Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 115

Protandim
Page under dispute: Protandim User Cresix, :continues to remove source information and links to medical sources like the University of Maryland, Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health, and now has placed and editorial warning on my account /* Edit warring */ r The user Cresix has removed the content because it is not from a reliable source and replaces source information and links, with just the standard company information. This is what the company and Cresix wants on the page.......

Protandim Side Effects
According to the manufacturer, the side effects of Protandim may include allergic responses, gastrointestinal disturbances (stomach ache, diarrhea, vomiting), headache, and rash of the hands and feet. This is what I want on the page.......

Protandim Side Effects
Milk Thistle – “The University of Maryland Medical Center states that milk thistle may react with a variety of medications, including, anti-psychotics, anti-depressants, anti-seizure medications, blood-thinning drugs, anti-cancer agents, cholesterol-lowering drugs. The Bacopa flower (Bacopa monniera) is being tested as an Epilepsy drug to control seizures. See the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health study posted here. Green Tea concentrations can contain toxic levels of sodium fluoride(January 2005 issue of the Journal of American Medicine), which accumulate in its leaves during processing and manufacturing. (Caries Research (1996) 30:88-92 Fluoride content in caffeinated, decaffeinated and herbal teas). Tea leaves appear to be good absorbers of toxins and can extract fluoride from the water above the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) set for fluoride in drinking water which is 4 parts per million (ppm). Fluorides in teas are found together with aluminum. The combination of aluminum and fluorides in tea is of urgent concern, due to the increased damage done by fluorides when in the presence of aluminum, especially “neurological” and renal damage. Recently many fingers are beginning to point to child immunization drugs as the source to the explosion in Autism in the population. Along with Mental retardation, Learning disabilities, Communication disorders, Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, Conduct disorder, and Oppositional defiant disorder. The specialists are questioning the amount of Aluminum in the immunization drugs, as the possible source to the destruction of the normal nerves system and its normal functions. Since aluminum is a common bonding agent to the components in the immunization drugs, it is high on the list of a hazard. Ingestion of cosmetics products are a leading cause of Neurotoxicity in females. Many of the ingredients in Protandim are cosmetic ingredients. A detailed personal account of side effects from Protandim can be found here DrPlum (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest this section be removed since DrPlum has not discussed this matter at all. The article's talk page is the place to deal with this matter. Instead he has edit warred. He has also failed to comply with the first rule for adding content to this noticeboard. It's very clearly written above in the editing window: "PLEASE read this before posting here: PLEASE consider discussing the issue on the article's talk page if not already done so."


 * Brangifer (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Cresix wants all links, even the internal in wikipedia removed. Cresix only wants the company information posted. I see no room for any discussion. Editor assistance/Requests is the only resolution that is possible. DrPlum (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well your choices are to discuss on the talk page or be blocked for edit warring.  Spinning Spark  00:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I can also request an Editor assistance/Requests, which is why I am here. These are company employees controlling a product informationDrPlum (talk) 02:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please either discuss it on the article talk page or on the talk pages of other involved editors. Or go to Dispute resolution noticeboard . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No, don't go to dispute resolution. You will only again be told to discuss it first. There is no dispute until there has first been a discussion.  Spinning Spark  14:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Spinningspark - I think the point I was making is that whatever he chooses to do, this here is the wrong help desk. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Mark Schultz (amateur wrestler) MMA record keeps getting changed
Hi, This is Mark Schultz (amateur wrestler). I've gone on wikipedia at least 7 or 8 times having to delete a loss on my record that doesn't exist. I've tried resolution dispute to no avail. I had a fake pro wrestling match in brazil against a guy named Montenegro. It wasn't real and some bot or person keeps going on my wikipedia page and puts my MMA record as 1-1. It's 1-0. I've never lost a real MMA match. This is getting ridiculous and is very important to me. Can you help me? 98.234.50.106 (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have reliable sources to support this? The article has a serious lack of sources as it is, all information must be verifiable and thus be supported by reliably published sources, you cannot enter information based on your own experiences. I have removed the worst of it but the article has serious tonal issues. The blow-by-blow descriptions of techniques and other personal information is entirely inappropriate for an encyclopaedia article, this is not the place to post auto biographical information.  Я ehevkor ✉  17:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You faked a match and now want to complain that it is being taken seriously? Jeesh.  Spinning Spark  18:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleted two section breaks/edit buttons, please replace?
Hello, I did a minor update of a page and accidentally deleted two section breaks. Here is the page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Washington,_2012#District_8 I only intended to update the candidates now having filed in 'District 9' but managed to delete the section lines/headings for 9 and 10. I added underlines in a temporary fix, but could you fix that? I looked to find how to put in section breaks and I can't find it (amateur). The info in 8,9,10 are correct, it just needs the section/heading separations and 'edit' buttons put back. Sorry for the bungling. Thanks - 71.35.119.28 (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone has reverted your edits, you may retry what you were doing. Let me know if there is anything you need. Arc  tic  Fox 21:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you please help to edit the Six Million Crucifixions page?
Can an editor please help to edit the Six Million Crucifixions page? Recently someone added a new section on that page that I think improves it greatly and addresses the references and other issues marked on the top of the page. Hopefully that box can now be removed.Thanks! Esautomatix (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the new section was full of "references" which were actually to blogs and personal websites, rather than to reliable sources. We don't use blogs, wikis, and personal websites such as LiveJournal and Wordpress as sources. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  17:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

People are posting false information about Sheriff Joe Arpaio
On the page called "Obama Birth Certificate" - including the biased insult "conspiracy theory" (it is not a theory, but fact as determined by law enforcement officers, people are posting false and misleading statements. For example, in the section on Joe Arpaio, notice that some Opinion Blog is posted by some no-name guy (who cares what he thinks?) which is not even logically consistent. He states "zero new information" was offered by the Sheriff. Then 4 paragraphs later he writes about 2 new items of information including the Social Security Registration Card forgery issue. Another false statement is given alleging that Sheriff Arpaio has not sent any investigators to Hawaii. This is easily proven false by the many articles (Google "Sheriff Arpaio investigators Hawaii" including http://www.nowpublic.com/world/sheriff-arpaio-s-detectives-concentrate-investigation-hawaii I am just trying to make Wikipedia FACTual, and was warned about "editing wars" What about those who are erasing my verifiable articles and putting back their opinion quotes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inetcafebooth6 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Ehrenkreuz für Frontkämpfer
Hello!

I created a page called The Honour Cross of the World War 1914/1918 (Das Ehrenkreuz des Weltkriegs 1914/1918). I am very happy with it! However, I have made a mistake with a redirect. There were three different types of Honour Crosses. I was trying to create three different new pages, one for each of the three different Honour Crosses, and have them all redirect to the main page (The Honour Cross of the World War 1914/1918 (Das Ehrenkreuz des Weltkriegs 1914/1918)). I created the first one, Ehrenkreuz für Frontkämpfer, and tried to redirect it to the main page, but it said it couldn't do that, as there was already a page called The Honour Cross of the World War 1914/1918 (Das Ehrenkreuz des Weltkriegs 1914/1918). So I shortened the redirect to just The Honour Cross of the World War 1914/1918, and the redirect was successful. Unfortunately, it now redirects to the new page I started and not the main page. I don't know how to change this. I'm sorry I couldn't work it out myself. I would just like the page titled Ehrenkreuz für Frontkämpfer to redirect to The Honour Cross of the World War 1914/1918 (Das Ehrenkreuz des Weltkriegs 1914/1918). I would then like to make two more redirects for the other two types of Honour Crosses, so if anyone just types in any of the three different Honour Cross types, they will be directed to the main page. I don't want to try that until I know how to do that properly, and so I don't have to bother you again. There is a lot I would like to create, and I have ample reference material to back up what I have in mind to contribute to wikipedia.

Thanks and sorry again

Troy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Von tempest (talk • contribs) 10:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you are trying to do. There are already six seven redirects to The Honour Cross of the World War 1914/1918, namely Honour Cross for Combatants, Cross of Honour, Hindenburg Cross, The Honour Cross of the World War 1914/1918 (The Hindenburg Cross), Cross of Honor,  Ehrenkreuz für Frontkämpfer and The Honour Cross of the World War 1914/1918 (Das Ehrenkreuz des Weltkriegs 1914/1918). The latter was created by Malik Shabazz on 27 May with the edit summary: (Malik Shabazz moved page The Honour Cross of the World War 1914/1918 (Das Ehrenkreuz des Weltkriegs 1914/1918) to The Honour Cross of the World War 1914/1918: no need for German name in title). Jezhotwells (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Micro Award article?
I can't provide the article address for this because the article was deleted! There was at one time a concise and accurate article describing the Micro Award, which is not a contest but a juried award for the best story in English under 1,000 words published in a given year.

I still see references to the awards elsewhere in Wikipedia, but the core article itself was deleted. Why?

The site for the award is: http://www.microaward.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.44.134 (talk) 22:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * See this deletion debate. It was not actually deleted, but merged into Flash fiction in this edit in 2010.  A great deal of the material in Flash fiction was removed on 2 June, including the Micro Award material, in this edit on the grounds that the sources were not sufficiently reliable.  If you wish to restore any of this material you either need to find better references or else convince other editors at Talk:Flash fiction that the references which were in the article were reliable according to our policy WP:RS.  Spinning  Spark  00:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Add Public Domain Data to Three Images
I uploaded the following images:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:451ST_AIR_EXPEDITIONARY_WING_subd.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:451AEWdesert1.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:451_AEW_color.png

They were created by the 451st AEW, USAF, Department of Defense, United States Government, and as products of the US Gov't, they are in the public domain.

The ImageTaggingBot wrote to me: "You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator." I do not know how to add this infomration. Please tell me what to add and how. Rdhclark (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The bot is looking for templated information such as Information. If you follow that link and look at the "usage" section of the documentation it should be clear how to format it.  Let me know if you have any problems.  Spinning  Spark  12:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Adding content where I am the most up to date source
Hi,

I am hoping to update the artcle on the "Jack in the Green" to give details about the 15 that paraded this year as part of this ongoing tradition in the UK. However as I am the main source of the information (I travel around the country run the main website regarding this subject and am in contact with many of the organisers of these events) I am at a loss as to how to cite myself or the website or blog that I run. I have tried to do so before and was nearly banned from Wikipedia for doing so, but also risk having the information removed if I do cite myself or my websites. I would really like to get some advice on how to progress as I would like to ensure that the information about the traditional Jack-in-the-Green is as complete and up to date as possible. The website I run makes no profit and neither does the blog it is a completely free archive of information which I would love to be able to share with others including through Wikipedia

Many thanks

--Bogbadger (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry no, that would not a be a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes, please see WP:RS.--ukexpat (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You need to decide whether you want to be a reporter, or an encyclopediast. Reporters (journalists, bloggers, historians—these are not all the same) report directly from personal observation. Encyclopediasts stand back, and collect what's been filtered through a layer or two of original research and commentary, etc.. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Please remove maintenance template from Sean Reyes article
I've updated per WP editor requests, unless there is more I have to do, I would appreciate WP review and removal of the maintenance template at this time. I've asked via the Talk page and I have not received additional feedback and/or a response.

Thanks, Lbrcomm (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I would say that it still shows signs of being promotional and I didn't have to look very far to demonstrate that the referencing is less than adequate. I don't know about other editors here, but I would not be inclined to remove any maintenance templates.  Spinning  Spark  16:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The language is still rather promotional. Perhaps someone here will have a chance to go through it and clean it up.  a13ean (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Editor Assistance is here to provide advice, it is not here to provide a pool of manpower. Individual editors are free to work on whichever articles they please of course, but will usually only do so if it is a subject that interests them.  Spinning  Spark  16:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Still promotional. And it seems to me the subject lacks any WP:notability (other than running for elected office), so I have tagged it so.  That is something that no amount of clean-up can fix. It appears that Lbrcomm, a new user, does not understand these things.  ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I continue to respectfully disagree with JJ on WP:notability, sorry. All that is posted under the SR article is factual; if there is anything highly promotional or that misrepresents SR it can be removed and or changed but I am not seeing this as an issue at this juncture. I am also concerned that someone at WP keeps pulling off the head shot of Sean that is in my opinion an essential part of a personal biography / profile and which I have permission from owner to use. I will have other third-party editors work on this article moving forward. I don't see the article as lacking notability at this point. It is cited in many places where it needs to be; all citations are factual. So, with that said, I am done working on this page and will have others jump into move it forward. Lbrcomm (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "Factual" doesn't equate to "notable". I could write a 100% factual article about myself with perfectly cited references, but I have zero notability. The image was deleted because it was a copyvio. If you have permission to use it, please follow the process at WP:IOWN send it to Wikipedia for review.--ukexpat (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Pssible Political campaign piece for a forthcoming  election. Author may  have a possible COI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Faculty of Political Science and International Relations, Matej Bel University
I have tagged this article with a WP:COI tag since the major recent editor seems to have a close relationship with the subject which may make adherence to a neutral point of view difficult. As it stands, the "Student organizations" section, reads more like a promotional leaflet. Also most of the text in the "Student organizations" section is simply copied either form other Wikipedia articles or from Facebook fan pages of the clubs. I am considering deletion of this section, but before I'm gonna delete it I would like an unbiased third party opinion. Also I have a second problem, it is that every time I fix the article's (grammar, links, facts) the major recent editor puts the same thinks back. What should I do about it? SelomITC (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well you have added the tags and started a discussion. If the other editor does not respond then try Dispute resolution noticeboard Jezhotwells (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, wait! If you file at DRN without discussion on the talk page your request will be speedily closed. The only proper remedy for an editor who will not discuss is an WP:RFC after explicit requests for discussion (not just via edit summaries) have been made and ignored. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) (as a DRN mediator/clerk) 20:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks TransporterMan, I stand corrected. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Why has the page titled "Autocentrism" been deleted?
RE: 05:07, 1 December 2006 Crzrussian (talk | contribs) deleted page Autocentrism (Articles for deletion/Autocentrism)

I noticed the page titles "Autocentrism" was deleted. The page was deleted by a user that has been subsequently blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia by his own request.

Can we get the page reinstated and/or may I start a new "Autocentrism" article by posting the following culled from the web?

''"Autocentrism"

Autocentrism is a style of living characterized by dependency on the automobile for transportation. Autocentric communities are found throughout the suburban United States and are one characteristic of urban sprawl. In such communities, public transportation is either enormously unpractical due to time concerns, or wholly unavailable. Smart growth and New Urbanism advocates view autocentrism as an undesired state, arguing that it results in a weakened sense of community in the affected neighborhoods, as well as having negative impact on the environment. Detractors do not view autocentrism as anything manifestly negative, merely a choice made by consumers out of preferences.

Relevant source: Crawford, J.H., Carfree Cities.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.''

Thanks! :)

Truth&#38;Accuracy (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The article, Autocentrism, was deleted after a discussion, Articles for deletion/Autocentrism. The text you posted above is the exact same text that made up the article that was deleted in 2006.  To make a viable article you would need to provide more sources than the one that you have listed there.  If you were to post that article it could be speedily deleted using criterion G4.  If you believe you can create an article that includes multiple independent sources, you should start it in a sandbox and then when you think it is ready take it to WP:DRV and let others decide.  GB fan 00:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Help: Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki being vandalized
I removed: More cautiously, historians such as Hasegawa and Asada argue that there was no single decisive external factor in the decision to surrender, the atomic bombings, Soviet invasion, weakened condition of Japan, and threats of internal unrest being contributing considerations, with the ultimate decision to surrender being a personal decision by the emperor, influenced by the peace-seeking wing of the Japanese political elite./ref name=asada/ref name=Hasegawa>Hasegawa, 86/ref for the simple reason that Hasegawa is quoted incorrectly. See for yourself.

I removed the Hasegawa-SOURCE from: Those who argue in favor of the decision to drop the atom bombs believe that massive casualties on both sides would have occurred in Operation Downfall, the planned invasion of Japan. Hasegawa calls it a 'myth'. page 299, line 3 and can as such not be used as a source to confirm the view.

User:Wee Curry Monster has vandalized these efforts - without any references whatsoever.--Robertmossing (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

HELP! Why do they keep posting this source that do not support their view. It is QUOTATION-FRAUD!--Robertmossing (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Calm down first, then tell us what you want without caps.--Deathlaser (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: this is also being discussed at WP:ANI.--ukexpat (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Wiki page for Ronnie Burrage
To Whom It May Concern,

I have gotten emails saying My user name, "burragemusic" should not be used because it may represent more then one person or an organization? It is only myself adding factual material to my page because there were some other people that started the page but it was not formatted correctly and had incorrect information. So I took over the administration of it and the user name only reflects myself, one person and the music and involvement in the music I have created in the industry.

Also I have added a photo or photo's and they have not shown on the page or someone said they could not be used? I have all the rights to any photo I have tried to upload, why they are not allowed is baffling to me? Please if someone could advise me on what is going on I would really appreciate that.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Sincerely,

Ronnie Burrage "Burragemusic" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burragemusic (talk • contribs) 19:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Burrage Music" is a corporate name, and cannot be used here. Ronnie Burrage, human being, can have an account here - but "Burrage Music" the company cannot. More to the point, assuming that you are in fact Ronnie Burrage ("On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog") we very very very very VERY strongly discourage autobiography here; and you cannot "take over" any article here, least of all one about you! Nobody "owns" or administers any particular article; that's not how the project works. As to the photos: you clearly did not take them; for what reason do you assert that you have all the rights to them? We are very cautious here to respect the rights of photographers and other content creators; as a musician, I'm sure you understand. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  20:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Garry O'Connor (writer)
I have worked very closely with the subject of this article, but Wikipedia is still raising objections to it, notably that it reads like an advertisement. What can be changed to make it less like an advertisement? Any suggestions?

Best wishes, Jack d'Argus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack d'Argus (talk • contribs) 11:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all please read WP:COI.--ukexpat (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Wrong info on page
I was reading a page about Brazilian footballer Pato and ther is something wrong with the description. I quote from the page;

Alexandre Rodrigues da Silva (born 2 September 1989), commonly known as Alexandre Pato, is a Brazilian professional footballer who plays as a striker for His Dad and Mom and the Brazilian national team. He plays like a boss sometimes but he is made of glass....

