Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 125

Tablurizing the airlines section in article Premium Economy
Because the premium economy class offered by different airlines varies greatly in service and seat quality being offered, it have been proposed (around 10 years ago) to tablurize the section in the article in order to reflect what sort of premium economy product are each airline providing to help give reader a concept of which airline offer a premium economy product that is close to business class and which airline offer a premium economy product that is just a economy class with little addition. However no efforts have been made to tabularize the section despites editors agreed to do so, and I have also tried to tabularize it but I am a bit unsure about how should i turn the section into tabular format. Can anyone help tabularizing the section? C933103 (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * If someone else wishes to provide you with that assistance, they are free to do so but I will not. In my opinion, the section should not exist at all even in its current form due to NOTDIR and, thus, its inclusion also gives it undue weight especially in light of its length in comparison to the rest of the article. To change it into a table would give it even more prominence and make it even more inappropriate. (And none of that is to mention that it's largely unsourced and will perpetually be one of those lists which is virtually always incorrect and out of date, thus making it inappropriate for an encyclopedia which is only supposed to be including information of enduring importance. But all of that is irrelevant since it shouldn't be here in the first place.) I'm not going to jump over and delete it, but neither can I in good conscience help you put it into a table. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I understand why it might seem like a directory, but in my opinion it is necessary to illustrate the varieties in between different services under the same name with info from each airlines to disambiguating their service. If there is a generally accepted way to categorize those services into different category like what have been done on other air travel class articles then that would be great, but the current varieties exists for the service between different airlines are far greater than those other examples and there are also no universal region-based or distance-based standard for the service which is unlike other similar articles, thus I think a table would be the best to illustrate the difference within the travel class. It would also be like to replace the section with description and list of airlibes providing different types of premium economy service but there are no universally accepted way to categorize them and much less to find an unuversally accepted aource to cite the categorization, which is why I think a table would suit the article more at the current stage. At least it would be far more easier to cite services provide by different airlines in numbers and also far less prone to promotional tone if the list is mostly numbers. C933103 (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Editing a template to convert year-number to the number of the century



 * I wish to have Template:M1YearInTopic and/or Template:M1YearInTopic (no calendar) fixed to show different lists, lists by century instead of lists that do not exist.
 * Instead of pointing to List of state leaders in 500 it should link to List of state leaders in the 5th century
 * Instead of pointing to List of sovereign states in 500 it should link to List of political entities in the 5th century
 * It should also link to List of 5th-century religious leaders.
 * Do you know how to code such fixes? Is there a page somewhere on Wikipedia to ask for help coding a detailed template?
 * To make this work, the template has to take the year/page-name and convert it to the number for the century (476 is the 5th century). To make matters worse, centuries 1, 2, and 3 have to have a way to handle the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd in the page name (rather than the "th" used for centuries 4 through 10. As you might be able to tell, Template:M1YearInTopic is design to be used for the years 1 AD to 1000 AD. tahc chat 04:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Per User talk:Frietjes, this issue is now fixed. tahc chat 17:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Elizabeth (Biblical Figure)
in this article on St Elizabeth, mother of St John the Baptist, i believe you have placed an image of a statue of St Elizabeth of Hungary (Lake Superior, Wisconsin) if you would be so kind as to review and amend if necessary

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:581:C300:7F7F:C038:FC3C:78A0:1F16 (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You appear to be right, but I'm not sufficiently certain to go to bat for the change. I'm going to leave a note on the article talk page and the image talk page to allow someone else to sort it out. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Davies_(Welsh_politician
There appears to be vandalism on the page, where an editor has repeatedly removed the 'Controversies' section without sufficient justification.

Notes have been made in Talk:David Davies (Welsh politician) but the editor in question has not responded.

Most recently, the whole of the Controversies section was deleted with the reason, "(→‎Controversies: BLP violation using Twitter and blogs as reference sources)" In the case of the Twitter source, one of them was a primary source, i.e. from Davies' Twitter account, the other Twitter source was a tweet by a prominent British MP in reaction to Davies' original tweet. Other sources include Independent Television (ITV), The New Statesman, Christian Voice, (who actually appear to support Davies' views), Davies' own website, The Guardian, An article by a prominent professsor of law, a Huffington Post article, The Daily Telegraph and The Independent. The only sources which might give cause for concern are: www.totalpolitics.com and ukhumanrightsblog.com. These last two are perhaps not up to Wikipedia's standard.

RightSaidFred (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)RightSaidFred
 * This forum is for help on how to edit, not for requesting folks to do things for you. Consider requesting page protection and then if it continues (or you don't get protection), dispute resolution. Be careful about calling things "vandalism". It has a very specific meaning here and you don't help your case by misusing it (and indeed can get yourself in trouble). See WP:VANDAL for details. Not a big deal this time, but something you need to know going forward. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Slanderous comments
I have recently deleted several slanderous comments on the page Falen Bonsett. Someone is posting untruthful rumors in the personal life section following an announcement of divorce. Unsure if this page should be monitored more carefully. Thank you for your assistance. -Good Samaritan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.186.127 (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * True, but the subject of the article is non-notable and I've nominated the article for deletion. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 23:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Adding to External Links sections
I have been adding links to Project Gutenberg and Open Library within Wikipedia items. There is a simple template for Project Gutenberg links, but the one for the Open Library seems much more complex. The two can be compared in Emily Gerard. I would be greatly helped by having a simpler Open Library template along the lines of the Project Gutenberg one used in that example. Wnholmes (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Brankovići https://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Бранковићи
Many reference materials do not specify any provenience ISBN or book, please review the site for any inconsistency or misleading intentions. I see attached documents without any connection with the article and no proof of academic study only .jpg references. https://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Бранковићи — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.22.49.144 (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and anyone includes you. If you believe a change is needed then do it. If you do not care to do so, then request the change on the article talk page. If you cannot make the edit yourself (because the page is locked) or should not make the edit yourself (because you have a conflict of interest), use the procedure here, but that process should not be used except in those two cases. Realize that, however made, edit requests may draw no response for days to weeks or, in some cases, ever, especially if no one else thinks the edit should be made. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC) PS: One more thing, we here at English Wikipedia have no control over sr.wikipedia. Each language Wikipedia establishes and enforces its own policies and procedures and is independent from the other Wikipedias. —  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

OEIS template
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling%27s_approximation

At Stirling's_approximation, I need to know if there is some problem in using the OEIS template as the following example line:

" is always between √2$\pi$ = 2.5066... and $e$ = 2.71828... . "

Joel B. Lewis keeps removing it, yet there are many other wiki pages with this type of template, so it makes me wonder if there really is a problem here or does this need to be viewed as edit warring?

Also, he has pointed out the need for some editor assistance for Twin_prime on the section Sequence, but he has deleted the whole section.

If someone else can watch, help edit these pages that would be great.

Thanks ahead.

John W. Nicholson (talk) 04:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This noticeboard is for advice on how to edit, not to request help in doing things for you. If you believe that there is a problem with those articles, the first step is always to seek to discuss it with the other editors or editors by posting a note on the article talk page. If they will not discuss, consider the advice given at DISCFAIL. If you cannot reach consensus through discussion, consider dispute resolution. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Playboy Playmates Please cmment
Appreciate comments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_1995 Richterer11111 (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not a place to seek input. Ordinarily that would be RFC or Village Pump, but AFD's are self-publicizing. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Help with changing links
and other pages

Hi there,

I am new to editing on Wikipedia so my apologies in advance if I am in the wrong place.

It came to my attention that the Steven Erikson article listed a link to a now defunct Malazan Wiki so I changed the link to its successor as well as changing/adding the link on several other Malazan sites here and on other language Wikis.

According to messages, these edits have been reverted. I checked the guidelines and the link seems to be within as the Wiki is dedicated to one topic only and contains far more detailed information than Wikipedia is designed for (I think that was one of the 'yes' qualifiers). Could it be because I have the word Malazan in my name? I am a bureaucrat and admin of the Malazan Wiki but all contributions are voluntary and I do not gain from it in any way.

I thought I was adding to the universal knowledgebase and would very much appreciate it if you could enlighten me where I went wrong.

Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey Egwene of the Malazan Empire. Looks like your edit was undone by a bot, and then reinstated by User:LordofMoonSpawn. Timothy Joseph Wood  16:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Also note that, while I know nothing about the Wikia site, it may only be linked to if it has a a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors per guidance at WP:LINKNO. Timothy Joseph Wood  16:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * That is great news. As for our Wikis - the English version has over four and a half thousand content pages and is consistently in the top five hundred of all Wikia Wikis (currently at 24 of book only Wikis) - our German sister site has over a thousand content pages and is catching up fast so I think we can be classed as substantial. Given what you posted, I have changed the link on the Italian site to point to the English Wiki as the Italian version has only thirteen pages at the moment, however, it is linked to the English and German one and work is currently proceeding at pace to translate pages. Rest assured as well that we are totally committed to referencing all entries as well as constantly checking for even the slightest inaccuracies.


 * Thanks for coming back to me - and if Wiki editing leaves you any time - try The Malazan Book of the Fallen - arguably the best fantasy series since The Lord of the Rings. But then... I would say that :)


 * Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Please note that while what Timothy says is correct, it applies only to the use of wikis in an External Links section (as is the case in your situation), not to their use as citations to support text. Except for information about themselves, open wikis are self-published sources and cannot be used as citations except for a very, very limited number of purposes (click that link to get the details). Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 04:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up on that, TransporterMan. My comment with regards to referencing was meant to reflect the work ethos we have on the Malazan Wiki, not that we would be using it here as a reference for material. Regards, Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

How to provide a "reliable source?"
I'm trying to add an actor's name to a table of movies he's been in, but my edit got reverted with the excuse that I haven't provided a "reliable source." How do I cite a "reliable source" to prove that this actor has been in those movies?

I tried pointing out in the "Edit summary" box that this actor's name was in the credits of all these movies, and even pointed out the exact role he played in each movie, thereby citing the movies themselves as proof that this actor was in those movies. But another editor reverted my edit with the reason "no reliable sources provided." If the movie itself can't be cited as proof that an actor was in a movie, then what else can be considered a "reliable source?"

Am I supposed to somehow use the "Cite your sources" box in addition to the "Edit Summary" box or what? Nam Hien Nguyen (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * You are correct that a movie's credits can be used as a primary source to document an actor's participation in the movie (provided that there is no question about whether or not there might be two actors by the same name). But the verifiability policy also says that if challenged unsourced material cannot be restored without a citation. In this case, the citation would be to the movie itself (and it wouldn't hurt to also clearly state that it's in the credits). You can use something like this example:


 * Agnes Moorehead


 * Which will give the following result:


 * Agnes Moorehead


 * For an edit summary, say something like "adding role and citation." Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Possibly Incorrect Citation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-ReferenceB-7

I tried checking a citation on the article below, and was able to see the first two pages of the three pages of the source that was cited. I don't have access to the full source beyond what I found on google books, but the statement on the Wikipedia page doesn't appear in those first two pages. In case the statement cited is on the third page of the source, which I can't review, I don't think I'm justified in revising or deleting the statement.

However, at the very least, the cited page range is incorrect, which to me is a red flag. I think it would be helpful for someone who might have access to the source to check the citation, but I'm not sure how you ask for help in this way.

