Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 105

Reagonomics
My dispute request is in regard to the article Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

I have read numerous other articles on the Internet that define the impact of Reaganomics far differently than is defined in this article. I almost religiously use Wikipedia as a credible source for any facts I want to look up or that I need the answers to as I believe does the majority of the Internet population. Because of these discrepancies I normally would have given Wikipedia the first priority for believability but then I noticed that two of the principle references for this article are the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute. Both are basically funded and owned by the Koch brothers. When I hear the term "think tank" in conjunction with politically active entities I am reminded of an entity with a special agenda that comes up with ideas to successfully cultivate other people to adopt their way of thinking. This approach can be used for both good and bad depending on the intent of the author relative to the information provided. I am not convinced that the Cato Institute supplied accurate information to describe the success of Reaganomics. I believe their goal is to create a model representing a successful economic program so they can use that model to advance their own self interests. But I also believe the model they have created does not reflect reality but rather is a tampered model that will allow them to convince others to adopt policies that are self-serving and beneficial to no one but the principle authors of that model. Given the state of the current economy and the number of people referencing this model on Wikipedia that believe the model to be a formula for success, I feel it is ultimately important to review the Wikipedia article on this subject and compare it to others that are reporting a different story. There are many links on the web that one might go to and, provided it is not a conservative web page, one is apt to find many conflicting points of supposed facts. I will paste in two of those links but there are many, many more such links that one can find by doing an Internet search.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/02/05/142288/reagan-centennial/

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/index.htm

75.65.254.61 (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a dispute as you haven't discussed anything with anybody. You need to discuss this at the discussion page for the article, Talk:Reaganomics. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Editing page
Hello,

I have been trying to discuss this subject on other live channels but I can't access them. I wish you can help me to repair John Florescu page. When you open it you can find three observations on it. Can you help me ? And as references I have to upload some images with his articles and refernce letters related to his activity.

--Dana Qyu (talk) 08:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Try reading the information on the banners and attempt to address the concerns expressed there. Basically, this reads like promotional guff.  What is your connection with the article subject? Jezhotwells (talk) 08:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Translated text still under copyright?
I was looking at the new pages and found the page Archobarzane. However upon a quick google I also found this website of which the page is a direct copy save for the fact it has been translated into English. Surely there is some copyright issue here but I'm not certain? Nonetheless it might appear that it has been incorrectly referenced. Reichsfürst (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC


 * Looking into  it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Under US copyright law, translations are considered derivative works, so unless the original text is under a free license, translations should not be used on Wikipedia. (Disclaimer: IANAL, and this may be an incorrect understanding of the intricacies of Wikipedia copyright policy.) Danger (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * tee-hee "I anal" - Running On Brains (talk) 11:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * From User talk:Moonriddengirl:
 * If the author is interested in translating any more of these from this or similar compendia, perhaps they can be introduced to WikiSource as a way of doing this more clearly and verifiably? --Fæ (talk) 05:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Vermina by the same editor is just a paraphrase of a presumably out of copyright book here . Ironically it says Vermina is the last king but Archobarzane's article has him as king after Vermina. In any case the name is not the way it's spelled in English (probably because he's relying on a translation0, the English versionof the name is Ariobarzanes which gives us some sources in English so copyvio aside the article needs to be moved and disambiguated as there are other kings by that name. Dougweller (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so I can do the move or speedy it but I think that the content is probably notable so I shall proceed by informing the author of this discussion in the hope they can do a paraphrase onto the moved page - sound alright? Reichsfürst (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The only content is a copyvio. I think these need to be started from scratch. --Danger (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not a copyvio, it is a loose translation of a text from 1863, posted on a French language website, and correctly attributed on the Wikipedia page. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Damn, the date. Yes, you're correct. Danger (talk) 09:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is still good practice to note that it is a direct translation of a public domain work. Something similar to the USGovernment template would be best, IMHO. - Running On Brains (talk) 11:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Help with judgement of the appropriateness of a link.
Dear Editor, The page editor and I have a disagreement on the appropriateness of a link. The link I proposed is http://www.bukowski.net/. The editor says it is a fanpage. While I agree there are elements of a fanpage I think that it is so rich in information that can't be found elsewhere that it would be a valuable addition to the Wikipedia page. I've read the rules on fanpages including the "Ignore the rules" page. It seems like this is a judgement call so I'm wondering how I might approach the disagreement, or if you feel that the editor is right to discard the link. Thanks for your help. Langegg (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not just bands that have fanpages; and unless you can establish that this page's editor is a recognized Bukowski scholar, I'm afraid I too would vote "remove." -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