The page is here;  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_Pato  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.158.86.126 (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It was vandalism - now fixed.  Spinning Spark  14:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Italics in subject heading
After creating Mabo (TV film), I wanted to italicise the film title Mabo in the article heading, but succeeded only in inserting quotes. How do I replace the quotes with italics, please? Bjenks (talk) 18:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This requires the ingeniously-programmed template, which is clever enough to know not to italicize the part in parentheses! -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;  Talk  18:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Unable to remove disclaimer regarding "multiple issues"
To Whom It May Concern:


 * Hello, I am a representative from the band Saint Motel, and I am unsure as to why the "Saint Motel" page gives a disclaimer about "multiple issues". the band itself has tried solving this issues by adding legitimate citation sources, but for some reason we can't seem to get rid of the disclaimer. Everything under the article is accurate, and we want to find a way to resolve this issue as soon as possible. Is there any advice you can give me to get rid of this disclaimer? Any advice would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Mdemonaco (talk • contribs) 20:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not so much that there aren't citations but that the citations are of widely varying quality under Wikipedia standards - for instance, simple event listings indicating that a band played on a particular date in a particular place is not very valuable as a source; also some sources, like personal blogs, aren't considered reliable sources for articles. I removed a few citations that seemed not to add much.  Also - and I'm sorry if it seems like I'm piling on - the article seems a lot more like a plug for the band than it does an encyclopedia entry, and the fact that the band or its representatives have been editing the article may add an issue (conflict of interest) rather than remove any.  There are a few sources that seem to give the band more than passing attention; I'm not in a position to say how reliable or weighty they might be, but they may support a short, non-promotional item.  Those would be a better place to start than, e.g., listings of other bands that Saint Motel has appeared with, which seems to amount to what I sometimes call "gilt by association".  JohnInDC (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Borderline notability. May not  pass an AfD. Very  flimsy  references, most  of them  blogs, interviews, or very  fleeting  mentions. Band appears to  be unsigned ('label on  the record'), not  to  have produced any  records of merit, and uncharted. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Humanist Movement
Dear Sir or Madam: I reside in the newest country in the world (South Sudan). How can I join the Humanist Movement (name redacted for privacy reasons) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.79.120.20 (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * At least not by asking at Wikipedia. This page is for editors in need of assistance with editing Wikipedia. Zaminamina (talk) 10:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But, had they asked on a different page of Wikipedia, we might have given the more helpful answer along the lines of ... You could contact the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), here.  Although the IHEU is mainly an umbrella body for national organisations, South Sudan does not appear to have such an organisation, so the IHEU should be able to give more advice and information.  This blog (though mainly about Sudan, not South Sudan), may also be of interest.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

uncited death
hi. i removed a time of death for someone who i am pretty sure is still alive. someone just put the death time back, this time logged in as a user. i dont know what the story is with this. i dont know if it was put there originally as a joke or threat or what. the article is Morgan Downey JohnJeanBartiste (talk) 05:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 61.8.251.126 and Beyond My Ken, as I assure you, are not the same person. Beyond My Ken is a long-time editor; that IP editor... I don't know. On good faith, Ken must have overlooked the PersonData thing; in other words, he did not vandalize the page. As for the Morgan Downey article, if that happens again, try to report this case at WP:BLPN. Again, do not blame Ken for this. --George Ho (talk) 05:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ok thanks. i dont know why ken put the date back in. he completely undid my edit and many others, maybe he was just being over zealous. he hasnt responded to my question of why he did it but thanks for helping with that. i think he thinks im a vandal so he undid a lot of my changes like that one. JohnJeanBartiste (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A death date of 17 December 2012 is clearly wrong, or at best WP:CRYSTAL. I would like to ask JohnJeanBartiste how he knew that data only visible in edit mode was in the article in the first place?  Spinning  Spark  08:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * oh i didn't notice it was in the future! it's definitely wrong then. my friend showed it to me, i don't know how she saw it. but she works at bloomberg. she knew i edited a little. what purpose does it serve if it's not even visible? JohnJeanBartiste (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Cricket and Cricket (disambiguation)
Right now, the "sport" is the primary topic for long-term significance. As far as I can see, I have seen previous proposals that have failed, according to Talk:Cricket. Arguments from past discussions were: I don't think statistics can help us, and neither would Google. I am discussing Wikipedia usage here: sport and insect. Nevertheless, even popularity of a sport is not that a strong point for either support or opposition of this idea. I think I want some strong key points to help readers agree that sport is not necessarily a primary topic, but I want a strong execution of a proposed idea. Discussions from past are too old to be relied on any more, but this is not a proposal. In fact, I must find some other way to convince readers to fully support this idea. --George Ho (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) No American knows the sport, and considering sport a primary topic is systemic bias. (e.g. No non-American knows Roseanne (TV series), so it must not be primary.)
 * 2) Bugs can live longer than the sport itself.
 * 3) (No reasons have been explained; just "support" or "oppose").
 * 4) Google can tell us.
 * 5) Doesn't matter if Americans do not know it; it's played worldwide.
 * 6) Other articles are not in the same situation as sport vs. insect: (e.g. Apple vs. Apple Inc. is not the same.)
 * 7) Evidence can tell us, including dictionaries, how "cricket" is used.
 * 8) Totally disruptive to propose again.
 * 9) Insect should be primary.
 * I have taken the liberty of correcting one of your links. The Wikipedia usage of the sport page shows five or six times the traffic of the insect page.  Of course, as the primary topic, some of this will be readers in the wrong page who subsequently go to the disambiguation page who should be subtracted.  But the disambiguation page has very minimal traffic.  Google correlate is particularly informative here.  Even the correlations for the US are almost exclusively sport related.  I did not find an unequivocally insect related correlation until the list was extended to 90 correlations.  This was at #90 for "Wellness canned cat food" who apparently make a pet food made of crickets.  When products get into such lists it is nearly always due to manipulation by marketing departments .  To find completely sport unrelated correlations one has to go to a country like Romania  which still fails to find insect related correlations.  For some reason the Romanian hits are mostly Big Brother related. In short, I see little grounds for reopening this debate.  Spinning  Spark  12:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC) and 12:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, Google is not that reliable and helpful. It has a manipulative formula that somehow links to sport. As for the dab page, have you forgotten that the hatnote has "Cricket (insect)" within? On the other hand, how popular are search terms, "cricket" and "cricket insect (or bug)"? --George Ho (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if one assumes that all of the 1000 hits per day to cricket (insect) have arrived via cricket, that still leaves it five to one in favour of the sport. And that is a big if, I have done numerous traffic investigations into this sort of thing previously and have come to the conclusion that most readers arrive by direct links rather than dabs and cats.  Spinning  Spark  18:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What would be the numbers if the sport becomes disambiguated? --George Ho (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really possible to say for certain but my gut feeling is that it would not make a very great difference. One way to get an indication is to take a prominent sub-article of each subject which is not complicated by disambiguations.  For instance Test cricket gets about 2000 hits per day while Field cricket gets about 500 hits per day.  Spinning  Spark  22:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I checked women's cricket, and it hits 40 views per day. Cricket in the United States: not that popular. Cricket in Australia: Less than 120 average. Indoor cricket: same as the U.S.. Cricket in India: Solid. History of cricket: 700 hits per day. Blind cricket: so-so. Mormon cricket: 85-90 per day. There are so many to list. --George Ho (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Wait... what if I can make a non-vote discussion then? I've seen that done before, but not with notavote in place. --George Ho (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Go ahead - Talk:Cricket (disambiguation) would be the venue for that discussion. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Periodic table by article quality
About: Today I copypasted most content from the Project page to the (new) Template page. Of course this is Not Done ideally, but the plan was complicated enough by itself. I could not afford disrupting the Project (WP:ELEMENT). Now the history is left at the old page. My question is: can some admin correct this omission, and somehow move the history to the Template page? Of course the last ten hours there have been edits on both pages, which may complicate the situation. For me, they might be removed for the big result. -DePiep (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

heat
Talk:Heat

Dear assistant, Please go to the talk page of the article on heat. On June 1 I posted a section (on the talk page) with some suggestion for changing the article (Proposed changes, June 1, 2012). There were only a few reactions. One of them was from a certain Chjoaygame. What followed was a lengthy discussion which just goes on and on. I am at the point of giving up but that would be a pity since (I think that) my proposed changes would really improve the article. Is there a way to solve the problem? Is there a third party that can decide?Adwaele (talk) 08:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * See Third opinion. Dru of Id (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Receiving message that our page will be deleted
Please help me with this matter and correct. I and my wife posted our pictures to Biography Of Bishop Walter Dixon and First Lady Nyoka Dixon yesterday. When we check our page on Wikipedia we are seeing the following below. I tried to fix the problem, but when I read your statement in how to contact Wikipedia, I'm confused because it states Wikipedia do not send out such message. That it is coming from a viewer. Please fix and confirm or explain.....Thanks, Bishop Walter & First Lady Nyoka Dixon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

Jump to: navigation, search

6/15/2012 9:16 a.m. est. I have no problem in you deleting User:Archbishop Walter Dixon, User: Walter & Nyoka Dixon and User: Walter L. Dixon, Sr. Not understanding the posting procedure in addition to common. The only User I and my wife First Lady Nyoka Dixon want to be listed is User: Bishop Walter Dixon and User: First Lady Nyoka Dixon. I do not no how to delete the other three user. The images in user: Bishop Walter Dixon and First Lady Nyoka Dixon we want to remain. Some how I mess up in posting the images. Thanks.....Bishop Walter Dixon and First Lady Nyoka Dixon.

[edit] User:Bishop Walter Dixon User:Bishop Walter Dixon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Looks like an advertisement or at least a WP:FAKEARTICLE. Same problem with the associated talk page. Stefan2 (talk) 23:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

These user pages are all related: User:Walter & Nyoka Dixon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)User:Archbishop Walter Dixon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)User:First Lady Nyoka Dixon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) --| Uncle Milty | talk | 02:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I really don't understand. I posted two images on my main page at the request of hundreds. Thanks, Bishop Walter Dixon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bishop Walter Dixon (talk • contribs) 00:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC) •Someone has placed a speedy tag on Commons:User:Bishop Walter Dixon which is similar to this page. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC) •See also User:Archbishop Walter Dixon. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC) •It's much worse than that: User:Walter Dixon, User:Walter L. Dixon, Sr. and User:Archbishop Walter Dixon are the same content; User:First Lady Nyoka Dixon, User:Walter & Nyoka Dixon are clearly related and File:Image Of Bishop Walter Dixon.jpg, File:Baptist Archbishop Walter L. Dixon.jpg, File:Image of bishop walter dixon.jpg and File:Image Of Archbishop Walter Dixon.jpg are related images. Delete all and block users concerned. MER-C 03:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)◦Indeed. And in some cases, there is also unnecessary text on the talk pages. Although talk pages normally aren't deleted, I think that we should make an exception delete some talk pages here. --Stefan2 (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

•Delete - WP:SPA and WP:FAKEARTICLE. I did a Google search and the subject seems not notable. --Surturz (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter & Nyoka Dixon (talk • contribs)


 * Wikipedia is not for purposes of promotion, and that limitation applies not only to articles but also to user pages. I would suggest that you would be best served by starting a Facebook or MySpace page if you have not already done so. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There seems to be five accounts here. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bishop Walter Dixon. It's a mess and I expect some blocks will take place. I don't see any bad faith, just a lot of confusion. Dougweller (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I just started to undo
a huge good faith edit by an anonymous editor at List of Dewey Decimal classes. However my computer and hook up are so slow that it took me 10 minutes just to get through the undo process. And then, before I hit the SAVE button decided that what this article really needed was someone who could format the new edit properly. I am pretty sure that the information added was good information, probably should be kept but I am not so good at formatting and anyway it was taking me minutes just to scroll down the page. It would be great is someone could take a look a fix it. Thanks Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Biased Editors at Sigmund Freud Page
I submitted an arbitration request about this and was referred to Editor Assistance by the arbitrators who declined the case.

Wikipedia needs to deal formally with the very divisive and important topic of Sigmund Freud, whose ideas have many adherents and many harsh critics, a well known and longstanding controversy akin to the evolution controversy in its scale and the passions of its partisans. A very aggressive editor, Polisher of Cobwebs, has written a lead to the Freud article that gives undue weight to criticisms of Freud and underrates his importance within psychiatry and neuroscience. It isn't an accurate reflection of the controversy, which is more justly reflected in the "Science" section in the body of the article.

Polisher of Cobwebs refuses any alterations to the lead and has reverted all my edits. He refuses good faith discussion or compromise and is bullying and uncivil. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sigmund_Freud&diff=prev&oldid=497167818 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sigmund_Freud&diff=prev&oldid=497166629

I reached out through recommended dispute resolution steps in the Talk pages, and I proposed a number of small changes that left the majority of his lead intact and restored some balance to the lead with reputable well-sourced material. He rejected them all with much hostility.

Polisher of Cobwebs says openly in the Sigmund Freud Talk pages that a negative / critical view of Freud is the only correct one. His user page lists numerous articles he has created that rely exclusively on sources that roundly disparage Freud, biographies of Freud, and anybody who dares to find value in his work.

The "Freud Is Dead" / "Freud Is Not Dead" wars have been ongoing for a hundred years now, but Polisher of Cobwebs does not acknowledge his partisanship and is determined to ban anything that honors Freud’s importance to psychiatry and psychology from the Freud page lead. The page used to be rated a "good" page, but is no longer, and with good reason. Polisher of Cobwebs and other Freud-bashers have made the Wikipedia entry on a very important figure biased, warped, and inaccurate.

The page ought to be defended from this editor and others that have inflexibly distorted the Freud legacy as partisans of the Freud wars. Polisher of Cobwebs and those who agree with him have ample opportunity to vent their spleens in veiled form and quote all the Freud-bashers they want on the Freud page and in many other pages, but people who know and value Freud's work ought to have a say in characterizing Freud as well, no? I notice that Creationists are not allowed to deface the Darwin page lead in this way.Hypoplectrus (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You could try a WP:Third opinion to attempt to resolve this content dispute. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Audit Commission - can I get some advice please?
Hello, my name's Jim and I work at the Audit Commission. We've noticed that a large amount of information about the National Fraud Initiative has been added to the Audit Commission's page in the last few weeks and I'm after an opinion on whether you feel it's appropriate. I asked the same question on the talk page a couple of weeks ago but as yet I've had no response. The National Fraud Initiative is a very small part of what the Audit Commission does but it now takes up the majority of the article. I wonder if the new information could be summarised as one or two points and moved to the criticism and controversy section? Obviously I have a COI so I won't be making any edits but I'd be pleased to get your opinion. Jim-dcm (talk) 10:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I referred it to Rd232, who already had some experience with the article, and he's dealing with it. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help. Jim-dcm (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Buchla 200e
Recently, a lot of first person tense content was removed from the article on the Buchla 200e. It was restored because there wasn't enough discussion on the matter. However, these sections were written by Michael Tiemann in 2006, and AFAIK classroom like content like that was forbidden even back then. Why can't we just remove it, there is obviously no one who wants to rewrite it in the proper style. I don't even think it's possible. It's original research too. --Ysangkok (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree, the deletion was fully justified. The material consistes solely of first person how-to and is completely unreferenced.  If sources had been provided it might have been possible to rewrite from the sources, but there clearly are no sources - the author is writing from personal experience.  You should first be attempting a dialogue over this on the article talk page, or with the other editor directly.  If that goes nowhere and no other editors give an opinion you could try an RFC.  Spinning  Spark  13:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I could add that this is only the worst aspect of a poorly constructed article.  Spinning Spark  13:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Right, that article seems to be a tutorial rather than an encyclopedia entry. Most of it should be removed. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Photo incorrectly lists me as the author
For the image available at File:Bharatanatyam male.jpg it incorrectly lists me as the author. I am *not* the author. It was taken from a blog with the actual author's permission but at this point I no longer have the records so it might make better sense to delete the image. Not sure how to achieve this. -- Thoreaulylazy (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The file has actually now been moved to Commons so needs to be dealt with there. Commons has a page for dealing with deletion requests.  Spinning  Spark  19:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikilink as a reference?
Can a wikilink to another article serve as a reference? A paragraph in History of the Falkland Islands has been challenged by a user, and another user argues that no further ref is needed because of the wikilink. --Langus (t) 06:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If it is a piece of information in need of a citation, such citation(s) should be placed in the article according to the guidelines in WP:CITE. A reader should not have to link over to Wikipedia article "B" in order to search for a reference for material written in article "A". That really wouldn't make any sense.
 * If the content is contentious, discussion should take place on the article's talk page. Taroaldo (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I should also ask for a clarification: when you added the fact tag, which specific information where you looking to have cited? This could be where the confusion started over the wikilink. Taroaldo (talk) 06:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Langus for once again demonstrating good faith, I don't know why I might ever assume that you ever presume bad faith. It must have been my bad faith that missed your courtesy notice you were raising it elsewhere.  Once again thanks for demonstrating good faith, many, many thanks.  See also WP:MINREF.  A tag on a wikilink, which is all is there is just ridiculous.  Its not contentious.  Wee Curry Monster talk 14:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The passage that WCM claims is only a wikilink actually reads, "Islands that may well have been the Falkland Islands are also shown on the maps of Piri Reis, a Turkish admiral of the period who drew maps of the region." What is more, I believe this to be a disputed claim, so how it can be argued this does not need a citation is beyond me.  Spinning  Spark  18:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, my understanding is that Martin Hogbin didn't challenge a wikilink, he challenged a statement.
 * @WCM: regarding your accusations, I hope someday you'll understand that a disagreement doesn't imply an assumption of bad faith, it's just that, a disagreement. And judging the input obtained, it seems my intuition was right.
 * Ironically, the only demonstrable assumption of bad faith is yours against me, two comments above. --Langus (t) 20:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It was just a wikilink, to an uncontentious observation, written carefully to show it wasn't universally accepted. Both of you, enjoy your victory - for the dull and uninteresting.  Langus, one day you might realise I don't assume bad faith but your constant questioning of my motives is irritating.  Wee Curry Monster talk 22:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * From what I can see, the situation has developed over everyone's confusion about what a "fact" tag is referring to. From what I have read, the tag was not meant to request a reference for the wikilink, but rather for the "islands which may be the Falkland Islands" part. In any case, another editor appears to have removed the material in question. Please remember to keep the discussion civil; we're all here to improve the encyclopedia. Taroaldo (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

searching reliable source
How to find reliable source and how to find public domain images for wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeeyanketu (talk • contribs) 18:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It depends exactly what you are looking for. There are many databases you can search such as Google Books, Google Scholar, JSTOR, Google News, Internet Archive.  If you are looking for a specific topic, more specialised databases such as IEEE Xplore.  For images there is Wikimedia Commons and Flickr. There are also libraries of course. Hope that helps.  Spinning  Spark  19:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Candidate infobox
So the situation here is that the Senate race lacks an incumbent and has a high-polling independent. There has been a revert war over what is the proper order for candidates in the lead infobox. One editor suggests it should be alphabetical because thee is no incumbent, while another suggests going with the party that currently holds the seat. Is there an existing policy on the issue?

