Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 100

Dangerous advice on Scar page
I'm concerned that an editor keeps adding Treatments to the article without reaching consensus on the talk page. One of the treatments is a common prescription pharmaceutical; the other is bee venom. While we all know that wikipedia doesn't give medical advice, I'm worried that someone with access to another person's pharmaceuticals will try it. The pharmaceutical can be dangerous. I'm also worried that someone may decide to use bee venom on themselves or another person without knowing if they are allergic, thus precipitating anaphylactic shock. Obviously, these risks should be mentioned in a well written summary, but there is no valid evidence that these treatments even work so no valid risk assessment. I'm trying not to be a jerk, but I'm very worried that someone will get killed over this. Rknight (talk) 04:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I see valid arguments on all sides. Great caution  should be exercised when including  treatments on  pages about anatomy or medicine. All possible sources should be quoted for balance and caveats. That said, I'm  not  a medic, and I  suggest you both agree to make a request for opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine where other mediacally qualified editors may offer some suggestions. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi its VeryVery20 here from the scar page. I'm the one Rknight is talking about I think. He (RKnight) is trying to associate bee venom with ace inhibitors in order to discredit ace inhibitors, if you look carefully IMO it is clear he is trying to suppress the Ace Inhibitor bit by associating it with the bee venom bit.

Now if you look again you can see there is nothing at all dangerous with regards to the Ace Inhibitor bit IMO. Here is what I've wrote on the talk page people:

Rk Knight is IMO trying hide information about Ace inhibitors in the scar article... Here is the recent piece he(Rknight) has pulled out people:

'ACE inhibitors block the conversion of angiotensin I to angiotensin II. The increase of angiotensin II increases expression of α-smooth muscle actin (α-SMA) and myofibroblast proliferation. ' (<<-- BTW if you read the article myofibroblast proliferation is implicated in scarring)

'An Ace inhibitor Enalapril at a low dose, over a set period, has been shown inhibit to resolve hypertrophic scarring completely and reduce keloid scarring. Another ace inhibitor, a 5% Captopril solution has also been shown to reduce the fibrotic tissue in keloids.  An ace inhibitor called Losartan has reversed fibrosis in end stage liver disease in a small study. Another major independent study across Europe is underway.

Ace inhibitors inhibit, suppress or kill myofibroblast activity.

He has also accused me of putting undue weight and not of using independant sources.

SERIOUSLY 1. IS THERE ANYTHING IN THERE THAT HAS UNDUE WEIGHT?

2. IS THERE ANYTHING IN THERE THAT DOESN'T HAVE INDEPENDANT SOURCES.

3. ALSO AS THERE IS NO UNDUE WEIGHT, IS THERE ANYTHING IN THEIR THAT IS DANGEROUS?

4. WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO ATTACH THIS TO THE BEE VENOM PIECE (WHICH IMO IS EQUALLY VALID, BUT I CAN SEE SOME IGNORANT PEOPLE MIGHT KNEE JERK AT IT) As you can see the cites are correct and valid and it is probably one of the safest written pieces in the article.

So why are you trying to suppress rthis using inaccurate finger pointing with association RKnight?

I'm not at all happy about this.

BTW regarding the above I know it looks like I'm shouting but I'm not (just regard thos as highlighting, I need the attention here because he is continuing to point and he is ignoring this), I just want this addressed. It seems he is pointing the finger and not correctly addressing the concerns about this finger pointing.--Veryvery20 (talk) 11:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)--Veryvery20 (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a note, the part that you didn't put in bold/caps lock was the first part I read. I understand if you believe you need the attention, but a clear, concise, well thought out statement will get more attention than what would be assumed a bold/caps lock ridden comment.  Contrary to what you might think, an entire section in caps lock is more likely to be ignored than read.  With that said, I highly doubt he was trying to supress the information; if that were the case Editor assistance would not have been the place to go. ;)  I think he just wants to make sure that the information adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines, and you want to make sure the information is accurate and available, and there's nothing wrong with either one.  Don't look at it as him attacking you or trying to supress information (as I doubt that is the case), neither of you are wrong, you just believe differently on how this article should be presented.  If you could, I would kindly ask that you un-caps lock and un-bold your comments, as it is a bit unwieldy to the eye. :) - SudoGhost (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

SudoGhost, I wasn't the one who brought the complaint up, my idea was to discuss this on the talk page and then reedit with a compromise taking in his input. If I had've complained I would've went to the place you suggested. IMO he seems to have an aggressive urgency to get this sorted. Anyway the response you have seen was a cut and paste of what I posted on the scar talk page. I was in a hurry.--Veryvery20 (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I didn't bother to read that badly formatted and not very coherent comment. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Veryvery20 - the source for that statement (as you've given it) is an AIDS advocacy group, which on first blush is probably not a reliable source for this kind of thing. It would be better if you could find a secondary scholarly source that shows that bee venom or ACE inhibitors are accepted, mainstream treatments for scarring.  If it's cutting edge medicine without extensive acceptance, or something derived from alternative or folk medicine, then it might not be right to use it on the article, and it should certainly be carefully attributed so that people know it not a generally accepted treatment.  Don't let your enthusiasm for the idea throw the article out of balance; try to think of the bigger picture of the topic and put this in its proper perspective.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ludwig, In this case I'm not here complaining about the Bee Venom deletion (I refuse to associate them both together, they are both equally valid dont get me wrong here, it is just one is alternative and one is not. My worry with complaining about both of them together it might get them lumped into together and I imagine the knee jerk prejudice the Bee Venom citation could get may rub off on the Ace Inhibitor info giving a false impression. IMO I think RKnight has been very unwittingly/wittingly slippery/cunning lumping them together to paint them with the same brush). I'm here complaining about the deletion of sound cited encyclopedic information with regards to the ace inhibitors. The citations are all from notable university studies and they all fit in with what is known about myofibroblast proliferation in scar. These studies with captopril, enalapril and losartan are better than most that is currently in the article itself.--
 * AIDS advocacy??? Ludwig these are the citations I'm concerned with:

ACE Inhibitors (Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors) http://www.medicinenet.com/ace_inhibitors/article.htm Inhibition of cardiac myofibroblast formation and collagen synthesis by activation and overexpression of adenylyl cyclase www.pnas.org/content/102/2/437.short Low-Dose Enalapril in the Treatment of Surgical Cutaneous Hypertrophic Scar and Keloid http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1868346 Treatment of a Postburn Keloid Scar with Topical Captopril: http://www.drnemati.com/files/PRS%20article.pdf Liver Disease 'Shrunk' By Blood-pressure Drug http://www.natap.org/2009/HCV/060509_01.htm As you can see the information on ace inhibitor is concentrated with sources. Veryvery20 (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is little point in trying to discuss the merits of various edits here. Kudpung has suggested getting advice from the Medicine project, which is an excellent idea.  If you cannot resolve your differences on the talk page, please consider raising a WP:RFC. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you editors, I think we've resolved my biggest issue, edit warring and not using the talk page to reach consensus on the topic. I find it amusing that VeryVery is now claiming credit for this idea, but I guess the important thing is that everybody is (mostly) following policy now. Rknight (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Error on Tax Foundation page?
A good portion of the recent edit history, and the edits themselves, are not displaying on Tax Foundation. I copied the content into my sandbox, where all the content does display. I looked for citation/comment errors, but did not locate any. Help in remedying this issue is appreciated.--E8 (talk) 08:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a problem with my account in general. Other main page edits are now not displaying.  Is there significant lag on the mainspace servers?--E8 (talk) 08:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The latest edit I see to that page is 08:55 with the comment (per 990). Sometimes there are server lags. Have you tried refreshing your browser cache? Jezhotwells (talk) 08:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I restarted my browser and things are now displaying properly.  Check this one off as resolved!--E8 (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Another editor, User:K.slauter, has added coverage of a recent legal dispute involving B&Q. I do not feel that the case is noteworthy and so deleted the mention of it from the article, the user re-added the content and has so far refused to discuss the matter on the article or his own talk page. Not really sure how to approach an unresponsive editor?  raseaC talk to me 20:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If the edit warring continues, consider reporting at WP:3RR. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Although the user did not add the content correctly and should not have edit-warred, the information is reliably sourced and could be added carefully to the article without offending neutrality or weight rules. I commented on the Talk page. Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

help required
It is regarding an external link. It was approved and was there for a month, suddenly some one delete it!.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronym_and_initialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acronyms_and_initialisms

there was no messages why it was deleted!