How would you determine "recognized"? By whom? It's seems like it could be a quite relative restriction. Langegg (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:ELNO has a list of links that should be avoided. From what I can see, this one might fall under #2.  This is because of the very unlikely and unsourced "quotes" at the bottom of the site's main page.  Links on Wikipedia are generally expected to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.  That the very first page has such unlikely quotes ("I get all of my ideas from transvestite prostitutes and bukowski.net." - Lady Gaga) I would say the website is inappropriate, at best. - SudoGhost&trade; 18:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I understand what you're saying. It's just unfortunate since it has so much information not on any other websites, such as original manuscripts, the largest database of poems, and the most complete checklist of his works. A link to the page is identified by his publisher (HarperCollins) as an official website and there's also a link from the other official website identified by HarperCollins (at Poets.org). I'm really not trying to be a pest; it's just that I really think the site is a valuable resource. I hope I'm not coming across badly. Langegg (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you just need to understand that Wikipedia does not regard fan-sites as reliable sources, regardless of what others may think. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Makes sense. Langegg (talk) 11:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like an at least reasonably (real world) reliable source of information, and more than just a fan site. But it is mysterious and lacks wp:rs credentials, as do many sources in Wikipedia. My opinion: don't ban it from the article, but don't rely heavily on it as a source. North8000 (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BoCoCa
issue with the intro to this article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BoCoCa :

"BoCoCa is an umbrella term for three neighborhoods in Brooklyn, New York. The actual neighborhood BoCoCa does not exist. It is an invention of real-estate agents and developers, and is used as a tool to gentrify Crown Heights."

BoCoCa is the area situated below downtown Brooklyn, Crown Heights is located further east and is separated by several neighborhoods. The statement I suppose is saying that the use of such umbrella terms by real-estate agents and developers is used as a tool for gentrifying other places such as Crown Heights. However "Crown Heights" is no such term either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.108.107.68 (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Crown Heights is mentioned nowhere in the sources, and has been removed from the article. You could have done that yourself. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I need help at the Richard Webster article. An IP address recently changed the article to state that Webster was deceased; I reverted, because the information was unsourced, but I have checked and it would appear that Webster has indeed died recently. His death was reported here, in the Oxford Mail. I'm asking for help because I'm not sure how to handle situations when a BLP subject has died, or what the correct procedure is for updating the article to reflect this. (I did notify Artoasis about this here, but she appears to be busy, and I'd like to get this dealt with ASAP.) Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Update it, add the sources, add him to Category:2011 deaths and remove him from Category:Living people. It's really no more complicated than any other edit. (While you're at it, add his date of birth, if it's in any of the articles.) -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  21:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The only reason I asked for assistance is that I've seen cases in the past where there have been disputes over whether someone was dead or not, and discussions of how many sources were required to establish the fact of their death. I wanted to be quite sure of avoiding a similar kind of situation here. If a single source is acceptable here, that's all I really need to know. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Editing of Kathmandu Article
I have tried to help and edit the Kathmandu article, especially since it is very long and hard to navigate. Such efforts I have made include setting up a gallery (because there are alot of photos) as well as removing duplicated photos. Also some parts of the Kathmandu page have links to full pages on that subject, however it is the same thing, as if copied and pasted. Even though I have tried to summarize, create photo gallery, etc a user (Dr. Blofeld) has continued to undo my edits (which have taken many many hours). I have even noticed that another user has tried to undo 'Dr. Blofeld''s reverting of my edits, however Dr. Blofeld wont stop.

thank you

68.63.160.101 (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)Kathmandu200000
 * I see that you don't appear to have discussed this on the article talk page. Please do so. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Can a book based on a special collection of Wikipedia articles be listed in the "See also" section of a related Wiki article?
Dear Editors, We have a current debate with User:Seewolf, see the Section "why it is not quotable?" at his talk page:. Can you please help with your advise to resolve this dispute? What triggered this debate is that the "See also" section of the Kish cypher Wiki article listed a recent book "Kish cypher" which is available on Amazon, Barnes and Nobles, and some other internet bookshops. User:Seewolf deleted this book listing by saying that it is "non-quotable" even though the book was not quoted but listed in the "See also" section, as an extra, hard-copy-type source of information. We started a discussion and we could not reach an agreement, see the talk page shown above. In my opinion, books that are special collections of Wikipedia articles should be allowed to be listed in the "See also" sections of related wiki articles. It is important to note that "See also" sections are not numbered references (not "quotes") to support claims made in the Wiki articles; they are rather informing the reader about other available sources of information. Publishing such a special selection book of Wiki articles can actually be very useful for those who are not regularly using computers, or for those, who prefer reading a hard-copy collection of related Wiki articles instead of browsing the internet. In conclusion: User:Seewolf claims that Wikipedia is not a reliable source thus such a book of Wikipedia-collections should not be quoted. My answer: First of all, the book was not quoted because listing it in the "See also" section is not a quotation. Secondly, if the Wikipedia articles are so non-reliable as User:Seewolf claims, then how can a Wikipedia article be quoted by another Wiki article? In my opinion, the fact that such a special-collection book exists, which has the same title as the actual Wiki article, is a relevant information and its listing (not "quoting") is useful in the "See also" section of that Wiki article, as alternative/optional source of information. Can you help to clarify the issue? Thanks, Fluctuator (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Due to the copyright rules, there is nothing we can do to prevent properly-acknowledged hard-copy printing of Wikipedia articles, but there is no reason whatsoever to encourage this dubious practice. £49.55 for 142 pages of text you can get for free? Thanks, but no thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. See our article VDM Publishing for more on the publishers/rip-off merchants AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's spam; keep it out. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. Furthermore, see also sections are only for internal links to Wikipedia articles. See WP:SEEALSO. A book would belong in a further reading section, but if the whole book is copied from Wikipedia then there is no "further" reading compared to our fine system of wikilinked terms, see also sections, categories, navigation templates, search box and so on. There are more than 150,000 of these books with copies of Wikipedia articles, and they appear to be computer generated. A couple of "editors" at the publisher don't have time to do actual editing of that many books, so I strongly suspect their organization gives no advantage over Wikipedia itself. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your opinions. Yes, if Wikipedia rules prohibit listing such a special collection book of Wiki articles then it is a different matter. Then User:Seewolf is right. A final note: I checked out the book and went through it; it was edited by some deep-thinker experts because the wiki articles in it reflect a good taste in linking those collected articles and topics. These articles are not linked within Wiki thus the 140 pages book is not a futile effort because it provides more info than Wiki due bounding the originally non-linked articles together. Maybe, other such books are poor, but this is a good synergism. Thanks.Fluctuator (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Purchasing Managers Index
This article needs help, might have to be deleted. And it seems no one is interested. I am ashamed wikipedia, where's the hard-asses that delete entire articles because there are no secondary sources easily available!? 67.185.251.75 (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, welcome to Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. You can edit this article and your contributions would be welcome. I have placed some useful information on your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Where to contest a labelled article
Hello,

