Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 106

Proper venue to discuss / report disruptive and non-responsive editor?
To set the stage: User DragoLink08 directs a good deal of his editing energy into changing the color schemes of sports articles, navboxes and templates (mostly college sports but not always). The problem is that most of the color display schemes have been laboriously sorted out by other editors for consistency, readability, and proper display across different browsers and according to user preferences. Also his changes are sometime simply wrong - inverting for example, primary and secondary colors. (Honestly. "Blue and Maize" for the University of Michigan?)  His Talk page reflects complaints (stretching over two years) about this behavior from a series of editors, without a single response. He was blocked in March and again in July for the same behavior (most recently for a week) and both times when the block expired he picked up pretty much right back where he left off. (One time he created a sock so that he wouldn't have to wait out the full term.)

I'm not asking for action here, but rather suggestions about the best place to take this next. The blocking adminexpressed reluctance to block him yet again on this basis and suggested RfC, but I don't know how a voluntary process is going to help in a case where the editor won't engage at all. There was anANI report in May (in which DragoLink08, unsurprisingly, did not participate) but that seemed to wither on the vine. Maybe that's the right place for another go; I don't know. (The ANI, by the way, lays out these issues pretty well.) I could even see going to AIV, if he persists in this disruptive editing beyond a standard series of warnings. Anyhow, that's my question. What's the best place to go to rein in a disruptive, non-responsive editor whose behavior is unaffected by short blocks? Thanks for any and all advice. JohnInDC(talk) 04:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think ANI is best, with a very detailed report of all warnings left, all damaging edits made by the editor and links to places where consensus was achieved for the existing colour schemes.  It ccan be a lot of work preparing such a reoport but if it is well presented at ANI, it will probably get informed discussion and hopefully action. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Non-admin here, but I don't understand why we have to waste so much time tiptoeing around what sounds to me like just vandalism and disruption. I don't know if this sample edit from last night is vandalism for sure since I don't know the correct colors for the team, but it sure smells like vandalism to me.  (Oops, didn't AGF there).  Let's just permablock such persons, and if socks show up apply the DUCK test and permablock them too.  --CliffC (talk) 11:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It was taken to AIV, problem editor was indef blocked. Thanks for the advice; matter is resolved. JohnInDC(talk) 11:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Bulk moving of scripts relating to WikiProject Writing systems
In response to the unannounced, undiscussed, bulk moving of 48 articles in WikiProject Writing systems by User:Kwamikagami, I started an informal RfC on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Writing systems about this mass move, which turned into a general discussion about article naming consistency, and informed User:Kwamikagami on their talk page about it. User:Kwamikagami has responded to this discussion, but seems to have moved another 20 articles in the mean time. I consider this to be an extreme lack of good faith, especially considering that I refrained from reverting any of the articles I believe to have been erroneously moved before. I'm asking for administrative assistance in preventing User:Kwamikagami from continuing their disruptive practice until the members of WikiProject Writing systems have had an opportunity to achieve consensus, and would like the moved articles reverted, but do not feel it is in good faith to do so myself. The affected articles are:

Original 48:
 * Malayalam alphabet
 * Thai alphabet
 * Javanese alphabet
 * Batak alphabet
 * Lontara alphabet
 * Tagbanwa alphabet
 * Burmese alphabet
 * Khmer alphabet
 * Sinhala alphabet
 * Tulu alphabet
 * Rejang alphabet
 * Sundanese alphabet
 * Hanunó'o alphabet
 * Buhid alphabet
 * Balinese alphabet
 * Balinese alphabet
 * Kawi alphabet
 * Cham alphabet
 * Lao alphabet
 * Grantha alphabet
 * Kannada alphabet
 * Tamil alphabet
 * Soyombo alphabet
 * Ranjana alphabet
 * Assamese alphabet
 * Gujarati alphabet
 * Modi alphabet
 * 'Phags-pa alphabet
 * Nāgarī alphabet
 * Limbu alphabet
 * Tibetan alphabet
 * Takri alphabet
 * Gurmukhī alphabet
 * Laṇḍā alphabet
 * Śāradā alphabet
 * Meitei Mayek alphabet
 * Tocharian alphabet
 * Eastern Nagari alphabet
 * Siddhaṃ alphabet
 * Gupta alphabet
 * Gupta alphabet
 * Bengali alphabet
 * Oriya alphabet
 * Brahmic family of alphabets
 * Telugu alphabet
 * Brāhmī alphabet
 * Ugaritic alphabet
 * Proto-Canaanite alphabet

The 20 moved after the RfC:
 * Mandombe alphabet
 * Old Turkic alphabet
 * Old Permic alphabet
 * Osmanya alphabet
 * Osmanya alphabet
 * Kaddare alphabet
 * Borama alphabet
 * Bassa alphabet
 * Abakada alphabet
 * Rencong alphabet
 * N'Ko alphabet
 * Ol Chiki alphabet
 * Elbasan alphabet
 * Khudabadi alphabet
 * Galik alphabet
 * Mongolian Latin alphabet
 * Meroitic alphabet
 * Ge'ez alphabet
 * Samaritan alphabet
 * Old Hungarian alphabet

VIWS talk 07:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll be happy to move them back myself if we decide that non-"true" alphabets should be labeled "scripts". But so far there haven't been any contributors to the discussion. Meanwhile our articles are at least consistent, rather than value judgements on familiar vs. obscure scripts. (I figured this would be a path of less resistance than trying to move Hebrew alphabet and Arabic alphabet to "script".)
 * Also, most of the latter 20 are "true" alphabets, which Vanisaac agrees should be placed at "alphabet", and others are abjads, which he also believes should be placed at "alphabet". — kwami (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I stand only on my conduct and request administrative assistance. I believe it is in bad faith to undertake controversial edits while you know them to be under review. VIWS talk 07:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Kwamikagami's unilateral site-wide edits regarding linguistics, the use of non-Roman scripts, and theIPA have been the subject of much contentious discussion for at  least 18 months. I  have always considered site-wide format  and/or interface changes to  be subject  to  consensus by  the broader community. Perhaps a well publicised RfC at  WP:Cent on  the value of these and other site-wide linguistic edit should now be considered.  That  said, in alignment  with the refocusing  of Wikipedia help  desks, this matter should probably  be next addressed at  WP:DRN, failing  which, WP:AN/I,WP:RFC/U, and ultimately  WP:ARBCOM could be considered. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If this is an ongoing problem can we get a ban on Kwamikagami moving pages for a couple weeks? I want to give the semi-RfC some time to get a consensus, but that should give us some time to get some feedback - WikiProject Writing systems doesn't get all that heavy traffic. VIWS talk11:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, if there are others that Kwami has done this to, where can I find their information in order to pursue a DRN?VIWS talk
 * Also also, if I were to do this as a CD, where should I post it? VIWS talk