Bkissin (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably best to seek advice at WikiProject Elections and Referendums. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Bo Guagua is constantly being vandalized and protected
here is what i wrote, everything is based on facts. the current version is praising him as if he actually won a "wonderful award, when in reality, it is totally fake! and the administrators are vandalizing that page, protecting it, they don't want people to know the truth about bo guagua. i start to wonder if they get paid by bo guagua himself, so that the world won't know the truth about him.

i challenge anyone to point out what i wrote in the following is not based on facts. go ahead. here are the few things which are being reverted by several agents. they claim that i "violated" rules, if they have time to revert what i wrote, why can't they edit what i wrote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC6B:6B90:156A:D24F:FCE8:F749 (talk • contribs)




 * I have no idea whether or not that material is correct, but posting it here instead after it has been removed under the WP:BLP policy is not the solution. You should first discuss the issues with other editors on the article talk page and try to reach agreement there.  Spinning  Spark  19:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

someone put a protection for that article, therefore, it can't be edited any more. that is why i am reporting it here. isn't this "editor help"? if i can't edit, some editors should help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC6B:6B90:86:F6CA:53D5:1E7E (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You can request another editor to make an edit for you by placing the edit semi-protected template on the article talk page. But before you do that, you should read WP:BLP to make sure that your post is going to comply with that important policy.  Spinning  Spark  00:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Kruse entries
Dear Administrators. My contributions about members of the Krus-family are systematicly sabotaged! What can I do to avoid this type of problems? Knuand (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC) The entries of concern are: Erling O. Kruse, Jannike Kruse, Even Kruse Skatrud and Bjørn Kruse. 4 other deletions are not disputed for now. Knuand (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Please do not forum shop. You have opened a DRV for the first case, and there is an open AfD for the second.  I have no idea what your complaint is for the other two.  Also, please do not throw around accusations such as sabotage unless you are prepared to back them up with relevant diffs.  Just because you do not agree with the actions of others does not mean they are not acting in good faith.  Spinning  Spark  13:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Albania
Dear administrators. I have an issue in the Albania page with a map added in the Ottoman Empire section of the history page. The map has been created by [|this user] according to a source he has provided. I believe he has misread the source (the source shows Albanian land-holders, not 'Albania')

The map shows the purported existences of a region called 'Sancak of Albania' 1385–1466. As I have said in the talk page, this map does not represent the whole of the modern-day territory of the Republic of Albania (since important cities such as Shkoder and Vlore were only taken by the Ottomans in 1478 and later).

Indeed, according to the historian he keeps mentioning Halil İnalcık "In the south the sand̲j̲aḳ of Awlonya (Avlona) (see:Vlore) and in the east that of Ohri (see:Ohrid) were created and in 1479 [whilst] the sand̲j̲aḳ of Iskenderiye (Scutari) (see: Shkoder) was formed in the north..." (see:Arnawutluḳ." Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Brill Online, 2012. Reference. 2012)

Ottomanist (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Please continue to resolve this issue at Talk:Albania where it is being discussed. Please also be sure that any maps or images are accurate and that they may be used within our copyright regulations (e.g. derivative work). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have explained again and again that the map is wrong because there never ever existed an Albania until 1913. Any map of a territory called Albania in the 15th century is wrong. Moreover, the map is not from the source it purports to be from (since the book is in black and white--see the link in the image page). I have explained time and time again that the historians in question never ever referred to anAlbania in the 15th century - this is absurd. Ottomanist (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

help with editing and staying on the right side of other editors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thornton_Heath

I made an addition to the Thornton Heath article (link above) where I mentioned the fact that it has a malapropism 'alter ego' "Fort Neaf."

I am obviously not writing this in the correct manner since other people have twice removed the reference. All the citations for this that I can find are in message boards rather than on more established sites, and indeed the reason I knew about this soubriquet in the first place was through editing user-submitted classified ad text in a magazine.

However, it remains that this is indeed a fact and one which pertains directly to Thornton Heath. I would like help perhaps rewording or changing the format of the entry or the citation (or both) so that there aren't such obvious grounds for disapproval on the part of other editors. I am unfamiliar with how to go about this myself.

In searching for a better citation on the internet, I realize that there are a few instances where people have used what I originally wrote and quoted it for their own purposes, presumably citing this back becomes circular and redundant, but it hopefully lends credence to my assertion that it is a real phenomenon in the first place. And if this little factoid didn't appear in this entry, where would it go?

Thanks! --Kortcomponent (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello. First, I do not see any discussion of this issue at the article's talk page. Content issues should be discussed at the talk pages first. If that discussion is unproductive, then a request can be made here. Anyway, I have looked at the material which seems to be more along the lines of trivia,  and is not something which would normally be included in an encyclopedic article. If you still want to include it, please discuss with other editors on the Thornton Heath talk page. Regards, Taroaldo (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:RS which will explain what sources are acceptable.  Spinning Spark  22:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I want to report Barek vandalizing pages repeatedly
this person has repeatedly vandalizing this article of Gu Kailai. he frequently delete the following paragraph. first, he deleted it, claimed that it was not confirmed even though he can easily find plenty of articles about it if he spent time searching it online. now, he is still deleting this entire paragraph even though it has the web site which he can confirm. this news was reported by "Wall street journal", why is he vandalizing this page?

he is a ridiculous person, he is vandalizing this article with malicious intent. someone should ban him assp.

"Patrick Henri Devillers, a french architect, someone who was very close to her was arrested in Cambodia in early June of 2012. The Cambodia government is currently deciding if they will send him to France or to the Chinese government for further criminal investigation." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC6B:6B90:86:F6CA:53D5:1E7E (talk) 23:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC) ( Modified in good faith to allow citation link to function properly 69.155.143.207 (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC))


 * Please calm down. Also, talk about other editors respectfully.


 * There are several problems here. One of them is that his actions are not necessarily vandalism. Vandalism is intentional disruption of Wikipedia and does not cover content disputes. Barek happens to be a Wikipedia administrator, so he is not likely to be vandalizing Wikipedia and probably has a good grasp of policy. You, on the other hand have violated Wikipedia's WP:3RR policy.


 * Regarding your addition — you did not initially cite a source. Barek might have not realized that you did add one on your fourth attempt. Walk away from the situation for a little while and calmly approach Barek explaining what happened. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  23:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, please sign your posts using four tildes ~ . It's standard Wikipedia practice. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  23:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * FYI this editor has been blocked at least four times previously for violations of the WP:BLP policy, edit warring, and sockpuppetry -- see all the recent IPv6 edits in the Bo Guagua article, starting with this one and his subsequent sockpuppet. Antandrus (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've rangeblocked the user. Elockid  ( Talk ) 00:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Reversing/revising alerts?
I have recently edited an article attempting to reverse the posted alert about 'multiple issues', some which date back more than a year but have no specifics. I've tried to address the issues that I could (writing style, references, citations), but don't know how the process works, and what will satisfy a reversal of the alert etc. Obviously, we would like the alert removed. In providing facts, stats and history, often there is unavoidably a single source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterABrown (talk • contribs) 05:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please provide a link to the page - also you mention "we". Is the subject something with which you have aconflict of interest? Jezhotwells (talk) 09:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably Swinburne University of Technology. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've left a message on the user's talk page about WP:COI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is a blatant example of promotion and there may be little else possible other than stubbing it (deleting all but the lead) and competely rewriting  it. I have also noticed that a previous editor was blocked for WP:COI at User talk:SwinburneUniversity. A technical investigation  may determine whether or not you or your IP address are that same user.  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * User blocked for blatant COI. PeterABrown is the advertising manager for the institution. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

American Staffordshire Terrier page, temperament section
An anonymous user that is apparently hellbent only mentioning positive aspects of Amer. Staffie temperament is removing any additions or changes I make to this page, going so far as removing additions I made from the source that anonymous user cites, calling highly regarded peer-reviewed journals "dubious", and removing interviews of the president of the society to which they refer. This and the users total anonymity means that I cannot assume good faith. The dispute resolution board has been no help. Please look at my edits that occurred as of June 28, 2012 and see if a blanket wipe of all of it is even remotely justified. Wvguy8258 (talk) 00:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Original research is not allowed in wiki just if it comes from a reliable secondary source. Your other reference was about the pitbulls however this is the Staffordshire Trerrier article. None has agreed with you here however you keep vandalizing the article:

1.you can't use directly info from the ATTS site since it is primary research 2. your second source Christensen, E. et al. (2007) Aggressive behavior in adopted dogs that passed a temperament test doesn't mention the American Staffordshire Terriers, nor does it the ATTS, it's another temperament test. perhaps it needs a different article 3.your third source Snopek, Roxanne Willems. (2006) Dangerous Dogs. Altitude Publishing. Alberta Canada is from a person who run various anti-pitbull sites. 4.your forth source Duffy, D. et al. (2008) Breed differences in canine aggression is reliable, even if you misquoted it as the article states that Pitbulls showed to greater aggressiveness toward other dogs however less toward humans compared with other breeds. However the American Staffordshre Terrier is not mentioned, t is about the American Pitbull Terrier Usre Wvguy8258 is making fun from the article trying to push his personal views, basing his edits on "comon sense", own research published on the article's talk page, links to pitbull attacks on the article's talk page and calling owners idiots and wikipedia unreliable because its democracy. On the dispute resolution noticeboard none agreed with user Wvguy8258 however his ignoring all our requests. 89.123.229.29 (talk) 07:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Please do not forum shop. The discussion is still open at DRN and should be resolved there.  Spinning  Spark  11:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The help there has been minimal. The anonymous user and I cannot move forward.  We need someone to look at both our proposed edits and come to a reasonable outside decision.Wvguy8258 (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stick to theDRN as the debate is going onCitizen of the USA (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Low-sourced topics - in search of advice
I wonder if there's any advice, sage or otherwise, editors might have for those of us interested in writing articles about topics with few secondary sources (and when there are, it's largely anecdotal ... rarely on point).

For example, I'm interested in newspapers -- but newspapers don't tend to write about other newspapers much (and outside of industry trend stories, TV news sites tend to write about them even less). If a newspaper writes about itself, is that reliable? What about in an op-ed or unsigned editorial? Their "about us" page? (Outside of E&P, CJR, Poynter and the like, there's not much sourceage out there -- especially when you're talking about five-figure circulation papers, to say nothing of the non-daily set.)

Same goes for obviously notable places and attractions in small towns -- often without online sources, most of the RS would be in a faraway library. Are "about us" pages or obvious promotional sites OK?

I'd like to improve articles in these areas. Any advice you could give me that might point me the way of success would be, by me, appreciated. Woodshed (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You can, with caution, use uncontroversial factual material from sources associated with the subject. For instance, a newspaper could be used as a source for facts such as its own foundation date, but not for opinions such as "strong on investigative journalism".  But such sources do not count towards establishing notability, which is the criterion for the existence of an article in the first place.  For that, sources independant of the subject and discussing the subject in depth are required.  Spinning  Spark  00:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * WikiProject Journalism may have some useful ideas on sourcing. This has bound to have come up before.  Spinning  Spark  00:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thoughts. I appreciate it. Most daily newspapers in the U.S. (my area of interest) are presumptively notable as historic institutions locally and as organs of record. Many of these articles are long-time extant on Wikipedia but lack much in the way of content or sources, to say nothing of useful content. Woodshed (talk) 11:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If there is no material at all about a topic, then that is a distinct mark against it in regards of notability. On the other hand, if there is material, but not readily available (perhaps buried in a cardboard box in the basement of an abandoned building in a distant small town?), well, in the first place those would be WP:primary sources, whose use can be problematic.  But there is a deeper problem: in not being published in any form or place where others can review them (and generate secondary sources), such materials fail a necessary requirement of reliable sources.  It's like a famous astronomer once said: "if it's not written down, it didn't happen."  So if primary sources are unknown and secondary sources don't exist, then the real problem is that no one has written the history. (Yet?) Until that is done there isn't much that can be done. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Posts have been deleted several times, even after being approved by an editor!
The information about State Youth Orchestra of Armenia has been posted on Wikipedia several and has been deleted every single time! Once even approved by an editor, it has been removed after some time! The article is written with appropriate amount of links and references!

Why do our posts get deleted all the time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SYOArmenia1 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC) (Moved from talk page to this page. —  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC))


 * The only requests which I could find are those listed here which were declined because they were made in the wrong forum and in the wrong method. Please see the instructions at WP:AFC on how to submit an article, but I would note that Youth State Orchestra of Armenia already exists and, if it is the same organization, could use improvement. I note that your account has been blocked. Your username must be for you, individually, only. A name which implies which you are editing on behalf of a group or organization is unacceptable. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at the history of Youth State Orchestra of Armenia, it appears that you are trying to make the article into a promotional piece, which is not appropriate. You should not extensively quote every review of a performance. Lady  of  Shalott  15:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect Data
Greetings!

The wiki page for Marycrest College indicates that it is / was located in Toledo, Ohio.

This is incorrect. Marycrest College has always been located in Davenport, Iowa.

I noticed this error when facebook linked the educational information on my info page to your article, and it now shows this incorrect location on my facebook entry. I have never been to Toledo, Ohio, nor was Marycrest ever located there.

It would be wonderful if someone could correct this on your Marycrest College page. I do not know how to do this.

Thank you.

Tom Nielsen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.80.7.30 (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You also asked this at Help desk and someone has answered there. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

There's been more than one Marycrest College. The Iowa one, founded in 1939, was originally named Marycrest College, became Teikyo Marycrest University and finally Marycrest International University. That school closed in 2002 because of financial shortcomings. We can't help you with Facebook mixing up the Marycrests. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  17:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Help with a hoax
This page for an upcoming cartoon series is a hoax. No sources on the page are listed and a quick Google search for "new Parappa cartoon" turns up nothing. I marked it as a hoax and proposed it for deletion, but then my edits | were reverted by the creator of the page. I need some advice on how to deal with this.--Dr.Starky (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've nominated the page for speedy deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @Dr.Starky: Let me just supplement that by saying that, unlike a proposal for deletion, which you tried, the page creator does not have the right to remove a speedy deletion nomination from the article himself. If he does so, it will likely be replaced (though I will not be surprised if the article is deleted before he has a chance to remove it). Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the speedy response guys!--Dr.Starky (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

ambiguous acronym in title
I just made this page and moved it from user test to article. I would like people to be able to search Wiki for SPIRE  and get to it, or at least to the page of potential SPIRE hits since it is ambiguous. how could I go about making sure it comes up in a search?

Thank you Beth
 * Hi Beth, The page has been moved to Systematic Protein Investigative Research Environment. It needs essentially a complete rewrite to remove promotional language, properly source it, and make it comprehensible. Right now it sorely lacks context, is filled with unexplained jargon and still reads like a commercial despite that I have removed some overt peacockery. Regarding your question, you listed it at Spire (disambiguation). That is how people will reach it who type in "SPIRE", if it's not deleted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Varonis Systems
I'm contacting you with the regards to the content of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varonis. This page contains information about the company Varonis Systems, a competitor of Whitebox Security which I'm representing. I was recently contacted by a potential customer who wanted to let me know that he tried to edit the above value (Varonis) and add information about possible other/competitive solutions to Varonis as he thought this will be a better service to public knowledge (which of course makes sense). After he tried to add this information, the information was removed by some other user. He tried again, the information was removed ­ again. Knowing this should not happen, I actually try to add the same information to the Varonis page and it seems that it is automatically removed.. (take a look at the history page to see immediate removal of information after making changes ­ repeatedly..) 1) I'm not sure that automatic delegation of information is Ok with your policy. 2) I think that keeping this specific information out (competitors for a company) is actually not for the benefit of the public and creates pure advertisement within Wikipedia..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneisnottheone (talk • contribs) 08:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The editor was correct in removing the links to Whitebox security. Please read our policies on what external links are acceptable, which you can find here and in this case only the Varonis page should be linked, as the official page of the company which is the subject of the article. Links to other companies would be unacceptable per WP:ELNO specifically section 4: "Links to individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services." Valenciano (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, the external links should not be in the article, but that is really a side issue to the question being asked. The main question is, is it acceptable for an article about a company to mention its main competitors?  In other words, if the contribution had been unlinked, would it then be acceptable?  For instance the Pepsi and Coca-Cola articles both mention each other, as well as other products.  Another question is are the competitors notable enough to deserve a mention.  Some of them do not even have a Wikipedia article.  A much more serious issue in this article is the edit warring going on in the article which needs to stop.  In any case, I have now nominated it for deletion as non-notable.  Spinning  Spark  22:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The answer, as usual, is in the references; if they don't mention the competition, why should the article? If only a mention, I'd leave it out, but if the references make comparisons, evaluate for includeable sourced material. The competition being available in one additional color is trivial; being available in any color requested might not be. WHAAOE = Competition between soda brands. Dru of Id (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

A request for an article
Please reply or recommend

@ParikhRutul

Resp Sir/Ma'am,

I am new to Wikipedia and want to know if I can get information on medical topics such as Celiac Disease and so.

I found about Celiac Disease and Hyperthyroidism but want to have dedicated article about 'Comparison of Celiac Disease and Hyperthyroidism' as the symptoms are almost same in both the diseases and it is hard to decide what one is suffering from.