I've found an article labelled with a star as a "good article" in which I read, to my opinion, many errors and innacuracies. I would like to contest the article's label and expose all what I see as the flaws of the article. Where is the correct place to do this ? I'm not sure the talk page is the correct place for contesting the label.

Thanks

- TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 21:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just follow the instructions at good article reassessment. --Danger (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. - TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 21:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Reading your post again, if the symbol is a gold star, the correct place to go is featured article reassessment. Good articles are indicated with a green circle around a plus sign. (These are the two levels of audited content on Wikipedia and each have different standards.) --Danger (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a featured article. Thanks for your time and explanations. - TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 13:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I edited an article Shmuel C Shapira
'''I edited an article Shmuel C Shapira and saved it, why does not it appear on Wikipedia? Thanks''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shapiras (talk • contribs) 07:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've looked at both your current and deleted contributions and these edits don't appear. What probably happened is that you clicked "Show Preview" instead of "Save" and so your edit was never actually saved on Wikipedia's servers. I am concerned about the content of your userpage. Please note that Wikipedia is not a place for you to store a CV or to write an autobiography. --Danger (talk) 07:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

compromission,complicité,défi ou paradoxe? une reflexion critique au developpement cinquanténaire de la RDC
je suis à la recherche de la personne, l'ONG, maison ou institution qui pourra m'aider à publier cet ouvrage. veuillez agréer ma demande — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.186.12.243 (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia cannot help you to publish your work. Please read Original research (in English) or fr:Wikipédia:Travaux inédits (in French).
 * (Google translation) Wikipedia ne peut pas vous aider à publier vos travaux. S'il vous plaît lisez Original research (en anglais) ou fr:Wikipédia:Travaux inédits (en français). -- John of Reading (talk) 15:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Best Way To Create A New Article
I would like to write an article and have it previewed by an editor. I have written an article before on the subject only to find months later all my hard work was lost after the article was deleted. I would like to avoid that. Can anyone help? Creativebuzzz (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you try the Article wizard. When you get to the final step, choose the first of the three options, "Submit for review". -- John of Reading (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Brain stem death
The entire article on brain stem death has been written by a medical doctor who does not accept the idea of a brain based definition of human death, which is now prevalent throughout the world. He is very passionate about the subject and has no familiarity with Wikipedia concepts concerning neutrality, original research, balance, etc.

Even if you are not knowledgeable about the topic, please read the final discussion section of the talk page, in which the nature of the problem becomes very apparent. The author and I have discussed the issue courteously, but I fear there can be no possible agreement. I think you will soon see why this is a matter of some importance, since unlike many Wikipedia disputes, this one could have very practical application to major decisions faced by our readers. VEBott (talk) 01:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I put a couple tags and comments on it. It does have issues. IMHO needs someone to write the other 3/4 of it, or else to rename it as UK-specific. North8000 (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Halls of residence at University College London
Hi! So I have an issue in terms of duplicate content. The article Halls of residence at University College London contains information on Ramsay Hall and James Lighthill House. Both of those articles also have their own page. This would normally not be an issue, but the content of these articles is literally entirely the same as what is on the larger page. Obviously this isn't logical; there's no reason to have the same information scattered around multiple pages and also condensed into one. The logical solution here would be to simply redirect these pages; no content at all would need to be deleted, since the information is already duplicated.

