one does not need references from an unrelated database to confirm this as long as they meet the general criteria.


 * It's also important to note that Railinc.'s FindUs.Rail UMLER register only provides coverage for current equipment carriers and cannot be used to reference former railroads and/or non-regular interchange railroads that must only use their markings temporarily. Non-inclusion of markings may be either a lack of manual registration within FindUs.Rail's contacts listing and/or lack of common interchange operations. Its purpose is mostly to provide a central source to find key contacts throughout the railroad industry; plus any additions to this register can be made via the respective company/railroad representatives.  This also applies to the Official Railway Equipment Register; not every non-critical organization chooses to be recognized in these listings.


 * Markings such as IRYM, ITMZ, and others have been proven to be stenciled on equipment and used during interchange shipments, thus making them suitable for use in any related Wikipedia listings. I had already corrected and added these to the respective listings for encyclopedic purposes, though most further edits are reverted without solid reasons given by the same editor. With this in hand, the dispute can only be settled provided the differing point-of-view's are abolished to meet the AAR's criteria. smile.svg TimberWolf Railz (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As I've said before, you need a reliable source that states that those markings are reporting marks. --NE2 11:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If the discussions in this thread are read, one would find the proper information was already stated above: "Any marking that is used to identify any type of interchange equipment and/or car owners are classified as Reporting Marks according to the American Association of Railroads."


 * Below I've provided some set-in-stone definitions from the AAR describing what they are:




 * Following up on this criteria, the accommodating reliable source for a case like this would be visual confirmation:


 * Thus granted, this verifies IRYM as a valid reporting mark. But, a primary misconception involved here is that this is believed to be "letters painted on the equipment" by NE2, despite the case this is what a reporting mark is and should be. In a realistic situation, one cannot expect a rolling stock item to be shipped across the North American railroad system without formal markings indicating its proper owner, otherwise the car would get lost.


 * As was noted above, the references should only be taken for what they stand for and the differing point-of-view's abolished to reflect the AAR's current criteria for a reporting mark. I suppose that's all I have to add. smile.svg TimberWolf Railz (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "Visual confirmation" is worthless. I can buy a rail car, paint NETU on it, and then claim that as my reporting mark. What's needed is a source for its being accepted by the AAR as a reporting mark. --NE2 16:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * While my personal memories may not be admissible as a proper reference, I can explain the IRYM reporting marks on the flatcar used by TimberWolf Railz as "visual confirmation". That flatcar (formerly U.S. Army USAX 39153), as well as former Department of Defense DODX 38488 were acquired by IRM as government surplus, but could not be shipped using their original USAX and DODX reporting marks, as the US government, owner of those marks, would not allow it. The original USAX and DODX marks were painted over, and IRM's reporting mark, IRYM, was added in order to ship these cars to our campus.
 * Similarly, when this car arrived at IRM, it had RTJX "reporting marks" (I believe self issued, and unofficial), representing its former owner, Richard T Jensen (look him up sometime, it's a fascinating story of why a bread truck driver should NEVER be trusted with the ownership of a steam locomotive!). The RTJX marks were replaced with IRYM marks when the car was shipped to a museum in Minnesota, in order to deliver a steam locomotive that could not be shipped on its own wheels.
 * In the late 80's, when IRM acquired former BN SD24 #6244, it arrived at IRM with IRYM markings, stenciled over it's former Maryland Midland Ry "MMID" markings, which were in turn stenciled over its Burlington Northern markings, as can be seen here
 * The four pieces of equipment I have used as examples here are far from the whole story of the IRYM marks, but were simply picked due to the convenience of having photos available online. Not every piece of equipment that is shipped to IRM has IRYM reporting marks, but more than a few examples of IRYM markings have traveled America's rails, in the general direction of "East Union", Illinois. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  22:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Then, if other carriers recognized the IRYM mark, there should be references out there. Find some. --NE2 01:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * While I feel I've contributed what I can to help this dispute, I'd like to mention that references have been pointed out and explained in quite some detail, though these are dismissed because of persistence they be a public on-line government document or file with the words "Reporting Marks" in it. To be realistic, AAR files with such information are mostly non-accessible information to the public; and as was noted before, Railinc.'s FindUs.Rail UMLER register is a contact search engine that doesn't mention or use the term "Reporting Mark" in its listings. However, reliable sources from the Federal Railroad Administration and others were provided to back up these claims, though often denied by the same editor due to using the term "Railroad Codes" instead. This disregards a fact that such common synonyms are used throughout the industry, whether they be "Reporting Marks", "Railroad Markers", "Alpha Codes", and so on.


 * Let's use BLE (Bessemer & Lake Erie) as an example for this case, it's recognized in FindUs.Rail's contacts listing, The Official Railway Equipment Register, and has a rolling stock fleet of their own, though government files or documents stating "BLE" with the exact word "reporting marks" in it are difficult to come across on the web; the closest one can get is the same FRA document that's been pointed out before:


 * The bottom line is such markings are proven to be federally recognized and sourced, used on equipment, used in interchange service when needed, and meet the AAR's full criteria as a valid reporting mark; thus warranting their proper use, which makes me feel the party's dispute should've perhaps been settled as a simple misunderstanding from the start. With these details in hand, the temporary "FRA codes" parameter enacted by Wuhwuzdat could probably be changed to its previous state since its synonymous and the inclusion of these established markings be allowed into their respective Wikipedia lists for encyclopedic purposes without editor ownership issues.