Can anyone help me to find who is removing it every time and what is the reason??

thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acroman007 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look in the article history you will see who deleted it, User:Themfromspace. You should ask them why, before just re-inserting it, either on the article talk page or on their own talk page.  Most of the external links on those articles look like spam links, in my opinion. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you in some way affiliated with this website? Rehevkor ✉  11:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As a note, I'm removed the link again, and posted an explanation on the talk page. - SudoGhost (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Caller
I;ve made changes to this page and someone has tried to ban me and keeps reverting it. Everything I wrote is true and cited but the vandal has a login name and I do not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.34.77 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 12 April 2011


 * The above is a vandal and sockpuppet related to 98.209.212.144, 173.122.85.176, and 67.243.131.124. He or she has a history of inserting highly non-neutral language without sources, as seen on the edits here. Bans are strongly recommended as he or she completely refuses to stop using multiple accounts in abuse of Wikipedia policy. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * For example, the above user turned (The Daily Caller is a political journalism website based in Washington, D.C., United States with a focus on original reporting and breaking news, ) into (The Daily Caller is a yellow journalism website based in Washington, D.C., United States with a focus on politics, original reporting, breaking news, neoconservative ideology, and YouTube videos,) with no sourcing. See here. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would strongly urge you to stop reverting and let some uninvolved editors or admins get involved. I have issued the IP a 3RR warning, but I'm not really sure its clear socking or vandalism, the current IP you are reverting has not made the same edits, and you have reverted more then 3 times as well. Monty  845  20:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This is nonsense. You see a person abusing multiple accounts. I've posted that clear as crystal. How is that acceptable Wikipedia policy? Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * And there's no way calling something "yellow journalism", with no sources, is not vandalism. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is an WP:NPOV violation, not vandalism. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  21:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not allowed to remove other people's talk page posts as you did, , , . These posts are not vandalism; they are talk page comments. -- Diannaa (Talk) 21:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a report filed by someone else open at the edit war notice board Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. Monty  845  21:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 70.90.34.77 geolocates to Detroit; 98.209.212.144 geolocates to Kansas City; 173.122.85.176 geolocates to Overland Park, Kansas; and 67.243.131.124 geolocates to Richmond Hill, NY. These are likely not sock puppets  but likely at least three distinct users. -- Diannaa  (Talk) 21:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Re-indent And those three made the exact same edits through what? A Vulcan mind-meld? I recommend using another test. But, in any case, thank God you all are here. I can now finally disengage from the article totally as you wash out this vandal. It's already been a waste of time and unnecessary heightened blood pressure. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

For page titled "Sangamon State University"
While SSU has become UIS, I think it is relevant to put the original history of the campus before it became UIS. Wondering if you would open the page up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apric2 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah you have found a redirect page. You could edit the page to become a history of the original institution, but I think it would be better to include a brief history in the University of Illinois at Springfield article. In any case, the best place to start would be to initiate a discussion on the talk page at Talk:University of Illinois at Springfield. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Creating An Artist Page and Posting His Biography And Other Info.
I have written a biography for a new young artist, very famous in his country and somewhat famous in others. I have the artists' consent to the content and he had posted it on his facebook and Myspace pages. I would like to create a page for this artist on Wikipedia and include that biography, however, I am inexperienced in Wikipedia and do not wish for my page/article to be deleted. I would like to do it the correct way considering Wikipedia policies. So, my question is, Can I send my article to Wikipedia editors/approvers to review it and advise me whether it is in violation or not and what I should do to change that if it turns out to be inviolation of the policies. Thank you for your help, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mona MG (talk • contribs) 09:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. You can create a draft page in your user space, e.g. User:Mona MG/Artist page, where "Artist page" would be replaced by the name of the artist. You could then request WP:FEEDBACK.  (Click on blue links to reach the relevant paqes.)  To survive as an article in the encyclopaedia you need to demonstrate the notability of the subject against the criteria.  Notability is not the same as fame, and any assertion of it needs to be verified by reliable third party sources.  Also note that if you have ant connection with the subject of the article, you need to read and understand our conflict of interest policies. I have left some useful links on your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Vasectomy
To whom it may concern: It has become necessary for me to request intervention in an edit content dispute on vasectomy with User:Dijcks. Full details are available at Vasectomy Talk. The user is repeatedly inserting unsupported point-of-view claims with combative edit summaries. He has reverted at least three of my edits today, has reverted multiple edits of mine during the past month, and has made highly misleading characterizations of my motives. Full details are available at Vasectomy Talk and the relevant histories. Sincerely, Giancoli (talk) 02:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks to  me like 'six-to-one and half-a-dozen to  the other'. Please see admin Philippe's comment,  action, and suggestions today  at  the article talk page.  --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Changes to the Mefloquine page
JMH649 made significant changes to the Mefloquine page.

As an ER doctor, he has as much expereience as a dentist to make the edits to the previous sections. He removed papers from the noted experts and researchers regarding this drug.

Yet he left the paper that is published by drug comapny employees and a paid researcher.

His only experience with this medication is that he took it himself and did not have a reaction.

I must assume that Wikipedia would hold to a higher standard than this when it comes to medcial review.

Please restore it to they way it was last week.

Thanks,

Moewackit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moewackit (talk • contribs) 05:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, firstly, please place your specific concerns about the article on the talk page, Talk:Mefloquine so that they can be addressed by editors working on the article. In the second place your comments about another editor are out of place.  Wikipedia does not require that editors be experienced in the fields that they write about.  I have no idea whether the other editor is qualified, or whether you know what you talk about. i see nothing particularly untoward about the other edits made. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Moewackit edits where an addition of primary research to said article. This is against WP:MEDRS. I have replaced them with review articles. Moe is free to us review articles to make additions aswell. Cheers. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors,

I have been providing updates to the Mefloquine page for several years now.

a contibutor anemd Doc James came in and completely butchered the page.

His only reasoning is that he took the drug and was one of the lucky ones who did not havbe a reaction to it. THis is hardly clinical research...

He removed papers for Dr. Geoffrey Dow who happens to be THE primary researcher at Walter Reed Army Hospitalon Mefloquine. He removed Boudreau paper from 1993 with real double blind data on efficacy. He removed the paper from Whitman about the US Mairnes in Liberia which was co authored by Col McGill, Dow's boss at Walter Reed and Milhouse who preceeded McGill and was also part of the original FDA approval panel. These people are THE experts on Mefloquine....He removed the Ellen Embry letter. SHe is the US assistant secretary of defense and is the Army Surgeon General's boss. Her letter went to all US services, not just the Army. Essentially he eliminated all the latest peer reviewed research on mefloquine, yet you leave up two references to Schlagenhauf who is a paid consultant to Hoffman LaRouche.

As an ER doctor, he absolutley does not have the qualifications to make these changes. I can only assume he has some connection to the drug company.

The article in now completely imbalanced in favor of very old data that argues this drug is safe and effective. THe latest research shows that it is not. THis is the information Doc James removed. THis is a disservice tot he public who uses Wikipedia as an unbiased information tool.

Thanks,

Moewackit (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed the recent changes to mefloquine and the discussion at Talk:Mefloquine. Wikipedia articles about medicines should follow guidelines at Identifying reliable sources (medicine), Manual of Style (medicine-related articles), and WikiProject Pharmacology/Style guide.  I think the edits User:Jmh649 has made to the article have in general been significant improvements that fall within these guidelines. If you disagree about the removal of content related certain publications in the primary literature, I recommend that you detail your concerns on the article's talk page and explain why you think they should take precedence over reliable secondary sources.  If you can find secondary sources that support the conclusions of the primary sources that you cite, that would be particularly helpful.  I would also recommend that you conduct yourself in a more civil fashion, avoiding the kinds of personal attacks you have expressed here and elsewhere.  Accusing everyone who disagrees with you as being part of some drug company conspiracy is not going to advance your cause.  To the contrary, if you continue the personal attacks and fail to assume good faith of other editors, you may risk being blocked from editing.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Jim Wilhelmsen article
Please would a skilled administrator review this article for relevance and structure. 4/12/11

Leah/Fuzzybunny4Leah-Yvonne 07:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You can get a review at  Requests for feedback. However, two  things stand out immediately: No  inline references, and naked URLs in  the references section. See: Citing sources. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Question about some warnings?
On 108.20.63.5's talk page, The user received 2 warnings early this month. However, ClueBot NG made another April 2011 section, and put his level 1 warning. Another user made a Level 2 warning, and i reverted some vandalism by the IP and gave a level 3 warning. Shouldn't the user be reported for vandalism, as this it the 5th warning this month? Thanks for your time! Croben Problem? 16:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You are free to report at AIV yourself. There is, alas, no automated system for blocking persistent vandals. Rehevkor ✉  16:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I know, but i was wondering if I should do the report. But thank you! I'll go report. And report the new section to the owner of Cluebot. Croben  Problem? 16:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Generally warnings to an IP are disregarded after a few days because there is no way to be sure it is the same person editing who was previously warned. Unless they happen to be vandalizing the same page(s) as the previous warnings were for, restarting the warning escalation after a few days or a week is pretty fair. Monty  845  16:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Thanks! Croben Problem? 17:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Content dispute (?) in "Dyshidrosis"
I reverted a batch of unsourced claims, leaving an explanation on the talk page, and very similar content reappeared 3 days later (see Talk:Dyshidrosis). I'd like to know if I've handled things constructively so far, and also what the next step should be. &mdash;Mu Mind (talk) 03:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well talking is generally good. I have left a message on the other editor's talk page notifying them of the thread that you started on the article talk page. I also left a welcome message.  That is often the best way to start discussion with a new user as this. If you can't reach consensus, then I suggest you enlist help from the Medicine project. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. I was obviously planning on communicating further, but I had decided to stop and reevaluate first. &mdash;Mu Mind (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Bob Katter article dispute.
User Donama keeps reverting edits to the article Bob Katter which refer to the fact that Katter is Australian of Lebanese descent in the main text. The user somehow believes the fact that he is Lebanese is not relevant. There is no dispute over the fact he is Lebanese, as shown by many articles (see Bob Katter Discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bob_Katter). The Bob Katter, Sr. article regarding Bob Katter's father also includes information that he is not only Lebanese, but also that he is actually a relative of the poet Khalil Gibran.