However, there is an editor who has been arguing for a while that, since this came out of an AfD as no consensus to delete, the article "deserves" to stay on it's own page. I've tried to explain that this is not the case and that the information is not being deleted, but I've been unsuccessful so far. It just frustrates me when Wikipedia becomes more about getting the maximum number of pages or "winning" AfDs rather than making it the best and most efficient and logical source for a reader. I've started a discussion at Talk:Ramsay_Hall, but any help or advice on the matter (or on how similar cases have been resolved in the past) would be much appreciated. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The halls of residence page should probably be set up as a list, with a limited amount of information on each hall. See List of houses and associated buildings by John Douglas for a rough example. Then each notable residence hall should have its own page. It looks like these have already been created. If there aren't enough residence halls to warrant a separate list, then the list should probably be incorporated somewhere "upstream" if you will (though it's possible that the residence system itself warrants having the article). --Danger (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In theory, that makes sense. These, however, are university dorms, not buildings by a very famous architect. The notability of the subjects was strongly questioned in their AfDs (hell, "Coldplay lived there, so it's notable" was given as an argument), and there certainly won't be even that for most dorms. ::These two are probably at the "peak" of notability for dorms at this school; if we trimmed down the info on them on the larger page, there wouldn't be much left.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But the issue I'm really worried about now, since I doubt anyone is going to make the effort to change it all up anytime soon, is the duplication of content. I'm still trying to find the logical reasoning behind leaving them separate right now. Hell, if something new comes up that would make it take up more of the list space then it should, sure, split them again, but right now it just looks stupid.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The information would be left on the two's article pages, but only minimal information would be left on the main page. Does that make sense? A summary stays on the main article and details go on the separate page.
 * Wrt your first point, clearly not every residence hall on the list is going to meet notability. If you notice, each of the buildings on the example list I showed you has maybe a sentence or two as description, even if not notable, which certainly can be coughed up for pretty much any residence hall. The idea is to make the list of residence halls look like that example. Danger (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Type theory
Dear Sirs, my name is Giuseppe Aquaro. I would like to ask two questions about the article on type theory. Is the system ST decidable? Could one translate it into first order logic and prove undecidability? As a related question, in the first part of the paragraph you say that ST is first order logic but later on it is mentioned as higher order logic. Is ST first order or higher order? Best regards Giuseppe Aquaro


 * I apologize but my computer science studies were cut short before I got to type theory. You may have more luck asking these questions on the math reference desk or on the talk page of the article. --Danger (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Photo Vaccinium membranaceum incorrect
The photo linked with the article on Vaccinium membranaceum is not actually a photo of this species, it is a photo of the evergreen huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum) and should be linked with that article instead.

Please assist with making this change. I do not know how to change links on photos. Thanks.

Caylex (talk) 06:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To change the photo in these plant articles, click the "Edit" at the top of the page and then look for the line "image = some image name.jpg", very near the top of the article. Edit this line to point to a different image, or delete everything after the equals sign to remove the image completely. Be sure to explain your reasoning in the edit summary and perhaps on the talk page. Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way - I've left you some introductory links on your talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To change the photo in these plant articles, click the "Edit" at the top of the page and then look for the line "image = some image name.jpg", very near the top of the article. Edit this line to point to a different image, or delete everything after the equals sign to remove the image completely. Be sure to explain your reasoning in the edit summary and perhaps on the talk page. Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way - I've left you some introductory links on your talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

pages
you should be able to create pages for people that should have one but dont. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.118.122.209 (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, welcome to Wikipedia! You can request pages at Requested articles. Of course you will need verifiable and reliable sources to establish the notability of the subject.  Or you can get an account and create an article in your user space and then request feedback. I shall place some useful links on your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Userfication of Alcatel-Lucent 5620 Service Aware Manager
I'd like to request the userfication of the following articles:

Alcatel-Lucent 5620 Service-Aware Manager

Alcatel-Lucent 5650 Control Plane Assurance Manager

Kevinlandry (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to ask the deleting admin. You can find out who by clicking on the red-links and seeing who they are. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Usually you would ask at requests for undeletion. But since you've asked here: I am not going to userfy these articles. They were deleted as promotional and additionally it seems that the subjects are very unlikely to meet our notability guidelines. --Danger (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I put in the request to the deleting admins. I hope that if the notability discussion comes up that the admins perform a search for third-parties that reference the 5620 SAM, because there are a lot of credible public references available. I just can't see how the 5620 SAM would not meet these guidelines... Kevinlandry (talk) 02:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if you recreate the article, be sure to put references supporting notability in. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hidden Champions
Folks, I have reached the end of my tether on this one. It is in dire need of proper sources for just about everything, but the article's creator is exhibiting ownership issues and apparently doesn't understand my comments about references. Additional input would be welcome. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 01:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * de.wikipedia apparently has the norms about citation that we had circa 2006: articles must have references, but inline citations are rarely required and only for extraordinary or surprising claims. For example, today's "Artikel des Tages" has 2 inline citations, whereas its featured English counterpart has over 40. (Interestingly, this is our official verifiability policy, but norms at FA have led to us requiring a cite on nearly every sentence. Or that's my theory.)
 * So I think there's a culture clash here, where when you ask for "references" you mean inline citations and xe interprets that as simply asking for general references, which are bountiful. I'm not sure there's ownership as much as frustration; from the point of view that I think Tasma has, your requests probably seem as nonsensical as asking for more text because there are no words in the article. --Danger (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? Took a few randomized examples:
 * Minneapolis BNSF Rail Bridge: 1 reference, 1 further reading in the same paragraph
 * Thunderbird (Neal Shaara): not any reference
 * Streetfare Journal: not any reference
 * Shatkona: 1 referece to a single post internet page: no "proper source"
 * Dorothy Isaksen: 1 - proper - reference
 * Edward Charleton, 5th Baron Cherleton: This one seems to be like Ukexpat expects. Or? 9 pragraphs but only 7 references?
 * Horror punk: 4 "references", all single post internet pages
 * 2007 Skate America: No reference
 * Csátalja: No reference
 * Sinergy: 2 references but 0 which Ukexpat would call proper.
 * Necessary to continue? Referencing every paragraph or even every sentence doesn't bring more quality but a high risk of copyright problems. There must be a chance for a authors work. I guess Ukexpat work is just formalism. As a few of his comments clearly show, he did not notice the contents or the structure of the article. This used two main sources and a few others around to show that we don't have a unknown theory. If you compare the sources with the article, you will find everything in the sources. This should be enough. Think somebody, who wants to check a source should be able to read more than a single paragraph of it. -- Tasma3197 (talk) 07:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You'll find no disagreement here. I think your analysis is pretty much spot on. Here at en.wikipedia, we look for the little boxes at the end of the sentences as arbiters of truth. (No slur against you, ukexpat. That's the first thing I look at when assessing and sometimes the last. Which en.wikipedian can claim otherwise?) And unsurprisingly, copyright issues, especially close paraphrasing, are rampant, since facts can't be combined into nicely flowing, original sentences, but instead must be taken directly from a single source to be neatly cited at the end. But hey, I just work here.
 * But anyway, I think now you understand what was being asked for. I reread our verifiability policy to check. You technically need inline citations on anything likely to be challenged. What constitutes "likely to be challenged" is... undefined. Danger (talk) 08:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Council Grounds for the Cherokee Nation, located in Bradley County, TN, prior to the forced removal
In the articles that I have read regarding the Cherokee people and the Trail of Tears-there is little mention of the contribution of the members of the cherokee people that have been somewhat classified as "The people from Over the Hill. There is little mention of the Council Grounds for the Cherokee Nation, located in Bradley County, TN, or its significance within Cherokee culture, as a whole; and, in particular regard to the Trail of Tears. Can you help correct these omissions? Also, even though the Cherokee descendents of Bradley County, TN are not recognized as a nation, or within any Cherokee nation, to my knowlegde-we are still here. There was some recognition in 1984, when the Eastern and Western Nations reunited at the Council Grounds, in Bradley County, TN. Please help to correct this information, so that the records may reflect a more accurate portrayal of my cherokee ancestors. Thank you....Kimberly (McLain) Hammersmith.

Here is the link to the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, as it is presently told: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Band_of_Cherokee_Indians — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intrepidwon (talk • contribs) 10:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Suggest that you discuss this on the article talk (discussion) page. That is what it is there for. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

about this article
the article “Samar” i suggest this will be rewritten to this:--->

Samar is located in the Eastern Visayas Region. It is divided into three provinces to the north Northern Samar, west, Western Samar and east, Eastern Samar. Samar is connected to Leyte via the San Juanico Bridge, which spans the San Juanico Strait, the narrowest strait in the country. To the south of the province is the Leyte Gulf. Northern Samar's capital is Catarman, West with two cities Calbayog and Catbalogan is Catbalogan City to the east is Borongan City. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryanpiczon (talk • contribs) 14:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggest you post on the article discussion page. That is where to start. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Restoring deleted page?
The page about Jesse Liberty (me) was deleted on the third attempt, after having been posted for a number of years, and with less than 2/3 of the folks participating voting to delete (in any case, few participated).

Is there a process for reconsideration or restoration? I honestly don't see why, for example, the page about Charles Petzold is considered reasonable and my page is not, given that we write to the same general audience, have similar sales numbers, have a similar number of books and articles, etc.

Thank you Jesse Liberty 17:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jliberty (talk • contribs)
 * If you feel an administrator has erred in closing a deletion discussion or in applying a speedy deletion criterion, please contact them directly. If you are unable to resolve the issue on their talk page, it should be raised at Deletion review, rather than here. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not a vote, it's a discussion. It is the quality of comments, not the quantity, that should be taken into account by the closing admin. – ukexpat (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Other stuff exists may also be of use. Rehevkor ✉  23:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As may WP:AB regarding autobiographical articles, WP:COI regarding conflicts of interest, WP:SOAP regarding usage of WP for self-promotion and WP:N regarding notability. Having read those, Jliberty, please go ahead and raise this at Deletion review if you feel it's appropriate. Tonywalton Talk 00:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a mess -> Category: Japanese Science Fiction Films
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Japanese_science_fiction_films

I find this film index frustrating because it has a mixture of feature-length animated films and feature films with no clue to differ them. I'm not interested in animated films, but I have to click on every title to find whether it's a feature film, not an animated film. I checked other specific-country SF films indexes to see if it's same there and none of them has animated films listed. Why is Japanese SF film index an exception?