Source 7: John Horne. State, Society and Mobilization in Europe During the First World War. pp. 237–39 Reference Online: https://books.google.com/books?id=jEMAAOmh1vAC&pg=PA288&lpg=PA288&dq=John+Horne.+State,+Society+and+Mobilization+in+Europe+During+the+First+World+War.+pp.+237%E2%80%9339.&source=bl&ots=FTKSKhzWL8&sig=QsX5mmfaWVjCLgXP34ZjNdaSCJ4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwid7OWI0urRAhWr6IMKHQI2DxsQ6AEIKzAD#v=onepage&q=obsolete&f=false


 * Please discuss on the article talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipage already published - deletedwiki
O.K. So I have a wikipage that has been published successfully! That's a link to it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerry_Lee_Crawford

Can you remove that page that exhibit the topic as a deleted one? Deletedwiki is only for moderators and could not do anything!

http://deletedwiki.com/index.php?title=Kerry_Lee_Crawford — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khaled Abolaynain (talk • contribs) 16:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, we here at Wikipedia have no control over what is or is not included at deletedwiki.com. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * , Wikipedia is not connected with any sites or projects not owned by the WikiMedia Foundation (WMF). deletedwiki.com is not related to the WMF. Non Wikipedia related web sites may however bee using MediaWiki which is a free, open source software that is often used for the creation of user populated web sites. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Anonymous editor
2001:8003:4582:A000:412A:89E5:B73A:2A7E (talk) has made multiple edits to the page Beach Cops, many deleting text. One of the edits removed many references. I put messages on their talk page, and on the article's talk page. The anonymous user has not responded to any of my messages. Would it be okay to undo their edits? PiGuy3 (talk) 03:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * , in the absence of a local article consensus to the contrary by its regular contributors you can restore any content which you certainly feel belongs in Wikipedia. For more information please see WP:BRD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

== Editor removes reference to original author's Facebook page, despite and contrary to the clear "help" rules of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves ==

1. Editor Meatsgains keeps removing reference to original author's web page on facebook, specifically the section:

Ideas and Political Views
Muhtar Ablyazov publishes his political ideas, thoughts and works, in Russian language, such as "Anatomy of Political Power in Kazakhstan" (Анатомия Политической Власти Казахстана) on Facebook. ”

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mukhtar_Ablyazov&diff=765283966&oldid=765280095

Editor Meatsgains objects to reference because it is to the original authentic author's facebook page.

2. I verified that Author's page is authentic, original, and that it is the main web page that author uses for his publications.

3. Editor Meatsgains clearly did not read specific and well explained "Help" of Wiki specifically allowing the references to Facebook: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves

"Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves[edit] Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met: The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities). It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. The article is not based primarily on such sources. These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook."

4. When asked again, editor Meatsgains refused to specify which relevant "criteria" of the above six criteria was violated. Instead, he cited his own personal opinion and dislike.


 * Facebook is not regarded by Wikipedia as a reliable source. References to Facebook and other social media are deleted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Translation Quandary - Option Not Listed
I found a page on the fr.wikipedia website featuring my family's ancestral home, Chateau de Reynel. Unfortunately, this page is in French and is not available on English Wikipedia (for the United States.) I found the Article Request page, and then the French translation request page, and then the correct subpage listing French chateaus, but Chateau de Reynel is not listed, and there's no way I can find to request a translation for a webpage that doesn't have an active link listed. Is there anyway a Wiki-savvy person can make that request for me? I do have the page's address, I just can't find a way to request that the page's content be translated into English. It is (many thanks in advance)... https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C3%A2teau_de_Reynel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.120.160.53 (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Who files a legal motion?
This is a MOS-type question not covered in the MOS. When describing a legal motion in an article, who should we say files it: the client or his/her attorney? Or both? Barte (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Either/or, I would say, but then I'm not a lawyer. The lawyer is acting on the client's behalf, after all. It's like, the attorney literally files the motion, but the client also filed the motion. Just like a car company builds a car, but the factory robots literally built the car. We could say, "Ford factories constructed 500,000 pickup trucks this year", but we can also drop "factories" and that sentence still looks fine. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks--I gave that a try as best I could. This is in reference to Shiva Ayyadurai Barte (talk) 06:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Help needed with new article and redirect
This is reposted from the Talk page of Journal of American Greatness:

This has been reborn as a multi-person blog called American Greatness, with at least one common author. A third-party description of the relaunch is here: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/07/american-greatness-its-baaaack.php

I think there should be a new article called American Greatness, and Journal of American Greatness should redirect to it. I don't know how to do this. I could probably puzzle it out from the help pages, but I've been reverted enough times that I'm hesitant to do so without concurrence. Kirkpete (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirkpete (talk • contribs)

Jesus Christ
Shroud of Turin to be added in the Wikipedia of Jesus Christ. Shroud of Turin is believed to be the burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth, also known as Jesus Christ. Due to recent carbon analysis dated to the time of Jesus Christ and is consistant with description in the Shroud of Turin. Biblical description of the death of Jesus.[25]... Just to name a few. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.201.113.209 (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please use Talk:Jesus to discuss and look at these prior discussions. --Neil N  talk to me 15:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Also see Jesus --Neil N  talk to me 15:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Missing credit on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_(film)
There were 2 editors on this film. One is missing from the credit block: Dirk Westervelt

This can be verified on IMDb, or from the Fox press release, or the billing block of the IMAX poster.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3315342/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm

Thank you.

2A00:1028:96D5:A232:44BE:C19D:7E1D:E4B3 (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and anyone includes you. If you believe a change is needed, and you can include a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia then make the change yourself. If you do not care to do so, then request the change on the article talk page. If you cannot make the edit yourself (because the page is locked) or should not make the edit yourself (because you have a conflict of interest), use the procedure here, but that process should not be used except in those two cases. Realize that, however made, edit requests may draw no response for days to weeks or, in some cases, ever, especially if no one else thinks the edit should be made. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 23:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Martti Rosenblatt in darft
Hello, Musicbot but the page about Martti Rosenblatt into draft and it is evaluated. How long will this evaluation last? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Martti_Rosenblatt There is references and confirmed information in this page. So when will it be moved back from draft?

Thx, Martti — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsisbtiis (talk • contribs) 07:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It won't be reviewed or moved until you place the tag at the very top of the page on a line by itself. Regards,  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 23:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Constant changes
Hello, my name is Harmony I work at the company Crunchyroll. I have been going into pages on wikipedia to add Crunchyroll as a licensee, I have a reliable source for this however, my changes keep getting changed.

I have had a discussion with this user but they have refused any further contact and have continued to go in and take out my changes. Here are some of the pages that you can see the changes, their username is TheFarix

I was hoping to get some more help on what I should. Thank you for your time and I hope to hear back.

-Harmony


 * As an employee of Crunchyroll you should not be editing any information having directly to do with that company. While such edits may not be prohibited, per se, under Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies, you will not receive any assistance in making them. You should, instead, request them on the article talk page in a new section using the template, following the instructions in the "How to use" section of the template documentation (click on that link to see the documentation). Regards,  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 23:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Drchriswilliams - HELP
Hi there, We (Am Buidheann Dubh) having noticed you have edited our page, would like to firstly thank you, and secondly, ask if you could help us in updating it, as with our group logotype, recent news and up to date coverage of activities etc. Many thanks in advance. JOHN. Contact us via any means for confirmation as below : — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.50.231.32 (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello 31.50.231.32, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Just a friendly bit of advice, since this desk is highly viewed by any and all eyes visiting the site, it might be advisable that personal information not be shared publicly. You may wish to remove it (or ask an admin/editor to scrub it completely) so that you do not receive unwanted communication. Second, thank you for disclosing your connection with the article; rather than editing the page itself. The best way to form a communication with the editors at Wikipedia that are editing from a neutral-point-of-view WP:NPOV, is to bring specific comments, suggestions, concerns, etc (along with reliable sources to back such requests) to the article's talk page here: TALK: Am Buidheann Dubh. There, editors can work with you in building a better article without violating any WP:COI. Thanks! and Welcome again! Maineartists (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.50.231.32 (talk • contribs)

Addition to Honorific nicknames in popular music page.
Respected Editor(s)

While I was reading the honourific Titles page of this site, I saw that you have missed Nazia Hassan in this list. You included Ahmed Rushdie and Noor Jehan from Pakistan but missed out Nazia Hassan (contributions in India and Pakistan) and considered the "Queen of Pop" in south Asia and Pioneer of Modern Pop in south Asia. I tried editing the page myself but it was secured "against vandalism" hence couldn't do it. Please edit it and include her. Thank you 117.203.196.186 (talk) 12:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.203.201.11 (talk) 07:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This noticeboard is for advice on how to edit, not to do things for you. To make this request, go to Talk:Honorific nicknames in popular music, create a new section called "Nazia Hassan" (even though the article page is protected, you can edit the talk page) and as the first line insert exactly this code on a line by itself: . On the next line explain your request and give the reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia which support your request (if you don't have any such sources, your request is almost certainly going to be declined). Sign your request with four tildes, like this ~ . Let me note that the source given for the title "Queen of Pop" in the Nazia Hassan article is probably not going to be sufficient: You're going to need a reliable source which establishes that the honorific is widely used, rather than just one news article using the honorific incidentally in the title of an article. Regards,  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Kayno Yesno Slonce, editing issue
I recently had my first article approved. I am a very new author and had notes for just 4-5 articles so far. I do not know where I can discuss a specific article and this is why I post here. I am unable to connect two articles about one and the same issue – they are in different languages, English and Bulgarian. The page does not allow it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kayno_Yesno_Slonce https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BD%D0%BE_%D0%99%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%BE_%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B5 I will be thankful if someone helps me with this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikyvoyage (talk • contribs) 18:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "connect"? What, specifically, are you trying to do? Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe s/he referred to interlanguage linking. The link between the two pages has been established. Iaritmioawp (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Help with "Ming Fay" and "Epoxy Art Archive" Entires
Hello!

I'm struggling to get rid of the banners/ tags about verifiability and orphan issues on the "Ming Fay" and "Epoxy Art Group" entries, respectively. I'm not particularly good at editing entires and I think that the articles would benefit from additional help. I understand why the tags were put on the articles, but I haven't been able to work them out enough to be able to remove them. I would really appreciate the assistance because these articles are very important to me. And if you are able to add images to the entires, that would be amazing! Let me know if you need anything from me. Thank you.

TLDR: help remove tags on "Ming Fay" and "Epoxy Art Group" and expand entires 666 no (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Daniel Estulin
This site is very very incomplete. Someone needs to post his comprehensive biography.

David Clumpner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.10.115 (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and anyone includes you. If you believe a change is needed, and you can include a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia then make the change yourself. If you do not care to do so, then request the change on the article talk page. If you cannot make the edit yourself (because the page is locked) or should not make the edit yourself (because you have a conflict of interest), use the procedure here, but that process should not be used except in those two cases. Realize that, however made, edit requests may draw no response for days to weeks or, in some cases, ever, especially if no one else thinks the edit should be made or you fail to include pointers to reliable sources. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

SahBabii
Hi,

I recently employed someone to create an article about the above rap artist. However, the article had been deleted 6 times. I didn't know what was going on until I did my own investigation and discovered that the user had been blocked or banned from creating Wiki articles. I also learned that you cannot employ someone to do this as well.

So I decided to sign up and attempt at best to create the article and was advised that his name/title had been backlisted. I spoke to someone from Wiki who stated that could be removed but that you needed more info on the artist in order to create the article. The Wiki admin was very helpful but advised that she was not an expert in the field of musicians/artists and would refer the information to another admin with more experience on this subject to create the article. I have not heard back and it's been over a week. SahBabii is scheduled to sign a very lucrative record deal with the label of his choice this week and we are trying to get the article complete by then. Please advise what information you need to complete this.

