Wikipedia:Content noticeboard/Archive7

List of Kenya's Freedom Fighters
This article's title may be inappropriate as per WP:LABEL, however I'm having trouble coming up with a reasonable alternative title. One reference mentions the term "Freedom fighter". I initially tagged it with POV-title but it was removed by another editor. Any thoughts on what to do here? Is it okay to leave this as is? -- &oelig; &trade; 08:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Reposted at Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts instead. -- &oelig; &trade; 13:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The MillenniumPrize Problems
This talk entry seems to be html version of a book. Is it appropriate to take up more then 250kB of the talk page? should it be moved somewhere or deleted? --Kslotte (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the posted text from the Clay Mathematics Institute as a WP:COPYVIO. EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK ✅ --Kslotte (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

User:JonSKP
User:JonSKP has only done one edit by adding a book text to his user page with description "Cos I'm Bored". Delete content or user? --Kslotte (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed this text as a suspected WP:COPYVIO, and left a note for the user in the edit summary. EdJohnston (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

PocketBot
I find Category talk:Military history of the United Kingdom (375 kB) being improper use of a category talk page. Should it be removed? --Kslotte (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Latest page updater Dormskirk has been notified for commenting here. --Kslotte (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The original purpose can be read here. --Kslotte (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A suitable WikiProject task force has also been notified. --Kslotte (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A similair case: Category talk:American_Civil_War --Kslotte (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not many people will be going to a category talk page anyway, except maintainers of the category, so I think this usage should be OK. The last run of the bot was in 2006. Ask Chris G if you still have concerns. He seems to maintain the successor to PockBot. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion such content should belong to WikiProjects. --Kslotte (talk) 08:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Clarification on request, having this type content as sub-page somewhere on WikiProject Military history. --Kslotte (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have been WP:BOLD and deleted the content . Currently there exist tools that provide the information at WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment. The content is found in history if someone needs it. --Kslotte (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Cathy_Lee_Crosby
If anyone has the time to handle that, I would be forever indebted. Regards, Daniel (talk) 05:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

International University of Sarajevo
Various new editors/IPs periodically show up to delete the claim that this university is owned by Fethullah Gulen -- most recently today, here. It appears that people at IUS and another university in Sarajevo, International Burch University, are claiming that the source used to establish that Gulen is the owner of IUS is simply incorrect on this score. Normally we would invoke WP:V, verifiability not truth, and the Turkish newspaper reporting the claim seems reliable enough (article here). But perhaps it is actually incorrect? I typically restore this claim whenever it is deleted. I would be grateful for thoughts on whether I (and others) should keep doing so. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

SM Supermalls
Is the inclusion of street addessess in the table in this article appropriate content (the content in the "Location" column), or how much of the table is falling astray of WP:NOTDIR / WP:NOTADVERT? Active Banana (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Old AFD
The article Hate crimes against white people has been at AFD for over eight days now and still hasn't been closed (or relisted). Isn't 7 days the usual length of time AFD's are supposed to last (unless they are relisted, of course)? See the AFD. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been closed. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran and Stoning
Could I get some more eyes on the edit disputes on these articles? I put up an RFC for both but no one has come, or stayed at least.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 21:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to delete hoax content from articles?
Kampung Boy was willfully created as a hoax; while the show exists, its contents are not what the article describes. It is pure vandalism, intended to hurt the project's goal as a useful resource to all. The article was requested to be created on 28 March 2008 by IP 81.101.21.176 and named only IMDb as a source. Disregarding the reliability issue (IMDb can be edited by practically anyone), the user review there (since 2006) contradicts what was submitted here; however, User:Torchwoodwho fulfilled the IP's request, creating the article word for word to the IP's story. I am also quite surprised that editors added other sources and edits without noticing the hoax, even though those added sources showed the hoax for what it is (no ridiculous story of a sushi-making Johnny Kampung and his nameless black dog). The hoax went on for two years before another IP (119.73.182.210) reverted it. The hoaxing IP is now back as 81.101.27.113 to reassert the false information (the user has also added previously false information to Big Babies and Waybuloo). Because of all the intermediate edits, it is no longer possible to treat the article as a hoax article and delete it, allowing a clean recreation with reliably-sourced and accurate information (Do not create hoaxes only seems to cover articles that are entirely a hoax).

So instead, I ask if it is possible to delete all revisions that has the hoax contents (story and episode list of the animation), leaving only those that are true (books and animation producers)? Or delete the article, recreate it with current information that are not hoaxes and insert a note of history that credits their contributors except for the hoaxing IP? The current article and its history make a mockery out of the project, allowing users to go back in the history list to restore false information. The issue also raises questions on the standards of AFC (why are hoaxes allowed to be created). Jappalang (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your question, or the problem. If the article covers a notable, real topic, then it doesn't matter whether it was originally created as a hoax - go ahead and remove any hoax material as vandalism and leave viable content, and then we'll have a good article.  This is not a topic I know (or care) anything about, so I can't tell what's good material and what's fake.  You can, so the ball's in your court.


 * If you think this IP is a problem, warn him with the appropriate templates when he makes problem edits and report him for vandalism at wp:AIV if he keeps if up. -- Ludwigs 2  16:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd just stub it and block the IP, or delete then stub + blocking. I don't care which, really; both have the same result in my view. Re AfC, it was two years ago; have the standards changed in the meantime? — Ed  (talk  •  majestic titan)  16:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

There were some facts about the article that were difficult to reconcile when I found it at AFC, but I assumed good faith and created it, adding what little information I could locate to it. If the content is hoax content, it was a good one, and being unfamiliar with the source material it's hard to weed out the wrong information. The subject of the article clearly exists and is notable, so if you object to information presented in the article or know of information that contradicts is, you should edit the article to be more accurate. I am a little confused about why this issue was brought here. Does the ip address have a history of this with other articles? When was the last time the ip was active, if it was a long time ago there's no guarantee that a block wouldn't stop a more constructive user from making good edits. What action are you looking for? --Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I am concerned, when "there were some facts about the article that were difficult to reconcile when I found it at AFC", you should not have created the article and should have checked whether the sources validate his proposal. As oft been said around here, WP:AGF is not a suicide pact; if someone proposes to do something that could harm the project and asks you to trust him or her, the wise should heed caution and hold back in consideration.  The IP has exploited your good faith to make a mockery of you and the project.  That is the past.  I am interested in repairing the harm done.  I believe removing the false information from the history helps, because it removes partially what the vandal seeks (recognition of his actions and as a trophy).  I do not seek so-called blocks (which tend to only delay vandals then stop them), but actions to counter their goals.
 * Recently, I have found out about selective revision deletions and have tabled a proposal there for discussion. See Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion.  If the project decides to keep the false information for vandals to easily continue their game, then so be it.  Jappalang (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry you feel that way. 1. I'm a regular vandal fighter and new page patroller. 2. I've re-read the original article, to which I quickly added as much content as I could find, and frankly, I'm sorry, but I just don't see how this is a breach of assume good faith. The hoax has no bad language and although it asserts some information about the story which may seem outlandish to you these themes are not so incredible as to not be possible. I understand that you're obviously upset over a subject you feel strongly about, but please don't perpetuate this atmosphere of wrong-doing on the part of myself or the AFC community. The goal of AFC is create articles from those submitted provided they are not blatant vandalism. We fact check enough to assert notability, but we are not all-knowing oracles on every subject. Often an article will be created with unreferenced material in it in (after checking other references or quick notability confirmations) with hopes that editors with your level of dedication to the subject matter will improve and correct the skeleton that has been created. I don't see this vandal as a habitual offender, the ip you linked shows this as its sole edit. I'm sorry you're offended, and you have an awesome respect for the article's subject (which is to be commended) but please don't take this discussion to finger-pointing at an honest mistake. AGF works in this discussion as well. :) --Torchwood Who? (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You all actually deliberately create unreferenced articles hoping that others will reference them? What kind of example is that for new editors? Dougweller (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't speak for the entire group, but I feel that a cursory check of the references provided to establish notability and existence of the subject in question is a good starting point. I'm a realist, and if you patrol newpages you will see what constitutes an awful article that shouldn't be here. I apply the same AGF that I use when new page patrolling, which includes assessing the subject for assertion of notability and quickly establishing any citations I can find for the subject. More often than not I'll add improvement tags for the article to showcase issues I couldn't personally address. If the article remains unsourced for a substantial length of time, then it may require the involvement of a wiki project or group of editors who are known to handle such articles. In the worst case scenario I can see it being brought to AFD for a discussion on whether it should stay. I have tagged new articles as speedy delete and after some discussion I, and the overseeing admin(s), and concerned editors, have agreed to extend the life of these articles for indeterminate time periods. It's an acknowledgement that we are flawed. Wikipedia strives to be a massive collection of information, curated by many, that can rise beyond the limited understanding of individual subjects that unique editors may have. By its nature we must except that some editors know better than us, and we must extend to them a reasonable window to exercise that knowledge. This, to me, is at the heart of the improvement tag system. It alerts readers that the information presented must be checked for factual accuracy, while alerting editors to the areas of an article that need work.


 * In this case we have a situation where some of the material was factually inaccurate, but references showed it to be credible without a blatant hoax. I don't hope that "others" outside of the ip who sent the article to AFC in the first place do anything but contribute how they can to making the article better. By this theory I watched additional editors contributed to the article in meaningful ways without correcting the information originally posted; perhaps this wrongfully bolstered my belief that what was contributed was truthful. This is an excellent lesson about what passes the "sniff test" for a large margin of contributors and brings to light some possible flaws in "business as usual" on the project. I appreciate this editor's excellent work in discovering the hoax and I'm glad that he's involved in the article. Wikpedia is a collaboration and all editors must do the best they can with the circumstances presented to them before another editor can pick up where the last left off. We all make judgement calls, and in some instances, these turn out to be the wrong course of action. I hope this has clarified my position on the matter. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Lyrics
✅

Is it good, bad or indifferent, if an IP address adds external links to a site for music lyrics?

I've been unable to determine relevant guidance from Manual_of_Style_%28music%29.

You'll see that the following IP address has been used almost exclusively for contributions where they have just added a single external link, to the lyrics for the musician(s) concerned, and in each of these cases the link has been to, e.g.
 * "http://oxlyrics.com/vanessa-paradis.html Vanessa Paradis' songs lyrics" (with no Edit Summary).

I wonder if one should offer any guidance to the IP address in question?