I just wanted to inform that I did post a message to User talk:Moyogo, who had commented on one of the article moves on Kwamikagami's talk page. I don't know whether that sort of action qualifies as canvassing, but I wanted to be the first to divulge the possible breach. It was only my intent to bring an interested party in.VIWS talk 12:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see my response above. The Editor Assistance Requests desk is not a  dispute resolution venue, and it is not a desk that is particularly staffed by  admins -  quite to the contrary. I think issue(s) such as the one(s) you described here are best addressed by  community  discussion, summarised and executed by  admins. If  the disputed action is being carried out by users with admin status, there are additional noticeboards. It  is always helpful to  distinguish as clearly as possible however, between article content  policies and user behaviour policies.   Even  if they  overlap on  a particularly  contentious issue, it  is sometimes better  to address them separately. WP:RfC/U is generally the place to discuss specific user conduct in the first major instance,  while an article talk page with an  RfC such as the one you have initiated, is the place to start the discussion on the content of an article. For broader issues such as those concerning the layout, format, and use of linguistic devices, fonts, and writing systems, a proposal for change or conformity is probably best made in the appropriate department of the WP:VP, and listed at WP:Cent to attract a wide participation. For our rules on  canvassing see WP:CANVASS. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Reported atANI. After I saw his G6 deletion of a dab page, this was enough to me. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

As I stated at AN/I, one example is Sinhala script (a good article) being moved to Sinhala alphabet, despite the fact that the article still says "Sinhala script" throughout the article, despite that Sinhala is an abugida and not an alphabet, and despite the fact that there was clear consensus on the talk page that "Sinhala script" is preferable to "Sinhala alphabet". This was certainly an abuse of administrator tools. Can we move these articles back? – Quadell(talk) 18:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

ron,s job service
i have been posting an ad for a buisness for three days now and it is not posting on your website ron,s limb/branch removel and hauling so could you please see that this job ad gets posted   my number is;. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.62.143 (talk • contribs)
 * You seem to misunderstand what Wikipedia is. This is an encyclopedia, not a classified listings site, if you want to advertise your service, try craigslist-- Jac 16888 Talk 11:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You may also like to try placing an advert card in the window of your local corner shop or village store.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Erroneous tags, multiple edits backed only by opinion and false claims on Matthew D. Sacks
Overall, the concern is that tags were added as a matter of opinion, and he provides unverifiable, false facts as support for his claims on the tags.

The disagreement is documented here in the following discussion:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MikeWazowski#http:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FTalk:Matthew_D._Sacks

On the notability tag that MikeWazorski added, the Wikipedia guidelines state that the author's notability is a matter of published works, not the community opinion. Thus, this tag should be stricken.

In regard to the editors claim that this should be tagged self published, my understanding of this tag is thus:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Self-published. The editor claims that this tag is that the articles cited need to be discussing the author, rather than written by the author, I do not see this requirement, unless there is something I may be missing, and thus request this tag to be stricken from the article.

On the advert tag, this is the editors opinion. All of the claims in the article are verifiable facts. Therefore, this tag should be stricken from the article.
 * I've addressed this on my talk page, but this new user has ignored my rationale, which is backed by policy. However, the article is now nominated for deletion, so we'll let that handle it.MikeWazowski (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with all the tags placed on the article. Firstly articles must rely on reliable sources independent of the subject, this is so any article can be verifiable and also helps establish notability. The sources currently in the article are all primary sources (and only serve to source the published works section, the "biography" is totally unsourced. As for the advertisement tag - it does basically read like a CV. Яehevkor ✉  23:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Change Picture
To Whom It May Concern:

I work for Capitol Latin (Latin division of Capitol Records). We are the record label for Belinda Peregrin Schull. She has a wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belinda_(entertainer). How do we change the picture? The picture you have of her is really old and we have an updated picture.

Ramosiemi (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)ramosiemi
 * Donating copyrighted materials tells you how to go about donating images and other copyright materials. Please remember that the copyright will likely belong to the photographer, not the record label. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Changes to article 'United States' - Foreign Relations and Military (Section)
Hello,

Would like a second opinion on changes made to the article 'United States - Foreign Relations and Military (section)'. (Link posted above as required)

Extract of contributed material reverted without valid reason and reverted to original without references:

"The United States and the Republic of the Philippines (PH) maintain close ties stemming from the U.S. colonial period (1898-1946)[52], a history of extensive military cooperation, and shared economic and strategic interests [53]"

Reference I had added to the above contribution as follows:

^ "The Republic of the Philippines and US interests". Congressional Research Service: Prepared for members and Committees of Congress. January 3, 2011. Retrieved 2011-28-07.

Below is the note I added before clicking on 'Save'.

NOTE: Article well referenced from THE CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH REPORT - PREPARED FOR MEMBERS AND COMMITTEES OF CONGRESS. DATED January 3, 2011.

The questions I would like to ask is the following in relation to the above contribution that was reverted without valid reason.

1) Had someone revert without taking into account fully credible reference I have added and wish to ask if I had added the appropriate referencing.

2) If so, why is it being deleted and reverted?

3) If its possible to shorten the contribution made by me, then what would be best?

Yours

Zabararmon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabararmon (talk • contribs)


 * The best place really to sort this out would be the talk page of the article ion question: Talk:United_States. Яehevkor ✉  17:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks heaps "Rehevkor"... Im only new to Wiki and trying to get the hang of it. — Precedingunsigned comment added by Zabararmon (talk •contribs) 17:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Making reflist look shorter
I learned in Finnish wiki this code:

that puts reflist in a window. Example:Anders Behring Breivik. It makes a very long reflist shorter, but as it was discussed in fi-wiki not printable, so they were removed there. Can this code be used at all?--RicHard-59 (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * is fine, but I don't think the html is good. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:ASL. DMacks (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The bio I wrote is on my page/girlfromnarnia
It was thoughtful of you to put it there for me, but I want to delete it and don't know how. Can you help. I copied it and I'll wait till the person has enough notable credits to repost. Though she was named an actress, she is more notable as an urban planner. That is just part of her story. I think it's a good one, because she is a child actress who's grown up to do things to affect the world in greater ways. But anyway, time for delete. girlfromnarnia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girlfromnarnia (talk • contribs) 01:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What article are you talking about? Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Girlfromnarnia/Eliza Harris. I've blanked the page, moved it back to the user page where it came from, and requested that the redirect be speedy deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing erroneous comma from display title
Hello, I cannot seem to write the wiki code to remove the erroneous comma in DeVry Inc. at the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeVry,_Inc. According to the company's true name with SEC filings and its own website, there is not a comma in the name. Yet when I attempt to edit using "DISPLAYTITLE" it does not work. Can you please advise...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jd devry (talk • contribs) 22:54, 2 August 2011
 * Actually if you read Naming_conventions_(companies) you will find that the Inc shouldn't be there at all, but as DeVry exists as a redirect, I have moved the page to DeVry Inc.. Please don't forget to sign posts on talk pages with four tildes (~). Jezhotwells (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I also note that your user name appears to indicate a conflict of interest. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The redirect Devry does not have a history, so if you take the issue to Talk:DeVry Inc. as a proposed move - NewName - it may get moved to the requested page.  Skier Dude  ( talk ) 02:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's more confusing though...there is DeVry a redirect to the company but Devry a redirect to the school. This really needs to be made uniform for readers' sanity, and also a rational basis for picking the target per WP:COMMONNAME/WP:DISAMBIGUATION. Would need actual evidence for choosing whether the school or the parent corporation is the likely expected one. DMacks (talk) 03:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Avoiding a dispute on soap articles: What to do when the other editor won't discuss changes
I've been browsing through the guidelines, and I see Wikipedia's recommendation to discuss any dispute—but it doesn't tell us what to do when the other editor won't discuss the changes. I know from experience with another wiki site that it's very common for one side simply to refuse to discuss anything.