 * As no one else but NE2 appear to be at conflict with this, it would also be helpful if these edits could use more views or mediation/arbitration. Any further thoughts from others besides the disputed party, by chance? smile.svg TimberWolf Railz (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, the terms are basically synonymous, and more views from uninvolved editors are quite welcome. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  15:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the only requirement for a source is that it state that IRYM is a reporting mark. If it's an offline copy of the Official Railway Equipment Register, that's fine. --NE2 06:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And here's a Railinc page that does use "reporting marks" (and also acts as a reference for the U/X/Z uses, which I'm going to add to the reporting mark article). --NE2 07:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Now, one should keep in mind that NE2 repeatedly states he wants a reference confirming the IRYM marks, and on multiple occasions it has been given to him, but as I've discussed above, it's overlooked for using synonyms in federal documents and the supplied information denied for own definition of terms. Per Railinc., railroad Standard Carrier Alpha Codes are assigned through the federal governments of North America, which is where these sources derive from, thus making the inclusion of such markings in encyclopedic articles suitable and un-debatable. Smile.svg TimberWolf Railz (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again, NE2 has embarked on an undiscussed, one man revert campaign, to prove his ownership of his edits, and his utter superiority.

I would like to remind NE2, that I had previously requested 3rd party mediation here, and request that he revert all of the edits referenced above, and seek mediation before repeating his actions. This was REFERENCED material you deleted. Discussion was underway...and you just go off on your own, claim ownership, and go revert happy. Very poor manners, sir!! Wuh Wuz  Dat  14:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As NE2 has either ignored or disregarded my request to restore the articles to their previous state, I have done so for him. Wikipedia operates by Consensus, and the recent consensus was that FRA codes and reporting marks were synonymous. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  06:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It was referenced IRRELEVANT information. Since there is no meaning to the FRA's "railroad code", it does not belong. --NE2 06:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus here says it was relevant. Your "Consensus of One" constitutes blatant ownership of your edits!!!!!!!! Wuh Wuz  Dat  13:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Folks, just to add my further thoughts here:


 * This is probably where the main issue stems from, User:NE2 has ignored most of the discussions taken place here for his ideology on the definition of these terms, this constitutes original research against federally sourced information via claiming their use is irrelevant. I've yet to see someone else describe non-UMLER marks in this fashion, though unfortunately the same editor has since undergone numerous reverts to reflect these views through tendentious editing.


 * Per Railinc.'s MARK overview, it states railroad Standard Carrier Alpha Codes are assigned through the federal governments of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico; which is exactly where these sources derive from, not to mention their clear use on equipment, thus confirming and making them legitimate as any other marking. However, as NE2 is implying they are only simple abbreviations, I'll help fill in this gap with some of the importance such markings have to an encyclopedic article:


 * Markings allow look-up of unique railroad-owned equipment and other information via websites or other methods.
 * Markings allow identification of railroad codes used on equipment and/or during transfer moves.
 * Markings allow searches of federal documents relating to the railroad operation.
 * Markings allow a railroad's owned rolling stock and engines to be formally addressed.
 * Markings allow (Etc.)


 * Inclusion of a railroad's reporting marks into an encyclopedic article are justified and have their benefits for the researcher, regardless of what tasks it's used for or how it's presented in various databases, thus non-inclusion of such information in a railroad museum article based upon original research or other unverified reasons is foolish and contradicts to what building an encyclopedia is. The Illinois Railway Museum article has already been reverted a staggering 13 times by NE2, despite a promise to stop edit warring on the 4th revert back in July after being reported for doing so.


 * With these points taken, I would say the party's dispute should respectively be settled given the following reliable sources provided, especially since there is only a single user at conflict with this. Any further unconstructive edit wars and/or disruptive edits should be refrained by NE2 pending more views and/or meditation regarding this subject. Smile.svg TimberWolf Railz (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for IRYM being a reporting mark, or for the FRA "railroad code" being anything more than a convenient abbreviation? --NE2 23:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Now, let me say this inquiry contradicts itself because of what has been mentioned and sourced throughout this thread so far; both of these answers were presented with references above. Provided the following, the real question here is if whether one has a reliable source that states IRYM is without-a-doubt a false reporting mark. As was explained above, Railinc. states that alpha codes are issued via the North American governments, thus the Federal Railroad Administration is as much a reliable source as would any other official listing would be. A marking's use on railroad marked equipment  only further serves to back up these sources.