On of the justifications Donama uses is that it may hurt Katter politically to have the fact that he is Lebanese on his Wikipedia page. There is no reason for this. Katter has not tried to hide is Lebanese heritage. Also, see the article about the Australian federal politician Joe Hockey. It states numerous time that he is of Palestinian descent. If Donama's logic is followed, all information concerning the cultural background of Australian politicians should be deleted. Donama should be blocked from editing the article.

211.30.185.44 (talk) 05:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that there has been no discussion of this on the talk page since October 2010. The talk page is the place to start discussiions, remembering to assume good faith. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

editing back and forth with user HeatherGillette over page pH(X)
The user HeatherGillette keeps removing all of the references for the article pH(x). This article now has zero references now which does not seem to be well serving the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roland0469 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC) Roland0469 (talk) 08:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The addition of "Chris Carstens now lives on a multi-million dollar estate that was purchased with the proceeds of the pH(x)[1] franchise and sales of this DEA-prohibited paraphernalia continues to increase through aggressive nationwide advertising[2]. In fact, paraphernalia sales have now become so ubiquitous[3] that even supposed 'Scientific' glass websites are now offering pH(x)[4] ." hradly seems to be encyclopaedic to me.
 * I suggest that the two of you start talking on the artcile talk page. I see that you have left an unsigned comment, which is a start of sorts. I think that inviteing to other editor to discuss, rather than slapping a vandalism template on would have been a better way to proceed. I also note that although the refrences provode, I assume by you, do back up the statements, there is little to assert the specific nmotability of this subject. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A more-experienced editor needs to look at the legal judgment/injunction just posted to the corresponding Talk page. Clearly there are some issues with the PH(x) page.  Aside, the legal history associated with this company alone makes this topic notable.--E8 (talk) 11:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well it is about time someone starting putting references to WP:RS in. I have no idea why a copy of the injunction was posted.  i have asked the editor who posted it to explain. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability is not established by independent secondary sources. "Heather Gillette" is stated in the artiole to be the owner's wife, so there are WP:COI problems. The posting of the injunction, which we are not permitted to use as a source (see WP:BLPPRIMARY), may be some sort of vague legal threat. Definitely a very problematic article, suggest it be boldy stubbed for now but don't have time to do it myself. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have blocked User:Roland0469 indefinitely due to sustained and serious violations of Biographies of living persons policy. Due to the nature of the edits he was making my warning to him was by Wikipedia email after suppressing his earlier edits. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed a statement referenced to a court filing per WP:BLPPRIMARY. In general the remaining sources don't seem reliable and don't establish notability. Not sure about the legitimacy of citing directly to a patent filing either, will check the archives over at WP:RSN. Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I also removed the patent reference, as patent filings are not reliable sources per WP:SPS. Probably a PROD in the article's near future. Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

help.
hi.how can i download a whole movie instead of only the cover page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morguezs (talk • contribs) 09:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You cannot download movies here.
 * I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 3.5 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Frank H. Lee
re. bio of frank lee joplin mo. fmr congressman etc. he founded Southwestern weekly, of which I was later edited...I updated history of the Southwestern as part of Lee bio, but keeps showing up only in dotted shadow box, not body type..sld be part of Lee story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.117.85 (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The material you added to the Lee article was completely irrelevant to his biography, and has been removed. There is no article, at present, about the shortlived newspaper called The Southwestern. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

American Constitution
What were the ratifying process for the American Constitution? By acclamation or by paper ballot? What was the majority votes of each state to ratify this amendment? And how many States needed to ratify that Amendment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.239.7 (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Pictogram voting delete.svg|20px]] Please do your own homework.
 * Welcome to Wikipedia Editor Assistance. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here not to do people's homework for them, but merely to aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn how to solve such problems.
 * Please attempt to solve the problem yourself first. You can or . If you need help with a specific part of your homework, the Reference desk can help you grasp the concept.  Do not ask knowledge questions here, just those about using Wikipedia. Danger (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't that template also suggest cracking a book? --CliffC (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Trying to avoid a potential edit war
The page in question is Bucket Bong. One editor is trying to change a picture text to what I regard to be unsourced opinion or original research. I have changed it back and posted a comment on the talk pages which was deleted initially.

The user does not have a username (only an IP address) so I cannot communicate via their talk pages. I'm fairly new to this so don't know the ins and outs of dealing with such things. Could someone check the article page and the history and tell me whether I should just leave it. Thanks. Arnie Side (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have posted about this on the IP's talk page. You are perfectly within your rights to remove un-sourced changes such as this. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taekkyeon
Hello,

I was trying to fill up a request for mediation on the above mentioned article, but was unable to do so. The article in question is not baalanced and adhering to the available information from known scholars in the field. Please see the lastest discussion on the historical section for more information. Thanks Tianshanwarrior (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well the discussion on the article talk page is still ongoing. I think that you should probably ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Removing sock edits
What is the policy on this? Does it happen automatically once a sock is confirmed? This is about fan edits by User:Cera Nola. Thanks, CliffC (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is automatic, but reversion of unsourced or unverified information should be OK. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Please take agains this user: Fida29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fida29

This user is a Islamic Fundamentalist, and he is trying to make changes in the information and put it on their way, their story, their information.

Check his all the activities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fida29 Please undo all, he is giving biased and controversial information. He is against the Independence of Bangladesh, he is a fundamentalist. He is a communal minded person. His activities declare that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharmabangla (talk • contribs) 20:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * revert and WP:WARN is the usual procedure. It should be undertaken with care. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Revisionest Chinese history?
As an armature historian and avid user of Wikipedia, I am dismayed by a series of continuous revisions that are made to Chinese history. It seems as if the Chinese Government has a team going around and changing anything that they think is embarrassing?

The case in point being that it was the Qing Emperor of china who decreed that "China is the center of the world and has everything we could ever want, therefore all goods from China must be paid for in silver!" Before that time, there was a reasonable exchange of trade with many manufactured goods from Europe, mainly England sold to China and jade and silk taken in trade. They used Mexican silver Dollars as the way to keep track. But after several corrections were posted, the same old re-written history shows up that blames the entire Opium problem on the British. China had an opium problem long before the Brits began trading with them.

How can I stop this revisionist BS?

Sincerely,

SFD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neoconshooter (talk • contribs) 00:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Which article are you talking about? And which edit? Please supply specific details if you require an answer. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Need a second set of eyes
I am putting together a sockpuppet report and as I have never done one before, I wanted to make sure I was on the right track before I actually post it over there. Right now it resides at User:Arbor8/sandbox/sandbox. At this point I'm not asking anyone to weigh in on the actual dispute, but rather just whether I'm doing this even remotely correctly. Thanks! Arbor8 (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. I would put links to the appendices at the top of the article as well. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh good call. Thanks! Arbor8 (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Detailed controversy section removed from article World Institute for Development Economics Research
The history and talk pages are clean and it is easy to see the different stages of the article. I am not going to engage in an undo war of some kind, so I am immediately asking for more opinions regarding LPU0302's deletion of my version of "Controversy".

As a Finn, I come from the perspective that the controversy concerning WIDER is what brought the organization to the public view. This can be seen from the first quotes in my now deleted section. Because of this I expect people want to learn about the details of said controversy.

It is great that user LPU0302 took the time to write a more extensive presentation defining WIDER, but the way he deals with the controversy is inadequate. His version is written in a downplaying tone and is very brief.

Suahili (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 'Comment' It seems to me the removal of some of the controversy section without discussion was part of an attempt to sanitise the article. The article now reads like one WIDER itself might have written. Eg the second sentence in the lead
 * Since its establishment it has earned a reputation as one of the world´s leading research institutes on development economics [1] and it counts amongst its researchers and associates many Nobel Laureates, Prize Winners and other world renowned experts[2]. seems to be a spin on the info in the sources.
 * I am also worried about single purpose accounts involved here. I do not know best to proceed. Perhaps I should have a go at tidying soon. (Msrasnw (talk) 07:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC))