I know the best answer is to consult a doctor but I just want to have an article so that I can have more trustworthy knowledge so I can go for consultancy without fear. Some times, diagnose varies from doctor to doctor so it'd be more useful if the article makes it on Wikipedia.

Thanks for your kind support and time for reading this query.

Hope I get the reply soon. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.203.86.251 (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding Celiac Disease and Hyperthyroidism:- Symptoms of these 2 disease may overlap but, in general, are different. Some families have both celiac disease and hyperthyroidism but usually it is only 1 of the 2.  I suggest that separate articles on each topic are needed if not already present but not the 2 diseases in 1 article.  Signed: an MD.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfaichney (talk • contribs) 16:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The articles on Wikipeida are Coeliac disease and Hyperthyroidism.  Spinning Spark  19:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

fiachna
I recently made contributions to this topic and all were deleted except 1 adjective. That is o.k. but I believe all my contributions had validity and would like to discuss a way in which they can be presented. Thanks very much. Jfaichney (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Which topic? Fiachna — is that what you meant? — is a disambiguation page that points to several closely related topics. In any event, the place to raise any questions about an article is on that article's "Talk" page. As you should have read at the top of this page. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * (after edit conflict) You can see the comment left by the deleting editor in the article history. The best place for discussing such things is on the article talk page (Talk:Fiachna) or directly with the editor (User talk:WikHead).  I suggest you do that before making any more edits to the page.  The reason your contributions were removed was that the page in question is a disambiguation (dab) page.  Such pages are intended to help users find the correct page amongst similarly named pages.  We keep the information on such pages to a bear minimum to make it easy for users to find the right page.
 * However, in my opinion, the page is not really a dab page since none of the articles linked are about simply "Fiachna". The dab template should be removed so it no longer shows as a dab.  This title should clearly be an article discussing the name.  We sometimes move out the list of people to a separate page with a name like "List of people named foo", especially if it is long.  See, for instance David (name) and Jones (surname) for examples of how to construct name articles.  Spinning  Spark  19:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Please help me understand what is going on here!
Please help me understand what is going on HERE.

Sixa369 (talk) 04:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Sixa369. As this is a Commons talk page, I suggest you ask for help at the Commons Help Desk. They have different talk page guidelines over there. -- Neil N   talk to me  04:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Roundhay farm
I don't see any of my family's history here. I am trying to track my family for life threatining medical reasons. They owned Roundhay farm. The Goodalls, although my great aunt was Dorothy Goodall (nee Hill). Can you provide me with any info?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.248.214.180 (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You may wish to try the Reference desk for an answer to your problem. They will want to know such basic things as where this farm is/was! (Remember, this is a global project; there are farms from Australia to the Yukon to Florida to Dumfrieshire to Cyprus to South Africa to Sri Lanka, just to name some places where English has been an official language!) -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  21:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Moving a page
Im trying to move this page Imam Husayn Shrine to Imam Hussein Shrine, but it has a redirect. How do you make this move? Please dont forget to describe how. Pass a Method  talk  15:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Mark the redirect for speedy deletion using Template:Db-move. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Very important
Dear Sir/Madam, kindly, I want to divert kind attention towards an issue which is very important for us, all Muslims so kindly address this big mistake. Mistake is that you wrote the spelling of Muhammad as Mohammad which is a very abuse for us, all Muslims so plz correct this mistake in the whole Wikipedia.We ere kindfull to you as you are repespecting our feelings. Thankx alot. Javed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.128.15 (talk) 06:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I am puzzled, surely the spellings in English are transliterations from Arabic to the Latin alphabet. Are there two spellings in Arabic, one of which is considered offensive?  Spinning  Spark  09:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There are more than a dozen English spelling variations. This issue has been addressed before on Talk:Muhammad/Archive_2. The intro to the Muhammad article lists several variations: "Muhammad (c. 570 –  c.  8 June 632); also transliterated as Mohammad, Mohammed, or Muhammed; محمد, full name: Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib ibn Hāshim (محمد بن عبدالله بن عبد المطلب)". Other variations are "Mahommed, Mehmed, Mehmet, Mahomet, and (Latin) Mahometus". Of course, Wikipedia follows the sources, and spelling is not required to be uniform across all of the encyclopedia, but should be consistent within each particular article. I would suggest to our friend and fellow editor Javed, that Talk:Muhammad might be a better place to raise further questions on this issue, and there are volumes of archives there that touch on this and related issues. Peace be unto us all. —Telpardec  TALK  12:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Please edit this page
Hello please can you edit the page "shrewsbury town" the badge of the football club is wrong, vandals behind the campaign to reinstate an old badge have placed the incorrect one shown in the article. The correct one is on the article at the bottom ... the round one with a lion in the middle.. minus the 125 year scroll Can this one be placed there and set so it can't be removed

Thank you. Salopian123 (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I put the 125 year anniversary logo in. That matches the official website. If it gets reverted then edit war over it. Get all involved blocked, then seek consensus after the blocks expire. That is the normal procedure here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

After a bit of confusion I think I finally got the correct logo at the top of the article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

American films
--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for all your works!

I'm thinking this web page SEVERELY needs a new column: ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_films_of_2012 )

Please add "DATE OF Release" column for this page so people can sort the list BY DATE, because every time I visit this page I really need that feature and I'm sure every other person Needs/misses that column/feature.

THANKS IN ADVANCE... Your work is greatly appreciated

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.203.180.44 (talk) 09:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This has been answered at Help desk. It's usually best to ask a question in only one place. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I added the column and put the first two dates in. You need to click the link to each movie to find the rest. I think the rule is to include the first release date, no matter which country. You add them at the end of each section with a space, two pipes (||), another space, and then the date as I have done. I agree that you should have only posted in one place. Many don't like 'cross-posting' at all. You are new so all should be forgiven.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Editing matters
I have been provided a link to this assistence board by User:Mephistophelian on my talk page regarding my testing on wikipedia. I would like some further explanation on this matter on my talk page.HelloWorldTestAccount (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * He's answered your questions quit well. Screwing about (such as blanking sections, making thumbnailed pictures full size, ) results in warnings, and after a few warnings, a block from editing.  Do you have any other questions?
 * I recommend looking for spelling or grammatical errors and fixing them for starters, and experimenting in the sandbox (which may be found here) to learn about Wikipedia's coding. With practice, you may find that adding new portions or references to articles is possible.  This involves summarizing (but not copying) a secondary or tertiary source published by an academic or journalistic institution, and then placing,  listing the author, the name of the book, the publisher, the year of publication, and the page(s) you found the information on.
 * The main (really only) purpose of Wikipedia is building an encyclopedia, and all other actions are either connected to that in some way. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * HelloWorldTestAccount, you may wish  to  start learning what you need to know at Help:Editing and Your first article. You'll soon find out if you do anything wrong without needing to make disruptive edits to find out what happens. See the reply on your talk page.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Brown Lloyd James
has been all over the media. Request others to contribute content. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.21.194 (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The article exists in substantial form, and anyone can contribute to  it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Articlecat.com are using Wikipedia to drive traffic to their site
I would like to seek advice concerning Articlecat.com. As an editor I'm constantly having to remove inline citations and references to articles supposedly on this site. Everytime I click the link I am taken to an ad driven search page. It is my understanding that references are meant to be linked directly. Articlecat may contain articles on the Wikipedia references but I haven't bothered searching for them. Afterall I can just go to Google to do that.

It is my belief that Articlecat.com are placing references themselves in an attempt to drive traffic to their search page to generate ad revenue of the back of Wikipedia.

If you wish to prove how many articles have articlecat.com links that just land on the ad driven search page then just type into Google: "articlecat.com" wikipedia. I used the speech marks to force Google to return results with the exact phrase. I was shocked at the amount of Wikipedia articles with articlecat.com links. I've removed the Articlecat ref in the Wikipedia article on the Pecan. Here's a link to the article on Graphic Design which contains an inline ref that is supposedly associated with an Articlecat article

[]

I was hoping that someone here would verify my complaint about articlecat.com.

thankyou

Sluffs (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree these should be taken out, the site seems to be an aggregator or search engine and is not suitable for references. However, most of the insertions seem to be quite old, and done in good faith.  The entry in Pecan for instance was inserted in 2009 along with some encyclopaedic text.  My guess is the format of the site has changed and it is no longer as useful as it once was.  Essentially, everything has gone deadlink.  If there is evidence that Wikipedia is currently being spammed by this site then I would blacklist the site and/or block the editor(s) making the insertions, but it is all ancient history as far as I can tell at the moment.  Spinning  Spark  02:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

There's so many of these articlecat.com links. Should be a blanket removal of them. Even if its not considered spam it still amounts to a link to a reference that is not available anymore. This reduces reliability and provides a Google page-ranking boost for the site linked to. Someone should produce a report detailing the amount of articlecat.com references that exist throughout the whole of Wikipedia and what percentage of that whole actually links to the home page. I imagine we may find articlecat.com references are just an ad-driven landing page for a search engine. Good faith is fine amongst those that have nothing to financially gain by their editing of Wikipedia; all the rest is open to speculation.

16:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Sluffs (talk)

I looked at three articles:

Graphic Design, Sirius Satellite Radio, Newport Beach,

None linked to the reference and a search of their website for the afore-mentioned article only gave a sponsored ad listing.

17:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Sluffs (talk)


 * 'Comment - After looking at each of the references, I removed all of the *.articlecat.com references from article space. - SudoGhost 17:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * A blind removal of all these refs would be going too far. Where the ref is genuinely verifying some factual information in the article it would not be appropriate to remove it - because it remains the source of the information even if you cannot immediately access it and we need to record where our information came from.  If a better ref can be found then fine, replace it, but otherwise leave it in place.  Some future editor or researcher may have the resources to retrieve it from an archive.


 * For instance, in the pecan example above I found an archive of the referenced article in the Wayback Machine and there are numerous mirrors and forks of it on the internet such as this one. I am quite sure that many other, if not all, of the referenced articles could be found in one archive or another.  In such cases the deadlink can be replaced with a link to the archive copy.  Spinning  Spark  18:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The three removals by SudoGhost can all be recovered:, , . The first two I would say are required refs and should be retained.  The Newport Beach one is a bit more dubious.  Spinning  Spark  18:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * One more point, I forgot to point out that it is incorrect to believe that links from Wikipedia improve search engine page ranking. All our external links have nofollow tags which the major search engines honour.  See WikiProject Spam.  Spinning  Spark  18:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. Glad to hear that links are not to do with page rank. I'll check the WayBack machine and will check the reference's linked to ArticleCat. Maybe the domain changed hands at some point. Not really a fan of these sorts of "piggy back" sites - shouldn't be allowed.


 * Absolutely ridiculous. I checked the WayBack machine for the ArticleCat article that they linked to in the Wikipedia article on Graphic Design. It contains portions of the Wikipedia article - look at the entry for Jan Tschichold - its a word for word duplication. How can Wikipedia reference itself. It's a commercial site that is trying to maximise its traffic to earn more revenue and they seem to be using Wikipedia to reference Wikipedia. Its a "piggy back" site.

Sluffs (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you're right, at least in the case of the graphic design article. One has to be cautious in deciding deciding who copied who, and careful research is needed - it is always possible that an editor copied material into Wikipedia.  But in this case, the Wikipedia article predates the oldest ArticleCat archive by several years.  That is not necessarily conclusive as archiving is a little random but the Wikipedia article can be seen in the history to develop little by little and is thus unlikely to be a copy.  Spinning  Spark  23:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm grateful for the feedback. In some respects with a site as large and as popular as Wikipedia there is always going to be problems with articles and references. I'm always sceptical about these things partly due to the fact that sites like articlecat.com have to pay for hosting themselves (unlike Wikipedia which is funded by donations) and also may have full time employees that need to be paid. Its only natural when you run a business to want to maximise your profits and visibility in the field that your business operates. I would love to believe that articlecat.com did have reliable references from other sources apart from Wikipedia but I'm afraid that probably isn't the case. I'll spend some time (hopefully just a few weeks though I imagine more) shifting through Wikipedia looking for articlecat.com links and using the WayBack machine to check the text. Hopefully if I gather enough evidence then we can get all the links removed by robot rather than Wikipedia editors shifting through the articles.

Sluffs (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

BMW M54 talk page
Hi editors, just wondering if someone independent could have a look at the talk page for and do something to uphold WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. As the person under attack, I feel I'd only aggrevate the situation if I responded in any way. Many thanks, 09:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Those talk page entries are months old, except the most recent one and that one is civil (if a bit bitter). You appear to be safe to edit away. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi TransporterMan. Thanks for looking into it. In my opinion, being called a "fucking assclown" and that my edit was "bullshit misinformation" isn't very civil! 1292simon (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * in addition to TransporterMan's comment, I just went ahead and removed the offensive comments. --Hu12 (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Hu12. 1292simon (talk) 03:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Scots language discussion page
Dear Sir/madam,

I am a citizen of the United Kingdom and I always have been. I very recently came across a reference to a "Scots" language. My understanding has always been (and indeed it is the understanding of many people) that in Scotland there are two languages: Gaelic and English. My mother is Scottish. She speaks English and always has. I was taken aback when I read of this "Scottish" language and saw it referred to from several other language pages. I smelt a rat. In fact I genuinely thought it some sort of a joke, but I now understand that this is being promoted in Scotland.

I posted comments on the discussion page challenging the editor(s) of the page (such as they are) and telling them that there was a substantial body of opinion which rejects this (in my view) wholly politically motivated concept. I provided references to the comments of others - this was only the discussion page, however, not the main page which I have not touched.

I have found that someone (presumably who opposed my view) keeps on deleting my comments. Every time I post something - on the discussion page, within minutes it is removed. This person has then put a statement at the top effectively "banning" anyone from challenging the validity of a separate "Scots" language.

I feel strongly that the fact that this is disputed IS relevant and indeed should be stated on the main page, with references if necessary.

I am feeling very intimidated by this and do not wish to keep pressing this point. I have better things to do with my time. I am fearful that this person - I have no idea who it is - who is clearly very hostile to my comments may try to get me banned from Wikipedia on grounds that I am saying something that is not acceptable (ie, that Scots is not universally accepted as a separate language.) At one point I referred to the person as a "Nazi" out of exasperation. I apologise for this.

I have tried to reason with these people/this person that deleting my comments is in violation of the principle of freedom of speech to no avail. It still gets deleted and the directive not to challenge it's validity is reinstated.

Help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by John2o2o2o (talk • contribs) 13:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that you're failing to understand that article talk pages are not for the purpose of generally discussing the subject matter of an article. They are instead for discussing how the article is to be edited. Under Wikipedia standards, one's own personal opinions or understandings about a matter are irrelevant. What Wikipedia does is to report the "accepted wisdom" about subjects based entirely and only upon reliable third party sources. Only certain sources are considered reliable for Wikipedia, see here for the basic information about which ones are and are not. (There is a great deal more in addition to just that, but that's the starting point.) If you can find reliable sources, as defined by Wikipedia, for your information, you should feel free to add it to the article or ask on the talk page for it to be added, citing your sources. The sources which you have provided so far are clearly not reliable sources under Wikipedia standards, and your personal opinions about the matter can, under Wikipedia rules, legitimately be removed from the talk page. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Also note that there is no right to free speech on Wikipedia.--ukexpat (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Your (now deleted) comment here shows that you have little idea of what constitutes a reliable source. While I personally would not have gone so far as to delete your post, the sources cited are complete rubbish as far as Wikipedia is concerned.  Spinning  Spark  18:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Normally I don't get involved in these discussions but after reading this I thought that I'd point out that the users personal talk page would be an ideal place for this user to post his views and to exercise his right to free speech. I think their everyone does have a right to free speech including exercising that right here on Wikipedia but I'm in agreement with the other editors that an article's talk page is not the right place. The statement that there is no free-speech on Wikipedia may be misleading and give the impression that editors resemble Solon the Law Giver or Draco in their behaviour. Give clear and friendly directions to those that don't have an indepth knowledge of Wikipedia policies regarding articles avoiding negative terms that may offend. Just my opinion which you may dispute here on Wikipedia using your right to free-speech.

15:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Sluffs (talk)


 * We show a great deal more tolerance to material on user talk pages than we do to material on article talk pages, but there is actually no suspenion of talk page guidelines for user talk pages. All talk pages are provided for the purpose of builing the encyclopedia.  They are not for the purpose of showcasing a personal POV or mounting a campaign against a perceived wrong in the world.  Users are given more leeway in their own userspaces, but admins can and do take action if it goes too far.  We should certainly not be advising people here to push the boundaries of the guidelines.  Spinning  Spark  21:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Admin needed to review file history
I am an admin on Commons. File:Haight-ashbury modern.jpg was moved to Commons years ago, but I fear the file description information has been garbled.

The file history from en.wikipedia, as recorded on Commons, indicates that the file was originally uploaded by User:Goodralph. In 2005, a file was uploaded to the same filename by User:Miguellarios, but I believe Miguellarios did not update the file description page at that time. Miguellarios' upload summary stated the photo was taken in 2005, but the image description page still says 2001. (To make matters even more confusing, commons:User:Mabdul uploaded yet a different file on top earlier this year, saying only "bigger res from enwp upload".)

I need the assistance of an en.wikipedia admin to review the deleted file history here on en.wikipedia. If Goodralph's original image has been lost, it would be nice if we could restore it and reunite it with its original image description information.