 * Secondly, it's also perhaps a matter of whether one has a source or reference that indicates reporting marks are only "simple government abbreviations"; because if this were the case, it would contradict the purpose of having such a system. Per, markings are used to identify railroads and equipment, and I've explained some of their general usefulness in encyclopedic articles above. Smile.svg TimberWolf Railz (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You can't prove a negative; what you need to do is show that IRYM is a reporting mark. The FRA document is not proof of such, only that the FRA chose to abbreviate it IRYM for use on accident reports. The fact that the North American governments have the final say on alpha codes does not mean that any abbreviation they use is such a code. --NE2 04:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The IRM article has not said IRYM is a reporting mark for several weeks now...do you even LOOK at the edits before blindly reverting them?...Oh it was Wuhwuzdat, it must be revertable, huh? Wuh  Wuz  Dat  05:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You should read TimberWolf Railz's statement I was replying to - he's still trying to call it a reporting mark. --NE2 06:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * With all due respect NE2, unless you can prove otherwise with reliable sources at hand, such terms are to be considered synonymous throughout the railroad industry regardless of how the topic is addressed. Also, this discussion didn't necessarily revolve around proving a negative either, your inquired references were requested and have already been presented via such sources as:     Though the issue at stake here is that these are repeatedly denied due to a single point-of-view of the subject. It should be noted that per WP:VERIFY policy, Wikipedia is based on verifiability, and unreferenced assumptions cannot be taken for granted.


 * To directly assume that the Federal Railroad Administration, a regulatory government branch with absolute full jurisdiction over railroads, is not considered a reliable resource because it uses "convenient abbreviations" clearly constitutes as unverified original research. Unless you can clarify what sources indicate this exact phrase, such a logic cannot be backed up. This also applies to the aforementioned view on North American governments; as per Railinc., it specifically states alpha codes are assigned through such governments and thus to interpret it as otherwise also falls into the same category.


 * Further, the use of reporting marks in accident reports are clear intentioned for good reason, because as a reporting mark living up to its name, they identify the appropriate railroad owner in such a document. Regardless if one editor thinks a code is just a "code", it still has its encyclopedic benefits for reasons listed above, and as long as the information can be referenced, there's nothing wrong with their inclusion on Wikipedia. Smile.svg TimberWolf Railz (talk) 07:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to provide a source for IRYM being a reporting mark. You can't handwave about it and then claim I need to prove it's not one. --NE2 07:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Now, this is starting to become a clear intention of not willing to follow through with the discussion. The supplied sources were proven and provided in detail, specifically here, but once more User:NE2 is continuing to push for the very same details without reading the topics at hand in good faith. Let's be clear that unrelated UMLER information and/or the Official Railway Equipment Register are not the only reliable sources for railroad markings, and this should be accepted.


 * Earlier I presented an example of the viability of finding official references with the exact term Reporting Marks in it:




 * With this in hand, it's clear the term Reporting Marks are not regularly used via federal agencies, let alone Railinc.'s FindUs.Rail contact listing. Instead, we have other synonymous terms such as Railroad Code, Alpha Code, etc. being used throughout these references. Thus, to imply such a reliable source can only have a certain term in it contradicts Wikipedia's verifiability policy. This is why a new template parameter was created to settle any impartiality involved so that a railroad's respective markings can still be used for encyclopedic research purposes, and as there is only a single editor at conflict, I would say the party's dispute should respectively be settled for now given there are no other objections; I suppose this is all I've to add. Smile.svg TimberWolf Railz (talk) 12:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Where's your source for "Railroad Code" being the same as a reporting mark? --NE2 20:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(out) - wow, long conversation. I'd wager that a separate parameter in infoboxes, etc. would be alright, similar to ISBNs and OCLCs in Infobox Book. — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  21:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The "separate parameter" has already been implemented (scroll up to my comment of September 12th), but NE2 keeps reverting it as "just an abbreviation" or "irrelevant". Wuh  Wuz  Dat  05:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ISBNs and OCLCs are widely used, though; the FRA's "railroad code" has no relevance outside accident reports. There are many other such codes, such as the "AAR Rule 260 Code" (see page 7 of ). I note that we have articles on ISBN and OCLC (and reporting mark), which explain what those actually mean. I suspect that an article about the FRA's "railroad code" would be deleted for lack of notability. --NE2 22:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you would re-read my comment of September 28th (above), and do a few of those searches, you would see these same codes used outside of an accident report. ...Oh, and by the way, look and you will see the code follows the full railroad name....Why abbreviate if you are going to put the full name in anyhow?...unless the CODE MEANS SOMETHING???  Wuh  Wuz  Dat  05:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe they're the same codes by coincidence? I see no results for "Petition for Waiver of Compliance" "railroad code" or "Petition for declaratory order" "railroad code". Pretend you're writing an article on the FRA railroad codes, and find sources that explain what they are and why they matter. --NE2 06:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm done arguing with you here. Unless you have something new to say, or are willing to listen to what others have to say, please go play elsewhere. You opened this entire topic here with the words "This is the second time I'm having this argument", and it has become painfully obvious to me that that summarizes this entire fiasco completely....you came here simply to ARGUE, and it would seem to me that your edits on this subject are simply to prolong the argument. You want to press your point further? SEEK MEDIATION! Wuh  Wuz  Dat  13:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with what was said above, this has been quite a lengthy discussion across a span of three months relating to all possible aspects of the use of railroad markings, yet so far these points are overlooked and dismissed in favor of only a single user's unverified personal views. NE2 has also come to wrongfully debating about a separate non-existing system the user describes as "FRA Railroad Codes". It should again be noted that the vague assumption of individual government branches using their own separate marking system and general railroad marks "have no use outside accident reports" constitutes original research as these are contradicting statements to such official references including.