Kind regards Kimber0316 (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C06D:8D00:4098:A8E9:B919:7ADE (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC) 2602:30A:C06D:8D00:4098:A8E9:B919:7ADE (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, if the community has decided that SahBabii does not meet the notability guidelines for musicians, there's not a lot you can do. Wikipedia is for artists who are clearly established and have already had success. There is no need to have a Wikipedia article, it is not a status symbol and can be a millstone round your neck if the press pick up on things he doesn't particularly want to mention. The community takes a very dim view of article subjects trying to dictate whether they should be on Wikipedia, see Articles for deletion/Charlene McMann (2nd nomination) and Articles for deletion/Charlene McMann (3rd nomination). As for what you've paid, unfortunately as the old saying goes "a fool and his money are soon parted" and you have been basically scammed. To counteract that you'll need to go to Small Claims, and that's a lot of effort for probably not a lot of cash. Do not pay someone to edit Wikipedia - you will lose your money and annoy people Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  16:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Kimber0316 First of all: Welcome to Wikipedia! Please do not be deterred by the less sympathetic directness of certain editors here at Wikipedia who like to bite the newbies with the sense of entitlement and holier than thou attitude with lack of compassion. They do not speak for the rest of the community. Second, I am sorry that you were taken by a scammer; when your intent was in good faith. (You are not a fool, BTW -- the comment was uncalled for ...) But let's try and move forward with your initial goal for an article here at WP. If you are attempting to create an article whose subject is notable for being a musician, it must meet certain guidelines for inclusions found here: WP:MUSICBIO. There you will find a specific list of criteria that a subject must meet to be deemed notable for inclusion. Normally, when an artist is just starting out, it is very difficult to find reliable sources to cite to claim such notability; in that: there just hasn't been enough reviews, articles, etc written separate from the subject themselves. A good rule of thumb however is: if a subject is notable -- in due time, an article will be written about them and included on WP. I researched SahBabii, and it looks very promising for this young up and coming musician; (so don't give up hope!) but most of what is being written about him is very recent. My suggestion would be: give it time. Let the media catch up with his notability so that you can gather as many reliable sources to cite within an article that will not be challenged or deleted on WP. Also, please remember: WP is not a place for advertising, promotional use, personal / resume style biographies or press releasing. Any association with the subject themselves will be seen as a conflict of interest: WP:COI and is discouraged due to WP's attempt at providing a neutral point of view: WP:NPOV. I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors; but it seems a bit premature at this point. However, that being said, from what I've read and seen, it does seem promising! FYI: one way of getting an article without contest or challenge is to draft one in your sandbox and invite editor's to aid in your editing (esp. those experienced in WP music notability); assemble a good, strong, clean draft before submitting it -- hoping it won't get deleted again. If you'd like, I will help you -- just ping me on my Talk Page: Talk Maineartists Maineartists (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * None of what you just said is going to get this person's money back. I'm not having a go at them, but I am annoyed that somebody established themselves as a paid editor irresponsibly. In the meantime, I have created Draft:SahBabii as a holding page with a magazine reference, as a starting point. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please. So you had to call them a "fool"? Not buying it. Your tone was far from sympathetic to the victim; and your post was even farther from helpful. Maineartists (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want to continue this conversation, please go to my talk page. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not necessary. You did what was right in this situation - re: creating Draft:SahBabii. Appreciated. Maineartists (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Maineartists!. I am such a novice at this that I did not know how to ping you or even respond on this post. I greatly appreciate your assistance or any help you can provide with creating the article. I did receive my money back from the person because I only use paypal for money transactions online when possible. Again I really appreciate your help. SahBabii has several notable articles on him alone. I can provide those and do any research you need or I need to get this going. Please advise if this is the correct space for my response to you. Thanks.Kimber0316 (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Kimber0316 I just posted a message to your Talk Page. Thank <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>, too. He set up a Draft Page here: Draft:SahBabii. I'll help you as best I can. (I'm watching all pages now, so no need to ping; whatever you contribute, I'll see it) Maineartists (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I thank you both for your help with this..lol Wikipedia appears so intimidating. I am entering the text now. Not sure how to enter the references. Do I just need to add brackets around everything that can be researched?Kimber0316 (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The best help I can give you is referencing for beginners, and also you can get live help via the Wikipedia IRC help channel. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Pageviews for a WikiProject
Simple question, I hope: how do I find the most-viewed articles in a particular project? Dimly remember doing this once for WP:WikiProject Motorcycling but have forgotten the tool to use. - Brianhe (talk) 06:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Though it's certainly within the EAR wheelhouse, you might get a better response to your question at HELPDESK as they're a bit more technically inclined there. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's OK, I found the TreeViews tool, which even has an example for articles included in WikiProject Military History. - Brianhe (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Misspelling or not?
Several articles contain "filology". Is this a misspelling of philology or just an alternate spelling? - Bri (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It seems that this is a very common topic and occurrence. Would you believe that there are actual entries for "filology" definitions as: misspelling for "philology"? I would say that "philology" is correct; considering even as I type this reply "filology" is underlined in red, meaning: incorrect spelling. Maineartists (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Saint-Denis, Gard.
There is an error with the elevation, average is higher than the highest point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.224.128.92 (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you mean highest point on the page or in the region? Isn't the highest point in the Gard department, France "Mont Aigoual" at 1567m / 5141 ft? Maineartists (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

How remove "cleanup" categories from article talk page?
How do I get rid of the "Category:Catholicism articles needing attention to grammar" at the bottom of the talk page after I've spent four hours improving the grammar in this article? I don't want others to waste their time reading this whole, long article to see if there are still any grammar problems.Jzsj (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is controlled by the "b4" parameter in the WikiProject Catholicism project template at the top of the talk page. I've added the b1 to b6 parameters there, so all you have to do is replace  with either   or   for the criteria you want to mark as assessed. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response. I've seen those 6 categories there but I still cannot impact them with my cursor: they say "yes/no" but are not responsive to my attempts to change. {ping| John of Reading }} Jzsj (talk) 11:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to remove the angle brackets as well:  not   -- John of Reading (talk) 12:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks much, it works!! {ping| John of Reading }} Jzsj (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do not make edits such as . You have not just altered, but broken the criteria at WikiProject assessment/B-Class criteria. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which of my efforts to figure out use of the clean-up process led to a problem. I just tried to respond to the clean-up tag on Talk:Elizabeth Johnson (theologian). If I didn't do it correctly then please help me: what does one do after checking an article by these criteria? Thanks! Jzsj (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I linked your problematic edits, with the word "". The page that you edited, WikiProject assessment/B-Class criteria, describes the criteria for B-Class in all WikiProjects, not just one single article. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The Death of Kings, editing issue
I have written a plot summary and an editor does not believe that it is quality enough for wikipedia. Please look at it and let me know with constructive criticism rather than just deleting the post and calling someone's work shit. I do not believe that someone who uses abusive language should be an editor. If you look at the history of deletion you will notice I have made changes to the summary with the same response by the editor. Eenright53 (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC) eenright53.


 * That's not really the purpose of this noticeboard. Let me suggest that you ask for help at the Wikipedia Teahouse, which is made for helping newcomers such as yourself. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

User posting personal info Comment
A new user, User:Subediarun24, has put personal info (name, birthday) on their user page. I could not find a messageboard that seemed appropriate to notify about this, so thought this was the closest. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. -- ‖ Ebyabe talk - Inspector General  ‖ 08:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * - the address was also a problem. The best thing to do is to revert (if you are an admin, apply WP:REVDEL also), send an email to the oversighters and advise the user of WP:GFYE. I used for the latter. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Nope, I'm not an admin, so appreciated the help. Cheers! :)  -- ‖ Ebyabe talk -  Health and Welfare  ‖ 17:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

La Walking Liberty half dollar
--Rustiful (talk) 23:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)It appears that the pic of the obverse side of this coin has been corrupted. What a hassle and shame.Rustiful (talk) 23:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC) Tim Dunn
 * I guess you tried to make these links:
 * But which image are you referring to? I don't see any obvious problems in Firefox. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * But which image are you referring to? I don't see any obvious problems in Firefox. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:Australian_Muslims
australian shi'ists

In Category:Australian_Muslims Shia Muslims are listed with degeretory as Australian Shi'ites, whilst Sunnis as "Australian Sunni Muslims." I tried to change Australian Shi'ites to "Australian Shia Muslims", but there's no category to edit.. please, help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.50.221 (talk)
 * I have nominated Category:Australian Shi'ists for speedy renaming to Category:Australian Shia Muslims. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Compliance with and deletion of layout guidelines notice
There is a layout guidelines notice at the top of this site. The issues have been addressed. The problem lies in removing the notice.

Having tried to delete the notice with no success, I wonder if you might advise on the procedure to follow?

Thank you.

--Cromity (talk) 12:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Cromity Did you remove the tag itself? or just the date? Maineartists (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * All you did was . The template must be dated, which is why a bot : it used this month because it did not know that an earlier date had been used. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Gilgamesh
Hi, I was looking at this article Gilgamesh. I see on this article it has a Family tree section. Can you possibly tell me how it is made? It has a link under the section, which I can't locate with curly brackets. Where is it within WP. How does that mechanism work? Would anybody happen to know how the diagram hierarchy is created. Is it an HTML 5 CSS3/4 construction, or utility has been used on it. Thanks very much scope_creep (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The source of Gilgamesh says . This means Template:Sumerian Gods Genealogy is transcluded. The source of that template says , meaning Template:family tree is used. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks PrimeHunter, it wasn't immediately obvious. scope_creep (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Does thist article mees criteria of speedy deletion?
Fferm_Capel_Shon

I googled Fferm Capel Shon, but I found nothing about that. It possibly doesn't exist. I read Criteria_for_speedy_deletion, but I'm not sure it satisfies A1, A7, or A11, so I didn't put a speedy deletion template on it. Maybe someone who is more familiar with this can add an appropriate template. --118.168.35.169 (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should be speedy deleted. Someone wrote an article about their own house/farm. Non-notable.  freshacconci  (✉) 14:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Iestyn Richards is an extremely notable resident due to the fact that he helped the cow kill someone. well done!


 * Yeah, if this isn't intentional vandalism or a blatant hoax, it's bad enough to be basically indistinguishable. Tag em and bag em. Timothy Joseph Wood  14:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I added the speedy delete template for "an article which plainly indicates that the subject was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and does not credibly indicate why its subject is important or significant." Thanks for pointing it out.  freshacconci  (✉) 14:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe hoax would have been a better choice of criteria, but it's a pretty obvious delete I'm sure an admin will just nuke it.  freshacconci  (✉) 14:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Umm... User:Freshacconci...couple of things:
 * Notability isn't a valid reason for speedy deletion.
 * A7 doesn't cover places.
 * It seems unlikely the person invented/coined/discovered the subject, since the articles claims it was founded in 1809.
 * Having said that, as I indicated above, I've tagged it for other reasons. Timothy Joseph Wood  14:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure what it would fit under, but either way it's gone now.  freshacconci  (✉) 14:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * NBD. Just wanted to clarify. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm absolutely amazed that this needs any discussion at all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Absolutely amazed? Personally I'm trying to resist a sarcastic reply with an obvious explanation about how this is one of many pages where we respond to editors who request help, and tend to assume good faith even when the answer seems fairly obvious. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sometimes there are articles that are obvious speedy deletes but because of subject matter or the way they're written don't precisely fit available options. We had a brief discussion, taking the OP's question seriously, and a gag article was deleted. Took about a minute and a half of my life in total.  freshacconci  (✉) 15:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Edits on Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer
There's been a content dispute going on at the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer page over which information is right. Can someone please revert it to the way it was supposed to be (just like this revision)? The "Leo logo and mottos" section was moved to the completely wrong order, the sentences:

" MGM Resorts International, a Las Vegas-based hotel and casino company listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "MGM", is not currently affiliated with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. "

needs to be moved back to the "Overview" section. Also, change this sentence back from:

"As of 2017, MGM co-produces, co-finances and co-distributes a  majority of its' films with Sony Pictures Entertainment, which is not exclusive as MGM has partnered on select films with Paramount Pictures  and Warner Bros." 