If a wp:admin, say, knows the answer, maybe they'd like to leave the IP address a message on their Talk page (link above), & add to any discussion by others here. Thanks, Trafford09 (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The site must be a site that has the proper copyright to display the lyrics WP:ELNEVER to even be considered. Active Banana (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point - not sure I'd be confident of telling whether that site had permission or not. Guess it looks dodgy? Trafford09 (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)



Also



This is starting to look like WP:Spam. I agree this site probably falls afoul of WP:ELNEVER. Reverted. MER-C 12:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for people's comments, esp. MER-C for showing me the template. Trafford09 (talk) 14:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Input requested at a move discussion
Please weigh in here, it is getting little attention and needs closing either way. MickMacNee (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Poll numbers
Could some one tell me the proper wiki standard on poll numbers? Obviously if the poll only gives whole numbers there is no problem. But what if the raw numbers are fractional do you round up, or give the largest whole number and drop the fractional present?--Duchamps_comb MFA 14:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:IMOS and its implementation
At McKownville, New York there is a dispute over the use of WP:IMOS in regards to that article. It is a place-name (ie- hamlet) in upstate NY, a suburb of Albany. Its founder and namesake came there from Scotland by way of Northern Ireland, and this is where it gets tricky... The source itself says "Londonderry", and the IMOS of Wikipedia has decided that the city of that name is to be referred to as Derry, and the county as Londonderry. When I put Londonderry in and linked to it I was not aware that it was a redirect to Derry, others have come to change the wording to Derry, as in the city. At the Village pump it was proposed that since the source said Londonderry then linking to the county and keeping the name Londonderry would be a good compromise since we cant be sure the source means Derry the city, and not Londonderry the county since it does say Londonderry. I dont believe a guideline should be used as a fundamentalist POV-pushing bludgeon to remove all references to Londonderry because some editors have COI regarding English names and want all mentions to be of an Irish background. Can we have some non-COI impartial opinions.Camelbinky (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The ability of McKownville to be a halfway decent article is getting worse at McKownville, can anyone, preferably an administrator, please come there and end this one way or another. Editors in favor of Derry clearly have a COI as do those who agree with me in favor of Londonderry. I really dont care about the politics behind the dispute, I simply want the article to look good and not have the continued back and forth versions, I want the article to stick to the source. Plus there is now the problem of a user delinking just about every place name (eg- New York, Scotland, anything in the Geobox) and it would be nice to have someone explain to them that linking to the word New York is kinda important and not a case of overlinking.Camelbinky (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You have more than one uninvolved administrator paying attention to that article already. You've canvassed forum shopped here, ANI and at Village Pump. You've been warned for numerous policy and behavioral guideline violations and, yet persist in reverting and canvassing WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Toddst1 (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The trick with the county clearly doesn't work. If a source says "Londonderry" pure and simple, it is always the city that's meant. Otherwise they would say "county Londonderry" explicitly. (Always assuming, of course, that the source knows what it's talking about.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Creeping fascism
Could someone peruse the above? Talk about creeping POV, I think it has savable content but there is a slight "this is a diatribe on 'democractic failure'"-ness about it. I've taken out a little of it, but a lot of it is unverified opinion. S.G.(GH) ping! 09:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "An example of the brazen violation of law by an American president was the illegal eavesdropping on American citizens without a court warrant, by the NSA under George W. Bush" - for example. S.G.(GH) ping! 09:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

RFC: victim list on an aircrash article
See here. MickMacNee (talk) 01:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure where this belongs...
...but it seems that http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1999050/bio is a copy of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adrianna_Costa&oldid=361977055 or a later revision. At first I thought it was a case of WP:COPYVIO, but after looking at the edit history, I guess the text was copied from Wikipedia. -- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Considering the text was added as one single huge 5k chunk, erasing the references section while first leaving the old content intact, I find the notion that this would be a reverse copyvio extremely unlikely. I have reverted accordingly. In the future, you can bring these up at WT:CP, or if you find content that requires an investigation, blank the section or article with {{subst:copyvio}}. MLauba (Talk) 16:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for objective user imput on the Article "Art Student Scam"     Consensus to split Article about Spying Allegations into two articles
Editors both support and oppose an article split. The argument is that Allegations of Israelis posed as "art students" spying on the United States should have its own article and should not be filed under the title "Art Student Scam." There are numerous reliable sources describing allegations that Israelis posed as art students were involved in spying on the United States between 1999-2001 so this does not deal with wingnut conspiracy theories. I encourage you to thoroughly look through the sources in order to make an informed decision.

Note: the Forward article describes a dismissal of 2004 spying in Canada and not 2001 spying in the U.S. This article also treats allegations of spying on the U.S. as inconclusive.

Note 2: the Washington post article, which was written before a number of the articles is the only source to outright dismiss spying allegations as an urban myth, In the Salon.com article, a high level intelligence agent referred to journalist Christopher Ketchum by veteran d.c. correspondent with contacts in the fbi and cia refers to the Washington Post article as a plant by the fbi.

It is necessary that you thoroughly go through at least some of the sources as some of them directly contradict the Washington Post Article. If you have time, it might also help to watch the 20 minute Fox special on Israel Spying on U.S that describes the art students (links to fox possibly subject to copyright notice so I can't provide them). Given these sources, there are no grounds for deletion due to lack of coverage nor the pushing of "urban myths" as all sources, most of which came after the post article point to spying allegations as at the very least inconclusive.


 * http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2002/05/07/students/index.html    Salon...        Provides the most in depth coverage (6 pgs.)
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2002/mar/06/internationaleducationnews.highereducation The Guardian
 * http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_12_18/ai_84396672/  Insight
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20020321021731/http://real-info.1accesshost.com/janes1.html    Janes Intelligence
 * http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2002-03-20/fishwrapper.html Creative Loafing
 * http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/spies-or-students-1.45243 Haaretz
 * http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20020307&slug=notspies07 Washington Post
 * http://www.forward.com/articles/5250/ This article refers to a different situation of Israelis spying on Canada in 2004 that was dismissed, but treats the 1999-2001 allegations of Israeli spying on the U.S. as inconclusive
 * http://www.zeit.de/2002/41/Tuer_an_Tuer_mit_Mohammed_Atta -note: this article is in german, from die zeit, its easy to translate with google or yahoo
 * 20 minute Four Part Fox News Special with Brit Hume and Carl Cameron about Allegations of Israel Spying on the United States

Link to the Wikipedia Article "Art Student Scam"

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

I posted this instead on the NPOV board because we are looking for neutral third parties.

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 03:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Afd dealing with notability and forking
If you like discussing notability and content forking, this is the Afd for you. I warn you it's got very long, but I was becoming so baffled at the responses, I've had to restate the deletion rationale to be absolutely sure I am on the same pages as other voters, and also, the actual topic is not as simple as it looks either. But there has been little outside input so far from people who are not the nominator or creator of the disputed article, even though there's been a lot of discussion, so if you have two hours to waste and think you know policy, dive in. MickMacNee (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Chuck Norris facts
(moved from WP:AN) Could I please have some eyes on Chuck Norris facts? Some editors keep re-adding very poorly sourced facts, completely oblivious to the fact that you can't use eBay listings or Google search results as a citation, especially not to a totally random examplefarm. There's also a high degree of linkspamming going on; my last reversion cut the article size in half. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare Authorship
A longstanding, but brief section in Shakespeare's plays that mentions the Shakespeare Authorship question is being repeatedly deleted [][] from this article, under the WP:ONEWAY rule. Since the issue of who wrote the plays is directly and prominently connected to the plays themselves (which seems somewhat obvious), it seems to me that WP:ONEWAY does not apply, but is merely being used as an excuse to delete a well-documented minority opinion from this (and other) articles. Opinions from uninvolved editors would be greatly appreciated, as those involved have pretty much adopted a "line-in-the-sand" attitude and do not seem interested in any form of compromise.Smatprt (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Miss Universe 2010
Before I do something I regret and tarnish my record that I've managed to keep clean for a few years can someone plase look at the situation at. I put in a good few hours last night trying to drag this article] up to Wikipedia's standards in relation to WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOTE, essentially because the article was bogged down in unreliable sourcing and trivial minutiae and the sources that remained needed tidying. I left an explanation in both the edit summary and a lengthier one on the talk page. It has since been reverted twice, pretty much without any comment on the content/editing issues but with one attack by Fat&Happy who accused me of an edit war (interesting, considering he at that point had provided no reply to the talk page etc). See my edits on his talk page here. Before I do actually get pinged for 3RR can someone please give some advice on a way forward? PageantUpdater talk • contribs  22:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears I jumped the gun, I think things are resolving themselves. Cheers. PageantUpdater  talk • contribs  00:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Ballistic tip bullet
Some expert opinion would be appreciated on Ballistic tip bullet, where a new editor--whose name is the name of the company that owns the trademark on "Ballistic Tip"--is making edits that in my opinion are not OK. I am also posting a notice on the talk page for WP:Firearms, asking editors to weigh in on this board. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've soft-blocked the username -- if they come back with a different username, we can deal with the COI/trademark issues then. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * They're back. I've pointed them to WP:Requested moves for a means to defend their trademark without edit warring or legal threats. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This trademark doesn't appear to have genericized. As such, it's not really the proper title for a class of ammunition.  Leaving aside the problems that go with "bullet", it seems to me, from a quick perusal, that controlled expansion bullet or plastic-point bullet is the real subject name, here. Uncle G (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think your opponent has a valid point. No other manufacturers refer to their products using that phrase. The article title should be "Streamlined plastic tipped bullets" or something similar. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Robot-added interwiki links to robot-translated content
I note that the Dundas, Minnesota article, hardly a topic of widespread international interest, has six interwiki links to translated versions of the article. Upon review, it appears that all these are machine translations, and the interwiki links have been added by a bot. I do not believe that the translations or the interwiki links are of any value to readers, since a) the topic is not especially relevant to non-English speakers, and b) the machine translations are of poor quality and are out of date, failing to reflect changes to the English text of the article.

Reviewing articles on other small towns, the Volapük wiki appears to be the most egregious offender. While it is up to each language wiki to determine their inclusion policy, there is no mandate for us to provide interwiki links to junk. The Volapük wiki consists almost entirely of machine translations, and as a nearly dead conlang, there is no reason why we should be providing these links. They are, in effect, advertising without any useful content.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a slippery slope and attacking the symptoms not the cause. It's a slippery slope because once one introduces the idea that it's acceptable for Wikipedias to individually decide what Wikipedias in other languages are valid, one opens the door to all sorts of silliness.  (One also causes an unnecessary nightmare for 'bot writers.)  It's attacking the symptoms not the cause because 'bots making interwiki links are the result of the Wikipedias in those languages existing and being on the list of Wikipedia languages.  The actual cause is the existence of those Wikipedia languages, which (presuming that one even agrees with the idea that they should not) the English Wikipedia's content noticeboard cannot do anything about.  Have you tried suggesting at Proposals for closing projects that these projects are dead because of no non-machine participation? Uncle G (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do we have a Wikipedia for a language with 20 speakers? I'd agree that wiki needs to be shuttered, barring something I'm unaware of... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, this isn't something that the English Wikipedia's content noticeboard can do anything about. Indeed, the English Wikipedia as a whole isn't the place for this discussion.  Go to Meta.  The issues with the Volapük Wikipedia are all over Meta, including at Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Volapük Wikipedia, Proposals for closing projects/Radical cleanup of Volapük Wikipedia, Language committee/Archives/2007-10#Wikipedia Volapük, Manual for small and new Wikipedias#Does size matter?, Proposal for Policy on overuse of bots in Wikipedias, and Language committee/Archives/2008-01#Constructed languages.  Re-hashing this on the English Wikipedia's content noticeboard serves no purpose, and will achieve nothing, except give the appearance to others of trying to perform a parochial end-run around the proper forum for discussion.  Meta is the place for this. Uncle G (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible copyvio?
I don't know where this should go, so I'm posting it here, I have seen add this to Shanto Mariam University of Creative Technology. He says that it came from the university's leaflet. I wonder if this is a possible copyright violation. Can another editor comment on this if I should report it to Copyright problems or should I just leave it. Techman224 Talk  00:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone else reverted the edit, so I guess it's solved. Techman224  Talk  00:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Mongol invasion of Rus'
A guy seems to be intent on rewriting the page from the Library of Congress Country Studies based on such questionable sources as http://www.parallelsixty.com/history-russia.shtml and http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm. The theory of a wide-scale Mongol invasion of Rus has been under siege from several generations of historians, but now we have the page peppered with broad generalisations ("every second Russian died as a result") and non-neutral terms ("slaughter", "exterminate the entire population", etc). --Ghirla-трёп- 11:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Section layout issues at War crimes committed by the United States
There is currently an ongoing dispute between myself and two other editors at Talk:War crimes committed by the United States involving the layout of sections. I feel like there is a lot of soapboxing and original research going on, and I'd like to have a neutral editor or two to come in and help us find the relevant Wikipedia policies, and ensure that that people are sticking to policy discussions, instead of arguing their personal views about the material. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