I made some fairly bold changes to the pages for Bill Spencer, Sr. and Bill Spencer, Jr.—especially bold was the removal of most references to their honorifics. (In fact, I'd like to be even bolder and remove the honorifics from the article names as well.) I explain why on the discussion pages for each article and in my edits. (1) These honorifics are never seen or heard on the program—not in the credits or the dialogue or anywhere else. In fact, the writers only created the younger Bill Spencer (thus revising the in-universe history) after they killed off the older character. And so it's misleading to give the older Bill this retroactive honorific. (2) Etiquette mavens, such as Judith Martin (aka Miss Manners) say this use of honorifics is improper. First, "Sr." is not a proper honorific. Second, the younger son ceases to be "Jr." when the father dies. If the characters used these honorifics anyway, that would be one thing. But they don't.

My first attempt at removing the honorifics met with resistance from an editor named Big_BLA. No explanation was given. And I've noticed that this editor never explains any changes or appears on any discussion page that I can locate.

I've now removed the honorifics a second time; but I need to know what to do if this becomes a dispute and the editor continues to refuse to even discuss the matter. I'm pretty much a newbie here (despite some scattered editing over the years), and I'd rather avoid a dispute if at all possible. -- JustinSpurlin (talk) 06:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

WV Grant
I'm having a bit of a situation at W. V. Grant, which is an article on a televangelist that's had quite a bit of problems before. Returning editor has come to the page and inserted his own experience about the subject, based on his personal opinions on what he saw. I've tried to explain on his talk page about this, and I'll talk it over with him on the article talk page. I don't want to edit war over this though, and I would prefer to not make an edit war case out of this on him, either. If someone else would drop in there and try and help explain, it might go over better. Thanks in advance for your help. Dayewalker (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What could possibly be said to someone who makes edits like that? Are we really expected to negotiate with people who make such egregiously bad "contributions"? Why isn't that an automatic goodbye? -- JustinSpurlin (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not vandalism. It just seems to be an editor who isn't listening to Wikipedia policy. I'm assuming good faith here, but I don't want to edit war. Dayewalker (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're not edit-warring; indeed, you're being remarkably patient with somebody who is just plain unwilling to accept that we won't allow him to allow his eyewitness testimony. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Editing Etiquette for Skeletal Articles
I recently created an account to add my research skills and knowledge to Wikipedia, and have found a few topics that could really use further explication. However, the opening paragraphs, using few or no citations, make ambiguous claims or awkward introductions that I have find hard to build off of. But I don't wish to offend others' efforts. What is the protocol for revamping work with little or no cited sources? For an example, see "Conceptual blending." (Similar problems lurk in the 'Political Science Theories' Section in the Article "War".) Thanks, Christopher69v2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher69v2 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Very good question. A dodgy one, too, with some articles that have already been heavily edited, like Conceptual blending. Lots of folks have put their fingerprints on it. For starters, I would pose the same question at Talk:Conceptual_blending, and post also on the Talk pages of some of the contributors who seem to know what they are doing, like User:Ling.Nut2 Let people know what your concerns are: Edit the piece, adding inline citations for everything you have, and see if the others accept your changes or want to revert them. Be polite, as you have been in your message above. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

delating
sir how can i delate my article in wiki awaiting your reply --sampath kumar 08:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medavarapu (talk • contribs)


 * Are you referring to the draft in your sandbox at User:Medavarapu/sandbox? Just add db-G7 to the top of the page and an admin will delete it in due course. – ukexpat (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I Don't Like Mondays
"We need to be able to verify that he said what you say he said, and therefore need a source that can be checked. The source needs to be reliable and what he said needs to be clear and unambiguous"

Whenever I do, the article just gets reverted to a previous version. Why? Read Talk. I have an audio source from two separate events. No subscription is required, it is freely available, it is Geldof speaking. It is clear and unambigious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.88.87 (talk) 23:29, 4 August 2011


 * This is a straightforward content dispute, I would suggest that both versions of the information are included. If you can't achieve consensus on the article talk page then I would suggest either a third opinion or perhaps the new Dispute resolution noticeboard Jezhotwells (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

username: shields4880
Username: Shields4880 has attacked my username: Lavi123 by causing certain problems from editing all sites. This is an attack on my editing the Restoration Movement by adding the Evangelical Christian Church in Canada as a restoration movement in Canada.

What can I do to restore my username to do editing?

Thank you. Lavi123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavi123 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In what way has your username been "attacked". Please clarify, supplying details of where this has happened. P Lease remember to sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes {~)s/ Jezhotwells (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Article for Deletion
I have added the deletion tag to an article which was 'relisted' after being called a 'weak keep.' I am unable to find a 'deletion review' page where I can state my reasons for renominating it. Please excuse me- I am new to the process.

The article 'Farrah Sarafa' was nominated for deletion in January, but no consensus was reached- I strongly believe it should remain under consideration for deletion. I was not part of the original nomination or discussion.

Upon consideration of Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines for biographies, the person in question does not meet the standard as far as I can tell.

For instance: According to the cited links, Farrah Sarafa is a graduate student who contributes to 'various publications'- sources include a link to "Shadowpoetry.com"- a vanity publishing website. The article also claims that Ms. Sarafa has won 'a number of awards and prizes for her poetry.' The only award cited is a "second place" poetry award in a "sixth-annual" competition by a lesser-known publisher.

Article links establish that this is an adjunct professor, a freelance writer and magazine contributor- but not that this person is particularly distinguished within any of these creative fields.