 * With what has concluded so far, the usage of markings dispute has already been settled once before with the general consensus in favor of them and we should all start coming together to make the most out of railroad related articles on Wikipedia; otherwise debating this matter is becoming redundant. Smile.svg TimberWolf Railz (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Folks, as a general notice, User:NE2's editing war has once again continued throughout the respective articles without seeking a proper consensus:, , ,

From what has been stated so far, User:NE2 is claiming that the Federal Railroad Administration uses it's own separate database of "railroad codes" and has no outside relevance to an encyclopedic article, yet there are no references provided by this user that indicate or confirm the existance of such an independent system. With this in mind, I later went through and removed the term "FRA" from the information box parameter to reflect the general use of a marking and to avoid further misconceptions, though this has also been removed altogether without discussion or valid reasons given. Else wise, much of the user's dispute appears to be centered around the use of IRYM marks, which has been reverted from its respective article 15 times now.

Per reliable references at and, alpha codes (or however one chooses to describe it) are assigned  through the federal governments of North America and used by their respective railroads and sub-agencies (including the FRA) of any kind for unique identification of a railroad operation. These markings have several encyclopedic benefits to aid any reader and/or researcher, thus their non-inclusion in an article based upon a single individual's own perspective of the situation contradicts Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the foundation of an encyclopedia.

Consensus has already previously been reached here in favor of using these alpha codes in their respective articles, though NE2 isn't willing to receive input from other editors and remains the only disputed user in this subject, thus making further debates redundant. It would be helpful if this discussion could receive some good faith insight and other comments from uninvolved editors and to help refrain from further edit wars for the best of these articles. TimberWolf Railz (talk) 01:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As a side note, I have removed NE2's rollback permission using the privilege for edits which are not clearly "blatantly unproductive edits, such as vandalism and nonsense". — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  02:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See your talk page. --NE2 02:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have responded there, and as a second side note, I have removed WuhWuzDat's rollback as well, for the same violations. — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  02:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're still not understanding. You need a source that IRYM is a reporting mark, which you have not provided. We don't assume things are true until proven otherwise. --NE2 02:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Now let's try to be clear here, the logistics of an alphabetic code are fully understood, and your references were (repeatedly) provided in quite some detail detail throughout this entire page. (     to name a few.) Thus provided, it certainly proves the information is true; but as was mentioned before, the issues at stake are that these are persistently denied for the unverified claims, whether official or not, of the source simply not using the exact term "reporting marks".


 * As was discussed here and once again here, the usage of "reporting mark" is used rather lightly within official references and sources, including Railinc. Per one of these key references, this system is formally addressed as Railroad Standard Carrier Alpha Codes. Thus, to imply such sources must have one specific term in it for inclusion in Wikipedia constitutes as original research and contradicts with the aforementioned references describing such marks. If we are to use this logic, then perhaps every marking listed on Wikipedia wouldn't be officially referenced as a "reporting mark" and the main article would probably have to be renamed to reflect Railinc.'s title.