contribs by Special:Contributions/Raynedzel
I reverted one edit because of obvious copyright violation, apparently not the first one and the user did touch at least one BLP page where one of the 2 ciations is a dead link (Steven T. DeKosky) - would be good if more eyes had a look at his. Richiez (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Francoise Pascal bio
Regarding Francoise Pascal's date of birth, it must be wrong or an error has been made? It states she was born October 1949. I was born in 1948 and remember her on television as a kid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.52.79 (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for raising the concern. I checked her website, and performed a google search to find additional sources, and all sources indicate that her birthdate is indeed 14 October 1949. --Alan(T)(E) 03:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Tube Bar prank calls
I wonder if anyone cares to comment on the (current) opening sentence of Tube Bar prank calls--"The Tube Bar prank calls are arguably the most famous series of prank calls ever recorded." There is one article cited, which calls them "legendary," but that's hardly the same thing. The owner of the article, and I say this with a measure of confidence given what they edit and how they respond, User:Tube Bar Red, stated on my talk page that Google will verify it--a clear case of original research at best, but in my opinion an empty statement. I have twice removed the unwarranted claim because there is no evidence to support it; moreover, I think a lead should not have that kind of an opening sentence. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If it were me, I would take this article straight to AfD as I only see one reliable source listed out of the ones there. I would also probably take it to the COIN noticeboard, and possibly report the username to AIV as promotional.  Whose Your Guy (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As for sources, they are there--see this. Not many of them are accessible though, but any AfD would and should be closed as keep. And I don't know if the user is actually peddling them--there's this, but that doesn't prove much. I am going to delete that list, though, since that's not based on any real source as far as I can tell. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What I hadn't seen was the template, with links to articles for just about every one of those tapes which, by themselves, don't strike me as notable and perhaps ought to be redirected. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Linkels Josy
Looking at this user's contribs it's seems extraordinarily self promotional, however I can't be sure what intent there is as I believe there is a language barrier involved. I'm at a loss of what to do besides CSD/remove all their contributions including talk page and user page.- Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 22:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This has been handled now, Thank you - Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 16:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The user page in the title of this section (User:Linkels Josy) is for a different account from the one for the contributions you link to (User:LINKELS Josy):
 * The account and user page for Linkels Josy was created on 16 August and is still quite self-promotional (though in broken English this time). The account has made no other edits though; perhaps the notices and warnings given on LINKELS Josy's talk page were sufficient. Northumbrian (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The account and user page for Linkels Josy was created on 16 August and is still quite self-promotional (though in broken English this time). The account has made no other edits though; perhaps the notices and warnings given on LINKELS Josy's talk page were sufficient. Northumbrian (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The account and user page for Linkels Josy was created on 16 August and is still quite self-promotional (though in broken English this time). The account has made no other edits though; perhaps the notices and warnings given on LINKELS Josy's talk page were sufficient. Northumbrian (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Data Foundry
Could someone assist me on this article? I have attempted to explain to the article creator that it needs more reliable sources, but I don't seem to be making any progress. I found some reliable sources through Google that establish the notability of the company, but right now I am disinclined to add them unless someone else intervenes. Whose Your Guy (talk) 01:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I hear you. I added one reference, and reinstated one of your tags (refimprove). I removed some of the technical data which, in my opinion, is too detailed (and too much like a brochure) for a Wikipedia article. We're dealing with a novice editor who will, hopefully, learn that Wikipedia articles are to be based on independent sources. I left them a welcome template (they didn't have one yet) and a note. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Cycle 1
I feel this article is improperly named. It looks as if it's related to Total drama island but I can't be sure. Thought toward a rename?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You might consider fixing this mess that caused it in the first place. Uncle G (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow! That is something to pull apart. I'm going to look into it more. For the meantime I'm going to rename the article something better as a start. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Rorschach Test (2010)
The RFC Requests for comment/Rorschach Test (2010) has been filed concerning "Is publishing the Rorschach test images and responses in keeping with Wikipedia's long-term mission and purpose? Does doing so make the article more useful or less useful? What do sources tell us?". Your input is solicited. --Cyber cobra (talk) 05:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Antifeminism
There is currently a content dispute about antifeminism.

Currently the lead reads "Antifeminism is opposition to feminism in some or all of its forms." This remains unsourced. But a second and more prominent definition is "the activity indicative or the belief in the superiority of men over women". Another definition is "opposition to women and sexual equality, or more specifically opposition to feminism and the advocacy of women's rights"

A user argued that other and more prominent definitions of antifeminism should be ignored because the opposition to feminism in some of its forms is the least controversial and because dictionary defitnitions are bad in the lead.

Could you please help to settle this dispute? Randygeorge (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The above comment is factually incorrect in two ways.
 * 1)George's edit was argued against by three editors, not one. See Talk:Antifeminism.
 * 2)George has not argued that the other definition is "more prominent" until the above comment. He or she has provided no evidence that this is the case.
 * I humbly ask George to correct these falsehoods in the above comment. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * None of the sources above freedictionary, rhymezone, wordnik appear to meet WP:RS.  Active  Banana   (  bananaphone  18:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, Banana, thank you. Does this the Oxford English Dictionary appear reliable to you [? Or does this source appear reliable to you ? And why has the current definition "antifeminism is opposition to feminism in some or all of its forms" been unsourced for over a year? Thank you. [[User:Randygeorge|Randygeorge]] (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Take a look at Common sense and see if you can figure out why "antifeminism" being defined as "Opposition to feminism..." might be ok to have without an explicit reference... In order to avoid belaboring and rehashing this subject here, again, it bears mentioning that there is a discussion on this topic taking place in the appropriate forum, that is the Talk:Antifeminism which George refuses to constructively participate in.--Cybermud (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Common sense is not a policy or guideline. Verifiability is. If Randygeorge doubts the accuracy of an unsourced statement, he is welcome to request a source for verification. Once such a request is made, any person who wants to keep it in needs to provide a source. Otherwise it can be deleted. We don't use "common sense" to define terms here. We use dictionaries and other reliable sources. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying that point Jrtayloriv, but it was not necessary. I did not say common sense was a policy (or even common, clearly -- even if it is a restatement of one of the five pillars) though I could see how you might have made that invalid inference.  What I meant was, it should not be surpising that such an intuitively sensible concept would have "been unsourced for over a year" and that, if no one else tried changing it, common sense would dictate, that they agreed with it.  By the way, if you look up "anti" in a dictionary you might by surprised at what you'd find (no sarcasm intended.)  Going back to the substantive part of this discussion, a consensus has been reached on a good wording for the lead-in that is the subject of this action by 4/5 editors on the page (George, the initiator of this content dispute, being the notable exception.)--Cybermud (talk) 07:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I made no invalid inference. I responded to your invalid suggestion that an editor refer to a Wikipedia essay, in place of a core Wikipedia policy. Obviously, clarification was necessary, because you seem to be confused. I did not say that it was surprising that the statement had remained unsourced -- it's not. I was responding to what you actually said, which was Take a look at Common sense and see if you can figure out why "antifeminism" being defined as "Opposition to feminism..." might be ok to have without an explicit reference..., implying that there would be something in Common sense that would explain why it is OK to refuse an editor's request that an unreferenced statement be verified by a reliable source. My response to this invalid suggestion is that according to WP:V, it is not OK, and WP:V overrides anything that one might find in WP:Common sense. That 4 editors voted that it was "OK without a reference" on the talk page of this obscure topic is irrelevant. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry your confusion persists but you are conflating my comments with denying (or as you said "refusing") a request for a reference. Please read more carefully and don't project intentions that don't exist on other editors.  Additionally, I never said 4 editors "voted it was 'OK without a reference'"  Please don't insert words into my mouth when I said nothing even remotely resembling that.  Constructing and attacking a straw man is intellectually dishonest.--Cybermud (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm done with this conversation. I am not interested or convinced by your justifications for including information not backed by reliable sources. Nor am I interested in interacting with someone who is so hostile to an uninvolved editor who came in to mediate. I suppose you'll have to deal with this at an RFC, if RandyGeorge chooses to file one. However, it's probably in your interest to start gathering sources to back the content in the article, because that's what they're going to tell you to do. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Jrtayloriv. So where do we go from here? As far as I can see there are reliable sources that say that antifeminism means "opposition to women's equality" or that antifeminism "opposes changes in women's roles, status, rights, or opportunities"  or that in religion antifeminism means "opposition to women's ordination"  or that antifeminism is the "opposition to women's equality and sexual equality" . I don't see sources that say that antifeminism is the "opposition to feminism in some or all of its forms." But the editors on the talk seem to have come to an agreement that we should go with "opposition to antifeminism in some or all its forms" as a definition of antifeminism and exclude other and seemingly more notable definitions of antifeminism. Here  Cybermud states that he simply doesn't like the definition provided by the English Oxford Dictionary and that it's 'not accurate." I don't know what to do with 'arguments' like these. Randygeorge (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have reliable sources that have a different definition of the term, and other editors are refusing to provide sources that show that this definition is for some reason not appropriate, after being asked repeatedly, I would file an RFC. When you do so, try to remain calm, and don't make any personal attacks or bad faith accusations against the other editors -- just stick to the problem of the unsourced assertion, and don't talk about anything else: Calmly say something like "I have provided reliable sources, including the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines the term 'anti-feminism' differently from the unsourced definition in the current article. When I tried to change this definition to be in line with the sources, other editors reverted me. They are not providing sources to verify the current definition, even after requested. I would like someone to come in and mediate to ensure that the definition of the term is based on reliable sources. If you need help with filing an RFC and resolving the conflict, I'd be glad to help. I tried to come in and mediate here, as a disinterested third party, and have received a very incivil and hostile response from Cybermud for suggesting that he/she provide reliable sources to verify Wikipedia content, in line with WP:V. If you have been receiving the same type of hostile response, I would say that your best bet is to bring in a larger body of uninvolved and more experienced editors who can ensure that WP:V is being adhered to. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You may want to work on a valid definition of hostile before you concern yourself with a valid definition of antifeminism. Do you always project hostile motivations on people who disagree with you?  I'm starting to see a pattern here..--Cybermud (talk) 03:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are clearly an extremely intelligent person. I don't feel like talking to you anymore, because it's very intellectually intimidating. Have a nice day, and I hope things work out well for you at the RFC. I'm sure with your razor sharp wit, you will manage to get by fine without any sources. Toodle doo! -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said "I simply don't like the Oxford English Dictionary definition." You are also putting words in my mouth and taking comments out of context to try to pigeonhole what I said.  It's never even been established that OED even says that, and to repeat the discussion on the talk page, Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--Cybermud (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source that provides a different definition? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Question regarding due weight to sex abuse scandal at Catholic Church
I know that this subject has been discussed on at least 28 different archived pages of the above article, but there is another discussion regarding whether to add additional material regarding the sex abuse scandal to the article in question. Any input is more than welcome. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Alvin C. York edit disputes
The Alvin C. York article has become a bit of a mess with POV issues and poor editing. I have no dog in this fight, but I hate to see an article decline in quality. Could someone fresh to it have a look? Thanks. Wilson44691 (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Baptist boilerplate cleanup
As part of the article rescue fallout of Articles for deletion/Alabama Baptist State Board of Missions, I and other editors are working on fixing all of the boilerplate articles given to us by. Witness Alabama Baptist Convention before and after, and Alaska Baptist Convention before and after. There's a to-do list at User talk:Uncle G, where you are welcome to join in the effort. Uncle G (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Kelly Rowland (album) was confirmed but now untitled.