Thank you, Bunnyman 7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunnyman 7 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You haven't actually nominated the article for deletion, you've just readded a link to the old deletion discussion. You need to follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO to nominate it correctly-- Jac 16888 Talk 23:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Your Constantine "The Great" page
Dear Editor

I am writing about your Constantine the Great web page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great

My name is Bob Djurdjevic. I am the current reincarnation of Constantine. And I respectfully request that you strike any reference to him as "the Great" from your web site. Thank you.

To understand my reasons for this admittedly unusual request, I invite you to check out following articles posted at my altzar.org web site:

Constantine's Trail of Tears (Aug 9);

Constantine: First Christian to Rule with Sword (July 31);

Constantine and I (June 28-July 19)

You can reply to this message by email to (Redacted) or by phone at the number shown below. Thank you.

Bob Djurdjevic Haiku, Maui Mobile: (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.127.125 (talk) 02:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Er, I don't think so. – ukexpat (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for writing. You should poke around a bit on this site to read some of our policies. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Never seen that bollocks page before, that is going to come in so handy. Cheers UKexpat-- Jac 16888 Talk 22:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Kristin Nelson
Note number 20 in Kristin Nelson's bio: she may have had sex with Ron Reagan Jr. in 1978 or 1977, but Reagan did not become president until 1981, so perhaps it was at the end of Reagan's california governorship? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.220.13 (talk) 08:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Kristin Nelson article says the incident was in 1976; I don't have the cited book so I cannot check the source. The Ronald Reagan article says that the governorship was from January 2, 1967 to January 6, 1975. I haven't understood the point you are making here. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * IP Editor also opened a "request" at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. The book that's being cited is available at my local public library. I've volunteered to read the 5 pages before, the page, and the 5 pages after for context.  If it says secret service, then we have to go with that. Hasteur (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The biography is correctly cited. Not making any determination on what "Secret service" means, however that's what the biography has written so we aren't going to contest it.  Request can be closed whenever. Hasteur (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hawaiian Punch.
In July I edited the Hawaiian Punch page... I was the director of the first Hawaiian Punch commercials produced at John Urie and /Associates in 1962 in Hollywood California.

the page is totally wrong, and it's still not changed, is there a reason ??? Potenski (talk) 08:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your edit to the article was reverted by MikeWazowski, probably because it removed existing references and had a promotional tone (i.e. "hot Hollywood commercial house", "memorable commercials"). I've fixed the artist claims to match those found on the offical site. If you have reliable published sources that tell the rest of the story, please do add them to the article. Danger (talk) 09:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

National Pest Technician's Association
It appears my wish to inform readers that there exists a National Pest Technician's Association that I am assumed to be too close to the organisation and should stop creating anything. I am also asked for more external cross references. This has made me realise that I think I need references from another body or organisation. Is this what is necessary? My whole aim was to tell the general public that the main aim is to create better professionals who are the members. Then what members of the public should expect when they call in a professional pest control technician. Then that these pest control technicians are required to achieve certain levels of competency with certain stated qualifications. As our only approved training required is via another special accrediting body I don't believe the entry is biaised but would like your views please. Then to say we provide an Annual Report based upon statistics and comments from professional people including local authority officers. This same Annual Report is sent and made available to all the UK Pest Control Industry and sometimes used in representations made to parliament.

Jbhygiene (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)Barrie Sheard
 * Well, you could ask for an article to be created at Articles for creation, supplying details of reliable third party sources, or you could try creating an article in your WP:user space, remembering to use a neutral encyclopaedic tone and provide reliable sources to establish that the subject meets our notability guidelines for organisations. When you have finish you can request WP:FEEDBACK and if all is OK, ask for it to me moved into main space. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see that the article exists, so you just need to get on with supplying some reliable third party sources and addressing the other tags. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You stated purpose for the article is not what Wikipedia is about. All that stuff should be on the Association's website. The purpose of Wikipedia is to be a repository for articles about notable subjects, and in this case, those guidelines are at WP:ORG. WP:BFAQ should also be essential reading. – ukexpat (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

extremely confused
To whom it may concern,

I've recently attempted to edit the page under the section heading "Types of taxpayers" with the following edit:

Segments of the tax base who pay little or no taxes
Charities and nonprofits can be subject to tax-exempt status and, therefore, pay no taxes. In 2006, approximately 43.4 million tax returns representing 91 million individuals will face zero or negative tax liability. An IRS report indicates that, in 2009, 1,470 individuals earning more than $1,000,000 annually faced a net tax liability of zero or less. Also a report by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy indicates that, in 1998 alone, a total of 94 corporations faced a net liability of less than half the full 35% corporate tax rate and the corporations Lyondell Chemical, Texaco, Chevron, CSX, Tosco, PepsiCo, Owens & Minor, Pfizer, JP Morgan, Saks, Goodyear, Ryder, Enron, Colgate-Palmolive, Worldcom, Eaton, Weyerhaeuser, General Motors, El Paso Energy, Westpoint Stevens, MedPartners, Phillips Petroleum, McKesson and Northrup Grumman all had net negative tax liabilities.

At issue has been the reliability of the source material cited and, according to one editor, that the claims in the edit either cannot be drawn from the cited information or that the cited information is, in fact, not data but, rather, lobbying propaganda. I've attempted to argue my case on the discussion page but keep getting rejected by editors with arguments which indicate they clearly have not examined or even read the source material, making it difficult to collaborate with them on how best to present the facts evidenced in the data. They have repeatedly reverted my edit and now I am accused of participating in an edit war...which I didn't even know existed until now (never ran into this problem before). Anyway, there must be some sane, reasonable individual capable of actually reading the source material (as I have) and determining its factual veracity. Again, this edit is fully intended to be a neutral, fact-based edit. I do not understand why presenting such tax data is considered biased, non-neutral, etc.

If someone could help me understand how these sources aren't citable, don't support the claims made in the edit, or violate the neutrality of the article, it would be greatly appreciated. Additionally, if this edit simply does not belong under the section "types of taxpayers" or in this article, please help to point me where this bit of information actually belongs on WP.

Thanks.

Sincerely, 99.16.91.116 (talk) 02:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)99.16.91.116
 * So you have a Content dispute. If you can't achieve consensus on the article talk page then I would suggest either a third opinion or perhaps the new Dispute resolution noticeboard. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The Family Of Mierendorff and it possible Royal bloodline
The only reference I have is of my ancestor Carlo Mierendorff. He was a member of the underground inside Germany during WWII. With this said are we of Prussinan royal blood or members of the Prussian society? Regards Leon Kelvin Mierendorff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.229.54 (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Mr. Mierendorff. I've redacted your email because this is a high profile page and it may be harvested by spammers. Due to the nature of Wikipedia, unless your ancestor has an article written about him, we can't provide much information. I suggest using other sites to research him. (There is also an U-Bahn station named after him. The reference in that article might have information.) --Danger (talk) 13:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You could also try asking at Reference desk/Humanities. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There are eight articles on Wikipedia that mention him in passing, they may provide further clues. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

LT EHREN WATADA
What type of Military Discharge did 1st Lt. Watada receive, i.e., dishonorable, bad conduc, general, or honorable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neelmc (talk • contribs) 01:45, 8 August 2011
 * Hi, this page is where editors request help with editing the encyclopaedia. You may wish to redirect your request to the Reference desk/Humanities. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Athletes Without Limits Wiki page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jtetrick/Athletes_Without_Limits

I recently started the above draft and want to make sure it's documented appropriate before posting it. Can someone help me determine whether this is ready for submission, or if I need to gather more articles, etc, as reference?