To:

"As of 2017, MGM co-produces, co-finances and co-distributes a  majority of films  with  Warner Bros.                   and  Sony Pictures Entertainment,        with select films co-financed and released by   Paramount Pictures           and one film by   20th Century Fox. " ''

And move it back to the "MGM Holdings" section below this sentence, which needs to be changed from:

"On January 4, 2011, MGM and Weigel Broadcasting announced plans to distribute MeTV nationwide. On February 2, 2011, MGM named Jonathan Glickman to be the film president of MGM. Six days later, MGM was finalizing a distribution deal with Sony Pictures Entertainment to handle distribution of its 4,000 films and DVDs worldwide and on digital platforms, including the two upcoming Bond films: Skyfall and Spectre. There were four studios who were bidding on the Bond distribution rights: Paramount Pictures, Warner Bros. Pictures, 20th Century Fox, and Columbia Pictures. Paramount was the first studio who dropped out of the Bond bidding. The deal was finalized on April 13, 2011. Post-bankruptcy, MGM also co-financed SPE's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. 20th Century Fox's deal with MGM handling its library distribution worldwide was set to expire in September 2011.   However, the deal was renewed and extended on April 14, 2011  and, after five years, was renewed and extended again on June 27, 2016. It will expire in June 2020. ''' "

To:

"On January 4, 2011, MGM and Weigel Broadcasting announced plans to distribute MeTV nationwide. On February 2, 2011, MGM named Jonathan Glickman to be the film president of MGM. Six days later, MGM was finalizing a distribution deal with Sony Pictures Entertainment to handle distribution of its 4,000 films and DVDs worldwide and on digital platforms, including the two upcoming Bond films: Skyfall and Spectre. There were four studios who were bidding on the Bond distribution rights: Paramount Pictures, Warner Bros. Pictures, 20th Century Fox, and Columbia Pictures. Paramount was the first studio who dropped out of the Bond bidding. The deal was finalized on April 13, 2011. Post-bankruptcy, MGM also co-financed SPE's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. 20th Century Fox's deal with MGM handling its library distribution worldwide was set to expire in September 2011.   However, the deal was renewed and extended on April 14, 2011  and, after five years, was renewed and extended again on June 27, 2016. It will expire in June 2020. ''' "

Warner Bros. didn't just collaborate with MGM on The Hobbit, they collaborated on other movies like Creed, Barbershop 3 and Me Before You (look in this page from films from 2014 onward in case you don't know), plus the deal with Sony started to die down after the latest James Bond movie was released, and according to http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/15/business/la-fi-ct-fox-mgm-20110415 and http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2011/04/sony-and-mgm-finalize-bond-co-financing-partnership.html, MGM decided against signing an overall distribution deal with Sony and instead limited their partnership to the Bond franchise and select films while MGM has deals with other studios like WB and Paramount. Not to mention, MGM doesn't just co-finance their own projects, but they also co-finance some of the films by the STUDIOS they're partnering with.

Also, add this mention as well:

"Whether MGM could avoid voluntary or involuntary bankruptcy had been a topic of much discussion in the film industry. MGM had to repay a $250-million line of credit in April 2010, a $1-billion loan in June 2011, and its remaining US$2.7 billion in loans in 2012. In May 2009, MGM's auditor gave the company a clean bill of health, concluding it was still on track to meet its debt obligations. At that time, the company was negotiating with its creditors to either extend the debt repayment deadlines or engage in a debt-for-equity swap. Industry observers, however, questioned whether MGM could avoid a Chapter-11 bankruptcy filing under any circumstances, and concluded that any failure to conclude the negotiations must trigger a filing. MGM and its United Artists subsidiary were now producing very few films each year, and it was widely believed that MGM's solvency would depend on the box-office performance of these films (especially Skyfall  and The Hobbit films  ). There was some indication that Relativity Media and its financial backer, Elliott Associates (a hedge fund based in New York), had been acquiring MGM debt in an attempt to force the company into involuntary bankruptcy. "

The Hobbit was the studio's second most anticipated project next to Skyfall and deserves a mention on the page.

Also, can you change "Motion Picture Group" in the infobox's divisions list to "MGM Motion Picture Group"? 101.182.218.73 (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not the "please help me edit war" page. If someone disagrees with your changes, you need to find out why and discuss it with them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * But seriously, this guy/woman Spshu doesn't give a care about what MGM's deals with WB, Sony, Paramount and Fox really are and misconstrued their deal with Sony as a "primary distribution deal" and their deal with WB as "only on the Hobbit series", which isn't true because MGM's deal with Sony was downgraded/limited to the James Bond series and select films when it was finalized and their deal with WB just expanded to include more movies like Creed, Barbershop 3, Me Before You and the new Tomb Raider film. Look at this, s/he butchered not only the good information I just added, but the rest of the page too. 103.243.179.147 (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have reliable sources to back what you're saying, present them on the article talk page. If you and other editors involved can't come to agreement, there are processes for dispute resolution. But often, just a calm discussion with everyone else involved will get to something everyone can live with. Don't jump to the conclusion they "butchered" anything or that your version is unequivocally the only way; approach it with the idea that the best available sources should be found, and then the article should accurately reflect what those sources say. If you have good sources to back your position, present them. Discussing references and how to best represent them on a talk page is what it's there for. If you don't, and this is some kind of personal knowledge, well, sorry&mdash;we go by what can be verified by the best sources available. But if you approach it with a confrontational "I'm right and you're both wrong and stupid" attitude and by spamming massive walls of text, you'll have a hard time getting listened to. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * They ARE reliable sources and I DID add them on the talk page when I tried to make edit requests, but Sro23 kept removing my requests. For NO APPARENT REASON. Seriously. 105.14.235.11 (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * For NO APPARENT REASON. Adding 400,000 bytes of content to an article talk page is pretty apparently a reason. Adding the same edit request literally 37 times is openly disruptive and entirely unwelcome. But feel free to come back if at any point you can actually work collaboratively with others. Timothy Joseph Wood  18:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Kumbainggar language - incorrect spelling in heading and URL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumbainggar_language

The spelling of Gumbaynggirr (people and language) is the correct spelling. Kumbainggar is the alternative spelling not the other way around.

Can someone please correct the url and the Heading?


 * Please follow the procedure set out at WP:RM to attempt to make that change. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi
I have a guy that has thrown the entire work I put into an article into question by putting three completely untrue tags at the top of it, which, shed a completely bad light on the entirety of the article.

Firstly, the user borsoka claims that the article contains original research. It does not. It is a very well verified article.

Secondly, the user claims that the article mentions self-published sources. Again, I, as the user that has contributed a lot to this article, have not cited any self-published sources from dodgy blogs or websites.

Thirdly, the user borsoka, because he does not agree with the fact that I reverted one of his edits from a french book which he deleted, has thrown the entirety of the article in a bad light, as, he now claims, that the neutrality of the article is disputed.

It is not disputed, by anyone else other than him.

He's hungarian, and, he is probably doing this out of racial hatred, as, a lot of hungarians do when it comes to articles that deal with Romanian history.

Please do something about him. The article in question is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Romanian_history

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2ED6:9470:FD9E:B7DC:64E3:8CB2 (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like you removed them, and no one put them back. If there is a dispute, that's what the article talk page is for. However, you'll find a lot of us here have a very low tolerance to speculation that another editor's actions are motivated by their ethnicity, as we've seen more than enough of that. Comment on the merits of the edits, not the editor. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Please help end edit war
On this page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dukes_of_Hazzard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.220.155 (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The edit by WarMachineWildThing is correct. There should not be a comma there. --  Dane talk  01:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

See: http://archives.cjr.org/language_corner/where_have_all_the_commas_gone.php See Chicago 15, item 6.46.70.162.220.155 (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Dates.2C_months_and_years 70.162.220.155 (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * For easier reference, this is the sentence in question: "The Dukes of Hazzard is an American action-comedy television series that aired on CBS from January 26, 1979, to February 8, 1985." The debate is whether or not a comma should follow "1979". Maineartists (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The MOS is pretty clear on the point. The comma is proper. JohnInDC (talk) 12:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I see. Not sure which version of English the MOS is developed from, apparently there is a different in the common style guides between British and American English from what I found on Google. --  Dane talk  12:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Really, the only thing that should clear this matter up is what WP is common to do in applying this usage in similar articles: Maude, Roseanne, The Jeffersons ... however, it will be an uphill battle if this is going to be applied across the board, editors here at WP have a lot of work to do in rectifying this correct usage: Alice, Gloria, Benson if they are sticklers for punctuation. Who's up for the challenge? Maineartists (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Flag problem
For some unknown reason, the flag for Germany no longer appears on the HDI article. If you then scroll down you'll see that it's missing throughout the page. Suggestions? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing it appear fine. Does it continue if you purge the page? Maybe you just got a bad load. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I did a purge of the page as well as cleaned and restarted my browser but still not seeing the flag. Nevertheless, if you're seeing it then I'll leave it alone. Thanks. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Odd. You might try asking at the technical village pump. Someone there might have run across this already. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It sounds like the problem in T162035: "Some PNG thumbnails and JPEG originals delivered as [text/html] content-type and hence not rendered in browser". I currently see the German flag but not the Serbian flag at 23px on other pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Camelpower
Hello dear people of Wikipedia. I hope you can help me.

I am writing to kindly ask you for your support with an article I want to submit. The editor who reviewed the entry sent me this: "i had a run through your list and I think that should be more than enough to support the draft" but he's busy now and he sent me to this Editor. I compiled all the media references about CAMELPOWER here: http://alexpinedad.blogspot.ae/2017/04/only-for-wikipedia-verification.html

This is the story of messages we had:

Hello! Thank you so much for your support. I got your message (I'd accept this if more references were added and inline citations were used) so I am here to kindly request your help to make this the right way. As I wrote before, Camelpower is a new unit, it's not just a neologism, it was created to measure desert performance, it has already enlisted the help of the Emirates Authority for Standardization and Metrology and International bodies such as the ISO for wider verification. Camelpower has its own scientific basis, and it was developed by engineers and by National Geographic. The experiment counted with the sponsorship of Nissan... you know, because of budget support issues, but we are willing to leave this on the side to make the article completely neutral.

94.200.88.62 (talk) 04:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Alexander Pineda94.200.88.62 (talk) 04:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll be a bit busy and won't be able to help you on this. You can request help at Wikipedia:Editor assistance or WP:Teahouse. Yashovardhan (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC) However, i had a run through your list and I think that should be more than enough to support the draft. However, you can't add your blog as a reference but will have to add each reference individually. Yashovardhan (talk) 09:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Please let me know how can we end the process to publish the article and everything is needed to do it successfully.

Thank you so much.

Att

94.200.88.62 (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Camelpower94.200.88.62 (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that the other editor pointed you in the wrong direction. You need to go to Articles for Creation and follow the instructions there. If you need help with how to edit, in general, please feel free to ask specific questions here (more technical questions about how to use the interface ought to go to the helpdesk). If you get stuck or in a conflict, however, the Teahouse will be a good source for you, as they suggested. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 04:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Omitted information regarding electoral fraud in Democratic Part presidential primaries, 2016 webpage
I'm very curious as to why there is absolutely no mention of the Electoral fraud committed by the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign in the aforementioned article. There is another article titled "2016 Democratic National Committee email leak" but that too does not mention the information revealed by the leaks. According to the US State Department, any disparity greater than 2% between exit polls and actual polls is considered electoral fraud. However, during the 2016 Democratic Primary, there was routinely an 11% difference between actual results and exit polls. EVERY TIME in favor of Hillary Clinton. Another thing I'm curious about is that even though this information is widely available, it has been completely ignored by editors at Wikipedia. I hope this is something that will be looked into. Source:https://medium.com/@spencergundert/hillary-clinton-and-electoral-fraud-992ad9e080f6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.132.192 (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Because we require reliable sources for articles here. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  23:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Anthony Coffey
I need help editing this page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Coffey Anthony Coffey It has 18 references. Thank you. --Tanton2008 (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * This forum is for giving assistance in how to edit, not for requesting that people help you edit an article. What issues on how to edit can we help you with? Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 03:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Template to preserve edit history
I'm pretty sure I've seen a template that says something like "this page should not be deleted to preserve the edit history" but now I need it, I don't seem to be able to find it. It is used on pages that are now defunct but the contents have been copy-pasted into another page. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 00:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Copied? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I can use that. I was hoping for something I can place on the actual page not to be deleted (the one you suggest goes on the article talk page).  I may have been thinking of Template:R from merge, but the page I am dealing with is not a redirect.  It was originally a draft, but I moved it to a talk sub-page where it is free from the risk of a G13 deletion. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 00:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, the best solution is probably to turn it into a redirect so R from merge can be used. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 01:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Shakya Origins and Ethnicity
Several editors are involved in what is degrading into a multi-way edit war in Shakya regarding the origins and ethnicity of the Shakya, with several different positions involved. It seems to me that multiple editors are involved in editorializing. One editor has become verbally abusive, calling me "blind" and a "retard". Another editor involved was last month given a warning and a 1-week suspension about different matters on the same page. The participation of a neutral editor focused on editing standards would be useful. Talk:Shakya Teishin (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * This forum is for assistance on how to edit. For administrative help with edit wars, see WP:EWN. For content disputes, in general, consult the Dispute Resolution policy. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Robots noindex nofollow on mainspace patrolled article
The article has a robots noindex nofollow meta tag despite the fact it is a patrolled article and has no NOINDEX template. I do not know how to remove the meta tag. Can someone point me in the right direction?