Thanks,

-- Powers T 01:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm an admin. Here is what I see in the deleted history:

Page history

(del/undel) (diff) 07:57, 15 January 2012. . Magog the Ogre (talk | contribs | block) (683 bytes) (NowCommons review passed (using nowcommonsreviewer)) (del/undel) (diff) 19:51, 8 January 2012. . Mabdul (talk | contribs | block) (659 bytes) (nowcommons) (del/undel) (diff) 06:42, 29 December 2011. . Fbot (talk | contribs | block) (688 bytes) (BOT: Assessing Move to Commons Priority) (del/undel) (diff) 18:20, 28 December 2011. . Sfan00 IMG (talk | contribs | block) (674 bytes) (adding using FurMe) (del/undel) (diff) 18:20, 28 December 2011. . Sfan00 IMG (talk | contribs | block) (383 bytes) (adding ; adding using FurMe) (del/undel) (diff) 11:03, 14 September 2009. . MGA73bot (talk | contribs | block) (180 bytes) (Changing license in the big license migration) (del/undel) (diff) 00:33, 18 April 2008. . タチコマ robot (talk | contribs | block) (160 bytes) (Robot: Automated text replacement (-GFDL-with-disclaimers +GFDL-en)) (del/undel) (diff) 16:53, 7 May 2007. . Cydebot (talk | contribs | block) (174 bytes) (Robot - Fixing GFDL tags project-wide per Wikipedia:GFDL standardization.) (del/undel) (diff) 14:20, 7 January 2005. . Ellmist (talk | contribs | block) (157 bytes) ( since the uploader claims to have taken this picture) (del/undel) (diff) 17:38, 14 December 2003. . Goodralph (talk | contribs | block) (147 bytes) (del/undel) (diff) 17:37, 14 December 2003. . Goodralph (talk | contribs | block) (empty)

File history

(del/undel) 19:01, 29 November 2005. . Miguellarios (talk | contribs | block) 2,592 × 1,944 (2,343,279 bytes) (I took this picture in September, 2005. Enjoy.) (del/undel) 17:37, 14 December 2003. . Goodralph (talk | contribs | block) 640 × 480 (82,931 bytes)
 * The first version was uploaded by Goodralph 14 December 2003 with the description currently displayed at Commons. It was the 640 × 480 (82,931 bytes) still visible in the Commons file history. It was copied to Commons 30 August 2005‎ without deleting the original from Wikipedia at the time. Miguellarios uploaded a new version to Wikipedia 29 November 2005, without changing the description by Goodralph. It is the 2,592 × 1,944 (2,343,279 bytes) currently displayed at Commons. It was copied to Commons 8 January 2012‎ by Mabdul and then the Wikipedia page was deleted 15 January 2012. So no file version is lost. In Miguellarios said the photo was taken in 2005. A description for Miguellarios' version can be made by removing this part from the current summary by Goodralph: "I took this picture in 2001, during the SF Marathon. Sadly couldn't find a more glorious one." That leaves "Corner of Haight and Ashbury streets, San Francisco, California". The year 2005 could be added. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That clears things up immensely.  My remaining concern is that the intended license for Miguellarios' contribution is unspecified.  Is it possible this image has been improperly licensed for over six years?  Powers T 23:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Miguellarios' upload said "I took this picture in September, 2005. Enjoy." The image page displayed gfdl at the time so I think we're OK. shows Miguellarios knew it was in use with no fair-use claim and had no problems with it. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks; I have split the files. Powers T 18:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Changing the entry name on an article
Hi there, and thanks in advance for any assistance. An organization for which I wrote the original Wikipedia article has changed their operating name (on their website and elsewhere). I have made the necessary changes in the body of the article itself, but I do not know how to change the entry name for the article.

It is currently called The Health Evidence Network of Canada, but the organization has changed their name to EvidenceNetwork.ca or Evidence Network.

The article needs to be renamed to avoid confusion.

Many thanks Kathleen5454 16:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathleen5454 (talk • contribs)
 * ✅--Ymblanter (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Oklahoma City bombing
I entered material about the Oklahoma City bombing and it was all deleted, everything that I entered was absolutely correct and backed by FBI 302 documents in my possession and also by looking up the information on the internet, you can go to u-tube and watch the ceremony at the Kansas legislature "Kansas gun dealer identified the OkC Bombers" where I was recognized for identifying both the Oklahoma city bombers before the entire legislature and was entered into the journal of the house so it is in the history of the State of KansasHardnoseMP (talk) 01:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Anything you add to an article should be supported by references to reliable, independent sources that can be verified by  our readers; apparently an editor already pointed this out to you 16 days ago. Please see our guidelines at  Identifying reliable sources and  Verifiability. If not, and other editors see that  the claims are unsupported, they  may  remove them. The first move is to take content issues to the article's talk  page. Please start a discussion there where there have been no comments since at least  April  this year at Talk:Oklahoma City bombing. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Citing sources for List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange
I recently added to the article List of Cultural References to A Clockwork Orange adding a videogames subheading. I clearly provided a reference to a source on YouTube, of video evidence comparing the introductions to the film, A Clockwork Orange and the videogame, Conker's Bad Fur Day. I logged in to find it was deleted for not following Wikipedia standards and regulations. My question is: Is YouTube not a reliable source for references, with it's clear video evidence?

WikiMaster666 (talk) 08:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * YouTube is not generally considered a reliable source for establishing the notability of the subject  of an article. If the YouTube video itself is part of the list of items of Clockwork Orange in  popular culture, then that's a different thing, and a reference to should be made in  order to  prove it  exists. That  said, issues of this nature should be discussed on  the article talk page at  Talk:List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange which  hasn't  seen a comment for over a year. You  can leave a WP:Talkback on  the user talk  pages of the other editors to  draw their attention  to  discussion  you  will have started. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The YouTube video he mentions is some fan-made video purporting to offer a comparison of a video game and the film in question, to be used to show that the video game was influenced by said film. As such, it is not a reliable source.  A reliable third-party source would have to be offered. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  13:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Current List of Marine Corps MOS's
Wikipedia's Current List of Marine Corps MOS's does not include MOS's eliminated or side by side of new designation to that of old (changes)

Realize many changes have taken place over the years, but... It would really help all in need as well as research, if you could make an actual "Complete Listing" of MOS's that were and are now... a part of the Corps. There are many who sometimes need to research or recall what MOS specialty they had during their service, and often find that it is not listed because of being dropped or discontinued. In-turn, many MOS designations have been "Changed" in more recent years, which cause another problem of matching skills with that of MOS descriptions or verifying of skills that may have been designated on a resume. It would be truly nice as well as helpful to "all" if you could create a MOS listing of "ALL MOS designators past & present, to ensure an accurate & complete history of each. Annotating also, those no longer valid (and date of) as well as those changed to a New designation. Examples - Field Radio Operator used to be 2531. Your list now states such is 0621. The 2500 fields no longer being listed. Maint Data Analyst used to be 6047. Now combined with and designated as 6046. (with possible ties to 6048)  6047 not being listed. A new listing or cross-referenced list would be very valuable. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.238.165.48 (talk • contribs) ⋅


 * If you have sources for this information, please take it to the article talk page, or else edit List of United States Marine Corps MOS directly yourself. Without reliable sources, there is nothing we can do.  Spinning  Spark  18:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Please formulate 2012 List of Presidential Electors by State
If I want to run as an independent "write in" presidential candidate in Maine for the 2012 United States Presidential Election on November 6th, 2012, I need to provide four names of the First Congressional District Electors of Maine, one person is from the district and one is at large, and the third is from the Second Congressional District and the fourth is at large from the Second Congressional District.

Maine sent me their paper work. I still need to find out if I can do this in all 50 states.

Maine requires that I file by September 24, 2012.

When I asked Wikipedia who all these people were for 2012, the site was able to list everyone for 2008.

Thank you,

Christin Noel Griskie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.154.241 (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This forum is for assistance for individuals wishing to edit this encyclopedia. For help obtaining information for your own use, please make a request at the reference desk. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Photo Credit
Hello;

I was reading an article on Maynard James Keenan, saw my photo I took of him for an article I wrote in 2006, http://jeromeaz.blogspot.com/2006/03/maynard-keenan.html - and notice somebody had stolen the picture and the credit is given to them for Flickr 2009. I have approached the Flickr profile and complained but he hasn't taken my picture down. How do I get this fixed?

thank you Pamela Ravenwood

Azravenwood (talk)Azravenwood —Preceding undated comment added 20:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Follow the instructions at COPYRIGHT. If you've not done so already, the right place to make a complaint to Flickr can be found here. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The image File:Maynard fill Caduceus.jpg is at the Commons and will have to be discussed there. THese are two separate projects. I posted at commons:Commons:Help_desk and the conversation should continue there.  GB fan 22:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have marked it as a copyright violation on Commons. I assume that someone will remove it soon. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Empty page about me / please help
Hi,

the following article

links to a page about me

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Christopher_Schroeder&action=edit&redlink=1

which is empty/nonexistent.

I would now like to add some basic information to that yet nonexistant page but that is forbidden according to Wikipedia rules.

What to do?

Thanks in advance.

Frank Bukchinaski (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking at our Stuckism article, there seem to be a large number of names given without any sourcing - and without this, they probably shouldn't be there in the first place. There is no 'Bukchinaski' mentioned in the article, and the only 'Frank' I can find with no corresponding Wikipedia article is 'Frank Christopher Schroeder'. Is that you? If so, we'd need independent reliable sources to verify your notability as an artist before we could consider an article - see WP:ARTIST for the criteria we apply. From a quick Google search for Schroeder, there seems to be no obvious evidence that he would merit an article: sorry. I note also that Schroeder seems to have originally been added to the article by a person calling himself 'Frankchristopher' (incidentally, adding an inappropriate link to a website). Since this looks like self-promotion, and there is no evidence given that Schroeder merits inclusion, I will delete him from the article, and investigate how many of the large number of artists named can actually be backed up by sources. Wikipedia isn't a directory, and material needs to be sourced and encyclopeadic AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Andy,

thanks for your prompt reply. The problem here is that 'Schroeder' is a very common name (like Smith in english as a comparison). A search for the full name (Frank Christopher Schroeder) will yield some results, like for example http://www.stuckism.com/world.html (scroll down to Germany) or http://www.stuckism.com/interviews.html (again scroll to Germany) or http://www.stuckismus.de

As for significance, if Wikipedia thinks that Stuckism as an artistic movement merits inclusion then the artists that that movement consists of should consequently merit inclusion also, especially if they have actively taken part in exhibitions, interviews and other activities.

As for the selfpromotion, that is probably true. It must have been quite some time ago, though, and was done out of ignornace of Wikipedia rules, not ill will. I don't even remember having an account called 'frankchristopher'. Had it been my objective to somehow cheat my way into Wikipedia I would not have written the post above asking for help as to how to proceed.

It would be nice if you could look into this again.

Best regards.

Frank Christopher Schroeder Bukchinaski (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited. Simply because an artistic movement is notable does not make artists involved with that movement notable. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

True. However, where do you draw the line? If somebody actively contributes to something for an extended period of time he/she should be considered a aprt of that something. I think the main point here is that for any information to qualify even being considered worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia it has to come from a neutral third party, which also makes sense, actually. Am I on the right track here?

Thanks again.

Best.

Frank Bukchinaski (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "where do you draw the line"? In Wikipedia's case we draw the line at WP:ARTIST. Yes, the question is whether there are third-party sources that indicate you meet the requirements laid out there. The relevant criteria seem to be:


 * The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
 * The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
 * The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
 * The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.


 * AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who helped and commented, your input made me understand the principles of Wikipedia much better.

I would like to note, however, that the whole inclusion/editing process is highly subjective (which probably can't be avoided once people are involved).

Wikipedia is full of people / projects / bands who meet none of the above criteria and still have their own entries (and deserve them, too, in my opinion, because as soon as somebody neutral requests information about a certain subject than that information should be worthy of inclusion, however small or obscure their contribution may have been).

But, as I said before, I now understand better how things work at Wikipedia and will leave it at that.

Best. Bukchinaski (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Rockabilly Hall of Fame
My first impression of this article is that it's a good candidate for a speedy delete. The article is virtually unsourced (there's one 3d party source for one collateral point, and it's a dead link), and a quick Google search turns up little else. Then too there's the matter of the subject website itself, which lacks the sort of "official" feel that one might expect from a reputable and authentic award-bestowing organization. I was set to tag it until I determined that 1) the article has been in place for seven (!) years, it's been edited by a variety of editors, and there's even a related Category, "Rockabilly Hall of Fame inductees".  I haven't been able to find any guidance as to what might constitute an "official" hall of fame site and would appreciate some other folks' thinking on this.  Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think in this case you have to rely on WP:GNG, not sure anything else covers it.--ukexpat (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It is certainly short of refs but it is definitely not a candidate for speedy and I don't really think an AfD would succeed. There are a lot of hits for it in google books, some {eg ) more than a simple mention.  Verbatim copying of the list of inductees may be a copyright issue.  However, there is not a great deal of intersection between the list in the article and the actual list so at the very least it needs a some cleaning up (probably spam and self-promotion entries in there.)  Spinning  Spark  18:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't have plans to seek its deletion, really. It just struck me as a squirrely sort of entry, leveraging itself to a level of authority that doesn't otherwise seem warranted.  (I can't view the Google Books link from where I am, and I'll review it later; perhaps there's more to this thing than I was able to discern myself.)  Thanks for the observations.  JohnInDC (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Wishing to avoid an edit war on Rock-it-Ball
(This matter appears to have been resolved per the discussion below.) Northamerica1000(talk) 03:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi

I thought I’d posted a request for advice but it doesn’t appear to have come through so I am trying again.

Just a year ago an individual made a number of changes to the Rock-it-Ball page in Wikipedia. Members of the Rock-it-Ball community felt that these changes were inaccurate and self-promoting and that this individual was using the page as a tool in a dispute. We tried to address it ourselves by undoing the entries but this just led to an edit war which is clearly not an acceptable situation. Wikipedia community editors blocked anonymous edits and (I believe) took some other steps which stopped the problem and advised us to monitor the page.

We have continued to monitor the page, to maintain it and have kept it factual and accurate, however over the last two days this individual has resurfaced and is doing exactly the same again. We, as a community, could again try to deal with it ourselves by correcting the edits but this would simply lead to an edit war again. I notice that two Wikipedia community editors have undone some of the edits but these changes have again been undone.

We clearly want this page to be factual and accurate and certainly do not want it to be used by an individual with an axe to grind and using it to direct readers to a commercial site.

I have looked through guideline pages for where to turn for help and posting a request for editor assistance seemed to be the best option. Forgive me if my previous post came through and this is a second post. Pmhildreth (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the IP whose sole purpose seems to be to insert a link to their own site and what appears to be a sock account. I don't think you were referring above to the cleanup by user:Jac16888 which came later and you tried to revert.  My opinion is that was sensible cleanup - remember it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to promote your sport, an encyclopedia only reports notable facts about it in a neutral tone.  In any case, the proper place to discuss such issues is on the article talk page.  Spinning  Spark  00:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. You are correct in that I wasn't referring to user:Jac16888. As the other person has now been temporarily blocked I will be able to correct the site and, as always, will endeavour to keep it factual and accurate. Pmhildreth (talk) 07:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Use of personal web sites as sources
I have tried to discuss this issue (here) with two editors (Swiftredvette & Taxee) who are citing personal web sites as sources. I have referred them to WP:RS but the practice is continuing. I am wondering what my next step should be as I do not want to get involved in an editing war. Rev107 (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The next step would be to get a discussion started on  the talk  page where you left an unsigned comment. As there has been no  discussion  for 9 months, you  may  wish to  leave them  a message on  their talk pages inviting them to take part. You can use the  template to  do  that. The best way to avoid an editing war is not to get involved in an editing war, however strongly you feel. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There seems to be some confusion. The discussion, called "NPOV", on the talk page (here) is Sep 2012 and none of my comments are unsigned.  The question I am asking is whether the personal web pages listed in that discussion can be cited as valid sources in the main article.  The impression I have from WP:RS is that they cannot because they are not providing information about themselves but about a third party. Rev107 (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion was placed at the top of the Talk page; I moved it to the bottom. Rev107 seems to be trying to engage on the issue and I think the matter is ripe for some 3d party involvement, as to both reliable sources and the larger issue of NPOV that seems to afflict the page. JohnInDC (talk) 00:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your interest John. Could you tell me what you think about citing the personal web pages as sources? And could you expand on "3rd party involvement" - what do you recommend as the next step? Rev107 (talk) 01:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

CNAME record/DNAME record
The URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNAME_record, under the DNAME record section may have a typo.

I think this example from this article, shown below in quotes, is incorrect when explaining the last line, but I am new to using CNames, so would like a second opinion.


 * “For example, if there is a DNS zone as follows:


 * foo.example.com.       DNAME  bar.example.com.
 * foo.example.com.       DNAME  bar.example.com.


 * bar.example.com.       A      192.0.2.23


 * xyzzy.bar.example.com. A      192.0.2.24


 * * .bar.example.com      A      192.0.2.25



I think this last line should be, instead:
 * An A record lookup for foo.example.com will fail because a DNAME is not a CNAME.
 * However, a look up for xyzzy.foo.example.com will be DNAME mapped and return the A record for xyzzy.bar.example.com which is 192.0.2.24; if the DNAME record had been a CNAME record, this request would have failed.
 * Lastly, a request for bar.foo.example.com would be DNAME mapped and return 192.0.2.25.”
 * Lastly, a request for bar.foo.example.com would be DNAME mapped and return 192.0.2.25.”
 * Lastly, a request for bar.foo.example.com would be DNAME mapped and return 192.0.2.25.”
 * “Lastly, a request for foo.bar.example.com would be DNAME mapped and return 192.0.2.25.”

If this is true could it be updated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.169.244.29 (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You can edit the article yourself. Please cite a suitable reference.  This gbooks search string may help you to find one.  Spinning  Spark  17:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Correcting article link-through
I have tried to educate myself to fix this but am unable to, since the markups appear correct. On the above page, Canada's soccer entry listed on the table should link to the U-20 national team, not the senior national team.

Assistance on this would be greatly apreciated.

Cloak87 (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't see (yet?) how to fix the template to make it work correctly, so I've edited the article to create the link in a different way. That's not as neat, but the reader can't tell. If anyone's interested, check the recent history of User:John of Reading/X3 to see the template expansions; because there's a "link alias-football", the "altlink" parameter gets ignored. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I looked at it this morning and couldn't get to the bottom of it after spending 20 minutes drilling down through multiple templates and then had to go to work. Why people have to create such complicated structures is beyond me when it could be put in easily and directly in plain wikimarkup.  This kind of thing badly detracts from our "anyone can edit principle".  I think it is something to do with the target article having "soccer" in the title where the template is expecting "football" but I can't be asked to look any further. Thanks to JoR for fixing.  Spinning  Spark  17:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

More accurate etymology of the term "Aldehyde"
Regarding the term Aldehyde, it is an Arabic term. In no way was this mentioned in the printed description from Wiki:

Etymology The word aldehyde was coined by Justus von Liebig as a contraction of the Latin alcohol dehydrogenatus (dehydrogenated alcohol).[6] In the past, aldehydes were sometimes named after the corresponding alcohols, for example, vinous aldehyde for acetaldehyde. (Vinous is from Latin vinum = wine (the traditional source of ethanol), cognate with vinyl.) The term formyl group is derived from the Latin and/or Italian word formica = ant. This word can be recognized in the simplest aldehyde, formaldehyde (methanal), and in the simplest carboxylic acid, formic acid (methanoic acid, an acid, but also an aldehyde

Can this please be modified for accuracy?