Thanks for your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.110.61 (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2011
 * WP:FEEDBACK is the place to ask. Looks rather promotional in tone to me. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Icky's Ego
I created a page and misspelled the title but I do not have autoconfirmed status. Please change the title fom Icky's ego to Icky's Ego. Thank you.

Magselber (talk) 03:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I moved it. The first three references are sourced to blogs and therefore are not reliable sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have proposed the article for deletion as the subject does not appear to meet the notability guidelines at WP:BAND. – ukexpat (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Editing window size
I'd like to know why my editing window is less half full size. What's the matter with my settings? -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 00:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Help desk is probably the best place to ask, you need to tell them what browser and operating system you use. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Adding College Logo
Dlandrum-at-ucsd (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurgood_Marshall_College page, I'm simply trying to add our logo image to the "Infobox_ucsdcolleges" like the other UC San Diego Colleges:

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not clear how to satisfy the challenges to delete this image posed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dlandrum-at-ucsd

Can you help?
 * This was also posted at User talk:Dlandrum-at-ucsd and I have replied there. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

A closure in a discussion that lacked input
Hi! I'm not sure if this is the best forum for this, but I have a question about closed discussions. I had started a move discussion at Talk:The Last House on the Left (1972 film). One editor commented; he did not specifically !vote, but voiced potential reasoning why this move may not be best. In the end, we agreed that the discussion should be posted on appropriate Wikiprojects to get some input from more than two users. However, I ended up getting sidetracked and forgot to post to these projects. Today the move discussion was closed as no consensus. I'm not too familiar with move discussions, but I know that in AfD discussions with only two participants would be kept open for longer to allow for more input, especially when the editors agreed it was needed. When I asked the closing editor to reopen this so I could post on the wikiprojects, however, he or she refused (the discussion can be seen on both of our talk pages). Now, I could simply copy and paste the exact same proposal right below the closed one, but that just seems stupid. Is there a logical solution I'm missing here? Thanks. --Yaksar (let's chat) 00:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Requested moves are less important than AfD's so they don't need the same procedures. I know you didn't ask for an opinion on the requested move itself but note that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says: "A topic is primary for an ambiguous term if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined—to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box." See also Naming conventions (films). According to and, the 2009 film gets a few more page views, and that was while the 1972 film had the advantage of a redirect from The Last House on the Left until 10 August. The 2009 film had a bigger lead in March when The Last House on the Left was a disambiguation page. According to The Last House on the Left (2009 film), the 2009 film was also more successful. I don't see a strong case for the move and suggest to let it go. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

policy (mis)use for controversial articles
The cold fusion article is very difficult to edit. Edits that are regarded as supportive for the cold fusion claim have a high risk for getting reverted. The reasons given are NPOV, WEIGHT, OR, SECONDARY, SYNTH, even Notability or reasons not related to any policy.

I think that I am following the policies. I think some editors have a different understanding of the policies.

Please help me with understanding what is the best way forward, or if there is no way forward, please tell me.

--POVbrigand (talk) 08:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * How about also reading our policy on forum shopping? And come to that, how about reading the notice prominently displayed in the edit window for this page "Do not post issues here that are posted on another noticeboard — it may be considered disruptive editing". AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes AndyTheGrump, I indeed completely did not see the last "Do not", but interpreting policy to individual need seems to be quite normal around here. How nice of you to point me to my misconduct and bring you personal beef to this venue. I actually wanted to write a bit more for my original request, but maybe I overdid the request to be concise. So I'll elaborate. With this request I would like to find an experience editor that I can have a conversation with. Not regarding one particular edit problem, but on the general difficulty of editing controversial articles. What I would like to find out is if my understanding of the policies is correct and if so, if there is a chance of success in trying to go with them, because there are many editors who have a very different understanding from the policies than I have. And some will happily take any opportunity to show how wrong you are.
 * Therefore, I would appreciate if somebody can leave a comment on my talk page, thanks. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I reviewed my activities on all the noticeboards, but to me they seem distict enough not to constitute as WP:FORUMSHOP. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Children and Grandchildren
Are there any guidelines on whether children or grandchildren should be mentioned in an biographic article. I've seen some articles repeatedly edited just to add names of grandchildren. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Does WP:BLPNAME, specifically the final paragraph of that section, help? – ukexpat (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's generally not a good idea. If they aren't notable in their own right at least discussed, not just mentioned, in good quality reliable sources, I think it's an invasion of privacy and at times may be promotional. Dougweller (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Getting MOVE
I have created a page at User:Forcrist for an artist, Cindy Williamson. I have had discussions with an official editor, read all the indicated links, modified the article to suit my understanding of Wikipedia standards, submitted the article for editorial comment. What further steps do I need to take to qualify for the MOVE function? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forcrist (talk • contribs) 18:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The ability to move pages is given to autoconfirmed users (accounts that are more than 4 days old and have more than 10 edits). You will want to get some newspaper articles about Cindy Williamson for sources, as all the sources you have (aside from not being cited correctly with ) are connected to her in some way.  The art gallaries believe they benefit from having her work, thus they are effectively advertisements for her and not secondary sources.  Otherwise, the article will be deleted for lack of notability if you did move it into article space (it will be safe to work on in your userspace, however).  Here are the reliable sourcing guidelines, and here are the notability guidelines, so you can identify potential sources to justify the article.  Ian.thomson (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, nevermind, I see that the two sources at the bottom the Oakland Tribule article begins to establish notability. Just needs cleanup and additional independant sources now.Ian.thomson (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't have been at your userpage; that's where you tell us about yourself and what you hope to accomplish here. I moved it to Cindy Williamson, but have my doubts that it will survive, since there's little evidence that she's actually notable. I did clean up the worst offenses, such as calling the subject "Cindy" and putting all the headers in the wrong format. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair use of images published by a person commiting crime.
An author has taken photos of the author commiting a crime and has published the photos on the web, boasting about what the author of the photo did. The photos are copyrighted, and I doubt the author would release rights to such photos, because it might result in prosecution.