 * With this in hand, such disputes should be settled given the following reliable sources and information already provided, especially since one else but NE2 appear to be at conflict in this. Identification markings (regardless of how one describes them) have several encyclopedic benefits to aid any reader and/or researcher, thus their formal inclusion in an article is based upon the foundation of an encyclopedia. I kindly ask that NE2 refrain from further revert wars of sourced information, or at least append the tag to information at dispute, until proper dispute resolution and/or mediation can take place. Smile.svg  –TimberWolf Railz (talk) 06:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You still don't get it. There is one set of abbreviations called reporting marks, described here. If you want to claim something is a reporting mark, you need to show a reference for its being a reporting mark. Just because a branch of the government uses an abbreviation, that does not mean it is a reporting mark. It is up to you to show that it is a reporting mark, not me to show that it is not. --NE2 06:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Same Speil, Different Day (SSDD, totally unofficial alpha code!!)....does this thing get any other channels? Wuh  Wuz  Dat  06:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No consensus – There is no consensus for the substitution of "FRA code" for "reporting mark" based on the reference, which is titled FRA Guide for Preparing Accidents/Incidents Reports. In very plain English, the list in Appendix A there is to provide convenience to persons filling out fields in A/I reports to the U.S. government, basically saying "you can use this abbreviation". An editor with a known conflict of interest has pushed this at Illinois Railway Museum to the point of creating an ad hoc infobox (Infobox SG rail museum) less than a month ago, simply to get around the fact that a true reporting mark can't be sourced. This is a big problem in my view. There needs to be a point at which special infoboxes for points of pride created by editors with a COI needs to be addressed. This is that point, and I fell administrators who read thoroughly the history of reverts, reports, notices and so on in this case that all began with the desire of an employee of the museum to add maintain (see below for strike reason Sswonk (talk)) a letter code to give the museum an appearance of importance alongside major rail operators should take notice of this problem. Sswonk (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, NE2's meatpuppet has the same opinion has him..what a suprise! Wuh  Wuz  Dat  13:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record I am not, and have never stated that I was, an EMPLOYEE of the MUSEUM, and any conclusion to this end was Original research on the part of Sswonk. Also, the only reason a "special" infobox was created is that infobox rail is fully protected, and beyond my ability to edit. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  13:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not getting involved in an argument over your status at the museum, you are mincing words and equivocating. You have said here on your own talk page that: "I've been a railfan since the late 70's, and for the last 23 years have volunteered at this place, mainly working on Diesels." You have a conflict of interest, having been involved with and working at, for over two decades, the place you are editing about. As for being a meatpuppet, from WP:MEAT: "The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used with care." I assure you, I am not: 1) a new editor 2) a cousin, spouse, drinking buddy etc. NE2 has recruited and 3) "editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose", i.e. arguing with you. NE2 and I have interacted in many forums before, and actively disagreed before, for example on the discussion of the need for a redirect of the title Interstate 50 at this page. Your act is wearing thin, Wuh. This is another reason I think admins need to be alerted to the fact that you started this entire argument, have this COI and still pursue your issue at the cost of good editing and time contributed by others. Sswonk (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Check your facts, buddy...this entire situation started with your (admitted ) acquaintance removing content from the IRM article, with the extremely descriptive edit summary of "Eh/". Things got quite heated, and after a 3RR report, we both left the article alone for quite a while, starting on July 27th. A 3rd party (Timberwolf Railz) readded the disputed content on September 10, and NE2 brought the discussion here, before I ever reinvolved myself in it. So, WHO started it?  Wuh  Wuz  Dat  14:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, your interpretation of how warring "started". I struck the word "add" since you reinstated the content that was removed but had been introduced months before. "Maintain" is a better word. Sswonk (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Outside view
I was asked to comment on this. ObDisclose: I'm a railfan and have been for a very long time. Here's my view (based on my knowledge) on this dispute: Railroads have been with us for hundreds of years. They are used around the world. A rich and diverse terminology has grown up around them, which varies from continent to continent, country to country, region to region, and even from one operating company to the next (PRR called cabooses "cabin cars" for just one example, there are thousands more).

A reporting mark is a term of art with a very specific, precise meaning... but see above, ask 10 railfans what it is and you'll get 3 or 4 different responses. Nevertheless, to me it means a mark that is affixed to a piece of rolling stock, which is intended to identify the owning or operating entity that has responsibility for that equipment. (in this day of leasing, leasebacks, operating arrangements etc. etc. this can be a bit tangled sometimes). It's most important if the equipment operates in interchange service that is, it operates on "foreign" (i.e. not the "home road") property for purposes of conveying cargo to distant destinations or what have you (most modern rolling stock spends far more time on foreign roads than on the home road, although there is a lot of stock in "captive service"). It may be a term of art specific to North America, but I think there may be something analogous in other regions (for example in Europe there is interchange among different railway lines). In the US reporting marks are (used to be?) assigned by the AAR (the Association of American Railroads, an industry association that has responsibility for a lot of self regulation and standards setting, as well as trade promotion) and there were specific rules for how they were handed out... for a while, leasing companies all ended in X, and the like. But over time there has been jumbling as codes got used up, (they were for a long time limited to 4 letters). It's difficult to find an authoritative and comprehensive source for all assigned reporting marks. The term "reporting mark" is nevertheless widely used (this Google search for "reporting mark" returns 58000 hits). Each piece of equipment in interchange service has to carry a reporting mark AND a unique number... the two together are intended to be a unique identifier (suitable to use as a primary key if you wish) to that equipment.

A railroad code is a term that seems to have much less usage. (this Google search for "railroad code" returns only 17000 hits and many of those are irrelevant) The highest scoring hit seems to be to the FRA (Federal Railroad Administration a US agency responsible for among other things, railway safety and accident reporting) website. It's not a term I'd heard of used widely before I became aware of this controversy. The two terms "reporting mark" and "railroad code" are not interchangable. They mean different things.

A railway museum is an organization concerned with preservation of information and history about railroading. It may be general, or it may be specific to a particular railway line or family of lines. It may have only static displays or it may operate equipment. Many museums either operate, or aspire to operate, and may have trackage that is part of the property, leased, rented, or owned by some entity sympathetic who lets the museum operate on that trackage. A railway museum may have a lot of equipment. That's usually the primary function of a railway museum, after all, to show off equipment and related paraphernalia. Many museums have reporting marks of their own, and many do not. Much of this equipment will wear the original owner's reporting marks, for reasons of historical authenticity. Some of it may never enter interchange service. Yet it nevertheless may be involved in accidents. For this reason, (apparently) the FRA assigns codes to museums so that it can discuss them succinctly (what would a government agency be without a lot of abbreviations?)