French: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:French_science_fiction_films German: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:German_science_fiction_films American: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_science_fiction_films British: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_science_fiction_films

There are a lot of Japanese SF feature films missing from the index, too. Summer Time Machine Blues (2005), Gantz (2011), Time Slip (1979), 20th Century Boys 1 & 2 (2008 & 2009), The Clone Returns Home (2009), The Face of Another (1966) and many more for example. How do I insert these films in the index? Do I have to go to each film page and insert the category notation in the footer? Thank you. 0zero9nine (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there just aren't all that many animated scifi movies outside of Japan. It may be worth making a subcategory, Category:Japanese animated science fiction films. See here for more information about categories. As far as I know, you do have to insert the category into each film page, but you can activate a gadget called HotCat (it's in your preferences menu next to your username at the top of the screen) that makes this pretty painless. Danger (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll bring it up at Wikiproject Anime & Manga and Wikiproject Japanese films to see what both teams say. Meanwhile I'll go ahead with categorising the omitted SF films. Thanks. 0zero9nine (talk) 06:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Might be a good idea to raise this on the talk page of the Anime and Manga Project. – ukexpat (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Editorial help for Robina Suwol page
“”New to Wikipedia, could use Editorial assistance on the Robina Suwol page. I added significant number of pertinent links but would like to know the process and protocol for removing comments specific to their "not being links" Thanks CentralAbe (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)CentralAbe
 * Try reading the links in the banners at the top of the page, especially Citing sources. There are a lot of sources but it is not possible to tell which statements are referenced by them. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

my daughter memorial dvd
my daughter was killed in a wreck 2/9/10. a friend made a memorial dvd of her. we made a page for her and put the dvd on it that had the song now & forever by air supply 1995 live by giant records. after putting it on her page, someone took it off her page do to a copyright issue. it stated that i had to go through the channels to get it ok'd. please help! what all do i need to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.221.213.48 (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I am sorry for your loss. At Wikipedia there is a policy that we do not link to copyright violations or insert copyright material into articles. This because all material on Wikipedia is made freely available and we cannot violate other people's copyright. In the case of the DVD, that copyright would belong to the band and the record company. You can read more about this at Wikipedia Copyright and Copyright violations. You may also wish to read MEMORIAL. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * While Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to post the tribute to your daughter, the good news is that the internet has a vast number of blogs and content hosting sites. There are even some websites designed for grieving family members to post similar content as yours. You may find other people there who can help you in this difficult time for you. — Senator2029 (talk )

Nottingham Spirk
Hi,

In reference to this article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nottingham_Spirk, how do I get one of the boxes on the side of the page that allows you to post a company logo, and mentions the type of company along with key people, employees, etc.? I appreciate your help, and thanks in advance!

Lalexander11 (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Template:Infobox company or Template:Infobox organization should be what you're looking for. Probably best to look at a different page, hit the "edit" button and have a look at the Wiki markup there to see how it is formatted. Tried to cite some reliable sources for any changes you want to make. Cheers, doom gaze   (talk)  13:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I get some help on the grammer and layout of my wording on my new site please?
I am no way shape or form good at writing articles. I have been a tow driver for years and decided to open a website. The text looks ok and is readable to me but if anyone can take a look and feel free to post opinions.

http://www.towingdecaturillinois.com www.towingdecaturillinois.com

Be easy on me now. Brian

Hello Brian,

I think you might have the wrong place  This is for getting help with editing Wikipedia articles. Good luck with your business and your new web site. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like somebody to design a Navbox for me.
I've more or less completed 15 pages that should be linked with a Navigation box at the bottom. The series begins with Los Angeles City  Council District 1 and ends with Los Angeles  City  Council District 15. Who can help design a box so the user can easily jump from one district to another? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the Navbox already contain links to the districts? -- John of Reading (talk) 07:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

missing artist
You miss Tayyar Ozkan who is the creator of world wide well known comic strips CAVEMAN! thanks,.. Best

www.tayyarozkan.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.235.94.55 (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, welcome to Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit/ If you have some reliable sources to establish the notability of this artist you could try creating an article. You will need to create an account and you can use the Article wizard to get started. I shall place some useful links on your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Need help to create a new page linked to an image file for the insertion of information regarding a music album
Hi, I have a question! I would like to add an external Wikipedia page, for the insertion of some new content regarding a music album. How can I manage to insert this external page sharing the description of the album? How can I obtain the right to use a picture? Can someone help me with the process??? Thank you in advance!!!Sophenemy (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You request is unclear. Please explain what you are trying to do. As regards photographs you need to get the copyright holder to release the image(s) under a free license. More at Finding images tutorial. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

My Cage images
I was given permission by the owner to post several images from the My Cage comic on the Wiki commons section for use in the My Cage Wiki.