 * Article


 * Background
 * Her third album was confirmed to be self-titled
 * A link was then uploaded to her official website so people could suggest alternative names for the album.
 * And it wasn't until today that she confirmed she is now undecided about the title. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  16:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Issue
 * The article for the album was created and has lots of detail... too much information to be merged to the artist's page.
 * Equally others have expressed that it is incorrect for the album's article to be named if the the album itself is unamed.
 * Without a confirmed title... what do we leave the page as?
 * should we continue to use the last known confirmed titled?
 * is it permissible in this case to move the album to Untitled Third Studio Album or Untitled (Kelly Rowland's third studio album) etc? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1   (talk2me)  21:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * References


 * Comments/resolution

List of Doug episodes
Hello all. I have been asked whether the content on List of Doug episodes is a copyvio of this. To me it looks like it's the other way around and they have copied WP, but if that's the case presumably they are not allowed to copyright it (there's a copyright notice at the bottom of their page). Any thoughts?Chris (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC) PS: Not sure if there is a more appropriate place for this!

Pine Bluff, Arkansas
Not sure if this is where to post this, but am having a dispute over content on this article. The User:Jmmyjam keeps adding overly adjective POV laden and long descriptions to the Notable native sections of the article. I went thru and pruned some, then we reverted each other a few times. I brought it to the talk page earlier, and then to the users talk page, but no responses. I don't usually get to 3rr, but have here, and with the other party not answering, not sure how to handle this.  He  iro 01:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Response from Disputee: Not sure if this is where I post a response but will do so. I have no problem with the notion of insuring the descriptions of notable persons is succinct and does not include unnecessary verbiage. However, when noting an author who has written a seminal work it is appropriate to incorporate such notation as part of the description (ie. John Milton, author, Paradise Lost. Additionally, it is perfectly fine to note a profession and include a fact if a the person's background contains a significant accomplishment such as "Neil Armstrong, astronaut, first man to walk on the moon".  I can appreciate your attention to the detail of the Pine Bluff, AR material.  However, your policing of this page is  going to create a problem if I feel basic Wikipedia protocols are being ignored.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmmyjam (talk • contribs) 02:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC) o


 * Adding adjectives such as "Nationally acclaimed", "Regionally acclaimed", "Pioneering" to multiple entries or a list of an artists patrons hardly fit into those categories.  He  iro 02:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As for policies, I believe this part of the Manual of Style Manual of Style (words to watch) applies to thyis situation.  He  iro 03:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Islamic Awakening
A dreadful article - perhaps promotional, half of it is questions, ends with "(Article under construction and some terms could be altered. More to come. All are invited to participate in this article and subarticles.)". The phrase itself is used in several of our articles, eg Islamic fundamentalism. ["islamic awakening" site:en.wikipedia.org] - I'm not sure what to do about it. Dougweller (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I'm going to send it to AfD. I did a google search on the term and found it used in the title of a book and as the name of an extremist forum (according to the site Jihad watch), but it does not return many, if any, positives as a phrase in general use. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Dispute Regarding Cited Content
I dont know exactly where to post this but another user directed me here. I had an issue with another user over some cited content.

This problem is regarding the page khetran. I found a reference to be false but it turned out that it wasnt. I had first removed the reference but it had been replaced a user (intothefire). Searching more on the topic i found a couple of references which all contradicted each other. So to deal with the problem i created another header and placed them all under there. Intothefire is constantly reverting back my changes. He is also putting tags on history page that I'm deleting the cited again and again. I talked to him directly that the cited content (along with a minor change where only relevant material was posted) has been moved to the appropriate section. In reply to that he said that he has no problem what so ever may be the location of cited content on the page. But again he reverted back the changes, although cited content was present under the new header. In my opinion the cited content should be under its header where other cited content is present regarding the same topic.

Regards, OmerKhetran (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Autogynephilia merger proposal
This is a public notice posting of a proposed merger between Autogynephilia, Homosexual transsexual, and Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory, as recommended by this policy page. It has been proposed to merge these three articles to eliminate WP:Redundancy, WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, and to keep the focus on the specific Blanchardian theory of M2F transsexuality (in contrast to Transsexual sexuality, which would be to focus on the subject in general). Please feel free to comment on the proposal at Talk:Autogynephilia. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Huguette M. Clark
I have recently been having a problem regarding an image I uploaded being removed by another editor who seems to have a strong association with MSNBC. The is from 1917 - there is plenty of evidence of this - and therefore should be in the public domain. I added the image to two articles Huguette M. Clark (who has been in the news recently) and William A. Clark (her father). The image is continuously removed by User:BlackberryHacks. I suggested he should have to bring this to WP:FFD if he thinks it is a copyright violation (which it is not) but he cannot just unilatterally keep removing the image. As we were getting to 3RR I wanted to get some outside perspective to help resolve the issue. It would be unfortunate to have to take measures against the article given its recent newsworthiness. |► ϋrбan яeneωaℓ • TALK  ◄| 00:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The user Urbanrenewal says the photo "should be in the public domain." But he has no idea whether it is in the public domain. He objects that I keep removing it; of course, it'e entirely appropriate to remove an image which belongs to somone else, unless he can establish that it is in the public domain. One should err on the side of caution. Urbanrenewal means well, let's assume, but in fact he has no idea when the image was published. The image belongs to the Montana Historical Society. We know roughly when the image was made -- about 1917, we can't be sure exactly. But Urbanrenewal has no idea when the image was published, and that's the key. He's guessing that it's in the public domain, he says it's probably in the public domain, but guessing doesn't cut it in copyright matters. He describes this as "having a problem." Yes, publishing photos to which one doesn't have the rights is a problem.BlackberryHacks (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC).
 * I am not really sure what BlackberryHacks' position is. The photo was dated 1917 which is confirmed by the fact that one of the people in the picture will be dead by 1919. It is unreasonable to think the image was produced but not published as the photo resides with other published photos.  This is very clearly in the public domain.  |► ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  • TALK  ◄| 18:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My position is that we do not know when this photo was published. Urbanrenewal is guessing. He says it is "unreasonable to think" that it was not published in the 1910s. That's no basis for a copyright infringement. If he can't estatblish that it was published before this year, he can't just post it on Wikipedia. That's my position, and the law. Saying something is "clearly" so is not offering evidence that it is so. Until he can establish that this photo is in the domain -- not probably or "likely" or "clearly" so -- then he should stop the repeated reversion of edits on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackberryHacks (talk • contribs) 07:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Where is the 1917 publication date on the photograph? Indeed, where is any evidence anywhere that this photograph was published in 1917? The place that you took it from published it in June 2010. Uncle G (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I went and checked out a list of copyright terms. Without a solid publication date, I don't think there's any way to argue for sure that this is in the public domain. Could you contact the Montana Historical Society? -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Associated Press of Pakistan
I'm not sure if this is even acceptable: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Associated+Press+of+Pakistan&diff=383199142&oldid=383198700

Involved editor:

みんな空の下 (トーク) 06:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Unsourced and looks like a copyvio. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

heffernan
I have been advised on the RSN board to bring this here on the Watts Up With That? article there is a dispute about this source [] and this source[]. The problom is that some have said that using one or using both of these are a BLP vioation. My slef I think its Undue and that there is no value to including a recomendation by a media pundit for a science site (but if we do include it we should also include her caveat), especialy as it is highly contentious and a possible BLP violation whatever we do. No one has questioned these weer her comments and her caveat is repeated on Mr Watts own blog [], and he does not question she wrote this. The talk o9n this is here []. Also an issue has been raised as to whther or not soource two breached verifiabiltiy rules.Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this discussion would be easier to follow if all conversation were to take place at one page rather than being scattered around all the noticeboards (at least RSN, BLPN, and here at the moment). I'd suggest using the article talk page. And if you feel it's necessary, place pointers on the noticeboards, otherwise the discussion ends up fractured, disjointed, and hard to follow. -Atmoz (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I answered this on the RS board here and made the suggestion of moving it. I didn't think it had a place at the RS board because it's more of a content dispute than a question of a source's reliability. The RS discussion shouldn't carry much weight on the discussion here. I'm neutral on the topic. My comments about the reliability of the source can be found at the provided link.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is appreciated, and normally that would be the proper thing to do. Unfortunately in this circumstance, the broader dispute is already at ArbCom. In my, involved (in CC, but not in this particular dispute), experience these start off by someone changing something in the article which sets off an edit war. The page may or may not be protected from editing. Discussion ensues on the article talk page. Inevitably, someone says "BLP!!!", which forks the discussion to the BLP noticeboard. There is more discussion by involved editors with little input from uninvolved editors, when someone will say "but that's not an RS!!!", which forks the discussion to the RS noticeboard. But the sources are being synthesized to form a novel conclusion, off to the OR noticeboard. Ah, but if we add that then it's undue weight, off to the NPOV noticeboard. But that's a fringe point of view; luckily there's a fringe noticeboard. In the multiple parallel discussions, someone will inevitably say something that someone else takes offence at, which forks the discussion to ANI. So now there are 5 or 6 discussion taking place all running parallel to each other, which makes it extremely unlikely that any uninvolved editor can completely follow everything. The discussion will wind down in 2-3 days, only to be continued on a different article a few days later. Which is one reason this is at ArbCom. But that's just my 2 cents. -Atmoz (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of the ArbCom case.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgive m but I am unable to find the Arbcom case on this issue, I might be missing it (there seems to be a rather large amount of material on CC). Could you provide a link to the relevant discusion please.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is three months old, does not seem to involve either the issue I have raised here or most of the edds involved in the discusion, and given no action in three months, appears to have been quietly shelved (though I misunderstand how arbcom is supposed to work). Also as conflict is still occuring it also seems to have failed, thogh I am nit sure what significance that has. As such I really fail to see why this nullifies my question.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The case is ongoing and activity has switched to the WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision and its talk page. No, this particular article, Watts Up With That?, hasn't drawn much attention at the case, although many of the editors on this article are also involved in the ArbCom case. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