I am writing a commentary in a wikipedia article about such activities, and would like to use a small screen shot of the web page as an example of the unlawful activity. The image would provide sufficient detail to see the tradename of the company providing the web service, and several imbedded photos showing the activity engaged in. I do not think my screen shot would take from the value of the author's work, except that the author might be forced to withdraw the photos from the web page.

Would this use of a screen shot conform to wikipedia policies? Wikfr (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt it; your desire to illustrate the article does not trump the photographer's copyright in those pictures. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  00:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Such an image would not meet all of the non-free use criteria. – ukexpat (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

My Article Deleted
Dear Wikipedia, My husband posted the article, "Michele Wallace Campanelli," due to requests from fans wanting more information about my written works. Wikipedia previously listed me as a "notable" author from Florida and has information about me posted in Commons. I went on the article to change some minor stuff and immediately got blocked. I guess two users using the same IP address. Ooops! I apologize for any misconduct! Please don't DELETE!

I reviewed the article my husband posted. All information IS correct and I give full permission to publish it. Since you have deleted it, I've gotten emails from fans wanting to know why.

Please feel free to edit, wikify my article (Article posted below) and publish it.

If you need to contact me personally to verify the information. Please do so at (Redacted) Thank you, Michele W. Campanelli National Best-selling Author


 * You should tell your fans to visit your website. Delicious carbuncle (talk)
 * I concur with  the advice offered by  Delicious carbuncle. To  which  I'll  add that  this is a case of people not  reading  the instructions before writing  new articles, and not  even reading  the instructions at  the top  of this help  desk page (that's why  I  have deleted the article copy). We do not contact authors of autobiographies to  ask for their permission  to  write about  them; quite  to  the contrary in  fact, it  is the Wikipedia community that decides whether the subject  of a biography  is sufficiently  notable for an article. And then only  when the subject meets the criteria at WP:BIO, WP:CREATIVE and/or WP:BAND, taking  into  account WP:COI of course. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Newspaper articles without citations.
I have found several articles published in major newspapers making certain statements about things that happened in the past, as if the writers knew the statements were correct, but the writers did not tell where they got their information, or provide any citations. In many cases, the writers are not even identified.

Can I cite the newspaper articles in a wikipedia article? Why or why not? Wikfr (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Newspaper articles don't normally provide citations, although they might explain the source of their statements in the text. If you could provide a concrete example and how you want to cite it, that would be helpful. A better forum to ask this question is at WP:RSN.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Major newspapers, and many minor ones, are considered reliable sources because they normally have trained reporters and are in the business of providing news, and not opinion. The newspaper also has an editor or editors who will look the material over before it is printed for errors of fact or interpretation. Now, readers might disagree with this statement for one newspaper or another, but that's why WP requires the name of the newspaper to be used as the source, and the reporter or writer if you have it. The WP reader is then free to judge just how accurate he or she feels that particular newspaper or writer might be. But Bbb23 is correct: It would be best to provide an example of an error you found and go from there. Yours,GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * One also needs to distinguish between opinion or advertorial articles in newspapers and actual news stories. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And be sure to provide as complete a citation as possible; i.e., not "Milwaukee Bugle" but rather "Cheesehead, Arlo. "Look What Chief Breier Did Now!" Milwaukee Bugle March 21, 1973; p. 2, col. 4"! -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Preferably using the Cite news template, completing as many of the parameters as you can. – ukexpat (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't found any errors and I don't have a specific article in mind, but all of you helped me understand the issues involved. George Lewis spells it out very clearly. Thanks everyone. Wikfr (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I need help adding NTEC to the list of Venture Capital firms
I don't understand the code involved with the lists

it's this firm:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTEC,_Inc. and this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venture_capital

this is in an effort to make the NTEC page not an orphan, and it's a valid addition to that list.

Oodleday (talk) 17:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the place to edit is List of venture capital firms. If you struggle with the table syntax, then feel free to post your proposed content for each of the 6 columns, and one of us will edit them into the table for you. Deryck C. 17:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * NTEC, Inc. has bigger problems than being an orphan I am afraid. I have tagged it for deletion as it is too promotional in tone. In addition it does not cite a single reference to demonstrate that it meets the appropriate inclusion criteria. Suggest that you fix those issues first, then we can discuss how to fix its orphan status. Adding a gratuitous link to venture capital would not be appropriate, IMHO. – ukexpat (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And it's also a copyvio of http://www.ntec-inc.org/about-us/program-overview--methodology.aspx. – ukexpat (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Vicente Fernandez
He hasnt died.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.190.210 (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the page has been semi-protected now to prevent further vandalism. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

HR_Bradfords
An anonymous editor on 81.149.202.51 has twice removed external references added by me, 1) to a Glasgow Herald article dated 15th July reporting Bradfords "has one week to pull the company back from liquidation" and 2) to a review site with a long list of mostly negative comments.

I have to declare an interest - I successfully sued HR Bradfords in the Small Claims Court for goods delivered later than promised. After 6 months ignoring both myself and the court, they finally paid up last week.

Since their cheque hasn't bounced, and they continue to trade, I assume they have found the funds to keep the taxman at bay, and are not going into liquidation immediately - I can't find any follow up in the Glasgow Herald or the official Edinburgh Gazette.

It's a fair guess that 81.149.202.51 is someone who has a stake in Bradfords. But then, I've admitted I'm hardly a neutral party.

So I don't want to engage in edit wars - I think someone else should decide whether the references should stay or go.

Navrongo (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Generally, the procedure in this situation is to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. I would not make any assumptions about 81's motivation, although it is possible that they have a stake in Bradfords. In general, only reliable sources should be used in article. The review site is not a reliable source because it is user generated and the reviews aren't audited. (Cases where sites like these have been used by companies or competitors to influence public opinion are already started popping up). The Glasgow Herald is a reliable source, although whether this incident is worth mentioning in the context of a short article about a well established corporation is a matter of editorial discretion. The "company history section" was almost entirely cribbed from the company's website, so I've deleted it as a copyright violation. Danger (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Replace Artist Page
Nader Guirat I've been working since April 2011 on creating an artist page with links, references, the works for the artist in question. However, as I am working on my page, someone has already created one for the same artist in May 2011. However, it is very short, inaccurate and lacks sources, links and many information. My version is full of information, details, sources, links, updates to date, etc. and in a totally different layout. I would like to create a new page for this artist from scratch as my sources are from the artist himself. How do I handle this? Can there be two pages for the same artist? Can I replace the page already created with my page - erase it completely? Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mona MG (talk • contribs) 08:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad to have content that is more verifiably correct and complete! We cannot have two on the same topic (that's a "content fork" and is confusing to readers). Instead, your new content can simply be edited into the previously-existing page (even to the extent of replacing the whole content). However, you might want to get feedback on your proposed content first (this was already recommended to you when you asked previously about working on it). I don't see anything in your edit history where you have a page on this topic already in-progress. One concern I already have is your stated reliance on primary sources (the subject himself) rather than substantial independent/third-party ones. DMacks (talk) 09:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

British acadamy award winners/nominees
Why is Scottish born actress Deborah Kerr not on the British actress acadamy award nominee list? She was nominated six times,Edward my son 1949,From here to eternity 1953,The King and I 1956,Heaven Knows,Mr Allison 1957,Seperate Tables 1958 and The Sundowners 1960. Unfortunately she never won an Oscar but without doubt she was a great actress.