Arcojuana (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I see no sign of the software feature called patrolling. It's 19 days old. noindex is automatically removed after 30 days if it hasn't been patrolled by then. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Beryllium
The illustration of Beryllium Glass does not appear to be correct. Please review it. The color code would imply tri-valent Beryllium. Respectfully, Mark Moran — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.192.178 (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and anyone includes you. That image is hosted at Wikimedia Commons and may be modified there. Whether or not it is modified there is not within English Wikipedia's jurisdiction, but if there is an image at Commons which you consider to be correct, you may substitute it for the image currently being used in the article. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 23:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments have been removed from a talk page
An editor has removed some comments from this article's talk page. I have tried to engage with the editor in the talk page, but this attempt at resolving the issue has been deleted too. I have not edited the main article. I don't want to get involved in an edit war. What can be done about this situation? WallHeath (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Restored the deleted Talk Page discussion and sent a friendly reminder to the editor in question. I'll continue to watch the page. Thanks! Maineartists (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I am very much obliged to you. WallHeath (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the editor just removed it all again. I think we need an admin to step in. Maineartists (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * WallHeath is spamming two articles (Cunobeline and Talk:Historicity of King Arthur) with uninformed personal opinions on the subject, which is not allowed, per Talk page guidelines. I have already explained to WallHeath why his/her etymological speculations are totally off base and incorrect, but he/she continues to spam the articles with OR. Cagwinn (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have not spammed any articles. I have simply contributed to the articles' talk pages. I have done that in good faith and I have not disrupted anything. WallHeath (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. You are not allowed to remove entire contents or other editor's comments / threads in a discussion on a Talk Page. You are in violation of WP policy. You have done this before to another editor: . Regardless of what you feel, the Talk Page is not yours to edit. Maineartists (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Read the talk page guidelines linked above; it is absolutely permitted. Cagwinn (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have the time for your directives. Specifically link and quote where it permits such behavior by an editor on an article's Talk Page. Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "The purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or WikiProject. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject...Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed"Cagwinn (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, my friend. You have been given an inch and you've taken a mile on this one. You have no idea what this means at all and you have cherry-picked the guidelines to support your own agenda. Your deletion has already been rv'd once again by another editor. If you rv again, you will be blocked for 3RR. Plain and simple. Maineartists (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, you WP bureaucrat keyboard warriors kill me! So ridiculous. Cagwinn (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I was uninvolved in this prior to my revert, and became aware of it via having EA/R on my watchlist. WP:TPG makes no mention of WP:OR.  WP:OR clearly states that it applies to articles (and therefore not to pages in other namespaces).  The comments in question are fairly clearly of an editorial nature, discussing the content of the article.  They are quite clearly not "off-topic".  Even if they are grossly incorrect (and I'm not saying that they are), blanket removal and dismissal of other editors comments is quite wrong unless they are indisputably and obviously off-topic.  I regularly remove completely and obviously off-topic things from talk pages per the exception in WP:TPG, but this is not clearly one of those cases where the exception applies.  Removing comments is very much an exceptional action that should not be done when there's reasonable doubt.  I strongly suggest that you do not remove any of that talk section again, unless you want to escalate this to AN/I (feel free, if you want to, but beware of WP:BOOMERANGs).   Murph 9000  (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Cagwinn, as an act of good faith, I am going to ask you once to undo your revert. In my opinion, you are grossly misinterpreting WP:TPG, your actions are anything but "cautious" (especially now that you have been repeatedly challenged), and entirely outside policies and guidelines.  Please think carefully about this, and expedite a self-revert to restore the on-topic discussion which dates back many years.  Thanks.   Murph 9000  (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User WallHeath is spamming two articles with this nonsense, but if you insist that totally uninformed original research remain on the talk page, so be it; it is BS such as this that makes the general public distrust the reliability of Wikipedia. I am only trying to keep the article - and its talk page - on the side of fact and reason. Cagwinn (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So, just calmly state that you believe it is wrong, preferably with some explanation as to why you believe it's wrong. Optionally, point to the article's sources, if they help address the issue.  I'm all for keeping the articles free of OR and inline with facts and reason.  It's extremely important to allow editorial discussion about the content, especially if someone has a good faith belief that there's scope for change/improvement of the content.  Viewed through a WP:AGF lens, I don't see any clear misconduct in the added comment, and the editor looks to be in good standing and with a clean record.  If it's incorrect or misguided, so be it, we just need to politely say that in response.  A newbie posting two similar (and relatively brief) things on two different talk pages is quite a bit short of actionable spam, IMO (absent obvious vandalism / history of vandalism).   Murph 9000  (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Judging from the delete/rv history of this editor, I honestly do not think they know what a Talk Page is used for or how it operates on WP. Although, I sincerely believe they think they do. Maineartists (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I was surprised to see that this disagreement had persisted through several reversions. I've given a 3RR warning to Cagwinn, who should have quit after his second revert, not sixth. With luck this particular dispute is sorted now. JohnInDC (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks ., you've been given a lot of good advice above. Please also read WP:BITE. New editors make good faith suggestions for article improvements based on their personal knowledge/views all the time. The proper response is not to summarily delete the posts but to consider if the suggestion has merit and point to WP:NOR and WP:V if appropriate. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the comments because WallHeath is persistently posting the same misinformed, O.R. argument on Talk: Cunobeline (the first, unsigned comment from 2011 under the "Interpretation of the name" header is clearly WallHeth) and Talk: Historicity of King Arthur; I regard this as spam, as I already explained why he/she was wrong on the latter article, but the editor refused to listen and went on to post the same argument again in Cunobeline. Cagwinn (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of "spam" is obviously different from other editors. Please do not use it as justification for removing posts in the future. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

why are self published books considered as spam?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Thomson

Early April I posted two books on the Tom Thomson page Littlefield, Angie; Tom Thomson's Fine Kettle of Friends: biography, history, art and food, Toronto, ON, Marangi Editions, 2017. ISBN 978-0-9958318-0-3 Littlefield, Angie; The Thomsons of Durham: Tom Thomson's Family Heritage, Ajax, ON, 2005 ISBN 0-9737996-0-9

They were deleted, yet under Further reading there are many other books listed. I am confused as to why these books are different. Here is the response I received. ''Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Tom Thomson. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion.''

Cookmc (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Cookmc -- as Freshacconci pointed out in this edit: edits cannot link to online sales as reference within inline citations, as these are seen as intent for promotional gain, in keeping with: WP:BOOKSPAM. Likewise, simply placing a self-published book in a Further reading section can be seen as "promotional" by certain editors. However, in this case, the Further reading section of this article has several other self-published books on this subject.  Freshacconci, I would suggest: either weed out all the others and prove contribution of intent (for promotional gain); or allow this editor their inclusion. Have you established it is this particular editor's self-publication? or was it an assumption because of the link to the sales page? It looks as though it was a good faith edit based on non-knowledge; especially since the question has been brought here for further clarification. Maineartists (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I need advice with my editing.
Articles in question: and

I would like any advice to help me improve the Norwalk, Connecticut article while adhering to Wikipedia principles. It appears that my edits, including a request for expert advice, gets shot down or reverted. I have tried following the dispute resolution policy but to no avail. How should I act? Please help. Thank you——→StephenTS42 (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You have received advice from many other editors (and apparently have not been adhering to Wikipedia principles, which resulted in a two-week block upheld on review multiple times). My advice, then, is that you read, and then follow, the advice that's already been given to you. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Much thanks for your reply. I already know about my bad behavior in the past.  I have already read the advice as you suggested. Apparently I am unaware of my not adhering to that advice and those principles.  I had hoped to get some advice regarding future edits, future behavior, in order to establish some level of respect.  But all I ever get is scolding for my past. Is there some program or process whereby I could submit my future edits for review before posting?——→StephenTS42 (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * StephenTS42 Thanks for your candid response and open disclosure re: understanding your past behavior and want to "start a new". WP is fickle and editors are quick to pick up stones. My advice to you is: lay low and go slow. Ease your way back in to earn the trust of the community while learning the proper avenues and protocol in which to edit WP correctly without running the risk of being challenged. In time, the past will be forgiven / forgotten and a new persona can be established. But that is entirely up to you. If however, your actions are on good faith and committed simply by not understanding WP and its workings; then I would suggest further self-education before attempting to dip that toe back into the water again. Establish a conversational working relationship on the Talk Page before you edit first; bring your content backed by reliable sources before inclusion and seek consensus from other editors. In time, this will strengthen your credibility and trust. Best of luck. Maineartists (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that sounds like good advice. Sort of What the doctor ordered is what I was looking for.  I will not try following your advice, I can and will follow it!  Much thanks!——→StephenTS42 (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Paying for editing
Someone has offered to fix a page I was writing that hasn't been accepted. He says I will need to pay him $200. Is this a scam or how it's done sometimes? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walrus Boot (talk • contribs) 03:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a "paid-for-profit" organization seeking hired contractors to assist editors in creating articles. In no way should you ever take any solicitation offer to aid in helping you edit. I cannot speak directly to this person's intent or motives, but I personally would not give anyone money for any assistance at WP or elsewhere. There are numerous Help / Reference Desks and Teahouse community forums that will happily help in that assistance for free. Good luck (and keep your money!) Maineartists (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Requesting Support Reverted Edits
There's an ongoing issue with describing Common Cause with the appropriate descriptor that has not been resolved on the Common Cause Talk Page. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Common_Cause#Requesting_the_addition_of_new_section_under_activities:_.22Ethics.22

On 4/24/17 AllinthePhrasing wrote in the "Introductory descriptor" section that "anyone seeking to remove this descriptor should first participate on this talk page and provide their justification." However, those justifications were made before and were made again by me (Coh848en) on 4/29/17, so I'm hoping an experienced editor could weigh in to resolve this so descriptors don't have to be redone and undone in the future as they have been in the past.

If that is not the right course of action, perhaps you can suggest another to resolve the issue.

Thank you. Coh848en (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Samuel Fraunces
In an effort to replace broken links and fictitious citations this page is continually reverted back to a page done by Boring History Guy. Leaving out the corrections to links which are accurate and data sources where one can see the information. I am continually contacted about the misinformation outside of Wikipedia. Can someone intervene here PLEASE. Unless of course it is your intention to have misinformation in which case I give up.GramereC 15:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)
 * User:GramereC has been doing contentious editing on Samuel Fraunces for a very long time. She ignores our rules on original research, she pushes her own interpretations of primary sources, she rejects what are considered reliable sources without taking her concerns to the appropriate forums, etc. Most people who have attempted to keep the article up to our standards wish she would give up. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  15:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Quick note: I have requested protection on Samuel Fraunces due to User:GramereC's edits. You can view the request for protection here. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Notability (academics)
Help please understand. 1) In category WP:ACADEMIC
 * in point 1 : For the purposes of satisfying Criterion 1, the academic discipline of the person in question needs to be sufficiently broadly construed. Major disciplines, such as physics, mathematics, history, political science, or their significant subdisciplines (e.g., particle physics, algebraic geometry, medieval history, fluid mechanics, Drosophila genetics are valid examples). Overly narrow and highly specialized categories should be avoided. Arguing that someone is an expert in an extremely narrow area of study is, in and of itself, not necessarily sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1, except for the actual leaders in those subjects. - Who are the leaders? Is the director of the research institute the leader?