Thanks, sophia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.135.55.229 (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to modify it yourself, provided that you can provide an inline citation to a reliable source for that assertion (and note that "reliable" means something different for Wikipedia purposes than is implied by its plain-English meaning; click that link for the details). If no Wikipedia-defined reliable source can be provided, then the assertion cannot be used in Wikipedia. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The OED agrees with Wikipedia - "Etymology: = Al. dehȳd. abbreviation for Alcohol dehydrogenatum".  So the only Arabic part of the word is the al- element - the Arabic definite article.  Spinning  Spark  21:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, the "Al-" part was derived from Arabic, but not as the definite article. In Aldehyde, "Al-" is short for "Alcohol". "Alcohol" isn't old Latin, but a 16th C. neologism derived from "al-kuħl" an Arabic term for face powder.  See: alcohol and كحل. --Robert Keiden (talk) 06:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Adam Leitman Bailey
This very page is quite heavy on attorney fluff. It is rather unclear what is noteable regarding this page. Editor assistance requested and appreciated greatly. 67.205.230.34 (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The article was created by and has been heavily edited by various socks affiliated with the law firm in one way or another - see Sockpuppet investigations/Internalb/Archive for an example. That being said, the subject is at least plausibly notable (appearances on Bill O'Reilly & CNN, some coverage in a WSJ law blog, an article about him in the New York Observer here).  I agree that the tone is rather puffy and promotional, which should be toned down (or out) as appropriate; and it may need to be revised to include observations like, "to his critics, Mr. Bailey is a marketer and self-promoter more than a legal virtuoso" (from the Observer).  I'm not in a position right now to review the article against its sources in detail but I do agree that the thing would benefit by an objective eye.  JohnInDC (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This issue could use a bit more attention, I'm afraid. The IP editor removed a lot of material from the page (maybe too much but the page was pretty puffy as it was), and added in a bit of the less-flattering material as well.  Another editor has, without comment, restored the material back to its prior condition, twice now and without discussion on the Talk page.  The IP editor may have gone too far but it seems to me that just throwing the old stuff back up isn't the solution.  I have no interest in an edit war but I see one looming and so am soliciting others' comments at the article Talk page.  Thanks.  (Oh, also, I just removed the "answered" tag from this entry; I hope that wasn't improper.)  JohnInDC (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the matter is in hand again. The incommunicative editor turned out to be an intern at the subject law firm (several had been blocked previously for COI editing) and I figure either he'll edit in good faith consistent with NPOV going forward or find himself blocked.  JohnInDC (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Vince Stanzione
I have requested assistance for article for Vince Stanzione before, but it appears that a biased editor, possibly the subject himself, is continually rewriting the article in favour of the subject. The article has been nominated for deletion many times before, rewritten and rewritten again in a perpetual state of edit war between people trying to minimise the bias and repeated biased editors. Wikipedia isn't a place to gain credibility or for self promotion but this article has served as a source of such for the subject for a long time now. The subject is alleged to run a get rich quick scheme.

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia so I don't even know where to begin in fixing this, or if an outright deletion is even possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Heseltin (talk • contribs) 23:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is currently nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/Vince Stanzione so this discussion would best be carried on there. Please provide diffs to the alleged edit warring.  Spinning  Spark  00:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Settdigger Requests Editor Assistance Re: Seb az86556 & Tarc's reverts of my Obama talk page edits, and Wikidemon's Obstructions of my Contributions
User SGCM has suggested I seek "other boards" to assist in this dispute, so I am doing so.

As stated elsewhere, users Seb az86556 & Tarc disagreed with my right to post a long, substantive and to-the-point edit to the Obama talk page re: Obama's assassination of Al-awlawki. I would like an "informal" mediator to assist in a detailed discussion of this dispute between the three of us.

I am sure you too can undertand the frustration of having your long, thoughtful contribution to a talk page that directly references an edit under debate being summarily deleted.

I reference it here below so that you can more easily engage with what you believe wasn't "specific" and "relevant" about my post. Thanks.

Obama Rubicon

Despite some denigrations of historians by some editors on this page, any U.S. president's actions in life must be viewed through the lens of historical significance. In this regard, the Magna Carta and Caesar's Crossing of the Rubicon become significant in any discussion of Obama's decision to assassinate Al-Awlawkwi. The chief purpose of the Magna Carta, signed by King John and the chief nobles who served him in the 13th Century, its 800 year old precedent, is this: kings are not almighty. The idea of habeas corpus, literally "let us have the body" was a new idea at the time. The idea is this: a king, before he can execute whatever citizen he feels like executing, must display that person publically, and announce his crimes. I.e., the Magna Carta

prohibits secret executions like the former government of Argentina's assassinations of

political dissidents by helicopter. The distinction here between citizen and non-citizen is obviously important. 13th Century nobles were less concerned if King John decided to execute a French spy, obviously, but if he wanted to execute an English nobleman for treason, that crime had to be announced publically, and the following judicial proceeding had to happen speedily. Any president (like George W. Bush, Abraham Lincoln and several others) who violates the 800 year old Magna Carta precedent becomes historically significant for this reason. Someone brought up the red herring of the U.S. Civil War earlier. Hey folks, in a civil war all bets are off, obviously. Then Blues kill Grays, Roundheads Kill Loyalists, and Whites kill Reds. However, even then, during the war, citizenship is obviously hugely significant. If Lincoln (our greatest president) had had the power to drone people in Boston to death, would he have used it? Obviously he would have had no problem ordering a drone to pick up good old Robert E. Lee, much as he liked him: they were on opposite sides. Now, no sane person or student of history imagines that Barack Obama is the first U.S. President, first world leader, or first powerful dude to have one of his own bumped off. I mean, this goes back to caveman times. But hey: remember, anatomically modern humans back in the Paleolithic had the same sized brains and were just as interested in the complexities of human government (even though they were only governing 30 or so bodies). Even in 20,000

B.C., deciding to kill your own citizen who you rule over is a big deal. All this is to say, again, that any responsible encyclopedia article about Barack Obama must mention this Al-Awlawki breach of the Magna Carta just as any responsible article about Abraham Lincoln or George W. Bush should do the same. It is unreasonable and unfair to object to this edit on WP:BLP grounds. In a very real sense, U.S. Presidents are public property. And the most public of all their acts, the killing of one of our own (although clearly, an American who wasn't especially eager to remain American) without judicial process, is of paramount importance in the consideration of the effect these Presidents lives have on world history. Of course, Lincoln's desire to drone Lee to death is interesting. Al-Awlawkwi is, by no stretch of the imagination, a Robert E. Lee of Al-Qaeda. But putting aside his relative significance or insignificance, this whole debate about eternal war vis a vis the "War against Terrorism" is significant, and, ultimately, misleading. Even if we equate Al-Qaeda with Nazi Germany and call Al-Awlawkwi their version of Goebbels because he was a propagandist, the fact remains that this Muslim Goebbels is a U.S. Citizen. When we caught John Walker, we locked him up. Admittedly, this too is a violation of the Magna Carta, but, in any case, at least it wasn't a secret execution. Finally, over and above any discussion whatsoever of this whatsoever is the Obama administration's blase attitude about the whole thing. With John Walker, the Bush administration made a concerted effort to engage in debate on the topic. This results in a major shortcoming concerning the logic of Wikipedia editors now and in the future: if the U.S. government, with its huge influence on the media, decides NOT to discuss something, do we all suddenly agree it is not worth discussing? Interested in your thoughts.

Settdigger (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This editor needs some mentorship, which they seem disinclined to accept. Probably heading for an indefinite block given battleground approach, renewed edit warring after a 1-week block. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please retract your accusation. I did no such thing.  I attempted to make contructive contributions to the Obama talk page which were then deleted.  I then made a much smaller edit, to satisfy those with shorter attention spans.  This you did not engage with.  No:  instead you asked that my discussion be "closed."  This is not constructive.  It is counter-productive.  Refrain from personal attacks.  Engage with the substance of my objections.  Settdigger (talk) 06:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel that Wikidemon is right. Rather than settle things in a rational manner, you have attempted to take this dispute into every arena you possibly can. I'm not going to comment on the substance of your complaint, but your method of resolving it leaves much to be desired. Trusilver  06:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I ask that one of the three users I have invited to this discussion engage with the substance, not the form, of my complaint. Thank you.  Settdigger (talk) 06:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm a DRN volunteer who has not been involved in this dispute (except to close the DRN case as an inappropriate request). What I said was "DRN only handles content disputes. Disputes about editor conduct are outside the scope of this noticeboard. There are other boards on Wikipedia that focus on editor conduct." That does not mean "seeking "other boards" to assist in this dispute", which can be construed as a form of WP:FORUMSHOPPING, and is against Wikipedia's guidelines. Please don't drag me into this dispute (which I have no desire to participate in) by misquoting me.--SGCM (talk)  06:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * And this here, for anyone who did not read the edit notice at the top  of the page, is not one of the Wikipedia fora for resolving  disputes of any kind. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Though this is approaching the Kafkaesque: would you be so kind, brother, as to direct me to one of the proper "fora," if it is indeed right that this isn't one of them?  Thank you.  Settdigger (talk) 06:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Read Dispute Resolution. And please don't misquote me, or mention my name again, I've no desire to be involved in this.--SGCM (talk)  06:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, brother. Settdigger (talk) 06:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (EC X N) They're also arguing idiosyncratic points in bizarre turgid prose, aggressively persistent, accusing other editors of bad faith when engaged, and rejecting attempts at guidance or appeals to Wikipedia's editing standards. Coaching them how to launch dispute process is counterproductive because they need to stop and learn how to edit Wikipedia, not try to win something wrong and unwinnable. If a willing admin happens to be watching this, better nip this now than later.  If nobody is able to get through to them, this looks like a lost cause. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You should take this to WP:ANI. He's hopping through all the noticeboards, copying and pasting the same long spiel, with enough WP:ROPE that it'll eventually hang him if he isn't careful. He needs a mentor.--SGCM (talk)  07:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, if this doesn't go away on its own shortly I'll likely put out a request there. Thanks. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, brothers. Settdigger (talk) 07:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Mentor? LOL. I made a positive, constructive suggestion on his Talk page, and he quickly deleted it, with no response. I know he has every right to delete such content, but the absence of even a response to my quite polite post suggest little interest in others' opinions. HiLo48 (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am often very interested in your opinion, HiLo, as you know. Settdigger (talk) 08:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Bizarre turgidity. It is something that needs discussion.  Settdigger (talk) 08:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but not on Wikipedia. Discussion about additions to articles should be centred on the contents of reliable sources.  Please start by providing some.  Spinning  Spark  22:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Request Help With Sorcha Faal Article
I am having problems with the article which I belive falls well within the guidlines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views, but in being so is causing problems on what exactly which sources, references, etc., to use, especially since many of them are in forign languages. Thank you. Arzk02587kArzk02587k (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Instead of edit warring to try and keep your material in hte article, you should be discussing the issues either on the article talk page or directly with the other editors involved. As far as I can see, the removal of material was justified, the sources cited (at least all the ones I checked) do not mention Sorcha Faal at all.  You are in danger of being blocked if you continue the way you are going.  Spinning  Spark  14:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

WP says "the WP page you came here from doesn't exist"
I wanted to comment on File:Grafeo.JPG, so I clicked the Talk tab, which was red. That brought up http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Grafeo.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1. The "redlink" part of the URI is perfectly reasonable. But that page says
 * Wikipedia does not have a talk page with this exact title. Note that the corresponding subject page File:Grafeo.JPG also does not exist.

To which I say, Whaaaaa? --Thnidu (talk) 01:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The file is on Wikimedia Commons. Whaaaaa! Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 02:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you click the link to "description page there" on the Wikipedia page you will go straight to the right Commons page. But I would point out that opening a discussion on image talk pages is usually quite ineffective because not many people are watching them.  You would be better off finding a community page appropriate to whatever it is you want to discuss.  Spinning  Spark  06:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

English Vinglish
I noticed a user was repeatedly posting something that appears to seriously violate WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV (in an edit war with someone else). I have attempted to explain the issue on the talk page, but I don't think I'm getting anywhere. Help? Kerfuffler (talk) 11:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, wrong forum. Please read again the instructions at the top of this page and take your issue to WP:DRN. You will also need to list  diffs in  order to  help those who  will  try  to  resolve the problem without them having to analyse all the edits for themselves. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion candidate?
Hi, just came across the article on Nichijū. After I set yet another ref tag I noticed that the one on multiple issues had been set in February 2012. So far the article has no references except the internal wiki links. It reads as an essay reflecting personal opinion. I never set a tag for deletion before and have no experience with that would just like some others to have a look at the article if possible.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That sort of "storytelling" style is nearly always the sign of copying from elsewhere and will usually be a copyright violation. That is indeed the case in this instance, so I have reverted the article back to its pre-copyvio stub version.   But to answer your original question, no, essay style is not grounds for deletion, but rather grounds for improvement.  Neither is lack of references per se, although this could possibly point to more serious problems such as lack of notability, or even a hoax, both of which are valid grounds for deletion.  Before nominating an article for deletion on notbility grounds, the nominator is expected to search themselves for the existence of sources.  In this particular case, I think it is probable that sources would be found, hence AfD would be inappropriate.  Spinning  Spark  22:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

J... removed my translation and text from Pure Land Buddhism article
I am new to wiki but I am a qualified scholar and practitioner of Buddhism and Pure Land practices. I was notified after J... removed all my edits to the Pure Land Buddhism. Everything. At first I had trouble with the formating and the bot helped on the first round of deletes but this last one was just wrong.

I checked policy and the translations even new ones by the editor and their original content are allowed even on that page you see other poster put Chinese text too. I added two other translations of the Pure Land dharani, posted in Chinese Buddhism and added two resources from my books listed on amazon. I am not promoting myself just clarifying the edit. I thought it was odd until I checked J.... talk profile to see it filled with dubious edits and mostly I just don't want to get into anything here on wiki.

What should I do? the edits I am interested in making are carefully done to add to but not detract the original articles. I'm needing to decide if it is worth my effort at all to update articles here on wiki because I now have to worry about flaming editors??!


 * I'm sorry  your first  impression  is that  it's not  worth continuing to  contribute to  Wikipedia. Unfortunately there are frequent  instances of WP:NPOV (point of view pushing) but  the best  way to  address the issues is to  do it  the 'Buddhist  way' by  avoiding  conflict and keeping  calm. However, this is not  the right  forum  for discussing  content  issues so I  would suggest  discussing  the problems on the article talk page, and waiting  for replies to  any  comments you  have already  made there. There is really  only  a need to  report  such  issues if  they  can't  be resolved through normal  talk. If  they  can't, as a last  resort you  should post about  a content  issue  at  WP:DRN.  Some useful  help  and advice on  citing  sources are at  WP:NOR (no  original  research),  WP:CITE (how to  cite sources), and WP:RS (definitions of what  we consider to  be reliable sources). One policy  that  you  must  learn, is to  sign your posts. Hope this helps. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm having trouble with this I signed it before and I see it is not there. I will try again. --Ven Hong Yang, Bhikshuni 03:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VenHongyang (talk • contribs) ok I created my userpage and now I had a chance to figure out the article talk thing. Thanks to your help! --Ven Hong Yang, Bhikshuni 03:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VenHongyang (talk • contribs)

where is central america there??!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LocationNSAm.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.176.66.130 (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't there. By the creator of the file's own explanation, this is an illustration of the division of the Americas into the two continents of North America and South America (including small regions that can be designated either way). There is by the definition of the map no place for a separate "Central America" (which, of course, is not a continent). -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  18:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Irish Anti War Movement Page
An editor has posted deliberate mis - information regarding our organisation, every time I edit it a there appears to be an automated programme called cluebot that reverts to the previous edit. As this is deliberate and mis leading information, what can I do about this? Lola Hynes, Secretary - Irish Anti War Movement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolagem (talk • contribs) 10:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems to have been addressed now by another editor. Cluebot uses a sophisticated learning algorithm to identify vandalism, which we get a lot of here, part of which is to assign greater trust to regular editors over new editors.  You can report false positives here.  These reports are used to further train Cluebot.
 * I suspect the main thing that triggered Cluebot into action here (besides the deletion of a large portion of text) is that a reference was removed. I note that the editor who cleaned up the article has left in the referenced part.  While that is negative to your organisation, it is reliably referenced and relevant.  This is the reason that we do not encourage people to edit subjects with which they are associated - it is very difficult to write neutrally about yourself/your own organisation.  Spinning  Spark  15:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

New entry
I am the son of the author and publisher Donald Cowie, who received an obituary in the London INDEPENDENT when he died in 2006. As I have an entry myself (even if that seems to have been composed by friends), I wonder if I am allowed to create an entry for my father -- obviously submitting it to you for vetting?

Thanks

you

Peter Cowie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.199.39.127 (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Your conflict-of-interest is so strong here that I would seriously advise against it. Also note that not everybody who appears in the Independent is notable as we define it here in Wikipedia. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  18:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I also note that your own article is entirely lacking in independent sources.  Spinning Spark  19:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * An authored obituary in a major national newspaper like The Independent is generally an indication of notability. There's also an entry for him in Oxford Companion to New Zealand Literature. However, Orangemike is right in strongly cautioning you about taking it on. Perhaps what you could do is register an account and write a draft in your user space. Then ask a few outside editors to give you some advice before trying to publish it here. It will have to be written from an entirely neutral point of view (hard to do when you are close to the subject) and not contain any original research (ditto). Voceditenore (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The material in the OCNZL (itself a tertiary source) is also unsourced (at least in the online version) and contains some interesting but quirky language that I'd really feel uncomfortable using in its present form. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  15:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's also in print form but only in snippet view on Google Books . Wording aside, I'd consider books published by Oxford University Press to be reliable sources. Voceditenore (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

RE:Louis Pienaar author
Greetings, Kindly advice me who submitted louis pienaar article on wikipedia so i can get permission to use the article for my visual work!