Msrasnw: Maybe it would benefit you to contact both myself and LPU0302 privately to get a better picture of what we are trying to achieve (and discover who we are)? I was not able to email you, but maybe you have some way of emailing me as I have enabled the feature. Suahili (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am willing to help try to improve the article but would rather not get involved in any private communications. I would like to think everything could or perhaps should be done in an open fashion. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 09:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC))
 * I agree that the article reads a bit too much like a PR piece at the moment. I'm not in a position to assess whether the "controversy" section was overwritten before, or is underwritten now (it's just a sentence or two, and airily dismissed with the unsourced conclusion along the lines of "many feel it was all politically motivated in the first place".  I'll whittle away at some of the worst puffery but other editors should take a look at it as well.  JohnInDC (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I *can* opine that the current 'controversy' section is now under-written as I can't make heads or tails about what the problem was in the first place. That section could stand some expansion, with properly sourced material *and* neutral, non-inflammatory language.  It doesn't need to be near as detailed as the versions that have just been deleted.  JohnInDC (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I started to construct a more complete page on the Wider because it seemed a bit weird that the only thing written about it was how it was perceived in Finland in the mid 80s. The relevance of the institute is definitely somewhere else. I think that the controversy is an important historical point about that also explains a lot of the institutional structure today, but what Suahili had written in it was not about Wider at all but about mr. Ahtisaari and mr. Bassin. After looking at the sources and reading on the controversies of that time I think the evidence seems to suggest that there was a lot of political play with Wider that related to the presidential ambitions of Ahtisaari and Paavo Väyrynen.
 * All these issues should be found on the pages of Ahtisaari, Väyrynen, Bassin etc., rather than Wider's page. Furthermore, I doubt that newspaper stories that are written as the story progresses should be used as the primary source for the writing of the controversy part. There are some very good, Finnish language, articles written in the 90s that give quite a balanced narration of this whole thing.
 * On the topic of Wider's finances I think it has some merit in the history section, but truthfully without rumors and inflammatory language. The point is that this page should offer an overview of a development economics institute and that should be the focus.
 * In relation to the Since its establishment it has earned a reputation as one of the world´s leading research institutes on development economics [1] and it counts amongst its researchers and associates many Nobel Laureates, Prize Winners and other world renowned experts[2]. - sentence, it was backed up by two references which now stand alone apart from the main text as that was deleted. The claim that it has become one of the leading research institutes in development economics was a reference to Wider being ranked the 7th best economics think tank in the world by UPenn (fuzzy on the details now as I can not open their page). The second link was just from Widers own page listing those "renowned" people.
 * Anyways, I look forward to us coming up with a page that all of us find useful and purposeful. Sorry for the overly long outpour. --LPU0302 (talk) 11:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries about the length of your note. I have re-raised my view of the overpromotional natue of the article and possible COI issues on the article's talk page - which seems to me a better place than this. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC))
 * Ok I will rewrite this there because I think that this "controversy/scandal" thing would be best talked through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LPU0302 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Napoleon Tiara Article
I recently edited the article at Napoleon Tiara in order to correct the title of Napoleon I, which was "Emperor of the French" and not "Emperor of France", as I believe that an encyclopædia article should use the correct title. However my edit was reverted by Shajure, who accused me of silliness and/or vandalism. I attempted to contact this user through his talk page explaining my reasoning, but he did not respond, instead removing my comment with the note "Stay away". I would appreciate any advice regarding this matter. --Buybooks Marius (talk) 10:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you got any reliable sources for your assertion? Jezhotwells (talk) 11:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. There is one of the Web-sites referenced in the article Emperor of the French,, the article Popular Monarchy, also the Web-sites , , (under May 18, 1804), , . Buybooks Marius (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggest that you put this on the article talk page for discussion. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As a note, I changed it back to "of the French" and placed a reference in the article supporting the change. I did a little research, and everything I saw reflects your change, that "of the French" is correct.  - SudoGhost (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Dispute over additional information in respect to the status of legal boundaries at the onset of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War‎
Section: Background

As it now stands: .... on May 14, 1948 Israel was declared a State, with a provisional government taking charge from the moment of the termination of the Mandate on May 15.

Reason for adding additional information: Given the importance of the status of borders in any war, a reference ought be include early in the article. The Declaration itself gives everything but the extent of the actual Israeli Sovereignty and the exact time the Declaration came into effect. It is an essential part of the background in terms of where hostile forces stood at the beginning of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War and what territories, belonging to whom, were actually invaded.

Suggested addition as it currently stands: .... on May 14th 1948 Israel was declared on the strength of the United Nations General Assembly resolution enshrined in the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel. It was subsequently recognized as an independent republic within the frontiers detailed in UNGA Res 181.[http://books.google.com/books?id=LQcOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA51&dq=%22the+state+of+Israel+has+been+proclaimed+as+an+independent+republic+within+frontiers+approved+by+the+General+Assembly+of+the+United+Nations+in+its+Resolution+of+November+29,+1947,+and+that+a+provisional+government+has+been+charged+to+assume+the+rights+and+duties+of+government+for+preserving+law+and+order+within+the+boundaries+of+Israel,+for+defending+the+state+against+external+aggression,+and+for+discharging+the+obligations+of+Israel+to+the+other+nations+of+the+world+in+accordance+with+international+law.+The+Act+of+Independence+will+become+effective+at+one+minute+after+six+o%E2%80%99clock+on+the+evening+of+14+May+1948,+Washington+time%22&hl=en&ei=UjGpTZKIA5GiuQPrkp2NCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22the%20state%20of%20Israel%20has%20been%20proclaimed%20as%20an%20independent%20republic%20within%20frontiers%20approved%20by%20the%20General%20Assembly%20of%20the%20United%20Nations%20in%20its%20Resolution%20of%20November%2029%2C%201947%2C%20and%20that%20a%20provisional%20government%20has%20been%20charged%20to%20assume%20the%20rights%20and%20duties%20of%20government%20for%20preserving%20law%20and%20order%20within%20the%20boundaries%20of%20Israel%2C%20for%20defending%20the%20state%20against%20external%20aggression%2C%20and%20for%20discharging%20the%20obligations%20of%20Israel%20to%20the%20other%20nations%20of%20the%20world%20in%20accordance%20with%20international%20law.%20The%20Act%20of%20Independence%20will%20become%20effective%20at%20one%20minute%20after%20six%20o%E2%80%99clock%20on%20the%20evening%20of%2014%20May%201948%2C%20Washington%20time%22&f=false The Palestine question - Henry Cattan Pages 50 - 51 (from - According to .. Lovett .. - to - ...requesting recognition of Israel]//

Current objection and reply:   talknic (talk) 05:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As you know, this article is subject to active arbitration remedies. I think that the only way forward, if consensus cannot be achieved, is to make a formal request for comment, inviting involved editors and relevant projects. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Charlie Dent
Hello,

I would like to request some third-party objective assistance regarding the Charlie Dent article. I will admit that I allowed my temper to get the best of me, and I engaged in an edit war with an IP user. However, I finally suggested a page protection, which was granted. The issue involves the subject's vote the Paul Ryan budget plan that passed the House. The IP user with whom I disagree has repeatedly inserted content into the section in question pointing out the issues with the legislation. I have no problem with this. However, I feel that the user's content has now gone beyond merely providing a summative recounting of the debate over the bill, and has crossed into ideological warfare. As I have told the user, I believe that, because the article is about a Congressman and not a specific bill, only a summary of both sides' points about the controversial vote should be included. Additionally, I have added the wiki link to the bill's page, where interested users could go to find more in-depth information about the debate. Bottom line, I feel that this section should not get an inordinate amount of coverage, given that it is not the focus of the article. I am all for pointing out both sides, though I feel the IP user is turning this into some sort of perceived partisan back-and-forth. The way the section is worded now frankly seems wealsely to me, and it does bother me.

Please see the page's history and edit summaries for evidence of my points. I posted my proposed text on the talk page, to which the IP user responded with a lengthy partisan-fueled diatribe. I simply do not have the time or desire to respond to every point; I believe my edit summaries and past editing work on this site speak for themselves. For the record, I am not even a registered Republican, nor do I think much of the legislation in question. I do however believe in neutrality, and would assert that IP user's words do not inidicate a similar concern.

Thus, I am requesting some third-party help. I relaize that it was counter-productive to engage in an edit war; whatever the outcome of this process is, I will accept. Thanks very much for the assistance. EATC (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a classic WP:COATRACK and should come out of the article per WP:WEIGHT. All the article should say is he voted for the bill and then provide a link to the appropriate article for readers interested in further discussion. Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Personal Attacks and ongoing editing.
The page for has been edited repeatedly with false information and also personal attacks on two or more individuals.

Myself and a few others have repeatedly taken down the attacks and replaced it with the simple text: GreenPark Christian Academy was a K-12 Christian school in St. Louis, Missouri. It was affiliated with GreenPark Community Church, as a "ministry" of the church. The church is still in existence.

Is it possible to put a lock of some sort on this to avoid future edits and attacks?

20:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StanleyEagan (talk • contribs)


 * Request page protection here. – ukexpat (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, you were right to remove unsourced allegations, but you should use edit summaries and you should initiate discussion with the other editor on the article talk page. I am placing some links on your talk page about how Wikipedia works. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Who shot JFK?
Just today I received a video of the actual footage of the assasination, which basically indicates the shooter was in fact the driver? I am new to all this, and don't quite know what to make of it... It states it is the unofficial version (which includes slow motion images and frames of the actual driver turning around after the first shot, and dshooting at the president's head with his left hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.93.214 (talk) 04:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You may want to look at John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. HiLo48 (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

User Molobo and his other personas like MyMoloboaccount
Hello!