 * in point 7 : "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." - What criteria should the media correspond to? DrPoglum (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Point 1: The leaders are those who are widely and generally recognized by other academics as leaders in the discipline in question. That recognition will, of course, itself need to be verifiable through reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia. Point 2: It should be mainstream national media. That doesn't mean that it cannot be a local news source, per se, so long as the source has a national following and reputation. The Washington Post is a local news source, but it has a national following and reputation, for example. Pay attention to the word "frequently": Criterion 7 is justified by showing that the person is recognized as a big deal in his or her field even by folks not in that field, frequency of quotation in mainline news sources can show that, especially if the quotations are as a commentator not as the subject of the news piece. Finally, note that I'm not an expert on ACADEMIC, this is just an interpretation of what you've asked about on general wiki-principles; it may be that those who deal with ACADEMIC day in and day out might say that there is some generally accepted or nuanced interpretation of those provisions of which I am not aware. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you - DrPoglum (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Editing help
If I edit things in the Sandbox, does that count towards how many posts I've edited? I am working towards editing a certain page. Eddienygma14 (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What page? Doug Weller  talk 15:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Several astrological pages (as mentioned in my post below)Eddienygma14 (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)≤≤

Astrological sign(s) pages
I have made 10 edits. I would like to edit a few astrological pages, but they are locked. I started my account on the evening of May 8. If they are still locked on May 13, how will I be able to edit them? Eddienygma14 (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You can propose edits to them on the article talk page right now. Use editprotected or editsemiprotected to call attention to your request. Note that you will want to format your request in a clear fashion so that someone reviewing the request understands what you want to do ("please change X to Y", "please add Y after X", "please remove X from Y"), and provide reliable sources to back up the edits you wish to make. Doing this will significantly increase the chance that your request will be accepted. If other editors object, you'll need to discuss the matter with them to reach consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Question about subject's privacy
I recently learned, through reliable and verifiable sources, that a particular celebrity was raped by her father as a child. This person is independently famous in her own right, and has her own Wikipedia page. Details of the rape are scarce in English-language media, probably out of sensitivity, but has been covered by reliable media in other languages. If not for the nature of this information, I would have no hesitation in adding this information to the person's page. Can someone advise me here on Wikipedia's policy in matters like this (i.e. how much weight is typically given to the privacy of the victim in this case).Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 03:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The BLP policy doesn't get into how to handle this when the subject is both clearly notable and the unpleasant material is well supported by reliable sources. That said, I would recommend reading Avoiding harm. This person is notable for something, but is she notable for being a victim of childhood abuse? Did her childhood abuse have some impact on her later life, insofar as what the article covers? That is, did it lead her to advocate for support groups for the type of abuse she suffered, or does she speak of it often? Did she write a book about it? If it's something that happened in the past, and she doesn't talk about it, and it has no apparent bearing on anything else in the article, and the crime would not have been notable otherwise, then I would recommend leaving it out. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, it seems best to omit it unless it's something the subject actively talks about in public view, or is somehow strongly tied to their primary notability. Is it commonly mentioned when reliable sources are discussing her for other things?  If not, leave it out.  This is a case where concepts such as "do no harm" and "don't be evil" need to be applied.   Murph 9000  (talk) 09:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That seems like good advice, thanks. The one wrinkle in this case is that the subject's mother has written a book (not in English) on the subject of her abusive marriage, which also mentions the subject, her daughter. The mother is borderline notable and has a stub page, but likely would not be if not for her book. The father does not have a page, but is probably borderline notable in his own right. Given the suggestions above, it seems like it would be OK to flesh out the mother's page without explicitly mentioning the famous daughter's rape (i.e. just mention that her husband was abusive to her and her children and that she wrote a book about her experiences). Regarding the father, should a page be created, given that half the page would be about his crime? Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

"Spam abuse warning"
At Talk:Li Ka-shing an editor has raised a concern about an article being used to support a scam. I was wondering what is the appropriate method of dealing with this situation. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Unless there is particular incorrect or unsupported information that has been added to the article in order to support whatever scam there may be, then it isn't Wikipedia's problem. We don't put out PSAs to try to alleviate general off-wiki social issues, and Wikipedia is not a guidebook for avoiding scams, or a tool for trying to right the wrongs they may cause.


 * Anyone can impersonate someone notable and link to the relevant Wikipedia article, but that isn't really our problem. Timothy Joseph Wood  17:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

A few astrological pages I would like to edit
Hi, I would like to edit the astrological sign pages Taurus (astrology) to include that it is exalted in Jupiter, Leo (astrology) to include that it is exalted in Mars. These used to be on nightsky.wordpress.com, but the website is defunct. So I don't have the exact sources, but I hope that is enough.Eddienygma14 (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. See WP:RS for guidance. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Also note that the tags go on the talk page of the article you want edited, not here. But, as Richard says, your requests are almost certainly going to be rejected if you do not include reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia. Wordpress blogs do not meet those requirements. Regards,  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Errors in article ranking American states by population
The 2010 and 2016 populations listed for Washington State in the first table shown in the article are incorrect. The first digit for the 2010 population should be "7" instead of "3". I suspect the same problem exists for the 2016 population figure. The figure for the number of representatives for Washington State in 2016 should be 10 instead of 6. The figures for the number of people per representative in 2016 and in 2010 are also incorrect.


 * Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and anyone includes you. If you believe a change is needed, and you can include a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia then make the change yourself. If you do not care to do so, then request the change on the article talk page. If you cannot make the edit yourself (because the page is locked) or should not make the edit yourself (because you have a conflict of interest), use the procedure here, but that process should not be used except in those two cases. Realize that, however made, edit requests may draw no response for days to weeks or, in some cases, ever, especially if no one else thinks the edit should be made. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Splitting a lengthy section into a dedicated article
I would like to know if it is appropriate to split the lengthy section Janus cosmological model from its main page (which is over 83 kB) into a dedicated article. Please see my arguments and questions about such a modification in the Talk page of the original article. — Tokamac (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

What happens when a page is translated and then deleted
I recently proposed an article on English WP for deletion, and it was deleted after the discussion. However, because the article had existed for over 6 years, it had been translated into Spanish, Italian and Swedish WPs at various points by members of their respective translation task forces. Now that the source article in English WP no longer exists, is there a way to inform editors on these other language WPs? Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia unified accounts a while ago, so your log in info should work there. It'd probably be easiest if you told them in their language but there's usually someone there who speaks English (most common second language in the world, after all).  That said, each language Wikipedia is pretty much independent from each other: they don't answer to us or operate by the same standards.  Whether or not the article needs to be deleted is up to them.  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Less than deletion, the bigger concern to me would be attribution. According to our licence, all editors of the original English-language article are owed credit in the translations, even if only by linking to the original in the history or talk page. Since that is no longer possible, it's a copyright issue, but with the other Wikipedias, not our own. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It would be very convenient if there was a template that allowed someone to do this.Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps WP:HISTMERGE would be helpful. But again, for the other guys, not here. Mathglot (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that the template Template:Copied should have been placed on the original article, which has the disclaimer The former page's [ history] now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists.. I think that the deleted page should be WP:UNDELETEED, and only deleted when the latter pages are deleted. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Photo licence
Hi, I have a problem don'y know how to provide license, or proper tag for my files that I uplouded. The pics belong to public domain. Thank you. RitaGu 00:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RitaGu (talk • contribs)
 * On what basis do you say they are in the public domain? Who took the pictures and how did they come into your hands? Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 01:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Architect of the Zakim Bridge in Boston
I have a question about who designed the Zakim Bridge in Boston. On the wiki page related to this bridge, there are clear credits to a group of artichects, HNTB and FIGG and to specific designers, Theodore Zoll and W. Denny Pate. In contrast,on the wiki page of Miguel Rosales, a Boston/Miami architect, there is the claim that he 'served as the lead architect and urban designer for the Zakim bridge' from 1988-96. The Zakim Bridge is a famous structure in Boston and I am not clear on whether the Wiki page on the Zakim and Rosales page are both correct even though they seem to contradict one another. I would appreciate some clarity on this as I have heard contradictory claims publicly and went to wikipedia hoping it would clarify the facts. Lisa Ireland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.16.168.82 (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * First things first, this forum is for help on how to edit, not to resolve problems with articles. Consult the Reference Desk for the information you're seeking. That said, the information about Zoli and Pate in the bridge article is unsourced and I've tagged it as such. The information in the Miguel Rosales article is sourced and leads to a Boston Globe article, q.v., which says, "the designer Miguel Rosales, the lead architect on the 10-year-old bridge." To confuse the matter even more, the image of the bridge's dedicatory plaque on the bridge article lists under Design Christian Menn, MTA, and HNTB/Figg (Figg Engineering Group) and does not mention Rosales at all. The Rosales article, after claiming that he was the lead, goes on to indicate that his contribution was actually only part of the larger scheme. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Henry VII of England
The article contains an error. John de la Pole was the Earl of Lincoln, not the Earl of Richmond. Henry VII was the Earl of Richmond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory urbach (talk • contribs) 04:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and anyone includes you. If you believe a change is needed, and you can include a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia then make the change yourself. If you do not care to do so, then request the change on the article talk page. If you cannot make the edit yourself (because the page is locked) or should not make the edit yourself (because you have a conflict of interest), use the procedure here, but that process should not be used except in those two cases. Realize that, however made, edit requests may draw no response for days to weeks or, in some cases, ever, especially if no one else thinks the edit should be made. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Query about the reliability of 2 links
Dear Sir/ Madam, I want to improve the article on Gurmayum Anita Devi. The main problem is that there are a few sources available on the internet. I have this link. Can I cite this link?

I have also another question in different context. Can I use cobrasoftwares.in as a reliable source?

Thanks in advance,

--P.Shiladitya (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * While someone might give you an answer here, it'll just be one editor's opinion. You'll get a more reliable answer if you post this question at Reliable Sources Noticeboard, but before anyone can answer your question, either here or there, you need to say what you're using those sites to support. Nearly every site is reliable for something; the question is always, though, "reliable for what?" Some sites are only reliable to prove their own existence while others are reliable to prove things about complex subjects, so to be able to answer your question we have to know why you want to use the source. (But, again, you'd be better served by posting your inquiry along with that additional information at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.) Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Population density formula Request Comment
By this request I seek whatever formula is used, if any, for calculation of population density in Wikipedia articles. If there is none, which I suspect to be the case, is there an acceptable and reliable source for such calculation? At issue is whether uninhabitable areas, such as bodies of water etc. which are within the boundaries of a given area are to be factored out as people do not occupy such areas. ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey StephenTS42. Although routine calculations are, in principle, allowed by our policies on original research, the editorial decision for whether to include something like water is probably beyond the scope of the allowance, and editors should probably defer to whatever research already exists, and allow them to decide what the meaningful metric is. In the US, this would probably the the US Census Bureau. Timothy Joseph Wood  18:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Much thanks! With your permission I would like to pass your comment along.  ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Halil Mutlu (politics)
There are significant mistakes about this posting and changes, even corrections or editions are reverted back to initial format by people who are discrete in their purpose. It takes a minute or two someone reverts it back to this format. The changes made to correct this posting are maliciously and repeatedly altered. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.27.127 (talk) 04:54, 26 May 2017


 * Hi, could you please clarify which information in the article is incorrect in your opinion? -- Ikslksaows97 (talk) 10:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Page not searchable on Google
I've written an article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirankar_Singh_Neki) on wikipedia but it is not searchable on wiki. Can you please remove this line from the source code of the page. I don't have rights to do so. <meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow"/> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visit.jaspal (talk • contribs)
 * noindex is automatically added to new articles for 30 days or until the page is reviewed by a user with the necessary user right. Nirankar Singh Neki is 21 days old as an article so you can just wait 9 days. It varies how quickly external search engines index an article after noindex is removed. Articles are searchable with Wikipedia's own search box right away. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Source for American_Farm_Bureau_Federation section
Hi, what is the source for the List of Farm Bureaus and their insurance companies on American Farm Bureau Federation page.

Thanks. --Serse1964 (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, . No sources are cited for this,but every row in the table hasnan external link to a website. Those sites are probably the source in most almost all cases, although I haven't checked. DES (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

talk board no response
I posted suggested edits to Jorge M. Perez's Wikipedia page that have been unanswered. i left the edits in the sandbox and requested and that someone review and now one has.. I believe the edits reflect a more accurate account of him.