That's background as I understand it. The controversy here seems to be around whether certain museums have reporting marks or not, or if they don't, whether we should use railway codes in their articles instead. My view is that if we can find a good reliable source for a reporting mark (or marks... Union Pacific apparently has applied for more marks since it ran out of numbers (apparently the AAR DB has a 6 digit length limitation and UP has had more than 1M pieces of rolling stock at one time or another) under its original mark "UP"), that mark is what we should use. A railroad code is a poor substitute. But it's worth mentioning if it's known and can be sourced reliably. If both are known and they differ, both should be used.

That's the content portion. I hope that's something we all can agree on. Reporting marks and railroad codes are not synonymic and should not be used interchangeably, but both are worth mentioning if they have been assigned, and that can be validated in a reliable source. (for example I do not consider http://www.pwrr.org/rrm/ a reliable source since it says "compiled from other sources" but does not cite individual marks, although it's a place to start looking)

Now, on the behavior portion I see a lot of needless edit warring over this and a lot of personal shots taken at various parties. That's not helpful. Comments like "Wow, NE2's meatpuppet has the same opinion has him..what a suprise!" and "Check your facts, buddy.." are exceedingly unhelpful, and not at all collegiate and should be discontinued forthwith. ++Lar: t/c 17:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If I am reading this correctly, you see Infobox SG rail museum or some other modified instrument as acceptable, with the redlinked railroad code article needing to be created to explain what "FRA code" in that context means. Is that reasonably correct? Or, is it that the mark or code, such as "IRYM", can be explained in text without the need for a special infobox? I guess I am a little confused. Is someone watching trains on a typical midwestern track ever going to see rolling stock that is marked "IRYM" go by and find Wikipedia useful in identifying the abbreviation, or is it just a vanity marking that the museum paints on equipment? Sswonk (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (butting ahead since it was directed at me :) ) I I think mostly correct, yes. Template:Infobox rail museum strikes me as not very used per its what links here. Surely there are more museums that could use it? Why don't they? That might have some bearing on the issue... if there's a good reason museums don't all carry this, it might be a fork to get round controversy. If it's just been developed and not applied that would be different. I think railroad code either needs to be created, or (better, probably) needs to be a redirect into a section of reporting mark that explains that there are these codes, they're similar to reporting marks, sometimes the same value, explains why reporting mark research is hard, and so forth. I expect not a lot of people are going to whip out their blackberry and look up IRYM while trainspotting, but they might. IRYM probably should redirect to the museum's article just as PRR (after you go through a DAB page) redirects to Pennsylvania railroad. I have little doubt that IRYM has been applied to equipment and served the purpose of a reporting mark if that equipment was used in interchange service (even if it was one final trip to a new home) But we know for sure that reporting marks sometimes get applied when they have no actual registration (vanity marks).
 * While I will not pretend to speak for Lar, I can speak to the fact that the IRYM markings seen on various pieces of our equipment are NOT "vanity markings", as the museum would rather have kept the original markings in all cases. The IRYM markings are in no way historic, and were placed on the cars for shipment purposes only, and will be replaced with the proper markings when the equipment is restored, as in the cases of This locomotive, which arrived with IRYM marking, as mentioned somewhere in the mass of discussion above. These IRYM markings were a "neccesary evil" for shipping, and while not quite the equivalent of rubber stamping "Louvre" on the Mona Lisa's forehead, are certainly not desirable. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  18:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable enough on the face of it. Maybe we need to distinguish between official and unofficial marks or something. Unless you know for sure that IRYM applied for that mark instead of just used it. ++Lar: t/c 18:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Nice. So IRYM is either FUBAR or foobar. That's supposed to be funny. Sounds like a temporary tag on a recently purchased car (automobile), falling under the cloudy "railroad code" definition, rather than a true reporting mark, which is more like a country code, as I have always thought. Sswonk (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * While the markings themselves may be temporary in nature, (in most cases, I forgot to mention that IRM does, on very rare occasion, send out a freight car to deliver or pick up an artifact some place, as in the case of the RTJX/IRYM/ROCK flatcar mentioned someplace above) the markings do belong to the museum. I'm in the process of trying to find either a waybill, or freight invoice, listing IRYM markings, but this situation is complicated by the fact that we may not have obtained waybills for every shipment, and that many shipments to the museum before 1995 were done Gratis by the Chicago & North Western, and the museum was never invoiced for them.  Wuh  Wuz  Dat  19:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As for why Infobox rail museum isn't used more widely, I created it as a compromise, in an attempt to settle this dispute. I purposely kept my use of it to a bare minimum, and did not publicize it's existence outside of this discussion, in order to minimize its use, and the possible repercussions of having to undo edits incorporating it, in the event of the possibility of the compromise being discarded. I do foresee additional use and parameters for this template, once the protection on it has expired. For example, as many RR museums are seasonal, a mention of their operating season in the infobox may be helpful, along with other parameters describing the types of equipment found in their collections. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  19:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Compromise template? That's a bad sign I think. If the template, considered objectively, isn't suitable for all or most railway museums then is it a good thing? ++Lar: t/c 01:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As I explained above, I envisioned the template as being usable for most, if not all, railway museums, but only applied it as a trial balloon to a single article (Note to self, next time, BE BOLDer). When the protection expires, I plan to re-add the reporting mark parameter (for museums with referenced marks), as well as parameters describing the size and extent (Steam? Diesel? Electric?) of each museums collection, as well as the museums operating season (IRM for example only operates April to October, due to our wonderful Midwestern winters...Windchill and snow and slush, oh my!....YUCK!), as well as if the museum is an operating museum, or a static collection. I'm quite sure other editors can and will come up with other parameters I haven't even considered, that are applicable to railway museums, but not regular railroads. I did feel it would be appropriate to devolop the template more fully before widespread application. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  02:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Go find 3 or 4 (widely varying) museum articles to use it on and do the R&D to make it work well. There are folks who can help with technical details if you need it. (not saying you do) ++Lar: t/c 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree that making a railroad code article is a necessary precursor to mentioning these codes in articles. But I'm not convinced that such an article will pass our notability standards. (By the way, the FRA's railroad codes are not a superset of reporting marks; for example they use CSX rather than CSXT.) --NE2 22:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a superset, eh? Interesting. That argues that when both are known, perhaps both should be shown. IF codes are even notable in the first place. As for the original question, isn't there a way to just say "IRYM is a self assigned reporting mark which may or may not be official, sources are unclear" and leave it at that? ++Lar: t/c 01:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * While I would not argue that most of your proposed, quoted, disclaimer is accurate (unless and until proper referencing can be supplied), I might tend to argue that the words "self assigned" would be original research. The fact that we may have applied them to our own equipment is not proof of self assignment, as most reporting marks are applied by railroads, to their own equipment. As for "railroad codes" not being a superset of "reporting marks", I would agree that neither set is a superset of the other. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  02:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can't find "IRYM" in the official DB, how did IRM come to use those letters? Someone somewhere must have made a decision to do so. I think we're quibbling here over the term "self assigned". IRM (in the person of you) says IRYM is their reporting mark. So report that (you can source that... it's fine to source it to an IRM published thing or a photo of an IRM piece of equipment), and footnote it to say "here's a source for IRM saying that IRYM is the reporting mark, but we can't find it in (railinc.com) the official AAR DB that it was assigned so we're not sure but we can know it was used". or whatever.... When there is controversy, teach the controversy. Properly sourced of course. Guys, you're making this more complicated than you need to. ++Lar: t/c 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, being painted on the equipment is not necessarily proof of being a reporting mark. Long before reporting marks were coordinated, companies painted abbreviations on their equipment, and not all railroads had reporting marks until the mid-20th century. Here are a few relevant snippets of an old ORER: Note how the Chicago, North Shore and Milwaukee Railway had no reporting marks, but the cars were marked "C. N. S. & M. Ry." (and it's not because it was an interurban; others had had them for many years). --NE2 03:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Reporting marks don't have "&" in them, it's a disallowed symbol, unless I am much mistaken, so that example doesn't counter much of anything. Further, IRYM is not the initials of any entity associated with IRM that I'm aware of, so if those letters, on the side of a car, painted over where the old reporting mark was, are not a reporting mark, what are they? We veer into OR and synthesis here with that question, but if a solid source can be found to assert that IRM wanted to use IRYM as a reporting mark, then report it as a unvalidated/unofficial/whatever mark and move on, for goodness sake. everything in interchange service has to have a mark. If the equipment was on a foreign road, that was the mark (what else could have been?). Even if IRM was cheating because they never officially registered it. You are making far too much of this. Far far too much. I can see why some folk are a bit frustrated. (which does not in any way excuse their snarkyness) ++Lar: t/c 04:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "&" used to be allowed in reporting marks, actually. The main problem here, and what I originally noticed, is that there's an obvious red flag: why does a railway museum not have a reporting mark ending in "X"? The supposed ITMZ is even worse - "Z" means that it's a company owning trailers that go on flatcars. --NE2 06:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict!) I really can't get into the railway terminology although I do understand it, I just don't have the background you three have. I'm not a railfan. But I am interested in improving things here, and one of the things that I have concentrated on more this year has been keeping an eye on the reliable source pillar. So I side with NE2, for the contention that there isn't a source for this information. None of the sources provided by WuhWuzDat or railfan #4, TimberWolf Railz, who champions Wuh's cause, are strong enough to confirm it. What I said above was that Wuh works at the museum and has for twenty plus years and fought tooth and nail against NE2's removal of unsourced, dubious information, and that Wuh—a de facto IRM representative—made an ad hoc infobox to get around the pillar. That only got me slapped with a false accusation and a screed at my talk page from Wuh about how, in so many words, "volunteers are better than employees, don't ever call me that" and an e/s that said "Stop it, bucko!" So the frustration works both ways, Lar. No apologies, just red herrings and relentless willful promotion of his own organization's interpretation of a clear cut terminology that can't currently be sourced. I don't agree that too much is being made of this when viewed within that context. With you included, the four mentioned in this post should be able to hammer out a way of dealing with undocumented codes like this and be done with it, as you said. But up to this point, the original statement by NE2 that IRYM is not a true, reliably sourced reporting mark has not been found wrong. The warring and persistence and shouting and arguing together can't topple the pillar. I'm surprised that you think NE2 is making too much of this. Sswonk (talk) 06:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a few facts here, this discussion is 89 KILOBYTES long, just on this page alone, all about the few characters in [reporting marks]] and IRYM. As Lar has already said, we have made a mountain out of a molehill, heck, we have made a mountain range out of one. There has got to be a simple solution to this. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  16:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Outside view redux
I still think that a picture of a car, known (that is, established in other ways) to be an IRM car, with IRYM stenciled where reporting marks go, is pretty conclusive evidence that IRYM is a mark that IRM has used, although it says nothing about whether it's an official mark or not or a correct mark or not. Is that actually in dispute? NE2 is right, it's not a true, reliably sourced mark. But so what? It's a mark IRM used. Report that, but make it clear it's not known to be official.