I' m rather new on working on Wikipedia (and I´m sure I made mistakes on the way as well), but I´d like to mention User "Molobo" and his new persona "MyMoloboaccount". He is very POV pushing and very anti-German. Which is not without precedent, since in other History-related boards like "Alternate History Discussion Board" he is well-known for rather highly biased anti-German rhetoric and hatemongering (and banned). Here on Wiki I knew of 2 topics he his very active in pushing his agenda, Mitteleuropa and Frederick the Great. I don´t want to do too much, since I know my balancing edits were rather clumsy in style, since I´m new at this, but based on reliable materials. On the discussion pages, he always goes on and on about genocide and how pro-German/Pro-Prussian everyone is, basicly "the eternal evil German". His edits are based mainly on propaganda works, like in "Mitteleuropa", where most of his sources until recently were from communist Poland and even better, a Entente work from 1917(!). Their reliability concerning anything German is unsurprisingly near zero! From experience I know that he will not relent on his very one-sided view and I request (not lightly I must add) a ban of all his personas concerning these two topics. I know from other boards I´m a member of, that he will return and turn it into an editing war and I´m sick of it, but this hate-mongering should have no place on Wiki! --Neunhist (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)signed by Neunhist
 * We don't do bans here, but it might be considered at WP:Administrators' noticeboard. Please read the instructions there thoroughly. You need to gather specific eveidence, saving diffs. Of couse, unless you have engaged in discussion with the editor for a while and have evidence of specific biased editing then it is likely no action will be taken. It would probably be best to garner other opinions on tehtalk pages of relevant projects.  If you do so, make sure that the editorin question is informed. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * First off, the Molobo account (13,000+ edits over 5 years) was closed as compromised without  any reference to any  kind of disruptive editing. I've looked at  his contribs as MyMoloboaccount and can not see any  clear evidence of POV  pushing. But  I'm  no  expert,  so  if there are, it's very  subtle and only  an historian  on  Mitteleuropa would know. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Isotopes without references clearly given
Recently when I was reading the isotope lists like, I checked out the references below to see if there are any references. I did not find references given for datas of 270Mt, 271Mt, 272Mt, 273Mt and more isotopes. In those references they just say like "In case no experimental data is available, trends in the systematics of neighboring nuclides have been used, whenever possible, to derive estimated values (labeled in the database as non-experimental)"(http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/amdc/nubase/Nubase2003.pdf). I am curious about what method and formula did they use, how accurate it coule be, and if it should be considered valid.--Inspector (talk) 09:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well you need to ask the authors of the paper about that, I think. If you have doubts about the reliability of a source, you should raise it on the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

help with deletion or ?
After speaking to WW-2 veterans and reviewing the meager supporting evidence for the article, I believe it is a candidate for deletion. I believe the research and evidence is very weak, based on hearsay and unprosecuted claims. This page disparages the WW-2 vets who are still alive and were present at the time, and disparages those who have passed away and can no longer defend themselves. I see there are a number of ways to delete a wikipedia page, including tags and curly braces added to the top of the page, but I am new to this, and I am not particularly neutral for personal reasons (friendships among the accused group, both living and dead). I am seeking support and guidance in this deletion effort. 71.105.194.27 (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that you have already posted at the article talk page, I redacted your email as this is a highly visible web site and we do everything possible to protect users from spam and other threats. If you post here, expect your answers to be here.  I do not think that any attempt to have this page deleted stands any chance of success as it is refrenced to apparently reliable sources.  If you find specific statements that are unreferenced or that have refernces that do not support the sttement, then challenge them on the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The article also does not disparage any particular person, living or dead, and is not eligible for deletion on those grounds. Even if the claims of rape are exaggerated or false, it appears that the claims themselves are notable (ie they've been the subject of wide commentary in reliable sources). Wikipedia reports on discredited or false claims if the claims themselves are notable. See Holocaust denial or Paul is dead for examples. Danger (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will pursue other avenues. 71.105.194.27 (talk) 04:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Siphon Pumps
The term (SIPHON PUMP) should now be considered for inclusion into the Wikipedia encyclopedia. It is now verifiable that a siphon can pump a liquid above the source and despense it by moving and controlling the liquid with various valve operations. This is a verifiable request, and improvements to teach fluid dynamics would be well served with this inclusion into the most remarkable and predominate Wikipedia encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.194.237 (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing is included in Wikipedia without reliable sources, and articles which attempt to describe machines which seemingly defy the laws of physics are likely to be given considerable scrutiny. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello, please excuse me for adding a few comments to help AndyTheGrump understand that siphon pumps have been use knowingly or unknowingly for thousands of years. There is nothing new with a physical principles that causes a siphon pump to work. A knife is a knife whether the blade is metal or ceramic. Siphon pumps work on basic hydraulic principles including Bernoulli's principle. I am not an expert in hydraulics but if you find it necessary I will teach you that siphon pumps are nothing new nor novel nor technically advanced! Respectfully Martin koronowski — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkoronowski (talk • contribs) 05:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Lemmings
In the article about lemmings I noticed that reference was made to the metaphorical suicide being used in several different contexts, including that of song. While only the Blink-182 song "Lemmings" is mentioned, a far more popular and well known song is that of Synchronicity II by The Police. The lyric is as follows:

Another working day has ended, Only the rush hour hell to face. Packed like lemmings into shiny metal boxes, Contestants in a suicidal race.

It is not a super-vital fact, but I thought it might be a more identifiable usage making it more relevant to the masses.

Trunks cscs (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, but is that encyclopaedic information? Jezhotwells (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Brittany York, Miss North Carolina, USA 2011
Brittany York, Miss North Carolina, USA 2011

You have her birth date as 4/16/1989, which is incorrect. Brittany was born 4/16/1990

Marcie York, Mom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.86.57 (talk • contribs)


 * Do you have a reliable source for that? – ukexpat (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There isn't a reliable source in the article for the 1989 birthdate either. GB fan (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

My new article "When Doctors Disagree (short story)" posted to-day
At the top of my article, there is note stipulating that my "article needs additional citations for references". I already gave, at the bottom of my article, an external link with the Wodehouse book "The Man Upstairs" on Project Gutenberg. "When Doctors Disagree" is one of the short stories included in this book. I Just read the story and wrote a plot summary of it. What other references can I give you ? Anyone can read the full short story in Project Gutenberg and verify that my summary is correct. Being a new editor in Wikipedia, I am waiting for any information you can give me about my editing. It will help me with my further contributions. Cordially yours

GabbiGB (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)GabbiGB


 * Hi, a link to Gutenberg is not a third party reference. It is possible that this short story is not natable in its own right, just because it  was written by a notable author.  Please read WP:NBOOK for guidelines on the notability of books.  From this I quote:


 * It is a general consensus on Wikipedia that articles on books should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split normally lowering the level of notability. What this means is that while a book may be notable, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on a character or thing from the book, and it is often the case that despite the book being manifestly notable, a derivative article from it is not.
 * The book [or work] has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
 * So what you need to find are some reliable third party sources that discuss the story. At the moment you merely;y have a plot summary and the artcile is a prime candidate for redirecting back to The Man Upstairs. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Jason Love (humorist) Wiki Biography in Questions
My Wiki entry keeps receiving error messages such as:


 * "The topic of this article may not meet the general notability guidelines..."
 * "This article is an orphan..."
 * "This article's tone or style may not be appropriate."

I'm no term-paper writer, but all the information is accurate and up to date.

Could anyone help me resolve this? My Wiki entry can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Love_(humorist)

Thanks for any tips or insights.

Jjlove88 (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC) Jason Love 


 * Well (1) it doesn't have any cited sources so we have no way of determining whether you are notable as per the guidelines at WP:BIO; (2) it only has one qualifying incoming link, so it is an orphan and (3) it does read a bit like a resumé. I have restored the tags. Also, please take a look at WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. – ukexpat (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect dead link label
I noticed on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrilateral#External_links about Quadrilaterals under References that the link to the article (1) "Stars: A Second Look" is labeled as a [dead link], but found no problem clicking on the link and the article appeared shortly. Perhaps this should be corrected?

Thanks in advance! Geometryfan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geometryfan (talk • contribs) 08:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Right you are. I've removed the tag. Favonian (talk) 08:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Dispute over what constitutes "mainstream".
I am becoming increasingly frustrated with the behavior of BigK Hex with regard the Fractional-reserve banking page. He has repeatedly been undoing edits on the grounds that he claims that the views being added are "not mainstream".

I and others suggest that most of the edits we are making are indeed "mainstream". So the argument revolves around the definition of "mainstream".

One may wonder how there could be any confusion about what is mainstream - the answer is that there is a (perhaps surprising) disconnect with the descriptions that appear in "textbooks aimed at students" and "peer reviewed research papers"/"The words of senior central bankers" who are of course the people that actually run the system of fractional reserve banking. It appears that the way that banking works in practice is too complex for students and so a simplified (and sadly misleading) version of the truth is placed in the textbooks. Much in the same way that a story about "electron shells" is taught to chemistry students because the real quantum mechanical explanation of electron energy levels is too complicated.

AFAIK, wikipedia considers research papers to be higher ranking than textbooks for students, so presumably the view of research papers is what wikipedia considers "mainstream".

A possible exception to this is if the research papers are very few in number, published in non-respected journals or the papers are too new and there has been no time for counter-papers. But in this case, particularly thanks to the recent efforts of Andrewwardjudd, we now have a large and varied collection of high quality papers and quotes from central bankers, that AFAIK are entirely unchallenged in the research community.