List of notable plot twists


The above-mentioned article is presently undergoing AFD, however at present it has grown to an unmanagable size, is nearly entirely unreferenced and is and written largely in an unencyclopedic tone. It would benefit from editors familiar with content policies making sweeping edits. I made an attempt to reboot the article here, but it's been reverted back to an unacceptable state. – xeno talk 23:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Help needed in cleanup
Your help in the above cleanup effort would be appreciated. This is not a task that four people can take on alone. It's an order of magnitude larger than the largest of the other currently open CCI listings. Uncle G (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC) discuss this

Mass blanking of ten thousand articles by a 'bot
It has been proposed that we mass blank articles using a 'bot. For details, see the discussion. Uncle G (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC) discuss this

We're now at the stage where the 'bot is ready to roll, and no-one has voiced an objection. (Indeed, to the contrary: Several people want to go further, and mass delete the articles.) If the 'bot goes ahead, this will probably light up some people's watchlists like Diwali. Be warned. Uncle G (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Force10
Hi, The page force10 seems to be advertising. How do you flag the content as advertising? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force10

Trevgoodchild (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Force10 doesn't look too bad from a spam point of view, but I did delete 2 inappropriate external links. Did you have any specific concerns? -Atmoz (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering about all the other Force10's in the world, isn't there more to it than just a networking company? A Movie, Beaufort Scale :) Seems like it's spurious somehow.

Trevgoodchild (talk) 09:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I get it. Those are generally written as Force 10 though; note the space. I added a link at the top to the disambiguation page that should help. -Atmoz (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Afghanistan
User:JCAla is making the "History section" on the Afghanistan page very long by creating unnessary sub-sections in which he added many useless information that attempts to degrade one group and praises another (Northern Alliance with its leader Ahmad Shah Massoud). His entire edits are mess--Jrkso (talk) 05:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)y and confusing, filled with countless unsourced personal POVs, and is written very unencyclopedic. I removed it and gave my reason but he reverts and insists that it should stay. He did edits to other pages and added very bizzare stuff in them. For example, in Civil war in Afghanistan (1996–2001), besides countless unsourced POVs, he added in the infobox all the top Pakistani politicians (Pakistani Presidents Pervez Musharraf, Nawaz Sharif, and others) being at war with Ahmad Shah Massoud, leader of the Northern Alliance group in Afghanistan. In this edit he demonstrated his unpleasant biased view toward Pakistanis and a group of Afghanis but in the meantime he praised Amer Saheb, leader of the Northern Alliance. I don't know if this is the right place to fix this problem I discovered about User:JCAla's edits. Please help, thank you.--Jrkso (talk) 04:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Jrkso is starting an unnecessary edit war. He was already blocked in the past for doing edit wars on another topic. He has been putting the Soviet war, Islamic State and Taliban Emirate periods of Afghan history as one section. All I did was to divide them into three parts. After Jrkso insisted they were too long, as a compromise, I made them into very short sections.see here Everyone can see for themselves that the edits I undertook are very well sourced. Jrkso seems to have a problem with the reality of the Afghan history. I am not anti-Pakistan. But I do point out the realities of Pakistan's so-called depth strategy (well known among scholars and Afghanistan experts) and what this strategy has meant for Afghanistan. Jrkso does not have a problem with the longitude of very long sections about the Daoud republic and Saur revolution periods of Afghan history. So there clearly is a bias towards the sections in which Pakistani involvement in Afghan history are mentioned. (The edit in which Jrsko perceives me as praising Massoud was on my private talk page not any wikipedia article. It was meant to bridge ethnic divisions another user was talking about.)


 * As for the Civil war in Afghanistan (1996–2001) article, again my edits regarding Pakistan's policy are well-sourced. While other foreign countries' involvement in the war was limited to financial support or arms supplies, Pakistan was directly and actively playing a role in the war. Even Human Rights Watch writes:

"Official denials notwithstanding, Pakistan ... has openly encouraged the recruitment of Pakistanis to fight for the Taliban. ... Pakistani aircraft assisted with troop rotations of Taliban forces during combat operations in late 2000 and  that senior members of Pakistan's intelligence agency and army were involved in planning military operations." - Human Rights Watch

"Pervez Musharraf [then Pakistani military chief of staff] was responsible for sending scores of Pakistanis to fight alongside the Taliban and Bin Laden. Musharraf wanted his troops ..." - National Geographic


 * You may not like this history. But it nevertheless remains a significant part of Afghanistan's history. -- JCAla 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Questions for Jrkso: --Torchwood Who? (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have any content-specific issue with JCAla's edits besides their length? For example, are they not properly sourced?
 * Can you provide a diff or link of the consensus you reference related to section length on the article?
 * Can you provide diffs from article edits, not talk pages, that show POV pushing by JCAla?
 * What would your ideal outcome be for this dispute?
 * Yeah, all his edits have fiercely anti-Pakistan and pro-Ahmad Shah Massoud tone. His edits discredit all Afghan Mujahideen and even foreign presidents and politicians of other nations who were not involved in the Afghan civil war but is giving all the credits to the Northern Alliance, a group that's described in every media report as one of the worst warlords and terrorists. In doing this, JCAla made the history section on Afghanistan very long which is difficult to follow because during the "1992-2001 civil war era" there was no nationally accepted gov. He's telling us his story of Afghanistan's history based on his analysis and is citing anything he finds online. He even cites Youtube's content, see above.
 * Diff to section length on the article or this
 * I think his entire edits are POV pushing He's inciting sectarian or ethnic hatred.
 * Someone needs to re-write his material in line with NPOV--Jrkso (talk) 03:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest the following:
 * JCAla should create content forks WP:FORK for some of his longer editions so they can be debated on their own notability and POV merits outside of the main article. These forks can be listed in a see also subsection. If this creates undue weight the articles can be debated at WP:AFD.
 * All information sourced to places outside of the scope of WP:RS should be removed on sight due to the controversial nature of the subject (a country currently involved in international military action).
 * I see some leading language in certain edits by JCAla, but I wouldn't go as far as to call it blatant POV pushing yet. If there is a sourced addition that is worded in a POV way, rewrite it to neutral. If it is not sourced, move it to talk. If JCAla disagrees with these informal guidelines you can explore other  conflict resolution venues such as RfC or Arbcom.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I did some fixing and re-arranging, tagged 2 sections, basically just organized it a little.. If I find time I'll do some more work to it. Thanks for helping I just hope the other fellow follows this.--Jrkso (talk) 05:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I did some fixing and re-arranging, tagged 2 sections, basically just organized it a little.. If I find time I'll do some more work to it. Thanks for helping I just hope the other fellow follows this.--Jrkso (talk) 05:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

+++

First, Torchwood Who?, thanks for getting involved. I do not have a problem with your suggestions. My information were sourced inside the scope of WP:RS. Most information Jrkso perceives as POV are direct citations. I hardly gave any controversial information unsourced. Second, Jrkso should be warned for his false and offending allegations against me, especially the one where he blatantly lies, see "He's inciting sectarian or ethnic hatred.". I will not tolerate such allegations. Third, I don't even know if I should answer such ... allegations. ''"fiercely anti-Pakistan and pro-Ahmad Shah Massoud tone." (by Jrkso)''


 * I described Pakistan policy in Afghanistan as written down by countless sophisticated sources. And I wrote down the role played by Ahmad Shah Massoud as described by countless sophisticated sources. Finally, I gave all these sources. Jrkso has a problem with these historic (well-sourced) realities. Jrkso called Massoud "evil, a warlord, terrorist and bad guy" see here. That is what I would call a strong POV-agenda.

"edits discredit all Afghan Mujahideen" (by Jrkso)



"and even foreign presidents and politicians of other nations who were not involved in the Afghan civil war" (by Jrkso)


 * Jrkso is referring to what he sees as unjust inclusion of Pakistani political and military leaders in the Civil war in Afghanistan (1996–2001) article. He is repeating that allegation, although I gave sources above. That shows he is deliberatedly ignoring sources given.

''"He's inciting sectarian or ethnic hatred." (by Jrkso)''


 * I will not even dignify that with a direct answer. Everyone can see what I wrote on my Talk page. (Furthermore the link that Jrkso gives about the Haqqani network has not one ethnic line. I just restored and rewrote information given by other users, that had been deleted. I even added that the allegations against the Haqqanis were not verifiable. When Jrkso deleted the whole section, I did not object.)

"a group that's described in every media report as one of the worst warlords and terrorists" (by Jrkso)

--JCAla (talk 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What Jrkso calls "every media report" is the internet platform of the RAWA (Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan). These are not media reports. RAWA is a very non-differentiating source. They do, indeed, very valuable humanitarian work. But, they are a very bad source for political discussion. They have a clear communist agenda and not only have strong connections to other communist movements but also have a pattern of attacking other Afghan women rights organizations or Afghan women who rise to prominence outside RAWA with smear campaigns. That they would do the same with every political person of "greater evil" (as they must perceive it) is a logical consequence. RAWA (referring to the Soviet war in Afghanistan) called Massoud "the man who wouldn't fight" when the Wall Street Journal called him "the Afghan who won the cold war" source see at 40:50.


 * I agree that there is an obvious difference of opinion between the two of you over what constitutes POV and Jrkso should probably take a step back and use language that is less accusing, but this is the content noticeboard not WP:ANI so, we don't try to get involved in warnings and actions unless there is a blatant and unambiguous effort to disrupt an article's factual content. If you feel strongly about the need to answer these allegations you could take this to the etiquette noticeboard WP:WQA and begin a resolution process there. Some of your sources are dubious, such as the youtube cite mentioned above and I would err on the side of taking controversial sources to the reliable sources notice board in the future. WP:RSN--Torchwood Who? (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the youtube link was linking to a documentary by the National Geographic. I do not see the National Geographic as being a "dubious source". The George Washington University National Security Archive provides similar information:

1996 "Similar to the October 22, 1996 Intelligence Information Report (IIR), this IIR reiterates how "Pakistan's ISI is heavily involved in Afghanistan," but also details different roles various ISI officers play in Afghanistan. Stating that Pakistan uses sizable numbers of its Pashtun-based Frontier Corps in Taliban-run operations in Afghanistan, the document clarifies  that, "these Frontier Corps elements are utilized in command and control; training; and when necessary - combat."

1998 "According to a variety of Pakistani officials and journalists, including Ahmed Rashid, Pakistan has "regressed to a point where it is as hard-line as ever in favor of the Taliban." Pakistani government officials have given up "the pretense of supporting the U.N. effort," and have become unabashedly pro-Taliban. ... The cable speculates the spike in pro-Taliban  Pakistani feeling can be attributed to the political fallout of recent nuclear testing and increased regional tension. These  developments have increased Pakistan's need for a pro-Pakistan, anti-India regime in Kabul."