However... if that's not sufficient? I should have thought of this earlier. Heck... you guys should have thought of this earlier. WWD should get someone else from the museum, someone with some official standing, who uses a real name, writing from a museum controlled email account (that is, an account from their domain, not from hotmail or google or whatever), to send a note to OTRS saying "we assert that IRYM is a reporting mark IRM wants to use and has used in the past". OR get their webmaster to put it (and all the other marks IRM has used) on their website. Organizations are reliable sources for assertions about themselves (that is, they are reliable sources for "Organization X makes assertion Y about itself" although they are not reliable sources for "assertion Y about itself is actually fact Y"). We can then in the article say "IRM asserts IRYM is their mark, but it's unverified". And that ends the problem... for IRM anyway. In the general case of other museums, absent a source, we don't just take someone's word for things. But photographs and common sense are more than "taking someone's word". None of that is commentary about the actions of participants here. But if NE2's current approach is how things have went all along, I very much see why people might be frustrated. WWD's approach up till now has been very frustrating as well.

You asked for my opinion. I warned you that no one would like it. You have it, but to recap: I'm not sure that going over and over this is a good use of anyone's time. ++Lar: t/c 11:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) This is solvable with a little common sense, in a way that doesn't use unsourced assertions as if they were reliably sourced, or make claims that can't be substantiated, or take organizational assertions as fact. (the template should be modified to show the officialness of the mark(s))
 * 2) There is plenty of blame to go around as to why this went sour. I've warned the editor I think has the most culpability to knock it off.
 * 3) In the grand scheme of things this is very small potatoes, and the lot of you should know better.
 * Lar, would a photo such as this be an example of what you were talking about? If this isn't sufficient, the OTRS route can be taken. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  14:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Was that photo taken on a foreign road, or on museum trackage? Can you prove the location? Can you prove that there are no other characters that might be taken as reporting marks on the car? (there are other photos in the gallery that established it to my satisfaction anyway...). It does not establish the mark as an official mark, registered with the AAR (because that mark is not to be found in railinc.com which is the authoritative source for marks registered with the AAR, as far as I am concerned, I remain dubious that it was registered with the AAR). What that photo and the many others like it establishes to me is that IRYM is highly likely to have been a mark that was used by IRM at least informally. A solution to record informal marks (and distinguish them from formally registered and verifiable marks) ought to be easily found if everyone works together. I suggest more parms to the template to carry whether it is or isn't formally registered as a way to do that. (and if it is, generate a link to railinc.com so people can see for themselves). The OTRS route would move it from "someone spray painted it on some cars and it probably is a mark the museum wanted to use" to "the museum claims it's their mark, although it's still not proven to be official". Up to you.


 * As an aside, WWD, you probably should review the whole discussion at my talk, including the explicit warning to you... an acknowledgment (there) that warning was received and understood will be very helpful. ++Lar: t/c 15:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * While the photo I linked above shows very little other than the reporting mark area of the car, and some over ballasted trackage, this photo showing the same car, on the same day (click photo properties, at the top right of each page for EXIF info), shows the entire car in a location I can clearly identify as being museum trackage (East end of yard 10, just south of barn 9). The museums south well house shows at the right side, along with the nose of EMD DDA40X 6930, with the museums CNW bilevel train showing at the left side of the photo. If you look at the full size photo (link normally available only when logged in) you can clearly see the bracket arms for supporting the trolley wire on the line pole near the well house.  This combination of equipment and structures would exist in no location other than IRM.  Wuh  Wuz  Dat  15:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nod. A shot of the car, wearing that mark, that could be shown to NOT be museum trackage would be even more helpful. ++Lar: t/c 15:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)