BigK Hex appears to be oblivious to the weight of evidence building up against him and merely repeats his claim that our views are "not mainstream". I have made repeated strenuous efforts to reach a consensus with him about the definition of mainstream on the talk page and elsewhere, but he keeps walking away from these debates, either declaring himself the winner before the debate is over, or refusing to answer, or he makes claims that we've had the debate before, so why discuss it again. His refusal to reach a conclusion in the debate on this leaves me and Andrewwardjudd unable to edit.

What can we do? Reissgo (talk) 07:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all, when you make a complaint about another editor, it is good etiquette to inform them and provide a link to where the discussion is taking place. I have now done that for you.
 * There is a very long discussion on the article talk page and you have not provided any specific diffs to make review easier. I have not read all of the conversation (and it is unlikely anyone else here will either) much less understood this very technical dispute.  However, a few points are clear to me on reading some of it;
 * You are being opposed by other editors besides BigK Hex
 * The arguments against you centre around undue weight rather than outright opposition to inclusion
 * The opposition seem to be perfectly willing (in fact keen) to discuss issues on the talk page
 * Given those points it would seem that it would be possible to have agreement that the material you wish included goes in in some form. This requires you to enter into dialogue with the other editors.  I suggest that you post on the talk page draft text to go in the article and then open a discussion.  This is much better than back-and-forth editing in the article which is never a good thing.  Concentrate on addressing their concerns about UNDUE, POV and FRINGE and hopefully you will be able to achieve a consensus.  Try to modify your draft as concerns are raised.  Stay away from arguments about who deleted what, why and when - this is never productive - concentrate on the facts and the sources that back them up.  Honestly, this is the best possible chance of moving forward on this, content disputes are a nightmare to resolve any other way.
 * If you really find that you are stuck and cannot move forward then opening an RfC might be the way to go to get more editors involved, but really, make every effort to come to an agreement amongst the editors on the page first. Keep the RfC focused on as specific a point as you can, making the request too general will result in the RfC never coming to a conclusion.  Keep it neutral - remember that the paragraph immediately below the RfC template is included in the transclusions so it is important that this sums up the issue properly without showing any bias to one side or another.
 *  Sp in ni ng  Spark  13:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm just posting here to let User:Spinningspark know how much I appreciate the effort that s/he must have put into responding in such a thorough manner. Spinningspark is correct on every account, so there's little more that I could possibly add. Thanks a ton! BigK HeX (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I suppose I will note that, from my observations, User:Reissgo seems to get frustrated when people do not address his requests -- although they've already been addressed with an answer that he may not have liked and then he decides to merely repeat the same request weeks or months later. BigK HeX (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you SpinningSpark for your efforts. Unfortunately I feel it still leaves me rather stuck for several reasons. First, and simplest of all is that I do not know what RfC stands for.


 * I wish to address the key points you concluded one at a time:


 * *"You are being opposed by other editors besides BigK Hex"


 * This debate goes back a long way. Over the years I have found that I have been able to be able to debate with most editors in a reasonably constructive manner. I can not think of a case where other editors have walked away from discussions before they are completed like BigK Hex does repeatedly.


 * *"The arguments against you centre around undue weight rather than outright opposition to inclusion"


 * You are perfectly correct, but the "undue weight" revolves around "mainstream or not", so your point is not really in conflict with what I am saying.


 * *"The opposition seem to be perfectly willing (in fact keen) to discuss issues on the talk page".


 * In general, you are perfectly correct. Almost everything I want to discuss is answered by other editors and we have constructive debates. I say "almost" because there is one exception. That exception is the issue of what constitutes mainstream. If that issue is left unresolved then BigK Hex has the ability to remove my edits on the basis of "not mainstream" or "undue weigh- (because not mainstream)" at any time. He has done this repeatedly over a very long period.


 * I note that you say "Keep the RfC focused on as specific a point as you can" - well I could scarcely be more focused in my debating - there is only one issue - that issue is "what constitutes mainstream in the eyes of wikipedia".


 * With regard links to previous discussions. I did not realise that this was the place for them, but one such link is the (current) last comment in [|this discussion] on a cabal case (that seemed to fizzle out). Just in case it is no longer the last - the entry I think you should see is the one starting with the words "The position can be summarised as follows". BigK Hex never responded. Reissgo (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, RfC is Request for comment and is system for getting more editors involved in a discussion in order to help gain a consensus. The question "what constitutes mainstream in the eyes of wikipedia" is much too general for an RfC.  However, as you already have a debate open at the mediation cabal, an RfC would be inappropriate, as was starting this thread here.  Please continue to try to resolve the issue there and do not forum shop.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  09:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your explanation of RfC, but sadly, I am still completely stymied as you say my issue is too general for RfC. The mediation cabal, did indeed seem like a good idea, but the editor that took up the case had only been on wikipedia for one week(!) and clearly did not have the experience or commitment to see it through. The case has just ground to a halt and I see not sign of it coming to any conclusion. I am not very knowledgeable about all the wikipedia systems myself, so I have no idea about what should happen in such a stalled case. This is precisely why I came here. This seemed to be the place to ask for advice. You say "Please continue to try to resolve the issue there", but if BigK Hex's last contribution to the debate there was to say "I will make no more contributions" then what can I do? Reissgo (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not mean RfC is unsuitable because you could not construct a specific focused question, I think you could if you put your mind to it. It is unsuitable because the issue is already being considered at the mediation cabal - and you took it there.  Whatever problems you are having there, it is not appropriate to open a discussion on another forum until that one is closed.  Take the problems back to the mediation cabal.  If the current mediator is not capable of dealing with the issue, ask for another, or an additional mediator to become involved.  Last time I checked there were some very experienced editors involved there.  The biggest issue there as far as I can see is that BigK Hex has not agreed to mediation, or at least their name has not been put on the list.  That is the first thing the mediator should be addressing, it won't go anywhere otherwise.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  22:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: "and you took it there"... actually I didn't. Andrewwardjudd took it there. I would not have chosen to take the debate there myself because I once tried to employ some kind of mediation before with BigK and he refused. I made my points in the cabal before I had noticed how inexperienced the mediator was. Re: "The biggest issue there as far as I can see is that BigK Hex has not agreed to mediation" - ok so now the mediation is completely stuck. Re: "If the current mediator is not capable of dealing with the issue, ask for another, or an additional mediator to become involved." - I don't know how or where I could do that. The "Submit_a_request" page does not seem set up for people to say "can I have a more experience mediator please". Reissgo (talk) 06:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the error on who opened the thread. But you must deal with this on the mediation cabal page.  State the problem and your request on the case page, and if that does not get a response take it to the project talk page.  They must give you advice on any further steps, it would be very poor etiquette to do it here while the case is still open.  I am going to formally close this thread now, please stop posting here.  If you want to discuss that decision with me, talk to me on my talk page.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  07:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

What is protocol for an edit dispute with a named Wikipedia editor
I added a piece to an existing page. My edit was verified by two cites to two sources by named experts, one a contemporaneous memoir by a professional in the field, the other by a recognised academic specialist.

When I returned, I found that my piece had been re-edited by a named editor. He too had added a citation - to an anonymous review on a blog.

I do not think this re-edit conforms to Wikipedia's own citation guidelines. However, he told me in the 'Talk' page that if I remove his re-edit, he will put me on the block list.

How should I proceed?

My disagreement is logged in the 'Talk' section, headed 'Secret Service Section'. The URL is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_the_Falkland_Islands#Secret_Service_Section

Hubertgrove (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have tagged the wordpress source as unreliable, as it is a blog. WP:RSN may provide confirmation of this. I have left a comment on the talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help, Jezhotwells, and the note you left on the talk page. The editor in question seems rather angry now. I have suggested I will remove his unsourced edit after one week. Is there anything I can do to protect myself and the re-edit if he goes crazy? Hubertgrove (talk) 07:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

John Prendergast
An article I edit, was tagged with Conflict of Interest without the editor alerting me to his concern. He tagged the article, after I told him that I would have appreciated his communicating with me prior to reducing the size of a photo in the article. He never responded other than to place the COI tag.

I have since demonstrated that I am eager to make the article compliant with Wiki protocol and don't know why the subject of the article should be penalized for what seems to be my misunderstanding.

Additionally, these tags appear on the discussion page of the article:

"This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.

"The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from http://www.enoughproject.org/content/john-prendergast-co-founder. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by OTRS volunteers, under ticket number 2009090310049544.

"This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia Open Ticket Request System (OTRS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-en(a)wikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission."

Don't the above three paragraphs indicate that the article is acceptable?

Several editors have written extensively about this article representing a COI, yet none of them has suggested any edits nor made any edits to the piece.

I would appreciate an unbiased opinion.

Thank you, Jespah (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The COI Noticeboard discussion is here. It would be good, I think, to keep the conversation in a single place.  JohnInDC (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Centrifugal compressor … General help
Hello wiki editors, please excuse my typing, I am disabled and and using speech recognition. Currently it does not interact with wiki very well. Additionally I use a mini keyboard that does not contain a full set of braces and other symbols useful in the wiki markup language. A great deal of what my 57-year-old eyes read concerning the wiki markup language is confusing and does not make any sense relative to my I/O resources. However I'm having a great deal of fun trying to turn centrifugal compressors into a respectable encyclopedic article.