Jim F — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.28.184 (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you give the exact title of the list you feel she should be added to? I have not been able to find any list of British actress academy award nominees.  GB fan please review my editing 14:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess it's about List of British and Commonwealth Academy Award winners and nominees. After years of helping users, it still surprises me such a huge number of them fail to name the page they are posting about. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Please Identify
'':Ahh don't give me that bullshit. I get so sick of single purpose editors telling me this shit. No where in your extensive edit history have you reported a problem nor sought dispute resolution. Now take your complaints to the proper venue before you really piss me off and I say something you regret. - 4twenty42o (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)''

Is that an appropriate example of Wikipedia Policy for an Administrator with regard to civility and threats? Is this user an administrator or just posing as one? JohnLloydScharf (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate and Biased Map that Contradicts other articles on E Haplogroup and research on Distribution of J1 at 60% when it is less than 20%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HG_J1_(ADN-Y).PNG

''' Claim of 60% of Sedan/ Ethiopia being J1 rather than E Haplogroup are not factual based on papers cited and are contradicted by others. '''

I realize original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. However, image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the body of the article. "*etc..." is not a justification of many parts of this image, including referenced assumptions for Central Asia and the Caucasus outside of Dagestan.

The Horn of Africa where the highest densities is shown for J1 depict a density of over 60% in Sudan and Ethiopia. the paragroup E-M78*. E-V65 and E-V13 were completely absent in the samples analyzed, whereas the other subclades were relatively common. E-V12* accounts for 19.3% and is widely distributed among Sudanese. E-V32 (51.8%) is by far the most common subclades among Sudanese. It has the highest frequency among populations of western Sudan and Beja. E-V22 accounts for 27.2% and its highest frequency appears to be among Fulani, but it is also common in Nilo-Saharan speaking groups. http://ychrom.invint.net/upload/iblock/94d/Hassan%202008%20Y-Chromosome%20Variation%20Among%20Sudanese.pdf http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC384897/figure/FG1/
 * E-M78 subclades The distribution of E-M78 subclades among Sudanese is shown in Table 2. Only two chromosomes fell under
 * E-M35 is far in the majority for Etheopia while J1 is less than 13.5% - no where near 60%

http://www.human-evol.cam.ac.uk/Members/Lahr/pubs/AHG-65-01.pdf http://www2.smumn.edu/facpages/~poshea/uasal/DNAWWW/pdfs/Underhill2000.pdf given in Underhill et al. 2000." Figure 2 relates to a total found, not the specific "Central Asia." (2); Asia: 3 Japanese IV, V, VII; 2 Han Chinese VII, 1 Taiwan Atayal VII, 1 Taiwan Ami, VII, 2 Cambodian VI, VII; Pakistan: 2 Hunza VI, IX; 2 Pathan VI, VII; 1 Brahui VIII; 1 Baloochi VI; 3 Sindhi III, VI, VIII; Central Asia: 2 Arab IX; 1 Uzbek IX; 1 Kazak V; MidEast: 1 Druze VI; Paciﬁc: 2 New Guinean V, VIII; 2 Bougainville Islanders VIII; 2 Australian VI, X: America: 1 Brazil Surui, 1 Brazil Karatina, 1 Columbian, 1 Mayan all X. We genotyped an additional 1,009 chromosomes, representing 21 geographic regions, by DHPLC for all markers other than those on the terminal branches of the phylogeny. We genotyped the latter only in individuals from the haplogroup to which those markers belonged. This hierarchic genotyping protocol was necessitated by the limited amounts of genomic DNA available for most samples.regions, by DHPLC for all markers other than those on the terminal branches of the phylogeny.'' The majority of them are J2[M172]. Those who are not are under M89. The 17 with M89 alone can be J* without being J1. '''*There is no mention in the methods in any of the four listed of a retesting of these samples. Since F* is the parent of J*, it is possible, all of the 17 samples claimed to be J1 are J* rather than J1.'''
 * Tofanelli et al 2009 supplemental data states the data came from Semino et al, 2004 (http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2004_v74_p1023-1034.pdf and gives the location of the 184 of which 18 are J1 as southern Kazakhstan, or Lat.+42.1100006 Long.+70.2900009 - a single point. Semino et al did not do the original work and cites Underhill et al, 2001 and 2000:
 * 1.Underhill PA, Passarino G, Lin AA, Shen P, Mirazon Lahr M, Foley RA, Oefner PJ, Cavalli-Sforza LL (2001) The phylogeography of Y chromosome binary haplotypes and the origins of modern human populations. Ann Hum Genet 65:43–62
 * 2.Underhill PA, Shen P, Lin AA, Jin L, Passarino G, Yang WH,Kauffman E, Bonne-Tamir B, Bertranpetit J, Francalacci P,Ibrahim M, Jenkins T, Kidd JR, Mehdi SQ, Seielstad MT, Wells RS, Piazza A, Davis RW, Feldman MW, Cavalli-Sforza
 * The 1.Underhill directs us to 2.Underhill with the statement "Figure 2, which is based upon frequency data
 * 2.Underhill lists in the methods,
 * ''The ascertainment set consisted of the following 53 samples with their subsequently determined haplogroup designations: Africa: 3 Central African Republic Biaka II, III (1); 2 Zaire Mbuti II, III; 2 Lissongo II, III; 2 Khoisan I, III; 1 Berta VI; 1 Surma I; 1 Mali Tuareg III; 1 Mali Bozo III; Europe: 1 Sardinian VI; 2 Italian VI IX; 1 German VI; 3 Basque VI, IX
 * There was no M267 used, mentioned, or, likely, available at that time, but Underhill lists on Table 1.for VII in Central Asia and Siberia, a total of 42, under SNP lines 49-71. That is:56[89,M172,67]=2; 57[89,M172,67,92]=1; 58[89,M172*]=12; 60[89,M172,12,102]=4,62[89,M172,68]=1,63[89,M172,47]=1; 65[89,52,69]=2; 68[89,52,69,82]=1; 70[89,52,69,84,39,138]=1; 71[89]=17

*The issue of J1 in the Caucasus is even more evident as they have been mostly F* or G* without the subclade of J. I can go into further issues, but just one inaccuracy in the map statements and depiction should be enough'''JohnLloydScharf (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Try using the file discussion page to calmly discuss your issues with this image. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Paul Day
Dear Sir/Madam,

I am terribly distressed, and I need your help - URGENTLY..... My husband is a musician, his name on your site is known as PAUL DAY....some sick person has written Yesterday,August 21 2011 that he died of heart failure. This is not the case!! he is a live and well!....