I have an email from the owner to myself detailing that this is a free license (I'm guessing at the term) to post and distribute on your site without permission to alter any further than I have.

Because there are currently 9 images, I was hoping to have them all approved before I look to alter the MyCageWiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Cage) to improve the page.

Can you tell me the best way to do this, as yesterday I was banned (for just cause, and I don't at all mind the events) but reinstated once I explained the situation. I would rather not have to make more work for you all than needed. And deal with all the images at once. I will have another half dozen once these are added and displayed on your site, and would like to know the best, least cumbersome means.

Thank you for any advice, Ryan Icthulu (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icthulu (talk • contribs) 13:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Please follow the process set out at WP:IOWN to communicate the permissions to Wikipedia. It may take several days for the volunteer team to process your request. – ukexpat (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. But considering what the owner will give up in terms of rights, I will have to find another way. I would not allow my own work to be used in commercial efforts without my approval, nor would I ask the owner to agree to such a thing. Thank you for the assistance. Ryan :: Icthulu (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We cannot use pictures under a 'conditional' release like that, unfortunately. Wikipedia is designed to be free, for any use, any purpose. Therefore, all images with very few, special exceptions must be free for any use too.
 * As I'm sure you are aware, lots of other websites re-use Wikipedia articles - and some of those sites carry adverts. That counts as 'commercial use', and that's one reason we insist on the free licence conditions.
 * The only alternative is "Fair use of a non-free image", but that is complicated, and it is hard to show why a specific cartoon image would meet those requirements (such as, "Respect for commercial opportunities", "Minimal usage", "Minimal extent of use", "Contextual significance" etc) and, 9 images would certainly be problematic. The one existing non-free image, File:My cage logo 200711.png, is probably about as far as we could go.
 * I'm sorry I can't be more positive. But I do hope you can work on the article in other ways; the lack of footnotes is the more important editorial concern, at present.  Chzz  ► 03:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

13 summarized points from this BBC Online link were removed for copyvio here, so does putting the content in a quotation-template solve the issue? Although, the intro said "According to BBC...". Thanks, 174.50.135.86 (talk) 10:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * A few, short, direct quotations from a copyright source may be acceptable, but nothing more than that. – ukexpat (talk) 13:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Bradley Manning
Hello there,

I hope this is the right avenue for this! It appears that someone keeps reverting Bradley Manning's dual citizenship status in the information box to the right of his Wikipedia page. The body of the article text (Bradley Manning) includes references to that dual nationality status, which has been confirmed by a Foreign Office Minister on the floor of the House of Commons - I can certainly supply more if required.

I would appreciate some assistance here; the real-life consequences of having innacurate information on wikipedia are actually quite serious.

Thanks,

Naomi

Auerfeld (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

(There was nothing about dual citizenship at the link you provided.)  The first step would be to provide suitable sourcing and a citation with your addition. BTW, this can be done in an info box. And there is nothing that says that such a statement needs to be in the info box; it can be in the body of the article. Actually, it probably should be in the body of the article because that statement would probably need other qualifying verbiage to go with it. Then, if there is a difference of opinion, to have a discussion of the particulars and points on the talk page. (It doesn't look like such has yet occurred) If that doesn't resolve it, there are other steps that can be taken. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This issue is under discussion on WP:BLPN and Talk:Bradley Manning; the user states xe is runnning an off-wiki campaign regarding this matter . I don't think further help here at EA is appropriate.  Chzz  ►  10:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've been very open about my background here - because I need to be - but the dual citizenship issue is one that has now been reported in numerous reputable secondary sources (for instance: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/britain-to-reassert-worries-about-wikileaks-suspect-bradley-mannings-treatment/2011/04/05/AFXo4GlC_story.html). I'm not seeking to comment on the article other than restoring a point of fact. There is now a debate going on on the talk page, so I hope this can be resolved there - but if it can't I would hope that the way I have approached this issue on WP should not debar me from seeking further advice and guidance. Auerfeld (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can't resolve at the talk page, I suggest that you might consider the new WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard, but only after the thread at the BLPN board has run its course. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree.
 * Auerfeld, I certainly didn't mean to criticise that you'd asked here - or to form any opinion of right/wrongness. Just that, matters like this often spread out over many different noticeboards, which doesn't help reach agreement. There's plenty of folks actively discussing it, now, on Talk:Bradley Manning - and that's the best place. It'll probably take time to get anything approaching consensus, but there's no deadline; normal discussion needs to be given a chance, for now. Best of luck,  Chzz  ► 02:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Fake article
Whilst carrying out category maintenance, I came across this (User:BigEveArc/sandbox) userpage. I disabled the categories on it as per guidelines about userpages not appearing in the main categories and I added the userpage template to the top of it, and left an explanation in the edit summary. The user removed the template and re-enabled the categories. I repeated my edits and left a note on the user's discussion page to explain why. The user has reverted my edits and re-enabled the categories again.