All my questions concern my efforts to update: centrifugal compressor

first as a newbie and a very poor editor I have made numerous updates just for the sake of small changes. I have currently discovered that keeping Microsoft word open on the left side of my screen and Wikipedia open to the article on the right side of screen has helped me increase my productivity, decrease my mistakes, and reduce the number of edits that I am burdening the wiki servers with. Is there an external editor which has all of the markup symbols selectable by mouse?

Second I have made mistakes incorrectly specifying a fair use details of graphics I have uploaded to wiki. Again my bad, my learning curve. What is the easiest way to correct this?

Third as an semi-expert in the field of turbomachinery aerodynamics, 35 years of experience working with very well known experts in the field, 11 years of consulting for the leading consulting firm in the world I am having a little difficulty in properly referencing the article as it is written. For example the similarities between different kinds of turbomachinery is self evident through first principles of physics. However, finding others that state the same thing in professional papers, journals or books is difficult. In fact most of the most advanced textbooks do not cover the science in as much detail as would be learned working for NASA or other aircraft companies. I will continue to make every effort to properly reference the article. Do you have any comments that you can share advising me in this area?

Fourth do you have any advice on dealing with pseudo-experts who insists on having non-academic content to articles? Going further, there are articles similar to centrifugal compressors; other dynamic turbomachinery that are improperly or incorrectly written. Is there a general overall category within physics or engineering that would allow an overall umbrella to be placed on this topic? In this way centrifugal blowers, centrifugal fans, axial compressors, axial turbines, radial turbines, mixed flow compressors etc. can be merged together so that they share specific subtopics. Specifically the fundamental physics of all that I listed are identical, this I can footnote with many textbooks. Am I allowed to delete poorly written articles and redirect to centrifugal compressors? Can centrifugal compressors be renamed?

Fifth and final I am not a mathematician and seriously need advice on the best way to write fundamental physics for dynamic axisymmetric turbomachinery. There are interval forms of continuity, energy, momentum and equations of state. There are differential forms of continuity, energy, momentum and equations of state. The equations can be written in Cartesian coordinates as outlined by NASA or polar coordinates is used by everyone else… GE, Pratt & Whitney, Rolls-Royce… You get the picture! The equations can be expanded to show the complexity of the full three dimensions or they can be written in a simple one-dimensional form. Is there board of mathematical experts I can help in this applied mathematics?

Thank you very much your help and your time, Martin koronowski,Mkoronowski (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You raise important points about the accessibility of Wikipedia to those editing using speech recognition or similar software. I do not have an answer to this but the Help desk may be able to help.  As you have noted many articles are not well written or contain inaccurate uncited statements. This is remedied only by editors working to correct this, and your help will be valuable. The question related to physics may be best answered by members of the WP:WikiProject Physics. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Accessibility may also be of interest. – ukexpat (talk) 12:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Addressing some of the questions not answered by others;
 * External editors. You may be interested in WikEd and Text editor support.  Microsoft word used as an external editor (and I guess most word processing packages) might solve your problem with selecting special characters by mouse although you can already do this with the standard editor screen so I am not sure what more you are looking for.
 * Fair use details of image file. Click on the image and then just edit the page as normal to correct the details.  Unless you uploaded the file to Commons rather than Wikipedia, in which case you will have to go there it edit it.  However, I am not sure that Commons allows fair use at all so in this case you will have to upload it again to Wikipedia.
 * The question of citing basic physics facts can be difficult especially when working on a more advanced article with advanced references. If you look hard enough, however, you can usually find what you are looking for.  In one article recently I wished to state the purpose of an interrupter circuit used with an induction coil.  I think I looked through about thirty texts which all jsut assumed the reader knew the purpose before I found one that actually stated it and I could cite.  Failing that, if a knowledgable editor on reading the source could reasonably be expected to come to the same conclusion then it is ok to say it in the Wikipedia article - I'm sure that is stated in policy somewhere but I can't find it right now.
 * Non-academic content - see WP:TRIVIA and WP:Popular culture
 * Redirecting - this is allowed but it may be best to discuss with other editors first on the relevant page - ditto with renaming. Writing a "summary style" article with links to the individual articles may be more appropriate.  Poorly written is not a valid reason for deletion or redirection, but it is a valid reason for improvement.
 * Mathematics - as well as the wikiprojects already pointed to, there is a reference desk WP:RD/MA for mathematics and WP:RD/S for science.
 *  Sp in ni ng  Spark  15:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * thankyou, this is of great help! Mkoronowski (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

A general problem with a particular user in several articles
Hello, For quite a while now, I have been having a dispute with User:Charlesdrakew. I feel as if he has been 'spying' on me. Several of the articles I created, he nominated for deletion or support its deletion if it had been nominated. When my IP had been falsely (this has been resolved with no consequences) accused of being a sockpuppet, he was the one to nominate, with no reason whatsoever. It started because my friend in real life, had been again falsely accused of being a sockpuppet and because I had supported him in his case, Charlesdrakew nominated my IP for blockage. He interrferes with everything I do and comments on it. When i had changed my signature very recently, he straight away made a complaint that it is too bright and distracting and he was the only one. He also was talking about me, quite unpolitely to another user. He thinks the articles I created are 'stinking piles of orginal research' and that they do not deserve to be here. He makes these accusations, often with no sensible reason. He also has been reverting some of my edits, always quoting WP:NOT and I have made sure it is all OK with that guide. I am worried that User:Charlesdrakew, will just find and try to delete any article or even some edits I make and it will waste my work and time. Another example, is when I had placed a 'See also: List of bus routes in ...' on two towns pages. He reverted them claiming Wikipedia is not a travel guide, but I have seen several like them on other pages, so I decided to add it. I would really appreciate some help with this as it has become extremely annoying. Adam mugliston Talk  20:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you provide specific diffs of the edits in question? Jezhotwells (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, here they are