Thank You! 72.158.253.162 (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello IP User. I have seen your request at Talk:Jorge M. Pérez and at User:Pgomezgcb/sandbox. I do not have time to do the detailed inspection this requires now, but I will try to do it when i can, or another editor may look at it sooner.
 * In future I strongly suggest that you suggest small changes, one at a time, each with one or more supporting sources. That makes it much easier to check such changes against sources, and makes it more likely that a volunteer will attend to the matter. DES (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank You!! I appreciate your response and will submit small changes in the future. 72.158.253.162 (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Jeremy Spake
I hope someone can help regarding edits on Jeremy Spake. I have made some edits to the article, mostly around lack of references, although I've added references myself. Two IP users are reverting changes I've made. I don't want to get involved in some sort of edit war. Any suggestions? Thanks. Seaweed (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Your edits were good. I took out the unsourced stuff and tweaked some other.  I'll see what you proposed to add and see about putting that in too.  Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. However I can see your edits were reverted by the same IP user as before, and you've reverted again. What happens next? Seaweed (talk) 12:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I restored them, warned them about removing templates and noted that one of their edits put back a typo. Their editing is disruptive and if they persist they may be subject to a block.  That or we can have the page protected so they can't edit it.  Or - they just stop.  We'll see!  JohnInDC (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Image
Hello, I recently uploaded an image to Wikipedia. I'm not sure if the image is below the threshold of originality. If the image is below the threshold of originality, what do I edit on the file of the image to inform of that and can I upload that image to the Wikimedia Commons?

File:Amethod Public Schools Logo.png

Mason 39 (talk) 02:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC) Mason_39


 * Hello, . Threshold of originality is a standard which varies from country to country. As commons is suppose to host only works free of copyright worldwide, anything uploaded there would need to be sufficiently lacking in originality to be out of copyright in every county, which is herd to determine. I suspect the commons editors would not be receptive to such a claim, but I do little work on commons, and I could be mistaken about that. You might ask for an opinion at Media copyright questions, or try uploading to commons with a PD tag and a note explaining that you think this has no copyright because of lack of originality. DES (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice! I'll be sure to ask for an opinion at Media copyright questions.

Mason 39 (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC) Mason_39

Politics
Dear fellow Wikipedians,

unfortunately, it seems as though many entries on Wikipedia related to politics are subject to intense abuse by politically motivated authors. For instance, on this very site I edited the pages on Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, Frauke Petry, Bashar al-Assad and others in order to make them more neutral and state important information; in the Putin article, I added a pretty sound argument for election fraud committed by him (two mathematicians had discovered that polling stations which reported results divisible by 5 had much more registered voters, which could only happen with an insanely low probability), to the Trump article I added that Trump's statements regarding crime by immigrants were plainly false (and I used good sources, namely the official U.S. criminal statistics, which are just the reports passed on by police), and the Petry article I edited recently, removing strange justifications of her statements regarding murdering immigrants crossing the border. Finally, from the Assad article I removed certain things that sounded like an advertisement for Assad, and made clear that the elections were not to be taken seriously. This all is not to mention several articles on Chinese history which were possibly written from the perspective of the Chinese government, where they used terms like "liberation" for the conquest of areas held by the Kuomintang, the rival party to the Communists.

Now in each of these cases, my edits were reverted eventually, even if, as in the Trump article, an administrative opinion was given which was clearly in my favour. My conclusion is: Supporters of certain very bad politicians attempt to whitewash them. And I seem not to have any way to stop them. Thus I would like to ask: Would it be possible to obtain any strong administratorial measures against the disturbers? Further, would anyone be willing to help me in keeping the articles in question neutral? Where can I find such people? --Mathmensch (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Putlocker url change
Url in article is fake and people goes on page with malware ads. this needs to be changed because makes bad reputation to my page. Original link is putlockerhd.is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putlocker

Kind regards
 * Please see the discussion on the talk page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Making my article
I want to make an article about my family and uncle, it is a noble family with a 600+ year history and a couple of famous people, and my uncle is the king of Rheinbergen. Is this going to be deleted? I also have several refferences and a lot of content G.S. Baron Cornielje von Rheinbergen (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌ Wikipedia is not for things your family made up one day. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  02:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Locked talk pages
It is common to encounter articles that are locked. But what you can do when the articles talk page is locked too? In this case, no one has been able to write on the talk page for close to a year which seem excessive! ImTheIP (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What article? Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 01:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * State of Palestine ImTheIP (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you cannot edit a page then click the "View source" tab and follow the instructions. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Done! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Talk:State_of_Palestine) ImTheIP (talk) 11:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
In light of Comey sworn testimony, this info is incorrect.... Comey verified Trumps claims he was not under investigation at anytime by FBI... Thank you Cheri Brigance

(Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation) page title

Incorrect: "In the dismissal letter Trump stated that Comey had asserted “on three separate occasions that I am not under investigation.”[28]This is disputed by reporting from multiple news agencies with multiple sources. According to the reporting, Trump had been openly talking about firing Mr. Comey for at least a week before his dismissal. Trump had long questioned Comey’s loyalty and judgment. Moreover, Trump was angry that Comey would not support his claim that President Barack Obama had his campaign offices wiretapped, frustrated when Comey revealed in Senate testimony the breadth of the counterintelligence investigation into Russia’s effort to sway the 2016 U.S. presidential election and that Comey was giving too much attention to the Russia probe and not to internal leaks within the government. On May 8, 2017, He told Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein a directive to explain in writing a case against Comey. That directive was forwarded to Trump as a recommendation to dismiss Comey the following day, which Trump did.[29][30][31]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheri Brigance (talk • contribs) 16:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and anyone includes you. This noticeboard is not for the purpose of requesting changes to articles. If you believe a change is needed, and you can include a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia then make the change yourself. If you do not care to do so, then request the change on the article talk page. If you cannot make the edit yourself (because the page is locked) or should not make the edit yourself (because you have a conflict of interest), use the procedure here, but that process should not be used except in those two cases. Realize that, however made, edit requests may draw no response for days to weeks or, in some cases, ever, especially if no one else thinks the edit should be made. If you do make your edit and it is reverted, follow bold, revert, discuss. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

White pride
Why does a search for black pride read: Black pride is a movement in response to dominant white cultures and ideologies that encourages black people to celebrate black culture and embrace their African heritage Gay pride :Gay pride or LGBT pride is the positive stance against discrimination and violence toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people to promote their self-affirmation etc But white pride reads: White pride is a motto primarily used by white separatist, white nationalist, neo-Nazi and white supremacist organizations

Why can't white pride be changed in favour for people who are proud of their white heritage and culture, because I'm pretty sure white people have contributed quite a bit to the development of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.165.100 (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and anyone includes you. This noticeboard is not for the purpose of requesting changes to articles. If you believe a change is needed, and you can include a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia then make the change yourself. If you do not care to do so, then request the change on the article talk page. If you cannot make the edit yourself (because the page is locked) or should not make the edit yourself (because you have a conflict of interest), use the procedure here, but that process should not be used except in those two cases. Realize that, however made, edit requests may draw no response for days to weeks or, in some cases, ever, especially if no one else thinks the edit should be made. If you do make your edit and it is reverted, follow bold, revert, discuss. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I Have Not Recieved A Notice After My Edits
I posted edits to Byron De La Beckwith's Wikipedia page that have yet to be indicated as to whether or not my edits will be kept. I believe the edits reflect a more accurate account of the subject matter. I have included my accredited references, added a new section, and revised many portions of the page. When you can, please get back to me about this inquiry.


 * , the Byron De La Beckwith article is not under "Pending Changes" protection so the edits you made were not required to be reviewed and accepted. There is no notice for pages not under some form of protection. That means that the changes you made were available to readers as soon as you saved the page.  Two other editors have made changes to the article since then, including a slight tweak to the text you added, but there is no way of knowing if the changes you made will be kept beyond that.  I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Otto von Bismarch -
User talk:Joraejean At one time, under otto von Bismarch,...sub catergory "Socialism", there was dates attached to his new policies of ...what we call now 'workers comp', 'social Security'and 'socialized medicine". I think it was 1848...but all that info is now gone.

I have no idea how to 'reverse' this back...since I don't know when it was changed. I can't immage why it was removed.

Please put it back the way it was...or add it to the current'Socialism' category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joraejean (talk • contribs) 19:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The edit history of Otto von Bismarck can be found here. If that information was previously in the article it will be in the history somewhere. It may be tedious, but you can find it there. You might note, however, that there are now separate sections in the article about that kind of policy, under Otto von Bismarck, including a subsection on a law of 1884 which seems to be what you're talking about. Perhaps you're looking in the wrong place or perhaps it has been moved since you first saw it. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Naming convention for US political parties in election results?
I've spent some time looking for an answer to this question, and also looking for the best place to post it. I didn't post on any article talk page as there are so many articles involved. Hopefully this is a good place to begin. If it's not and I should be posting this elsewhere, please let me know. I'm a fairly low-volume editor (a few dozen edits) and don't have an account, so I'm trying my best.

Getting back to the point, I'm wondering: Is there a policy/template/convention for referring to US political parties in election results tables in articles? I first noticed this while reading articles relating to Appalachia. I found several variations with just a cursory search. For example:

Lincoln_County,_Kentucky uses "Republican" and "Democrat"

Manhattan uses "Democrats" and "Republicans"

Middlesex_County,_Massachusetts uses "Democratic" and "Republican"

Onondaga_County,_New_York uses "Republican" and "Democratic"

Santa_Barbara_County,_California uses "GOP" and "DEM"

It appears that most of the "Democrat" uses are found in Republican-leaning geographic area articles. Many appear to have been made by the same editor. This usage is often seen as an epithet these days, as Democrat_Party_(epithet) notes. I would think that information like this, set off in a separate table and used in a large number of articles, should have a common convention/template, and certainly not one that uses epithets.

Also, if this is something that needs standardizing, is there a way to do so short of manually editing hundreds of articles? Again, I'm fairly new here, I don't know how major changes are implemented.

Thanks in advance for your help. 71.176.111.58 (talk) 06:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Mangesh Ghogre
Can someone advice if following entry on Mangesh ghogre is notable for a article

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Biography/By_nationality&oldid=599137289#India Mangeshghogre (talk) 09:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)mangeshghogre


 * That will be one of the things evaluated when your request for an article is considered. In that regard see the recent response to the similar request you made on your user talk page. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

FXCM
Hoping that someone can give a more definitive answer regarding the information found within the first two sentences of FXCM's page. There has been a long standing discussion regarding their ongoing regulatory investigation. The article's Talk:FXCM page might shed some light on that.

One argument states that the first two sentences, and therefore Google's knowledge graph, should contain information about ongoing regulatory issues and the sentence: "fraudulent misrepresentation" to its customers. The other argument suggests including that information in the first two sentences of the piece is excessive and not befitting of other Wikipedia pages relating to businesses undergoing regulatory or PR issues (see here.

If anyone can suggest what is appropriate in this case, that would be much appreciated. Please reach out with any questions. Many thanks for your help. LQDR Lqdr (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a content dispute, so first discuss it extensively on the article talk page - one edit each isn't sufficient and discussion about one another rather than about the content doesn't count - and if that doesn't work utilize dispute resolution. BTW, every article stands on its own here except for the effect of our policies and guidelines, so raising differences between this article and others will not prove to be effective unless required by policy. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

If Russia banned Pyeongchang Olympics, how to deal with this entry?
Russia possibly banned because of state-sponsored doping program. If Russia excluded Pyeongchang, how to deal with this entry? Simon 1996 (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There's three possibilities: The first is that Russia is banned, in which case the article can be moved to something like: Russian ban from the 2018 Winter Olympics. The second is that they are allowed to compete normally, in which case the article will remain where it is.   The third is that the there will be some form of a partial ban, such as occurred in the Rio Olympics, and we will still have the article in the same place, but it will look like Russia at the 2016 Summer Olympics.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Article Removed - Help
Hi there -

I would like more information about the following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colle%2BMcVoy&action=edit&redlink=1

It was removed for unambiguous advertising or promotion but the page was setup in good faith. The article is in fact for an advertising agency, but it is meant to be educational and for references purposes, not for promotion. We believe it is important to be represented in Wikipedia due to its overwhelming popularity and use as a quick-answer tool.

There are many other advertising agencies that have operating Wikipedia pages, so I am curious what we may have to do to meet the requirements for this type of article. Do we need to link more within our article and be linked in other articles?