At best it points towards an intransigent user, at worst it points towards being a deliberate attempt to create a fake article. There is no clear indication in WP:FAKEARTICLE of what steps to take or where to report such an article. Can anyone sort it out, or point me in the right direction? - X201 (talk) 07:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have reverted their latest edit and left a message at their talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I see that another editor has re-done the edits, and warned the user again . has not edited since then, so for now it's best to just see what happens. Hopefully, no further action will be required.


 * If it does continue to be a problem, then I'd suggest one more warning, probably, and if that failed, it'd be worth reporting on WP:ANI. - But, I emphasize, I hope that won't be necessary.


 * We could add a to the page, but I think it's best to let it be, and see what the user does next.


 * So, for now, this appears to be a "wait and see".  Chzz  ► 09:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Non-free images removed & someone else had already nominated them for deletion on commons. Skier Dude  ( talk ) 04:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it notable?
thumb|200px|right|Yes, it exists. There's a 7,000-seat arena in Chinle, Arizona, called the Wildcat Den. It's the 15th-largest high school gymnasium in the US*. Is it notable enough to write an article? Raymie (t • c) 05:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 16th if you include the Round Valley Ensphere, an American football AND basketball/tennis arena in Eagar, Arizona with basketball capacity for 9,000 that, if listed, would be the second-largest HS gym in the US. But it's not a traditional gymnasium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymie (talk • contribs) 06:48, 30 July 2011
 * Probably not unless major professional competition has taken place there. See Note and What Wikipedia is not. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ::I would say it  is not  notable unless it  has special features that have made it  sufficiently  outstanding  to  attract multiple, in-depth coverage from the established press or media. If it has, you will ned to cite references, using reliable sources. Round Valley Ensphere is notable for its unusual architecture and being  the only  example of such a design in the USA. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

References & External Links
Hello,

I have a question concerning my first article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sira-zo%C3%A9/Femous

I put the sources in the external links box, is that ok!? Or should I put them in the References!? I was a bit confused, because I thaught that in the References I should only put footnotes.

It would be great if you could help me out! All the best sira-zoé — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sira-zoé (talk • contribs) 15:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, references or sources for statements in the article go in the references or notes section. Below that there may be external links, which might include official websites associated with the subject or additional information which is not cited.  Click on the blue links here to find out more.  And please don't forget to sign posts on talk pages with four tildes (~). Jezhotwells (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Learning Wiki but not too well Richard Stetelman 18:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Dear Editor,

Several years back I tried to put up a Wiki page about some work I did but I am sure I was way off base and it was deleted. I was okay with that; as I am not too good at reading instructions (dyslexic several other brain-eye coordination issues) but today I thought I might try again.

I may have done it correctly; am not sure...I did try to read as much instruction as I could comprehend, but if not, could you kindly, when you get a chance, tell me how I might rewrite this to make it work and how to re-post it? I would like the title to be Rick London if possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ricklondondesigns

User:Ricklondondesigns From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Born in Hattiesburg, Ms, Rick London Go To Wiki Hattiesburg Page(ref) and now lives in Hot Springs, Ar. He is creator of #1 ranked Londons Times Cartoons and his verified page is on Twitter Go to Rick London's Verified Twitter Page (ref). USA Today has featured him regarding his cartoons and design work Go To USA Feature Story On Rick London (ref). London's first book "Our Favorites...A 13th Anniversary" being sold at Barnes And Noble Go To Rick London's Page At Barnes And Noble Ricklondondesigns (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)(ref_

Thank you for your consideration.

Richard Stetelman 18:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricklondondesigns (talk • contribs)


 * Please take a look at WP:UP, in particular: User pages mainly are for interpersonal discussion, notices, testing and drafts, and, if desired, limited autobiographical and personal content. User pages are available to Wikipedia users personally for purposes compatible with the Wikipedia project and acceptable to the community; Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site. Wikipedia policies concerning the content of pages can and generally do apply to user pages, and users must observe these policies. In my view, plugging your book, with a link to an online retailer, crosses the line. – ukexpat (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Websites with images
When creating a new article there is often an external website with a good photograph of the subject. One option is to include this website in "External links". As an alternative, I have seen a neat little box that can be inserted at the appropriate place in the text. I recall a heading saying something like "Click here for image". An explanatory caption can also be included. Now that I need this neat little box I can't find it! Where should I look to find some information about this feature? Dolphin ( t ) 13:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you thinking of External media? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see the policies on External links, and images, especially  the subsection  WP:HOTLINK.   You  may  find that  policies forbid the kind  of linking  you have in  mind,  and that  you  will  need ti  upload copyright-free images to  Commons. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)


 * External media contains all the information I had in mind! Many thanks.  Dolphin  ( t ) 00:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)