"Taliban ranks furthermore continue to be filled with Pakistani nationals (an estimated 20-40 percent of Taliban soldiers  are Pakistani according to the document), which further solidifies Pakistan-Taliban relations, even though this does not  indicate not outward or official Pakistani government support."

"The parents of ... know nothing regarding their child's military involvement with the Taliban "until their bodies are brought back to Pakistan."

1999 "Pakistan's alliance with the Taliban is stronger than Iran or Russia with Massoud ..."

2000 "... in September 2000 an alarmed U.S. Department of State observes that "while Pakistani support for the Taliban has been long-standing, the magnitude of recent support is unprecedented."

"[The Department] also understand[s] that large numbers of Pakistani nationals have recently moved into Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban, apparently with the tacit acquiescence of the Pakistani government." Additional reports indicate that direct Pakistani involvement in Taliban military operations has increased."

or (concerning Massoud)

"As in some of the other instances of violence against civilians documented in this report, there is no indication that senior Shura-i Nazar leaders [that included Massoud] ordered the abuses [during the period in Kabul 1992-1996]." - Afghanistan Justice Project (source for Human Rights Watch)

I think I have given enough evidence by now, that the information given by me is not just pov but officially recognized history. Jrkso not once has provided credible sources that Pakistan was never involved in Taliban military operations or that Massoud directly ordered abuses. Jrkso has been trying to disrupt the article's content. But, unless he comes up with new things, I (for my part) regard this time-stealing issue as solved right now.--JCAla (talk 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Unless the video itself was housed on a National Geographic owned site the source is borderline. I understand that companies may have official youtube "channels" so this is why I say borderline. As I've stated above, if it's properly sourced without POV commentary or color, it has a right to be in the article unless consensus dictates it should be moved to a content fork WP:FORK.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. I understand your point about youtube channels. Just to render the whole thing complete: the link to the official National Geographic Documentary. --JCAla (talk) 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I should notice, that Jrkso did not stop his vandalism and edit war. I have taken the whole thing to an administrator now, and hope he can help. I have given dozens of very reliable sources for my Afghanistan edits, but he keeps removing them, restoring his unsourced version. Here you can see my latest very well-sourced version and this is the version Jrkso keeps restoring, removing academic and other sources as well as changing content. It goes so far that he repeatedly restores the wrong spelling of names. For example Hekmatyar's surname is "Gulbuddin" see here, he keeps restoring "Gulbadin".


 * This has been going on for days and I do not want to further waste my time with someone obviously keen to engage in an edit war and keen to hide realities of Afghan history or call sources such as Human Rights Watch "dubious" (while he does not provide one single source - except for the Revolutionary Association). I will have to revert once again, and that ain't no fun.—JCAla (talk) 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. Is there a discussion at WP:ANI or other applicable location? I would be glad to comment on the situation from my perspective having been involved in attempted mediation. This thread can be referenced in any of those discussions.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yesterday I asked Jrkso one last time not to remove reliable sources such as Amin Saikal's book "Modern Afghanistan: A History of Struggle and Survival", "one of the five best books on Afghanistan" according to the Wall Street Journal, or a book by the United States Institute of Peace and Roy Gutman. I also told him not to flag Human Rights Watch as "dubious". As the warning went unheard I have taken it here since the administrator Tariqabjotu already knows Jrkso's history of edit warring on another topic. —JCAla (talk) 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I have now taken it to WP:ANI. Thanks for you time and efforts to solve this issue by mediation, Torchwood Who?.—JCAla (talk) 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Livejournal
I'm having some problems with editors who wish to add original research and editorialization to Livejournal concerning their recent changes to allow users to link their LJ accounts to Facebook. I believe that much of what is being written at our article is true, but non-neutral and unsourced. I've run out of reversions according to WP:3RR and in any case a third opinion would be helpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, are you referring to editors who wish to add references to their otherwise, non-notable blogs to our LiveJournal article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that would be straightforward enough. The issue here is that (1) LiveJournal changed their code to allow their users to link their Facebook accounts to their LivejJournal accounts, so that (if the user chose to make this link) any new blog posts or comments would be automatically echoed on Facebook; (2) they posted about it on their internal news blog; (3) as happens every time LiveJournal changes anything, thousands of users screamed bloody murder in the news blog post's comments about how horrible the change is; (4) a few of these users are trying to get their editorializations about how horrible it is included in our Wikipedia article, using only the internal news blog post as a source. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, you're saying that "LiveJournal did not acknowledge or respond to any of the user complaints" is being sourced to the comments here. Or are you saying that it's OR to draw the conclusion that there's no acknowledge in the blog post?  Either way is bad.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which it is, but as you say either is bad. Fortunately it seems to be settling down; there have been no more article-space edits since my last revert (the one just before I posted here) and instead there's been some discussion on the talk page. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I'd call this a reliable source or not, but there is this. :-/ -Atmoz (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement
There is a dispute going on about this article, concerning my extensive rewrite. Please see this thread and the article talk page. BillMasen (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Photo dispute
I would like some assistance in a dispute over a photo. I upload a non-free image to use in the article Hal Block of Block meeting General Patton. The photo was removed when I put it up for FAC. I am not concerned over the FAC, but only that I feel the photo is important to the article. The photo is located:. The FAC is at. There is also only 5 days, Sept 18, until the now-orphaned photo is deleted from Wikipedia. I fully admit I cannot be certain that I am right in my argument on the use of this photo. However, I am also unconvinced by the editor's arguments for removal. In my research Hal Block, I found no other mention that Block met Patton, so the photo acts as a source of fact and not just decorative. Any assistance would be appreciated. BashBrannigan (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to cancel this request for assistance. I can't honestly say the dispute is resolved to my satisfaction, but I'm no longer opposing the removal of the photos. Thanks, BashBrannigan (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Verify source
Kleparo.
 * An editor put the verify tag, in this article Qeparo. I'm not sure why he put it there: he either suspects I falsified the source, or doubts that Halil Inalcik is a reliable source, I don't know. The Sûret is A Copy of the Fiscal Survey of the sanjak of Albania in 1431 A.D. The entry on Qeparo/Kleparo reads: The village of Klaparos, nahiye of Sopot: houses 10, revenues 615 ase/akçe Beserks (talk) 09:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a tricky question, and probably something for the reliable sources noticeboard. But they might also not be of much use because it's an offline source and in Turkish. I am guessing that this has to do with one of the standard Balkans conflicts about who founded the village? It appears that the spelling with an L would contradict the claimed Greek etymology. The problem with these conflicts is that we usually can't trust the sources from either side because the entire Balkans area still suffers from Fitting History to Ideology Syndrome. If no "neutral" scholar has written about it, maybe the only option is to say who has written what. Hans Adler 09:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Stemonitis
I am very concerned about behavior of administrator User:Stemonitis.

I made two non-controversial edits per guidelines:
 * 
 * 

Both edits are properly reasoned also in its edit summary. User:Stemonitis immediately reverted my edits and he/she immediately threaten me on my talk page. Somebody should solve this rather immediately. Thank you. --Snek01 (talk) 06:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You could solve it, by not doing this. Stemonitis is a person, and if xe had rebuffed you in that manner, you'd be complaining.  Accord to other people what you'd want accorded to yourself.  Uncle G (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this edit (and the preceding one) and the initiation of discussion by Stemonitis at Template_talk:TaxonIds sufficiently shows their good faith. Move to close? Drmies (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Ronald Wenonah
We've had some... interesting issues with this fellow on the War of 1812 page. He's flat out just removed content he didn't like followed by inserting interesting and highly charged terms into the article. When I warned him he was treading on thin ice he roundly informed me that he only edits highly slanted articles and if I wished him to stop then my proper recourse would be to less slanted/pov way. A 10 minute tour through his contributions should point the way on this one.Tirronan (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Tirronan, when you talk about the user removing content, are you referring to their edits on Origins of the War of 1812? I went through (I believe) all their edits on War of 1812 (that's more than ten minutes: those diffs load slowly!) and found only the persistent reintroduction of that one paragraph, exemplified here, besides some minor edits. Without being able to evaluate the sources, I can say that that particular edit, repeated a half a dozen times or more, is disruptive and clearly goes against consensus--not to mention that it's not well-written and not well referenced (it reads like a brief summary of 20 pages for a student essay--and one cannot simply summarize 20 pages and leave it at that, without introducing quotations and using indirect speech, stating historical writing as fact). Then again, it seems as if consensus on the talk page is not with the user and simply reverting them, while cumbersome and frustrating, is enough. An administrator may come along and apply a stern warning to their talk page, or you may, if this goes on, request a Topic ban--ANI, which is more heavily visited than this page, is the better place for that. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Another remark, Tirronan: I don't believe you notified the editor (and you certainly didn't tell them which noticeboard you were going to use). I just left them a note on their talk page. Please do not forget that courtesy: the section on top of this page asks it of you, and it is the civil thing to do. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * O.K. and fair enough, the fellow had been warned on more than a few occasions that this was coming up, but as for actual notice board I did not. My issues with the edits besides being repetitive and poorly written was that on three occasions that he introduced as citation what in fact wasn't what the historian was saying at all.  I am not sure what it is with the War of 1812 that drives such passion but I do see it often, unfortunately it is just misplaced here.  Personally I'd be satisfied with a stern warning.  Regardless of how I view his edits, you gotta love the fellow's passion.  I'd hate to see someone blocked for that.Tirronan (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Cultural references to chronic fatigue syndrome
I am bringing this up here due to the high amount of confusion over this issue.

Concern was expressed over whether the page Cultural references to chronic fatigue syndrome met inclusion guidelines. It was prodded. I deprodded it, feeling further discussion was required. But someone kept reprodding it. Altogether, it has been prodded 3 times in the past 5 days. (According to existing policy, an article is rarely supposed to be prodded more than once, never more than twice, and there should never be a prod edit war)

I tried merging it to Chronic fatigue syndrome, thinking that would be the solution. An IP undid the merge.

Someone claimed that there was already a discussion held, and that discussion should determine the outcome. Still, I did not feel this was a proper Afd-like discussion, and it should not be used.

I tried starting a discussion on Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome, but even though a lot of people are in favor of deletion, I still feel this is insufficient. Tatterfly (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you will find 8 to 1 is a pretty strong consensus. See here. [] StevieNic (talk) 07:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said on the talkpage, the merged content is of absolutely abysmal encyclopedic value. No attempt is made to put random trivia in a larger framework, and there are no secondary sources (e.g. "depictions of ME/CFS in popular media - a fair show?") which I suspect do exist somewhere. JFW | T@lk  10:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the cycle that is described at User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing. Some editors don't like content in an article. Rather that dealing with it in place, they spin it out into an "in popular culture" or "cultural impact of" article. The spin-off article is nominated for deletion, and people say to merge back into the original article. The real problem here is the original editors not dealing with unwanted and poor content in place, but doing the encyclopaedist's equivalent of sweeping it under the rug by spinning it off into another article. I've handed StevieNic a final warning for edit warring. Consider this a general warning. You all know where AFD is. You're discussing it on the talk page, after all. If there is any more edit warring to repeatedly reinstate a challenged Proposed Deletion notice, when the proposed deletion procedure is amply clear that this must not happen, editing privileges will be being revoked all around. Uncle G (talk) 12:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've nominated it for deletion, as should have been done instead of edit warring. Come on people, stop squabbling, it's unseemly. Fences  &amp;  Windows  13:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

List of Star Control races and verifiability
I want to represent this conflict fairly. So here goes.