1. 2. 3. 4. at 09:16 and 09:19, 21 April 2011

I can't find any of the ones of the sockpuppet investigation as these have been archived/deleted. There were more, I'm just not sure where they were. Thanks. Adam mugliston Talk  07:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It is quite normal that an editor on finding a problem contribution might check through a few of the other contributions from the same editor. If you do not want your work to be changed, added to, or deleted then you should not be editing on Wikipedia.  The nature of this place is that nobody owns the work they contribute and that anybody can edit it.  The only discussion should be on whether the work conforms to our policies and guidelines.  On your specific examples;
 * A list of bus routes most definitely comes under WP:NOTGUIDE in my opinion except possibly in an article about a bus company.
 * Pretty much the same comment as 1. but not so clearcut. Do you have any reliable sources that indicate these details are actually notable for an encyclopedia entry?
 * Same comment, bus timetables are not notable and fail WP:DIRECTORY, although a summary of bus frequency might be acceptable. The rest of that edit is WP:MOS style issues.
 * This is precisely the same edit as #3.
 * On the matter of politeness, first of all, the etiquette here when making a complaint about another editor is to inform them and provide a link to the discussion. You have failed to do this but I have now done it for you.  I agree that saying 'stinking piles of orginal research' is not very complimentary and need not have been so harsh.  However, the comment does manage to be about the edits rather than the editor.  Personal attacks on editors are not tolerated here but you must expect, and not be sensitive about, criticism of your work.  The most productive response to such a comment is to provide references that show that your work is not OR.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  13:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC) and 13:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know I don't own anything and all that, but what I am tryinng to get through is that he has been commenting and going against verything I do and I think he is picking on me, which is not right. I realise things will be critised, but he does it to everything. Is it really that OK that he looks through what I do, I consider that spying and that is not right.  Adam mugliston  Talk  14:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your edit history, and mine and everyone elses, is public and available for anyone to review. If Wikipedia did not want that to happen there would be no access to allowed to user contribution lists.  Looking at a contribution history is not spying and addressing policy and guideline issues found there is not picking on you.  Stalking an editor for the purposes of hounding them off Wikipedia is not allowed, WP:STALK states "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing".  If you think this applies to you then please offer some diffs showing edits which are clearly designed to spoil your enjoyment as opposed to merely putting right something that is against guidelines.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  14:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Would telling me to 'stop pissing off grown-ups' or 'take your lists of bus routes somewhere else' be an example of the above? Adam mugliston  Talk  14:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have already seen and spoken to the editor about those comments. They were not included in any of the diffs you originally provided so I was not aware of them when I first responded.  My answer remains the same however, the most productive way forward for you is to find references backing up notability, or else accept that bus timetables are not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.  Bus company publications do not count because they are not independant, but newspaper articles discussing bus timetables would help establish notability.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  16:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not here to be told that the articles I create are notable or not. I am here, because I feel that Charlesdrakew is specifically picking on me. I have found evidence of his previous bullying not me, but to other users and by this I assume he is likely to do it again. Charlesdrakew for some reason does not like me and chooses to try and either upset or annoy me. I have friends, who create similar pages, like me and he never comments on their work. Their work is not backed up by what you call 'secondary sources', either. I have also asked you whether 'stop pissing off grown-up editors' and 'take your lists of bus routes somewhere else off Wikipedia' could be reported under WP:STALK. If you are unable to help me, please say so, so I can go onto mediation, failing that RfC, faling that arbitration. As for the notablity of the articles, that is just your opinion and interpretation of the guides. There are several people who say that the pages are notable. Adam mugliston  Talk  16:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you complain at a noticeboard about the behaviour of others, you can only expect that your own behaviour will be put in the spotlight too. See don't shoot yourself in the foot.  The fact that other articles exist with similar problems is not an accepted reason for creating more of them, see WP:other stuff exists.  As I said above, I have warned Charlesdrakew about incivility and I am prepared to take further action should he do it again.  What were you hoping would happen?  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  18:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I was hoping for someone to tell Charlesdrakew to stop picking on me or something of that, so he doesn't appear wherever I edit and not revert my edits, before I have the chance to get suitable sources. Adam mugliston  Talk  18:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The way to get him to stop reverting your edits before you have a chance to get suitable sources is to get the suitable sources and put them in the article at the same time you are putting in the content. As far as the picking on you, it sounds like SpinningSpark has discussed being civil and is willing to take further action if he isn't.  GB fan (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Let us get one thing straight here first. I have never accused Adam of being a sock puppet or supported any such accusation. I did point to an IP to be looked at during the investigation but that is not the same thing at all. I initially got some similar articles by User:Wilbysuffolk deleted before finding others written by Adam. I have advised Adam that he may be better off working at Wikia where original research will be accepted. This would be in his own interest as the stuff he is doing here is likely to be deleted when the Wikipedia community sees what is going on. I have had to crack down on attempts to spread this stuff into settlement articles and I will continue to revert text which is not supported by inline references to reliable secondary sources as required by WP:Cite. There are a number of editors, some of whom should know better, arguing in AfDs to keep this type of article and this is leading "no consensus" outcomes when closing admins treat these as a ballot instead of going on the quality of arguments put forward and upholding WP quality standards. And one more thing. The supposed quotes from my talk page paraphrase what I actually said and therefor should not be in quote marks. Have a nice day.--Charles (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Adam, you're getting a bit aggressive here. Although it's good that you're aware of the existence of an escalation route for disputes, I really don't think an arbitration case about bus routes would be a good idea for anyone involved. (Although some former bus related articles are also covered by Arbcom sanctions, including possibly the now-userfied Judaism and bus stops which was deleted in an AfD at Articles for deletion/Judaism and bus stops - note the extensive use of secondary sources as references.) It would be a good idea for you to discuss these problems with your mentor rather than continuing this approach. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Charles, some time ago, about 2 months I think, you have nominated my IP address as a suspected sockpuppet, after Wilbysuffolk was a suspected sockpuppet of Crouch, Swale. You can't deny that. And how do you explain reverting a see also on a town's page, how is that against WP:NOT? You don't seem to understand, that it's not easy finding 'secondary sources', as bus routes are not the most popular subjects in press. I have reserved a book from my local library, but due to Easter, I won't be able to collect it until Tuesday. This is a book recommended by Stuart.Jamieson, and I hope to find sources there. Yes, you have 'advised' me to go to Wikia, but it was not in a polite manner, which is expected here in Wikipedia.
 * Adam, does it not occur to you that I could not have known that it was yuor IP? I reported an IP which I assumed at the time to be Wilbysuffolk's. You may have just forgotten to log in, but one way or another it was a sock puppet edit.--Charles (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really follow by any definition of "sock puppet edit" that I'm aware of. If it's not the same person then it's not a sockpuppet. (It might be a meatpuppet, but that is a different thing...) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Given how closely these editors have been working together that is not a big difference.--Charles (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Demiurge1000, I do hope I will not have to go on to arbitration, but if all other methods fail I may be forced to do so. Adam mugliston  Talk  17:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hrm, well, anyway, you should talk to your mentor before doing so. (Maybe I said that already...) I do note that feelings have been running sufficiently high that Charles has engaged in what I consider some inappropriate WP:CANVASSing on this issue; I have left a note about that on his talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Bob Parlocha
Hi, I am inquiring as to how to edit the Bob Parlocha entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Parlocha). Under the syndication section, we also carry his show from midnight until 6am seven days a week, and are not mentioned in the article. We also carry his show when other programs are not available. We are a public radio station located in Princess Anne, MD, on the campus of the University of Maryland Eastern Shore, call letters WESM. Our website is www.wesm913.org if you would like to veryify our program schedule.

The section reads: Syndication: A decline in jazz radio audiences led KJAZ owner Ron Cowan to sell the ailing station in 1994. A leading fine arts station in Chicago, WFMT (through "JSN", its satellite radio affiliate), agreed to syndicate the show Jazz with Bob Parlocha, which he records in Alameda, California. The evening show was picked up by KUVO (Denver), WRCJ-FM (Detroit) and several other public radio stations, including Kansas and Alabama.[3] The leading jazz station in the western United States, KKJZ (Long Beach), began airing his program in early 2007.[4][5] The show is also carried by CJRT-FM in Toronto, Ontario.

We should be inserted somewhere in the above text. Thank you. 131.118.113.47 (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If this fact has been noted in reliable sources then it can be added to the article together with citations to the source. However, it is advisable not to edit articles on a subject with which you yourself are associated.  While this is not strictly forbidden it is often difficult for an involved party to write in a neutral way (required by policy on Wikipedia) and it is often best to wait for an independant editor to come along and take an interest.  While it may be some time before this happens, it will eventually if the topic is truly notable.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  12:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit Disagreement in 'Human skin color' and 'Sun tanning'
In the articles Human skin color and Sun tanning (see also the talk page), I have added the following modifying statements (in italics) intended to neutralise what I consider as biased or unnuanced information:

Sentence 1: Tanned skin has been shown in the United States to be viewed both as more attractive and more healthy than pale skin, but not by the whole population.

Comment to this: This formulation gives an impression of that all Americans view tanned skin as 'more attractive and more healthy'. Critical objections: Which survey is this? Who has made and ordered the survey? Who answered the survey? Is the survey generally representative or maybe based on e.g. the readers of a fashion and lifestyle magazine? What are the concrete results of the survey? Do these results make the formulation above correct?

Here are the two sources to which the references show:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb01527.x/abstract

Quotation: «The sample consisted of 191 students with a mean age of 14 years from five Victorian secondary schools.»

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/109/6/1009

Quotation: «Methods. A cross-sectional study, from all 50 states, of 10 079 boys and girls 12 to 18 years of age in 1999. Data were collected from self-report questionnaires [...]»

It is ridiculous that a person has used these marginal surveys to conclude with that all Americans consider tanned skin as a status symbol etc.

Sentence 2: [...] making tanned skin seem fashionable, healthy, and luxurious, but not by the whole population.

The article strongly gives an impression of that tanned skin colour completely has taken over 'the exclusivity' or that that nearly all persons in the Western world consider tanned skin colour as e.g. «fashionable, healthy, and luxurious». An academically untrained person reading these articles, might believe that 'exclusivity of tanned skin' is consensual. The formulation should be nuanced as quickly as possible.

I do not know in depth the American society, but I believe that e.g. in the political élite of this country, it is hard to find a white man who has tanned skin.

Otherwise, many formulations in the article seem to be cut out from an advertisement, yes, if not added by the producers themselves.

At the same time, I would like to make one aware of the user Ckatz, who has removed these neutralising statements. One may remove biased statements, but should not remove statements intended to nuance biased information. Furthermore, I marked a formulation with, but also this was removed by this user. It could indicate that this user is more interested in politics than in objective information.

I have started a discussion about this, but it is feared that this will be more based on personal opinions and agendas rather than science. That is why I find it best to ask for editor assistance already now.

--- Aaemn784 (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Reliable Source Examples says: "Statistical data should be considered a primary source and should be avoided. Misinterpretation of the material is easy and statistics are frequently reported ambiguously in the media, so any secondary reference to statistical data should be treated with considerable care." I would argue for deletion of the polls and susbtitution of a reliably sourced opinion: "According to GQ Magazine" or some such. We should not say in Wikipedia's voice "Americans like a tan", at least not based on that kind of evidence. However, your good faith edits didn't really fix the problem, but created what I call a "POV quilt" ("Joe Botz is regarded as one of the most intelligent people in the world, except by those who think he is stupid"), and may have been reverted for that reason. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, and thanks for your assistance. It is a humourous term and example. (When that is said, it shall be added that my addition was modifying, and not directly opposing.)


 * --- Aaemn784 (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

John Wesley Powell
Hello, The article on John Westly Powell says he lost part of an arm in the Battle of Shiloh (1862). The photo of Mr. Powell taken in 1871-1872 shows him using his left arm. However, the photo dated 1897 shows him without the left arm. Is this just the way one of the photos was reversed when reprinted? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.136.205 (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well spotted - yes, it looks as if one of those photos has been reversed. The one online source doesn't say which arm was injured, but perhaps one of the book sources might clear it up. I am copying this thread to the article talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well spotted - yes, it looks as if one of those photos has been reversed. The one online source doesn't say which arm was injured, but perhaps one of the book sources might clear it up. I am copying this thread to the article talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)