My name is Cecily Waters-Day, could you PLEASE delete the line on the site where it states he has died....

Some people are very cruel.

Thank you in advance,

Cecily Waters-Day — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilywaters (talk • contribs) 01:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting us know, I have reverted the edits and warned the editor. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See also Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject).  Chzz  ► 02:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Assistance due to libellous material
I am the subject of the article 'Ferdinand von Prondzynski'. While I was President of Dublin City University the institution was involved in two court cases. In the course of the legal proceedings and subsequently, the two litigants unleashed a stream of false and highly libellous material against me. A flavour of this can be found at http://academictenure.blogspot.com/ I should stress that almost everything in that blog is either fabricated or a gross distortion of the truth.

The same litigants have, on an almost daily basis, been editing the Wikipedia article of which I am the subject, inserting into it material that is false or misleading. In the currently (now blocked) version, for example, it is alleged that I was subjected to a vote of no confidence related to the litigation. This is wholly untrue. The vote, which did take place, had nothing whatsoever to do with the litigation. Furthermore, only 135 staff out o a total of 1,200 voted, and only 65% of those voted in favour. There is also the innuendo that I was involved in a 'sexual discrimination' case. I had nothing whatsoever to do with it: my only input was to appear as a witness and emphasise that I would never endorse discrimination of any kind. There are lots of other gross inaccuracies in this paragraph; I can elaborate and document.

This hugely misleading page has now been blocked by a Wikipedia administrator, so that this inaccurate and libellous material is entrenched, in a manner that is very damaging to me. I would really like that to be reconsidered. The blocking was done presumably because of the repeated editing and reversal. But I believe I am entitled to protect my reputation against malicious and self-serving editing of this kind.

Please help.

Ferdinand von Prondzynski Groschowitz (talk) 02:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As a starting point, I've removed the assertion about the vote of no confidence, since it was sourced to a website which says about itself; "Q1. Who Can Publish? A. Anybody can."


 * I see there is already a great deal of discussion on the talk page of the article. In addition, if the issue hasn't already been mentioned at WP:BLPN, I will also raise this issue there, as it may be a more appropriate forum.


 * Please also read Wikipedia's policy on no legal threats - it can sometimes be very broadly applied. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, you (Groschowitz) are still able to edit the article Ferdinand von Prondzynski while signed into your account, although I suggest that you do so with caution. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Where do I find the word count for an article or section ?
--Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a word counter. What I do is copy the article or section and paste it into a word processor, where it can be counted. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a script available here that provides size and word count statistics. It has a few limitations: words in lists, including bulleted lists, are not counted and it doesn't count references, external links, or "see also" sections. It's useful enough for most things, though. Danger (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Danger. It worked!  Your help is always much appreciated. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad it worked. It took me almost a year to sort out the bugs in my .js page to make it run. (My fault, not Dr pda's.) Danger (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

User:NelsonSudan
I am worried about discussions that have started about me...This is from the User talk: Tavio page.

"I have a suspicion may be a sock of Alinor. Ladril (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * He certainly writes the same volume of garbage. --Taivo (talk) 06:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Doubt it. Alinor's almost definitely vanished judging by all the unanswered deletion nominations on his talk page. Instead from looking at these edits I'd say he's the infamous Tobias Conradi. I've asked Golbez to take a look.   Night w   09:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well you know how to brighten a feller's morning. And wow, I had no clue he had a constant string of SSP reports. I'll probably take a look later. --Golbez (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)"

I don't have friends here on WP. If a spurious campaign is launched to get me banned, it will succed. I don't even know who Alinor is. I know how WP justice works. Its ganga mentality. I will be outnumbered. I have spoken up recently for Tobias Conradi...who I don't really know but sympathise with. What can I do to ward off attempts to call me a sock puppet? NelsonSudan (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, what is an SSP report? NelsonSudan (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Some one alleges I am Tobias Conradi....I amn't. I came across his name because I was involved on the Dominion of India issue...I think he wanted to make an edit but it was removed before I could read it....Thats why I got interested in his case. NelsonSudan (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * SSP stands for "suspected sock puppet". If you are the subject of such a report, you will see it here. The filing editor will present evidence and you may defend yourself. The evidence will be reviewed by uninvolved parties. (For advice on this, see here.) As of this post, you are not the subject of a report. --Danger (talk) 23:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation of SSP and the pointer. I don't have any faith in fair procedure on Wikipedia though. Things here are based on consensus....all it takes is for a gang to want me out....if they have more voices than I do (and I have no friends on WP), they will get me. That's reality. The safeguards for the "accused" are practically non-existant....Thanks any way. Please be fair minded if they bring a claim against me. Please afford me the chance to make my arguments. Don't blanket ban me from even having my voice heard in the "claim" procedure. Thanks. NelsonSudan (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you don't wish to participate in a project that operates on consensus, I sincerely suggest that you start a blog instead. Danger (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Article on Mangrove Restaurant
Article states that Stephen Ward visited the restaurant, which opened in 1968. This is a mistake as Stephen Ward committed suicide in 1963. I don't really know how this should be corrected but it would improve the article if it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.166.66 (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed Stephen Ward based on his article stating he committed suicide in 1963 and the restaurant opening in 1968. In the future the bast place to raise questions like this is on the talk page of the article.  GB fan please review my editing 15:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Aaron ben Meïr
Input requested at: Aaron ben Meïr. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Is "Age" in Biographies of living persons a prgrammatical calculation or human entered data?
Either the Tim Cook's DOB is wrong or the calculation of his age is wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Cook

Article has " Timothy D. Cook Born 	November 1, 1960 (age 50) Robertsdale, Alabama Alma mater 	Auburn University (B.S.) Duke University (M.B.A.) Occupation 	CEO, Apple Inc.

Making him 52 in November NOT 50 (fifty)

Pstambolis (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If he was born in November 1960, he'll be 51 in November 2011. November 2011 hasn't happened yet, so he's still 50. He won't be 52 until November 2012. HTH. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually since this is 2011 and before November 1 to figure out his age you would take 2010-1960, that would make him 50 years old today. In November 2011 he will turn 51. GB fan please review my editing 00:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ignore my post "21 Is "Age" in Biographies of living persons a prgrammatical calculation or human entered data?" brain fritz
Sorry please ignore my post "21 Is "Age" in Biographies of living persons a prgrammatical calculation or human entered data?" brain fritz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstambolis (talk • contribs) 01:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)