There was a recent AFD on List of Star Control races. It was started under the premise that the list did not meet the notability requirement. I added two paragraphs of information explaining why the races are notable, cited to reliable third-party sources. Someone else added third-party sources to verify individual list members. The AFD closed as no consensus. Half the editors thought the notability requirement was satisfied. Almost everyone thought the list was filled with uncited information, but only half of those opinions felt this was an issue so terrible that it required deleting the entire list.

After the AFD, I reached out and added a "clean-up" template, and started a talk page discussion. One of the delete !votes returned and began deleting entire sections, rather than wait for the discussion to unfold. I reverted him and asked him kindly to come to the talk page, and he fortunately obliged. This brings us up to speed on the issue.

I offered to improve the list to a degree, enough that people who had issue with the list to move on. They insisted that the entire list has to be verified, and not merely be verifiable. I believe this would essentially make the list into a featured list. Verifying the whole list would be a painstaking task for something that is really meant to just minimally improve the list, and allow people to move onto more pressing tasks. (Like lists that have no sources at all.) The main question is if the editor really is entitled to delete anything that is unverified, or if it's enough to remove the worst amounts of original research, and leave some level of obvious stuff unverified so long as it's verifiable. A side question: what would be the difference between a list where every statement is verified versus a featured list, besides the style of prose?

I would appreciate an uninvolved third-opinion at Talk:List_of_Star_Control_races. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * When the list is all sourced to one fictional franchise, why is it difficult to source all of the races? Jclemens (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's possible to source all of it to the game itsef, assuming it's not original research. Would you mind chiming in over at the list talk page, just to centralize the discussion? Shooterwalker (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Nola art house


I have no idea what to make of this article, nor the various wholly different versions in the history. If anyone else can distinguish what is encyclopaedic, what is vandalism and if anything at all is worth keeping then be my guest. CIreland (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty much nothing is encyclopaedic. The revisions after the first are either twaddle or good faith attempts to clean up twaddle.  Even the first revision is glaringly wrong.  1614 Esplanade Avenue, New Orleans wasn't founded in 2005, and is properly called Aleix House, after Joseph Aleix (see pp. 86 of Christovich et al., cited in the aforelinked).   wasn't really writing an article, but rather was advertising an art project; and  was more concerned with artistic fancy than encyclopaedist factual correctness.  This is bad content at the wrong title. Uncle G (talk) 11:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Acting white
'Acting white' currently has a paragraph reading:

''Commentator Steve Sailer has argued that the theory of acting white is a red herring. He has also argued that innate genetic differences in intelligence between races are the primary cause of racial differences in school success. He has, however, stated as well that acting white pressures do play some role, particularly with Hispanic-Americans.'' (Sailer's iSteve Blog: Aversion to "Acting White" Worse Problem for Hispanics than Blacks - isteve.blogspot.com June 7, 2005)

Given the controversial history of this guy, is it really worth quoting him? It's a bit like quoting David Duke. Any opinions? Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that the source would fall under WP:SPS doesn't discount its value. However, I think that entire paragraph should be killed as it seems to be fluff, and doesn't really add anything to the article that isn't already there.  Whose Your Guy (talk) 23:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Teresa Lewis
Teresa Lewis is an article about a woman who was executed last week by the Commonwealth of Virginia. She was the first woman to be executed in Virginia since 1912 and had an IQ of only70. As her execution approached, her case made the headlines and drew a lot of media attention. It also drew some strange editing by Wikipedians. For example, this edit took sources that said that 7,300 people had contacted the Governor to commute her execution to support a claim that "Lewis and her defense attorneys failed in more than 7300 appeals [13] [14] including three US Supreme Court appeals [15] [16] to stay the execution." User:WWGB is engaging in original research or worse. Racepacket (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Great Leap Forward page
This edit history documents what I am complaining about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Leap_Forward&diff=385999654&oldid=385996585

Five reputable sources identify that "Great Leap Backward" is a phrase used to describe China's "Great Leap Forward", including the Harvard scholar Roderick MacFarquhar (acknowledged as a major Chinese history expert and author of a well-regarded book on this period in China's history), historian Huaiyin Li of the University of Texas, two popular media sources (Time and the New York Times) and a guide to the AP World History exam, edited by historian Deborah Vess at Georgia College and State University, explaining the "Great Leap Forward" to would-be takers of the AP test. All five of the sources specifically use this phrase to contradict the assumption built into the term that China experienced some sort of leap forward during this period in history.

The main reason given for the deletion of this segment of the lead is that referring to the period as a "Great Leap Backward" constitutes taking a side and establishing a point of view (WP:POV). The phrase "Great Leap Forward" itself, however, involves a point of view. That is why these historians and journalists have gone out of their way to use this phrase to directly contradict this built-in premise.

Because WP:COMMONNAME specifically allows non-neutral terminology to be used in titles of articles, my previous efforts to find a more neutral title for the article have been rejected. This being the case, I have made an effort instead to ensure that the lead reflects that there do exist persons who reject this term's accuracy. My concern is that people will be confused by the title and end up searching somewhere on the page for clarity about whether the "Great Leap Forward" actually involved some kind of a great leap forward for China. The AP World History exam prep book I cited as a source specifically contradicts this because of the pretty clear concern that those first learning about this period in Chinese history would get the wrong idea because this term "Great Leap Forward" is used to describe the period. Wikipedia never contradicts this assumption that would otherwise likely be made.

It has also been suggested that my additions violate WP:CHERRY. If this were true, then there would be some collection of sources that establish that the "Great Leap Forward" really involved a great leap forward, which I am ignoring, and instead substituting a small number of sources more conducive to my viewpoint. To my knowledge, there are a tiny number of sources, mostly from committed Maoists, that argue that the "Great Leap Forward" was not uniformly horrible, but I am unaware of any large number of reputable sources making the claim that the "Great Leap Forward" involved a great leap forward. There are, on the other hand, numerous sources suggesting the contrary. So that argument doesn't seem plausible.

Comments also suggest my additions violate WP:EDITORIAL. This seems to be based on the idea that it is in-bounds to say that the Great Leap Forward movement "ended in catastrophe" (the actual language currently on the page) but observing that numerous historians and journalists therefore call it a "Great Leap Backward" is out-of-bounds. These are both objective statements. It did end in catastrophe, and notable historians and journalists have termed it the "Great Leap Backward" as a result.

It seems to me that any edit which expunges from the record five sources derived from the analysis of China/world history experts and world affairs journalists demonstrates a pretty clear lack of respect for WP:RS sourcing. Wikipedia is in a scary situation when people delete a statement with five proper and reputable sources because they contradict the assumption built into the article's misleading title. Wikipedia is supposed to reveal facts, not conceal them.

Can editors please look in on the debate at Talk:Great Leap Forward? Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It is utterly false that "historians and journalists have gone out of their way to use this phrase"—that is, Zachary's favorite new phrase he is using to advance his "truth", "Great Leap Backwards"—when referring to the Great Leap Forward. An instant search on Google web, Google books, and Google Scholar will tell you that much. No one is arguing (not even the Chinese government) that the Great Leap Forward was actually a great leap forward, but the neutral description of the famine and deaths already gives the requisite clarity, as the description of the Hundred Years War (which really wasn't a hundred years) does for its subject. This argument for the inclusion of Zachary's contentious statement, with reference to sources, is relatively new; the bulk of the argument for his changes is that Wikipedia should promote "truth": sources were fished out to support them later, as the article and talk history shows. Quigley (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * May I request to know whether, by using the word truth in quotes in the above comment, Quigley is accusing me of lying? If he is suggesting that I believe certain things are true and capable of being verified, then of course I do.  But if he is suggesting that my "truth" is not the real one, then he's saying I'm lying.  I think that would, in that case, properly count as a WP:UNCIVIL remark.  May I ask which implication he is making?  Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No; I was directly quoting you from, in which to people who said that neutrally stating the facts of the deaths and not editorializing was adequate, you replied, "Saying the truth is saying the truth, but admitting that it's the truth is horribly slanted." You have made it clear that the name you are pushing is The Truth, in contrast to the sources' name, which is The Lies. This advocacy is antithetical to Wikipedia. Quigley (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Could I ask whomever is ultimately to be responding to this dispute to read that edit Quigley just posted. It's quite clear from the context that's not what I was saying.  I have no more access to The Truth in capital letters than anyone else.  I was saying that it seemed odd to me that numerous examples of how bad the Great Leap Forward was could not be followed with an acknowledgment that, indeed, historians and journalists have drawn that obvious inference.  The analysis of WP:RS sources is from where we should be drawing our conclusions, and I provided five examples of how historians and journalists, in fact, did draw that inference.  That not every article or book that's ever been written uses the phrase "Great Leap Backward" is not the point; the point is that several did, and indeed some are written by reknowned China experts.  I must say that I'm the most upset that the reference to Roderick MacFarquhar, who is listed at the end of the article as the author of a well-received book our readers are suggested to consult for further information, was deleted.  Dr. MacFarquhar is a Harvard political scientist who has written extensively about Chinese politics.  Note his Google Scholar citation list, with numerous highly-regarded works on Chinese politics and history.  Here's what MacFarquhar said in the reference I added:

Looking back on those grim days, Chinese economists are harsh in their condemnation. Hsueh Mu-ch'iao, now the doyen of his profession, has talked about the "colossal waste and disproportion". Sun Yeh-fang described the leap as a "disruption of socialism". Lo Keng-mo, once a Vice Chairman of the State Planning Commission, has said "the great leap forward became a great leap backward".

The figures confirm that judgment.


 * As you can see, an acknowledged Chinese politics expert - as clear of a WP:RS source as there ever was - is quoting a senior Chinese official using this characterisation. And then he, in his professional opinion as a political scientist, confirms that the term is a reasonable characterisation.  There is no part of this that indicates that anyone is making a "joke" or a "pun", or even that this is meant as a "pejorative".  It's a serious and professional characterisation of how the "Great Leap Forward" was, in fact, the opposite of what those words mean. Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You are stretching it too far. Mr. MacFarquhar did not make any comment about the appropriateness of the term "Great Leap Forward", nor did Lo Keng-mo, who actually even used Great Leap Forward literally in the "characterization" to describe the initial years (the GDP did grow for a time). Mr. MacFarquhar did not endorse the term; he simply did not disparage it. Its use, as exemplified by the the AP test guide, is as an easy-to-remember catchphrase to quickly categorize the event as "bad". It helps none in understanding the event, which as with all events, had good elements and bad elements. Luckily, unlike politicians (whom Mr. MacFaquhar ultimately quoted), or exam pamphlet makers, Wikipedia can explore the nuances of the Great Leap Forward and neutrally describe the consequences, without making any judgments about whether they were progress or regress, attributed or not. Quigley (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not stretching it at all. "The figures confirm that judgment" is what he said, and the judgment he was referring to is the judgment that "the great leap forward became a great leap backward".  I am quoting him directly.  Your interpretation of what MacFarquhar "really meant" is WP:OR, if that term has any meaning at all.