Thanking you very much for your atention,consideration and cooperation!

Yours Sincerely signed TMSingiswa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.194.17 (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You can find the list of contributors to the article from its history tab. However, you do not need to seek anyone's permission provided that you comply with the Creative Commons Licence.  Spinning  Spark  06:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

an editor is removing my edits for no good reason then making threats


I made proper and correct changes and the editor rejected them. I made another attempt and again the editor rejected them and made a threat of banning me. I KNOW the people and their notoriety as citizens and they are legit. What do I do to stop the editor acting like this. Instead of threats can I have some help. Very unprofessional of your editor and quite bully like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.30.35.193 (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You added unsourced material to an article, then added improperly sourced material to an article. Personal knowledge is not verifiable for other editors is not a reliable source (you may read the reliable sourcing guidelines here).  Just existing does not make a person notable enough to be included, there has to be multiple secondary sources unaffiliated with the subject discussing them in depth and not trivially (you may view the notability guidelines here).  He's not "our" editor, and are no professional editors here, we're all volunteers.  By attempting to edit the page, you are in the same club as him.
 * Right below the "Save Page" button is the text "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." This includes removal.
 * The message he left you was a template warning which did link to the policy on verifiability and citing sources. It's standard practice, though I would've started with a uw2 instead of a uw3.  Ian.thomson (talk) 03:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:BRD which explains how you should proceed if you are reverted. Instead of repeatedly inserting material, you should be discussing on the talk page of the article or the other editor.  Administrators can and do block people for edit warring in articles.  It will make no difference whether or not you are in the right, it is the disruption on the public facing page that we do not like.   Spinning  Spark  05:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Leukemia
On reading the names of people who died from leukemia and my husband\ is not on your list He was a noted East Coast Comedian and   worked with many super stars and was the only comic who ever entertained at the Waldorf Astoria in N.Y. He worked at the N.Y Mountains. The Pocono Mountains the Latin Casino, Palumbos and many famous night clubs.He entertained the troops in WW2 with a whole show. He had his on t.v show and entertained on the Mike Douglas show and the Joey Bishop show. He worked in the Casinos in Atlantic City. He received a medal from the Masons and made a member. He entertained on all the cruise ships and went around around the world. He died of Leukemia in 1999. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.160.112 (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You have not said who your husband is. What article are you reading?  We do not have a list of sufferers in the leukemia article (nor, in general, do we do that for any other disease).  I suspect you were looking at a page that is not part of Wikipedia.  Spinning  Spark  18:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

My name is Bernice Golden and I am his Wife. His real name was Sydney Golden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.160.112 (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What name did he perform under? Is there an article here about him? -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  18:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

iMDsoft article creation - need some suggestions
Any suggestion what I should do?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/iMDsoft

I did really work hard on this one, working out all past issues !!! Finally content is fine, but now sources seems to be the problem - which wasnt the case before. So now im really clueless!!!

Thanks Alinette — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alinette (talk • contribs) 12:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This would be better suited in WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk, but in summary, it doesn't look like the references contain enough information about iMDsoft. WP:42 is a handy quick guide for what are suitable references, but in summary, each one needs to talk specifically about iMDsoft, or at least devote several paragraphs to it. Most references you have given either don't mention iMDsoft at all, or devote no more than a single sentence. Only the last reference here has anything to do with iMDsoft, but that isn't enough to sustain notability on its own. By the way, don't forget to sign your edits - it will stop SineBot putting "preceding unsigned comment" next to what you write. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   12:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

KUXL
Hello, It has been difficult just to get an email to someone. I had the pleasure of working for KUXL from 1977-1985 and 1988-89, including as its Program Director from 1981-1985 (when I took the station to 24/7 operation and a Contemporary Christian Music lean, and Operations Manager from 1988-89, when it was sold by Universal Broadcasting. How do I update, add, and occasionally correct her story? 1570 was a unique and special radio station. She was, as General Manager John McCooley called her, "the voice of the voiceless." Rob Marshall Hackett, former PD/OM, KUXL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.162.59.31 (talk) 02:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If you have reliable sources to support the changes or additions that you wish to make, please discuss them at Talk:KYCR. Note, though, that personal knowledge and reminiscences alone are not reliable sources.--ukexpat (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Robert-Watson Watt
Hello:

I desperately need someone's help due to being legally blind. I am trying to view the Robert-Watson Watt article on World War 2. He was from Brechin Angus Scotland, this is wear my Grandfather lived also when he was called up in World War 2. This site is amazing however I have difficulty as I have to use a merlinn and enlarge font in order to view. Can someone help me please. My Grandfather was an engineer/mechanic. He is shown as an Instructor under the RAF in an Almanac in his nometown Brechin Library. I believe the RAF utilized his skilled background I have been told he was responsible for the barrage balloon and was stationed in Blackpool. In research I have found there was 2 training camps there. This is site is very interesting however to much for me. Can someone help me please? I am sure his name could be found on this site. Look forward to hearing from someone. I have a good friend typing this for me.

All the best Gail Watson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.237.59.138 (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you just trying to find the article? Follow this link Robert Watson-Watt.  The article does not mention barrage balloons.  Spinning  Spark  23:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

de:Charles Oscar Brink
This article is on GERMAN Wikipedia only - can it be translated and put onto ENGLISH Wikipedia?

2.24.34.56 (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * To request an article translation you should go to Translation and follow the instructions there.  Spinning Spark  23:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Clarification if an article violates WP:CSD G3 & A7

 * Status: I had tagged the article under WP:CSD G3 & A7, But an editor seems to have a different POV and has reverted.


 * I had reverted the changes and posted on the editor's talk page informing about the same


 * He reverted back the WP:CSD stating it does't fall under A7 or G3.

I have replied on the editor's talk page with my reason and an invite to discuss the conflict of POV as I don't want WP:EW

My question: Am I right in tagging the article WP:CSD or have I made a mistake.

Thanks in advance! Nithin (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The article has many problems, but there is no evidence that it is vandalism and "leading manufacturer and supplier of Soda and Potash Feldspar in Bhilwara" is at least a claim of significance or importance. It will probably be deleted in due course as an unsourced BLP so I wouldn't worry to much about it.--ukexpat (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed & Thanks for your input! Nithin (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Ed Arnold
There are TWO Ed Arnolds, BOTH in radio. on opposite sides of the country. Needless to say, I am the other and I would like to know how to share this page.

The directions on the page, if looking for a person of the same name, is to check Edward Arnold. That is not my name!

What can we do?

Thanks!71.16.31.66 (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Ed Arnold


 * There are a couple of issues. Are you notable enough to have an article here? Is the other guy, the one in California? How does the industry distinguish the two of you from each other? Are you aware of how strongly we discourage people from writing about themselves? -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  17:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Persistent linkspam to IQSdirectory
Today I noticed a linkspam on my watchlist, at the Linear actuator article. Investigation shows the same conduct over other articles in the field via multiple accounts going back several years. See USER:Ipsomatic9, USER:Rebekahpedia, USER:Industman, USER:Deirdre163, and USER:Industrialinfo. There is prior talk way back in the stoneage here. The link in question is iqsdirectory.com. Could anyone skilled in these matters help determine if something is amiss or if I'm being paranoid? Thanks! Krushia (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * See the Requests for listing section at WP:BLACKLIST.--ukexpat (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Listed  Spinning Spark  22:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Gilbert Stuart article
An editor wished to remove a section from a well established article. After discussing the topic with the editor on his talk page, I found I could no longer rely on his good faith postings. An edit war appears in the offing. I would appreciate any help I can find on this and believe the article should be frozen until this dispute is ended. Thanks.Breschard (talk) 20:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * An edit war is more than in the offing, you are clearly taking part in one, which is not good. Why is this dispute everywhere except on the talk page of the article to which it relates?  That is the first place it should be opened.  Looking for outside intervention should only happen if it cannot be resolved there.  Spinning  Spark  21:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You're quite right. Perhaps I should have addressed the initial edit there instead of on the editor's talk page. I'm not sure how to resolve the problem at this point. For myself, I can no longer assume good faith on the part of the other editor. Breschard (talk) 21:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I just put up a request for comments regarding removing the Controversy section on the GS talk page. Better late than never I guess.Breschard (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are trying to open a formal WP:Request for comment (as opposed to just starting a discussion thread) you need to follow that link and place the template on the page as instructed.  Spinning Spark  22:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid the discussion on the Gilbert Stuart talk page has gotten out of control and what I can only describe as "gang" activity appears to be taking place. Editors with previous social relationships with other editors are trying to pass themselves off as independent agents while another editor has "shouted out" to another group page for aid from his friends. There is a COI charge against me, which although reasonable on its face is not supported by any evidence in my edits. It's appears to me to be out of control.Breschard (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am an editor here - 78K edits strong, I'm not passing myself off as anything other than that, in addition I've edited visual arts articles for many years. Breschard's conflict of interest is both obvious and clear, he seems to also have a heavy case of WP:OWNERSHIP...Modernist (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I've begun a discussion here, with a link to the Stuart talk page. As for accusations of collusion, WP:BOOMERANG. JNW (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record this editor made this claim I agree with the original editor who created this section. When in fact it was created by him, he went on to say Since the “Controversy” section was created, over five years ago, the Stuart article has been edited around 300 times. Many, many editors have given it tacit approval at the very least. I replied: With all due respect you must be kidding - you are the one who actually added the material  - the other editor simply sectioned the article with headings ...Modernist (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not find the position of Breschard constructive. They seem to be still an unexperienced editor with a clear COI, and may be someone cound advise them how such cases are handled.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That's enough now, folks. WP:Dispute Resolution is thataway -  please see the instructions at  the top  of the page.  Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

How to change my article title
How to change my article title: I would like to change my article title from "List of outdoorsmen and outdoor educators" to "List of outdoor exponents and outdoor educators". How do I do it? --Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 03:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Oliver. Pages can be moved to new titles by using the "move" link at the top of the page.  In regards to this title, are you sure "outdoor exponents" is the best title?  What is the dominant descriptor in the sources you have used?  The Interior  (Talk) 03:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Kern Valley High
Many students at Kern Valley High have facebook pages which list them in Tioga, Louisiana. I guarantee most people here in Kern County, California, will never go to Louisiana. Thanks in advance for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claireeileen (talk • contribs) 00:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It is entirely unclear what you are asking. I can't see any reference in our article to either Louisiana or FaceBook. Or are you under the misapprehension that Wikipedia is in some way connected with FaceBook? We aren't... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * We frequently get such posts at Help desk so I happen to know what it's about. Most of http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kern-Valley-High-School/112964905384219 was copied from the Wikipedia article Kern Valley High School. The Facebook page claims the location is "Tioga, Louisiana" while Wikipedia correctly says Lake Isabella, California. This is Facebook's error and unfortunately not something we are able to help with. It may sound odd that we blame Facebook when their page says: "Description above from the Wikipedia article Kern Valley High School". Note however that this only applies to the part with heading "Description". The alleged location in other parts of the page is inserted by Facebook and not taken from Wikipedia. I don't know how Facebook generates location information but they sometimes get it wrong.
 * Symbol move vote.svg Facebook community pages may incorporate content from Wikipedia—such use complies with Wikipedia policies on reuse of content. We at Wikipedia have no control over how the content is included nor can we help to remove it. Facebook does have a topic on Community pages and profile connections on their Help Center. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taiko&diff=prev&oldid=508765304
Tamashii Daiko has been taken off the UK list of Taiko Groups?

Considering that Liz Walters was an original member of Mugenkyo as was Mark Alcock that set up Taiko Meantime. Liz Walters a professional Taiko player and teacher of Taiko set up Tamashii Daiko in March 2000 Before this she toured with Joji Hirota.

Her Bio can be seen at www.tamashiidaiko.com

I believe that her group is a part of the history of UK taiko and I am intrigued as to who and why it has been deleted from the list of 'Notable current groups'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Taikojan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taikojan (talk • contribs) 20:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The edit was done by an anonymous IP without giving a reason. It is the only edit they have ever done so I don't think their is much hope of getting a response from them now.  I suggest that you raise the issue on the article talk page.  If there are no objections within a reaonable time, a week say, then it can be put back in.  Ideally, a reliable source to verify the claims should be added at the same time.  I note that the original reference does not say anything about UK groups or mention any of the ones named in the article.  It is therefore useless even if it could be considered reliable.  Spinning  Spark  21:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Alphonso Jackson BLP
I inquired about an anonymous editor who edited the BLP for Alphonso Jackson. The anon added a section entitled Minorities and Government Programs which seems to have a racial overtone. Anon, also included a section on a personnel issue(Richard Mallory) a former HUD employee,without all cites being available for review; question, should such an allegation be listed in a BLP? Furthermore, the anon editor deleted photos from the BLP. Other BLPs for Cabinet members included photos,why anon would delete photos for Jackson-unsure. Anon alo described an organization, the National Black Chamber of Commerce as being conservative, that description is not in the article cited. There was also a misrepresentation by anon regarding Jackson and the government contracting issues. Chicago Sun Times, Citation 7, HUD Says Secretary's Political Contracting Tale Untrue did not state that Jackson said anything about this is " How DC works", a HUD staffer made that comment.

I understand the need to present an unbiased BLP, therefore, I did not edit anon's recent revert edits on the dated controversial issues regarding Jackson. Yet, I included cited information regarding the same issues. Should only negative information be included in BLPs? Who is entitled to use only the facts they deemed essential? Anon in the talk to me, stated, " I should be ashamed of myself and called my edits, promotional crap. I thought personal attacks are not condoned by Wikipedia, nor would I personally attack someone who is insistent on editting from their point of view.

In conclusion, although anon accuses me of bias, in my opinion, that label could be said about them.

Thank-you for your assistance, TtelloucTtellouc (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This is the wrong forum for your complaint -  please see our page header. That said, taking  WP:UNDUE  into  consideration, any  amount  of (non  promotional) positive or (non libelous) negative content  can be included as long  as it  is correctly  sourced per WP:RS and verifiable per WP:V - we don't  express our own opinions in  Wikipedia articles. Photos must be correctly licenced or permission to  use them  has been submitted to  Wikipedia, but  photos and/or images that  are clearly  in  the USA public domain are permitted. Please resolve your issues by  starting  a discussion  on  the article's talk  page. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The meaning of the word Bolg
Talk:Fir_Bolg In this article, I chose not to edit because it seems some people get angry when you alter their topics contradicting their views. Wikipedia is supposed to be a source for learning and sharing information. If you research the name Bolg, you find it links to the Belgae and in turn, it links to their god Bolgios / Belgios, a god of light and lightning as being where the Belgae got their name. Now, if the Belgae got their name from a lightning god named Bolgios and the Fir Bolg got their name from the Belgae as numerous articles claim, if the Celtic ancestors of the Belgae came from peoples who invaded Greece and were eventually repelled proven by historic documents right here on Wikipedia itself Bolgios and we see the name used in almost identical fashion Gáe Bulg where Bolg means something altogether different, then there is reason for disputing the origin given in this article Fir bolg meaning Men of Bags because the Irish word Bolg means bag... but that's what the name came to mean after the Belgae had been there for centuries and came into use as bag only after the Christian conquest. The name Bolg is always in relation to the word "spear" and spear were always used in reference to mythological lightning bolts across most of Europe in antiquity. There are many articles across the internet proving these facts where the reference to the word Bolg meaning Bag is hypothetical in reference to people who were enslaved carrying bags of dirt as there is no proof to back that theory at all and is contradicted by the actual history found right here on Wikipedia in numerous articles about the history of the Belgium and it's ancient peoples.

I did not edit the article myself and the neutrality of what has been posted is definately in question. Why did I not edit the article? Because everyone I know tells me their edits are removed and people who author these articles harass them for daring to edit the article. I respect Wiki and do not wish to deal with possible conflict when I only asked for further research into the matter.

Armorbeast (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This page for assisting editors in editing. If you don't want to edit we can't help you (although we can give you advice where to find dispute resolution if that is what you need).  The talk page of the article is the right place to thrash out this issue and you have already opened a conversation there.  Ultimately, content on Wikipedia is determined by the contents of reliable sources and finding suitable ones is the first place to start.  Spinning  Spark  20:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

First article about art deleted
Hello,

My nick is edward_onwiki and my first article on Wikipedia was title "Render art", a disciple inside the Computer Arts realm. Basically it is a term that define those forms of computer arts created by render programs.

Although I found my definition was correct and unbiased, today I've seen my page has been deleted. The reason is described as (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): essay, OR, no sources). I don't know what does it means that "no explanation of the subject's significance". Maybe you could help me.

If there is the lack of something (external sources, external links, etc) I can manage to add it, I just need to know what is missing and how to include it.

Below I'm pasting the content of the article. If you could help me a bit with it (or even modify and paste the article for me) it would be very appreciated.

As you can see, at the bottom of the article I've listed some of the most highlighted artist of Render art. Maybe the deletion came by this reason (listing names of individuals). If you think this were the reason, we can remove the list without any problem (or you can remove it, if you dare).

I think that the best place for the article to be linked were in the Computer art article and on the Digital art article (among the other disciplines listed there).

Below I'm pasting the content of the article. Let me know what do you think.

And thank you for your help.

--Edward onwiki (talk) 08:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Render art

In fine arts, one of the disciplines of digital art in which the render process plays a crucial role or represents the the ultimate output. In 3D computer generated graphics, the render process is the final computational step, during which the computer calculates the materials, lights and shadows from the description of a 3D scene, and transform all that geometric, materials, lighting and environment information into a 2D image. This process determines the final quality and style of the resulting image. See also Rendering (computer graphics) and 3D rendering. Depending on the rendering software, it could be a time consuming process, and in some sense it has certain similarities with the developing process on photography (both being a final step that takes a raw information and transforms it to a single 2D image). Rendering has a lot of applications in many industries: from architectural visualization or product design, to scientific visualization, video games, animation or film making. So, render art defines the artistic discipline that uses this computational process with the aim of creating a piece of art.