 * Can I just ask when any editors plan on getting involved in regulating this dispute? Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Reminder: this is not "what MacFarquhar" said, it is what he quoted, and he quoted the Chinese Vice Chairman of the State Planning Commission, who was the one who actually used the phrase, speaking in capacity of the government. I don't need OR to know the government's recent position on the GLF; because they are quite open about it, and I wrote about that a bit on the article itself. Quigley (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe it is as plain as it could be that MacFarquhar was both quoting the official and agreeing, in his capacity as a political scientist, with the substance of what the quoted official was saying. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No; saying that the figures support that it was a sharp economic decline is not implicitly commenting on the propriety of the phrase. That phrase only appears once in his book, and that is in that quote of the Vice Minister. If he "agreed" with it, and felt that it was an imperative framing device as you seem to believe, wouldn't he have used it more in the book? He didn't, because explaining the details of the Great Leap Forward is enough; no need for petty name-calling. Quigley (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That is your interpretation. What MacFarquhar actually said is what is at issue here.  He was not equivocal on the matter.  He agreed unreservedly with the official he was quoting.  Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * He absolutely did not "agree unreservedly with the official he was quoting"; his quote was quite sanitary and detached from his professional endorsement. Quoted, "The figures confirm that judgment". That is, that the Great Leap Forward at one point went into sharp decline. He didn't say, "The phrase 'Great Leap Forward' is misleading, and I recommend people use 'Great Leap Backwards' instead"; that must be your interpretation. Quigley (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I think rename would work about as well as if the title were Great Society. That is, not. Do academics have any neutral alternate name for it? I see nothing wrong with "Backward" (nonneutral) being part of a balanced breakfast (lead). JJB 05:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of a yet to air TV show in the general topic entry Polygamy
I reverted two recent additions of information about the same new television show, Sister Wives from Polygamy since I do not believe the show is notable enough to be included in such a general topic article. In fact the show hasn't even premiered yet. One of the editors who added the material seems agnostic about the issue now, but the other is arguing with me rather aggressively to put the information back in. Is this really encyclopedic information? It appears to be promotional in my mind, and certainly not notable enough yet. Am I wrong? Please see Talk:Polygamy. Any input from outside parties would be appreciated here. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Aggressively' !? I don't think so ... I reverted this guy's deletion of my edit ONCE and continued talking about it on the appropriate page. My belief is that this new show is VERY notable simply because of the fact that it will be the one & only show dealing with this (illegal) practice; TLC has invested much time and money and is probably taking a big risk by showing it. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 23:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * p.s. <I>It is good to see that he worked all three of his 'reasons' for deleting it here; on the talk page he claims that he has only given one reason for deleting it ever</I> ? 23:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The show merited an interview, done by Joyce Behar and aired by CNN. Also, last time I checked, "notable" was a criteria for article topics, not individual items of article content. FiveRings (talk) 05:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The policy, WP:N is for stand alone articles, but I meant notable more generally. The real question is whether or not this information is important enough to the topic to be included.  The information does not help explain anything about the topic.  It is just an example of the topic in pop culture. The notability issue is just to point out that it isn't even a notable piece of pop culture yet.  There was an interview on CNN, and that's great, but this is what shows do to promote themselves.  All upcoming shows and films do promotion before they premier.Griswaldo (talk) 12:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The "notability" here is the changing social mores in America, as reflected by pop culture. There was a fictional TV show, and now there's a reality show. This would have been unthinkable ten years ago, much like gay foster parents would have been unthinkable 25 years ago. The section can be written with this as its basis, and the show as an example.FiveRings (talk) 12:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no show. There is a show yet to be aired this evening.  Don't we have to draw a line somewhere?  When yet to be released shows and films get plugged into general topic entries it raises a red flag to me, but maybe I'm alone in that.Griswaldo (talk) 12:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This is what is known as a "self-limiting problem". Wait a few hours.... FiveRings (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * <B> ... Done.</B> <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 03:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

New issues
Now the the show has aired and editors are working on an entry for the show itself I have not reverted the addition of the information, however one editor added a hatnote at the top of the entry to direct people to the TV series entry and Duke53 claims that the information should not go in the section for "popular culture" but the section on "Mormonism". In my view the addition of a hatnote is completely undue, and the other move makes little sense.Griswaldo (talk) 11:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Is non-breaking space useful in Taxobox?
Example:.


 * Template documentation Template:Taxobox does not mention any use of non-breaking space in taxobox. The Documentation explicitely mention two examples how such cases should be solved:
 * Endangered (IUCN 3.1)[1]
 * Synonyms[2]
 * Manual of Style does not mention any use of non-breaking space in cases similar to taxoboxes.
 * Manual of Style mention "Place inline citations after any punctuation such as a comma or period, with no intervening space." But it unfortunately does not mention that it also apply in non-fluent text.
 * No featured article uses non-breaking space in taxobox. No featured list uses non-breaking space.

If it is useful, add such information in both guidelines. If it is not useful, add such informations in both guidelines. It is really annoying to be under threats when I edit compatibly with guidelines and other editor interpret guidelines in different way. --Snek01 (talk) 12:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I consider it useful to separate the reference note from the text in a table or infobox. This separation would normally be achieved by punctuation in running text, but we certainly don't want to add needless punctuation to infoboxes just to produce that effect. A non-breaking space does that job just as well, and with no visual clutter. A table or infobox is all about displaying information effectively, and gluing the reference marker to the end of the preceding text hinders this.


 * Sometimes there are aspects which are not covered by guidelines, and sometimes they also don't need to be. We need to avoid instruction creep, and keep our editing advice as simple as possible. I don't think we need a rule about the uses of spaces before references in tables and boxes, and I don't think this is the appropriate place for such a discussion anyway. I present here (right) a comparison so that other editors can decide whether one or other system is really so damaging as to require a blanket ban. (Note that the kerning is so tight when the text is italic, as is usually the case with scientific names, that the horizontal limits of the text can overlap with those of the reference tag.)
 * Personally, I favour a tolerant approach to style, whereby minor variations in stylistic issues are allowed across Wikipedia provided individual articles are internally consistent. I accept that other people may not want to follow my lead in adding spaces; I do not intend to force my opinions on others. It also follows that I do not see any need to regulate minuscule harmless variations, or to spend much time discussing them. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * They are also very, very useful to keep lengthy variety names all in one piece. Compare this without non-breaking spaces, to this version with. First Light (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. We are solving here another example, before inline references. --Snek01 (talk) 10:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Everybody has follow Manual of Style: "Place inline citations after any punctuation such as a comma or period, with no intervening space." --Snek01 (talk) 10:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not like that: there are no must do rules (for constructive editors; see WP:5P). WP:MOS starts with the observation that common sense should be employed, and exceptions will occur. I have no firm view regarding the issue, but my inclination would be to prefer simplicity and consistency over a possibly small appearance improvement. Johnuniq (talk) 11:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Turpan/Turfan
Need an outside opinion at Talk:Turpan. There's been an ongoing dispute about whether to name the article Turpan or Turfan; there was an RfC in which all but one editor spoke up in favor of Turfan, but the one other editor there is insisting that there is no consensus and move-warring. <b class="IPA">r<font color="#8B0000">ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a similar problem with Suyab. A guy whose name I can't spell here removes the Chinese spelling (the town was controlled by China for much of its history). --Ghirla-трёп- 13:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Chuck Taylor All-Stars
Requesting all interested and concerned editors to please comment at an active discussion undergoing in Talk:Chuck Taylor All-Stars regarding two proposals about the current content. Thank you, Phearson (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Additional input requested at an AFD
I would appreciate some additional input at this AFD about a television reporter's biography. She submitted some translations of articles about her via emails to OTRS. I've added information about them, but only two participants have since commented in the discussion (mostly to argue with each other). I am uncertain whether anyone else has the discussion watchlisted. Additional input, considering these new sources, would be appreciated. (Since I am corresponding with the subject via OTRS, I am recusing myself from the discussion.) Thank you.--Chaser (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have closed the AFD discussion. Uncle G (talk) 13:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Etymology and toponomy of Golan heights
A user has repeatedly added text that I believe has nothing to do with etymology and toponomy to the Etymology and toponomy section of the Golan heights:

The text is: "During Roman and Byzantine periods the area was administered as part of Phoenicia Prima, Syria Palaestina and finally Golan/Gaulanitis was included together with Peraea in Palaestina Secunda after A.D. 218. Ancient kingdom Bashan was incorporated into province of Batanea."

I have tried to talk with him at the talkpage, he claims it is mentioned by sources in toponomy context, but I don't see that it is, the text is already in the history section and he keeps on adding the text repeatedly to the etymology or etymology section:

What do others feel about this text, is it about etymology and toponomy?

The same user has also removed terminology used by the United Nations from the same Etymology and toponomy section. All the text in question can be seen removed/added here: Other opinions are appreciated. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. Generally couple of weeks ago, etymology was lacking refs and based totally on WP:CK. The article is under 1RR Probation Reminder. This specific change is discussed here, I guess this discussion was opened to continue stone walling, however I might be totally wrong ;) BTW, there is additional discussion also here. Is it shopping for more opinion? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Fantasy Casting being included in Final Fantasy 7 character pages
You can find the original discussion in the page Talk:Cloud Strife. The basic gist of the issue is, one day while just going through pages for Final Fantasy 7 characters, I noticed the characters that had their own pages had mentions of a article where there was a fantasy casting done for them and listed an actor for who should play them in a feature film. I removed them and listed several reasons in the talk page above so that someone could remove the one from Cloud's page as well since it is locked. The original user has since reverted them, and demanding a consensus before they were removed. It has since gone on, with several other users chiming in one the side of removing the casting mention. Some of the reasons for removal are;
 * They do not add anything to the actual discussion and analysis of the character within their appearances in the media for which they've appeared so far.
 * Fantasy casting is touchy subject that can cause many fan arguments and could lead to edit wars with editors trying to put up whoever they feel is right for the role.
 * It shows a biased viewpoint in showing only one view on the subject, which has dozens of options and would take up way too much room to showcase all of them to keep it in a neutral point of view.
 * Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A FF7 live-action movie is completely hypothetical at this point and there are no reliable sources saying one is happening, so there should be no reason for anything discussing such a thing in the articles.

Those are some of the basic arguments that have been presented, and not refuted by the other user, and again, there has not been a consensus for keeping these suggestions in the articles, but one for removing them instead. I'm asking for someone to help this out and maybe to make a final call on this. If I'm within my rights, I'll go ahead and remove them again myself, or wait for whoever makes the final call to do it themselves should it go that way. Thank you for your time. 68.55.153.254 (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)