The final format of the artwork could be an still image, an animation or an interactive experience, thus it can be printed, displayed on a monitor or projected, as any other form of digital art.

In render art, styles vary from cartoon to photorealism, or even abstraction.

Some highlighted render artists:

- Gero Gries - Eelco Brand - Golan Levin - David Em - William Latham - Gerhard Mantz - Studer / van der Berg

--Edward onwiki (talk) 08:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I see that the deleting administrator used the wrong reason. A7 doesn't apply in these cases. The real reason it was deleted was that it duplicated the subject of an existing article. I imagine that would be Artistic rendering. I suggest you incorporate your material into that article, but make sure that you provide reliable published sources as references for what you've added. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 08:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Voceditenore, Thank you for your swift response. I agree that maybe the deletion reason was because of that page about Artistic rendering, and although they may think it was the same, this is not the same as Render art, just like Software art (a piece of art that is a software) is not the same as Artistic software (that would be i.e. Photoshop). They are completely different concepts. While rendering can be artistic or not (it is just a description of its quality or style), Render art is an art discipline itself (just like Interactive art or Fractal art). What do you recommend me to clarify this issue? Could not exist a different entry for Render art (aside from the Artistic art)?

In addition to that, if my article needs external sources, where do I add them? In a References section?

Thank you very much ; )

--Edward onwiki (talk) 09:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Referencing is very important on Wikipedia and goes a long way to protecting an article from deletion. References, ideally, should be inline with the text that they verify.  If you wish, you can group then in a bibliography section at the end, but you should still have short (Harvard style) inline citations in the text.  You should read WP:reliable sources to understand what we accept as reliable sources and WP:CITE for how to present them in the article.
 * It is acceptable to create a new article at the same name as long as it is not substantially the same as the deleted article. But a new well-referenced article would be ok.  I note that the list of artists was removed from the article by another editor before it was deleted.  This was probably notability concerns.  If those artists have Wikipedia articles wikilinking to them would be enough.  Otherwise, reliable sources discussing them are required.
 * Alternatively, we have a formal process for reviewing deletions. If you wish, you can ask for the article to be undeleted at WP:DRV, but probably producing a better article addressing the objections would be a better way to go.  Spinning  Spark  09:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * One furhter piece of advice. The opening paragraph should clearly define its scope, disambiguate itself from Artistic rendering, and wikilink to that article.  This would head off the issue you ran into this time.  Spinning  Spark  09:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I was asked to comment here as deleting admin, I don't mind restoring if by speedy was out of process, although I think it would be better if the article was recreated from scratch following the guidance above. Let me know if you want me to restore, but note that I'll be away for a couple of days  Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  10:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I can see what you're getting at, Edward. I'd suggest you work on your article as a draft in user space to get it really polished, with links to other Wikipedia articles were appropriate, a clear statement in the lede section (opening paragraph) as suggested by Spinningspark, and plenty of references. To write drafts in user space, click on "My sandbox" at the top right-hand side of any Wikipedia page, add your text, and click save. You can then use the page to work on the article before moving it into article space. And, you can get opinions and help from other editors with your draft. Also, I tried wikilinking the artists you mentioned above. As you can see, Golan Levin, David Em, and William Latham have Wikipedia articles and there are plenty of sources available for the remaining ones to be mentioned in in the article. See:
 * Studer/van der Berg:,
 * Gero Gries:
 * Gerhard Mantz:
 * Eelco Brand
 * -Voceditenore (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all. I'll do what you suggest: I'll re-write the page in my Sandbox, get more references, and ask for your supervision when it gets ready. Thanks!

--Edward onwiki (talk) 12:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Adam Leitman Bailey redux
I apologize for adding this at the bottom while a prior discussion remains on the page (up here), but the disputes around the article are becoming a bit of a morass. Matters would really benefit from just two or three extra eyes, and I think watchers of this page are more likely to notice something at the bottom.

The gist is this: From inception, the page has been plagued by COI edits by associates of the subject, most of them apparently interns at the subject's law firm. They've added CV-type promotional language, repeatedly removed maintenance templates and tried to keep any unfavorable material out of the article. Nineteen were blocked in July 2011, see Sockpuppet investigations/Internalb/Archive. Recently an IP editor pared the article way back, only to have the edits reverted by an editor who also turned out also to be an intern. I decided that the IP went too far, and in an effort to find middle ground between the two, made several edits over several days, all documented and explained on the Talk page. I think they are sound. Nevertheless my changes met with some resistance from the intern and from a couple of newly-created SPAs, which I take to be new sock or meat puppets (and have reported them as such).

The wholesale reversions have stopped, for now, and the dispute has narrowed to one or two critical comments about the subject that I included in the article. I was able to obtain a brief block against one of the SPAs who kept removing that material along with the COI template, but it has been suggested to me that it would be a good idea to enlist the views of some third party editors in the (likely) event the dispute continues. I thought about going to WP:DRN or WP:BLPN but elected to cast my line here first. If my assessment of things is wrong, that's fine, I don't have much of a stake in the article one way or the other, beyond a desire not to capitulate to socks and SPAs just because of their persistence. The Talk page has all the background and it's not that long; but for those who want to get right to the meat of it, the most useful portions are here and here through the end of the page. (Please add your views there, rather than here.) Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (While I welcome any input at all, the thorniest bits are the two "critical" sentences that I added - they are reliably sourced (now x2) and not that harsh in my view; I think they're appropriately included, but of course it's a BLP and I want the article to stay on the right side of that line.) JohnInDC (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This one's resolved, or as good as. Some page protection, a few more sock blocks and a BLP discussion have set the baseline and it doesn't require any more attention here.  Thanks - JohnInDC (talk) 12:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Trojan Horse in link
My avast free anti virus software detected a trojan horse when I click on a link on the page below

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

Unsure of how to proceed to rectify this, Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.146.232.16 (talk) 05:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Which link? Someguy1221 (talk) 09:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the link in question essential to the article? If you can find a reliable source to replace it, feel free to do so. Andrewman327 (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Audience reviews on movie page
I thought it was Wiki policy not to include audience reviews/comments/ratings on a movie page since they can be skewed, change often, and are somewhat trivial, i.e., "Audiences polled by CinemaScope gave it a B+" or "Audience vote on Rotten Tomatoes is at 75%" should be deleted. Can someone clarify and direct me to that policy, if any? Tx.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The guideline you're looking for is here: WikiProject Films/Style guidelines. There is no prohibition against providing such information close to the release. User ratings are always prohibited, however. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Tx, that was just what I was looking for.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Article on Dr Nadejda Hadjiivanova, top female table tennis palyer in Bulgaria
Hi, someone at your end has declined publication because the article lacks "notability". Please carry out the due diligence, ignorance on the part of Wikipedia editors is unacceptable. Please broaden your reference resources, the individual in question is a national celebrity of the 1950s and 1960s with international reputation. Please name and shame the individual who falsely advised on this matter. Such lame decisions along with poor editorial control underpin the reasons for the wider public refusal to accept seriously any information found in Wikipedia. It is the editors' responsibility to ensure accuracy of information and siple rejection through editorial incompetence is unacceptable.

Yours truly,

Dr Bonev, MRSC, PPhys — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonev (talk • contribs) 13:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Before you start accusing others of incompetence, you should perhaps familiarize yourself with some of the policies and guidelines of this site. In particular WP:V and WP:Notability (sports) are going to be helpful to you.  It is not for anyone else to research the notability of your article, all editors here are volunteers.  It is entirely down to you to provide sufficient sources so other editors can immediately see that.  Translations of the relevant passages of foreign language sources also helps.
 * If you have such a low opinion of Wikipedia why are you writing here? In any case this is not the right venue to give vent to your criticisms.  Please also see WP:AGF and WP:TALK for the behaviour we expect of contributers towards each other (and how to properly sign your posts).  Spinning  Spark  14:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Personal information on my User Page
Seven years ago, I naively posted PII on my User Page. I have since blanked it, but it is of course still in the history of the page. How do I go about having the PII removed from the page's history? The page in question is, of course, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ayeroxor and I wish to remove the entire original page. Thank you. -Ayeroxor (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Use the email address shown at Requests for oversight. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Ayeroxor, I've suppressed the old revision that contained your personal information. However, you must not make suppression requests on-site in this way. If you ever again need to request suppression, go to Requests for oversight and follow those instructions to make a private request in the proper way. Thank you. Regards, AGK  [•] 17:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks to John of Reading for his quick thinking in hunting down me (an oversighter who was online). AGK  [•] 17:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Primary Sources for Bibliography
There seems to be some disagreement about this - but what are peoples thoughts on whether primary sources can be used for including basic bibliographical information on, say, an author's wikipedia article? Thanks! PermanentVacay (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * What specific kinds of information are you thinking about? Someguy1221 (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about simply making a list of things the author wrote, it's a question of relevance and significance. If no one has written about something the author wrote, then editors have a fair point in stating that we shouldn't either. It's really going to be a case-by-case thing. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks. I was thinking particularly for a bibliography section, just to list all of the works (eventually). I've noticed that non-notable albums are often listed on musicians' discographies - you know they're not notable because they don't have their own articles. Is this more of an exception than a standard practice? Also, I could quite figure out what policy pertains to this. The languages at WP:PSTS was not terribly clear to me on this matter. Thanks again! PermanentVacay (talk) 05:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * PSTS is about what sources are reliable for what content. Any source is reliable for the fact that it itself exists. But saying a source A is reliable for statement B is not the same as saying statement B should be included in an article. Anyway, you had trouble finding the appropriate guideline because it's buried in the manual of style, which is simply massive. But we do have Manual of Style/Lists of works as well as the unofficial guidelines WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines and WikiProject Discographies/style. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Two pages contradicting current information
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_States states USA currently has 5,113 nukes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction states USA currently has 2,468 nukes

its hard to understand which one would be correct... — Preceding unsigned comment added by MSRinCO (talk • contribs) 01:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * They're not necessarily contradictory - they're simply talking about different things. The smaller number is for "operational" nuclear warheads, as in, ready to launch. The larger number is including non-operational but not-completely-dismantled nuclear warheads. You can also get count discrepancies if you are talking about functional missiles versus functional warheads versus functional nuclear sub-munitions, but I that is not the case here since they are both referring to warheads. But on top of all that, you still get discrepancies even when everyone is talking about the same thing, because one group might count the same warhead as operational that another counts as "in reserve". Maybe the articles could make that a little more clear, but it's all in the sources for whoever wants to take a crack at it. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Cookie cutter articles
The article for Sudbury – White River train is informative, but there are articles with almost identical content for many of the stations along that line. Examples:
 * Nicholson, Ontario railway station


 * Musk, Ontario railway station
 * Chapleau railway station

I was thinking about nominating the station stops for deletion and incorporating the content into a larger article but first I want to get feedback and suggestions from you. Andrewman327 (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no need to nominate anything for deletion, merge and redirect operations can be carried out by any editor. I would advise starting a discussion at some central location before doing anything (Talk:Sudbury – White River train seems favourite]]) and link to the discussion from all affected articles and wikiprojects.  Rail editors can be a little obsessive sometimes so you might meet some opposition, but I believe it is common practice to merge non-notable flag stops and abandoned stops etc into the article about the line.  You might find WikiProject Trains/Manual of style helpful.  Spinning  Spark  11:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ...and the essay Notability (Railway lines and stations).  Spinning Spark  11:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Confusion, Should I revert or not!
Hello Editors,

I just came across this article and was astonished!

It seems like a personal opinion board, rather than an article.

Wanted to know I could revert this, for complete lack of tone and style. And add citations and verifiability tags? Article : Jarral

Revisions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jarral&diff=516734603&oldid=508851651

Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by NitRav (talk • contribs) 00:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah. That's a total mess, and I reverted to the stubbiest version. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  01:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

House of Worth Copyvio
User:Ryan Vesey has placed notice on my talk page (section Copyvio) that the article House of Worth contains copyrighted material. He asked me to identify the infringing material so he can remove it(!) In the past any over zealous copy/paste on my part has been specifically identified by other editors who either edited it themselves or pointed out the precise infringing text. (I reverted House of Worth to its state before my involvement until this is clarified). I don't understand how an article can contain copyrighted material if the editor pointing that out cannot say exactly what is the infringing text? The CorenBot did not activate. So in a nutshell I've been told my edits introduced copyrighted material into an article but I have to tell the questioning editor what those infringements are. What is going on here? Can anyone help? NightSt✷r (talk)  02:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It's quite simple, part of your text has been found to be a copyvio and you are now being asked to come clean with what you have copied so that other editors do not have to waste vast amounts of time trying to unpick it. A copyvio is still a copyvio even if it cannot immediately be identified as such and it is not acceptable for you to wash your hands of the problem and effectively say "so prove it".  If you continue with "over zealous copy/paste" you may end up being blocked.  Spinning  Spark  13:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed that a copyvio is a copyvio whether it was intentional or not and cannot stay without express permission of the copyright holder. My question to another editor was not "prove it" but what is the problem area. (The Met information is now clearly shown as not re-phrased but taken almost verbatim.) If I wanted to "wash my hands" why would I take the action to revert the article to the state prior to my involment (26 January 2012) and ask for help?  I had no role in the press releases incorporated into it before then. It appears that bad faith and intentional infringment on my part is assumed. A permanent block may indeed be in order as I waste other editor's time and contribute nothing of value.  NightSt✷r  (talk)  18:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have not done any copyvios, then why not just clearly say that to the editors asking the question so they can move on and look at other people's edits. Hopefully you will get an apology from them (and from me for being so sharp with you).  On the other hand, if you have been copying, you surely know what you copied and can identify it.  Spinning  Spark  22:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What is now identified as material from the Met was one of two sources that were used to re-write the section regarding the historic design house. Evidently I didn't change enough and that was later identified as verbatim copy. (I still don't know how it was identified as such since the CorenBot didn't catch it.  Perhaps other editors/administrators have access to administrative tools, or tools that I either have not discovered or have not figured out how to use.)  This whole episode started when I found the article written in an overly promotional tone with a total of three references and zero inline citations. "Be bold" it's said - "don't just tag it but make the edits yourself." I take no credit or blame for its state prior to my edits. An attempt to be helpful (in my obviously mistaken opinion) has instead lead to serious copyright violation charges, wasting of other editor's time, and my complete loss of credibility is an editor.  If a permanent block has to happen then that's what has to happen.  NightSt✷r  (talk)  23:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you copy material from another source and change it just a little then there may well be a copyvio issue, whether or not a bot picks it up. The best advice is, don't copy anything.  Write it yourself.  JohnInDC (talk) 00:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi NightStar. I'm a clerk at WP:Copyright problems. When I saw this thread, I went over to take a look at the article which you had reverted to the last version before your additions. I've had to blank it completely while we investigate what the last clean version is. The article was full of copyvio pasted in over the years by multiple editors. While your version had too much close paraphrasing from the Met source (not good), it was nothing compared to the wholesale addition of verbatim pastes from Worth press releases which has obviously been going on since at least 2010 . I don't have any special tools. I'm just good at internet searching techniques :). Also, Corenbot only crawls new articles. It won't pick up long term copyvio. There are more details at Talk:House of Worth. Hope that helps. Voceditenore (talk) 05:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not very relevant how the copyvio was detected, the point is it has to stop. Nightstar, no one is going to block you if you now understand what you did wrong and don't intend to do it again.  Blocks are never issued as a punishment, only to protect the encyclopedia from further damage. I raised the possibility of blocking only so that you understood the seriousness with which this issue is taken on Wikipedia.  Good luck in your future editing and I hope you continue to be a productive editor here.  Spinning  Spark  06:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * To that end Spinningspark, I have removed links to copyrighted images used in SS Aleutian and USAHS Marigold. There may be other articles which I authored and/or edited which also need to have similar links to copyrighted material removed. NightSt✷r  (talk)  17:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Voceditenore, once a "clean" version of the article is identified some degree of protection might be in order. A lot of edits seem to be the work of unregistered users, or it may be the same user working from a laptop and various wifi hotspots. Otherwise the same material might be reintroduced into the article. NightSt✷r  (talk)  17:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You needn't have done that. It is perfectly ok to link to a copyrighted image, as long as the site you link to is not itself in breach of copyright. And I think we are probably safe in assuming that the Library of Congress is not doing that. We can have the link, but we cannot have the image uploaded here. As for protection, we don't protect articles just because they might be vandalised in the future. Anybody can edit Wikipedia, and articles are only protected if they are subject to heavy ongoing disruption at the time.  Spinning Spark  01:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Under the circumstances it is necesary to error on the side of caution. The Pugent Sound library owns the copyright on the image of the USAHS Marigold and had specifically declined permission for its use. Although an external link to it may not be in violation it probably should not have been put there in the first place since they had said "no".  The editor who first flagged the Worth copyvio problem has asked me to identify other articles where I introduced copyrighted material.  Therefore if everything else that I have created and/or edited is under a similiar copyvio cloud this has indeed expanded far beyond one article and will have to head down the path where I think this is heading.  NightSt✷r  (talk)  11:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I've gone through the articles through March 10, 2012. Most of the edits don't involve copyvio, some do.  House of Worth is being looked over, but anything introduced by Mariepr was removed.  Any infringing material has already been removed from SS Santa Paula.  I tagged Stephen Payne (designer) for review of close paraphrasing, fixed some minor close paraphrasing at Ted Alan Worth and listed Type C6 ship to be reviewed.  I don't believe anything else needs to be checked from edits that occurred after March 10. Ryan Vesey 15:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Article Stephen Payne (designer) has now been edited but I left the tag in place for review purposes. The duplicate phrasing on the Type C6 ship looked absolutely scary until I saw that it picked up names of shipping lines and companies as duplications.  A lot of the detailed technical information is also the work of a US Government agency and therefore public domain.  Details are explained on the article’s talk page. SS Santa Paula (1932) ship design and construction seciton is now re-written; see the article's talk page for details.
 * I just learned of the existence of the Toolhous Duplication Detector. Had I known of its existence it would have saved myself and other editors hours of grief. (Yes, ignorance is never an excuse.) NightSt✷r  (talk)  17:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)