Thanks so much for your time and response. We appreciate you getting back to us when you have the chance. Best, Tyler Colle+McVoy

And01205 (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It is a violation of Wikipedia policy to edit Wikipedia on behalf of an organization, see WP:ROLE. I have reported the violation and it is very likely that your account will be blocked. If you wish to take up the cause of publishing an article about your firm, you may set up an individual account and do so, but know that Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy strongly recommends that you not do so and, moreover, if you are doing it as part of your job duties — that is, that if you are being paid to edit Wikipedia — that you must follow the requirements set out at WP:PAY. As for the previous article which was deleted, it is the tone and promotional nature of the article which results in a G11 deletion (click that link for details on how G11 works). If your firm is notable (see WP:ORG for the standards for organizations) it may well be that an article about it might be written which would pass G11. However, you should not write it. If your firm is important enough, someone unaffiliated with the firm will eventually write the article and you can perhaps jumpstart that process by making a request at Requested articles, though it may not help much since there are several thousand requests which are ahead of yours. However, you should be aware your firm has no right to be represented in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and does not exist to promote organizations, individuals, or anything else. If your firm is not notable, no article can be written about it. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Promotional article
Hi, this article is a big self-promote ad, very few and poor sources, self published books except one, I don't know what to do and have poor English skills, maybe it should be deleted like on French Wikipedia. Ziloyz (talk) 10:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's a lot of stuff in there that's not really supported. Was it in fact deleted at :fr?  JohnInDC (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clean-up, it was deleted at :fr in 2009 and 2010 . Ziloyz (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Protected pages
[|Measles] If a page is "protected to prevent vandalism" but has statements of fact with no citations, how do you suggest that a citation be added? Sorry if link format is wrong. Is my first time asking a question and wasn't clear on instructions for posting link. Barkway (talk) 03:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)barkway
 * Offer suggestions for improvement on the talk page of the article. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  04:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Help with a dispute and edit-warring
I'm involved in a bit of edit-warring at this page regarding its content. It's supposedly a list of cities of a state in India, sorted by population. I think that the data provided is (1) wrong; (2) original research, if at all it's correct; (3) sourced from inauthentic sources (a website with no references, or methods listed; and honestly, plagiarising government data, albeit, doing a bad job at it as well). In other words, it violates WP:V. The editor who created the page was rather aggressive when I first made an edit, editing the list and using verifiable, government census website data. They reverted my edit with an all-caps message to not edit the page. I have tried engaging with her/him on the article talk page Talk:List of Kerala cities by population, but they don't seem to get my point. It has gotten to where they are simply reiterating what they've said, while also engaging in ad-hominem attacks.

There are no other editors engaged in editing the page, and I suspect that the entire page has been set up to get traffic (or credits for links from Wikipedia) to a non-authentic website. Requesting help arbitrating the debate. Thank you!

Neogarfield (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You're at the wrong place: Consider one of the dispute resolution processes at the dispute resolution policy. If there's just two of you involved in the dispute, Third Opinion is a great place to start. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Many Personal Wikipedia Pages are in Discussion for being Taken Down
Hi,

I had a question... I am new to wikipedia. But I have noticed that many wikipedia pages are up for discussion to being taken down and I am not sure why because the people are notable.

For example, Lynda Goodfriend, a star from Happy Days, and chair of New York Film Academy, her page says it needs more reliable sources? But when I look at the wiki page it looks notable to me? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynda_Goodfriend

Another example is Glen Bell, the founder of Taco Bell, his page says it needs more reliable sources. I am not understanding why these notable people/figures pages are in discussion for removal? Is it because the articles are old? How many reliable sources do they need to keep their pages continuing or how often do new articles need to be posted if that is the issue? If someone could explain to me why these issues are happening that would be appreciated.

Best, Chevysarethebest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chevysarethebest (talk • contribs) 19:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * First, neither Glen Bell nor Lynda Goodfriend are currently being considered for deletion. The tags that you're seeing there are, essentially, notices of concern not notices that some deletion process is currently under way. Second, "notability" does not have its ordinary English meaning in Wikipedia. It means, instead, that an article meets certain criteria which are set out, in detail, at NOTABILITY. If those criteria, which I'll let you read on your own rather than attempt to explain to you, are not met then the article is not considered to be notable enough to be in Wikipedia no matter how well-known or important the subject of the article might otherwise be. In most cases, articles need to have a minimum of two reliable sources which discuss the subject in with more than just a passing reference or mention. Finally, also remember that "reliable source" also means something different than its usual English meaning. Click on that link to see what it is. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Transporterman,


 * I said it was in discussion for removal because, "If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted." was said on Lynda Goodfriend Wikipedia page


 * Also, on Glen Bell page, "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)" I assume the page has the possibility of deletion.


 * Best,
 * Chevysarethebest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chevysarethebest (talk • contribs) 21:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I understood what you meant, but until someone actually bothers to nominate an article for deletion there is no ongoing discussion about deletion. Tags such as those often remain on articles for months and years without anyone starting a deletion discussion. So there is a possibility of deletion, but that's true of every article in Wikipedia, tagged or not tagged. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See also Deletion policy. None of the deletion processes have been initiated for Lynda Goodfriend or Glen Bell. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Need to Create A Company Page
Hi,

Please help in creating my company page. What elements I need to add in that page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.249.55.178 (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * See our Conflict of Interest Policy. You should not be creating an article for your own company. Instead, follow the instructions at Requested Articles to have an uninvolved editor create the article for you, but be aware that the process can take a very long time, sometimes months or longer, and many requests are denied because they do not meet our requirements for notability (which means something different than its plain English meaning, click on that link to find out what it means). Some common misconceptions are that companies have a right to have a Wikipedia article about them or that because similar companies or competitors have articles about them that they have a right to an article. Neither is true: Notability determines whether an article can exist. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

You Wouldn't Steal a Car
Hello! My tryings to make an article from this redirection keep getting reverted. I know that I'm an amateur, but could you please help me point the errors in the article which need to be repaired? I have worked a lot with this and I would be really sad if it lost. I have already posted this message on the article's talk page but I haven't got an answer yet. Thank you! Csimma Viktor (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello,, my name is Eggishorn and I took a look at of the attempted article.  There are a couple of issues involved here.  One, as you noted, this term already redirects readers to a section of the MPAA article that discusses these campaigns and you are welcome to add to that section with content about this campaign.  Two, most of the content you contributed merely summarized plot variations of the PSA's, which isn't very relevant. You did include the BBC article which directly discusses this advert and the reaction.  That is very good and goes a long way to establishing "notability" (essentially:coverage in independent sources). If you want to continue this article, you need more sources like that one, the YouTube and KnowYourMeme sites aren't really helpful.  If you can find more such sources, then you can try using the Article Wizard to help restarting it and getting it reviewed.  I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I will try to follow your instructions. Thank you again, Csimma Viktor (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Question about the LazyTown page
First, my apologies for not understanding how to do this myself. I'm downloading the PDF to learn.

I was head writer for a TV show called LazyTown.

I'm attempting to list myself under the LazyTown page but the change has been denied.

Would I need to find a publicly posted article about my involvement in the show in order to secure my credit on the Wiki page?

Again sorry for asking such a basic question >If you could help I would be most grateful.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valenti29 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about this change, which appears to be the only attempt to add Mark Valenti to the infobox? If so, firstly please note that you should not be using multiple accounts when editing Wikipedia. The rule is generally one editor, one account except in certain circumstances. The reason that edit was rejected, as was this one, is that "head writer" is not a valid field in the infobox. The only writer field is "writer". -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Metallosis
Hello, In the article, I've replaced all old Journal references from to  via the DOI Wikipedia reference generator. Can somebody add the weblinks of the CiteWeb template to the CiteJournal template (+adding PMID references)? I'm so tired and can't do it the next days (Going on Holidays in Bosnia). Thank you, --Anas1712 (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Burzynski
Dr. Burzynski's cancer treatment is a proven treatment that has passed Phase I and Phase II testing which can be easily researched. The article regarding his "unproven" treatment needs to change to "proven" with a link to the Phase I and Phase II positive trial results. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.203.129.175 (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and anyone includes you. This noticeboard is not for the purpose of requesting changes to articles. If you believe a change is needed, and you can include a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia (supplemented in this case by the standards set out in MEDRS), then make the change yourself. If you do not care to do so, then request the change on the article talk page. If you cannot make the edit yourself (because the page is locked) or should not make the edit yourself (because you have a conflict of interest), use the procedure here, but that process should not be used except in those two cases. Realize that, however made, edit requests may draw no response for days to weeks or, in some cases, ever, especially if no one else thinks the edit should be made or, in this particular case, if you fail to include MEDRS-compliant sources in your request. If you do make your edit and it is reverted, follow bold, revert, discuss. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Bug in The Divergent Series: Allegiant
Hi!

I see at bottom of page, but I can't find where problem is. Please, help me! As I understand, there is a bug in a temple. But where that template? I looked all templates, which used by this article and didn't find a problem. Thanks! --Nickispeaki (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've fixed it with this edit to Stephen Chbosky, the final navbox at the bottom of The Divergent Series: Allegiant. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Great! ;-) Thanks! :-) How did you find it?--Nickispeaki (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Since the extra was showing at the very end of the article, I looked for something unusual in the last template. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I see! --Nickispeaki (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Art on the Underground
I started discussions on the Art on the Underground, London Underground and Piccadilly Circus tube station talk pages to discuss potential improvements to these pages regarding Art on the Underground and art in the station itself. I have also asked for assistance from potential editors at the WikiProject London Transport and WikiProject Public Art. I would welcome your assistance. Best regards, 86.13.122.76 (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

How to deal with persistently uncivil wikipedia editors?
I'm working on a page where an editor is repeatedly posting accusatory, hostile, aggressive, comments. The talk page now feels very depressing and toxic. I've tried communicating calmly and rationally, focusing on the issues, none of it is working. The atmosphere on that page has become toxic, and I feel really demoralized. What can I do? The page is Talk:William Lane Craig, and I'm sorry to have to put his name out there, but it's Hob Gadling. Approaching (talk) 10:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You should consider content dispute resolution. There are too many editors involved to go to Third Opinion, but Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is available (as is formal mediation, but you'd be better off trying DRN first). Participation at DRN and mediation is not required and the case may be closed or refused if the other editors do not chose to participate, but request for comments is also available and doesn't require the others to participate if they do not care to do so. I'm not an expert on conduct issues, so you might also get some help from an administrator or by going to ANI, but I really kind of doubt that you would get much help there. You're free to give that a try, of course. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, those are a lot of options! I'll look into them.

What makes this complicated is that the issue isn't a dispute, the person is just being rude and insulting. Approaching (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Approaching I've read the Talk Page discussion twice now; and unfortunately, it reads as any normal WP Talk Page would when it comes to a BLP that is either controversial or one that draws criticism within their field. Honestly, I did not find many of the interactions between the editors to be "accusatory, hostile, aggressive, comments" especially considering the one editor in question has not edited the article. If he was exhibiting the same manner by causing disruptive editing as he is with his comments on the Talk Page, I would say that there would be a more probably cause for dispute; but as I see it, there really hasn't been any opposition thus far to your contributions. User Epipelagic has raised a very good point in that it doesn't matter what another editor may say on a Talk Page (or with what tone) - if you have the facts with reliable sources to back your claim - no editor can challenge or contest; regardless of their personal opinion. Plain and simple. I would suggest: forget the personalities and focus on gathering the content with indisputable sources to accomplish what you want within the article. One editor's opinion is not a consensus; do not be discouraged by the loudest squeak in the wheel - just keep peddling. Good luck! PS It's always good etiquette to "ping" the editor in question; not just "mention" them. Maineartists (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I was under the impression that there was an expectation on WP to keep comments substantive and constructive. I didn't realize there was so much leeway in terms of what one could say on the talk page. Will keep your advice in mind, thanks. Approaching (talk) 06:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, if that were only the case; and every contributor thought the same as you. But unfortunately, it is not. That's why we have admins and regulations resulting in "disciplines". As I said, this Talk Page is quite tame in comparison. The only thing that matters at WP are reliable sources and facts that cannot be contested or challenged. It can get very frustrating at times on these Talk Page, but remember: we're building articles - not Talk Pages. Best of luck to you! Maineartists (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Approaching, also called User:BabyJonas, is not telling the whole truth here. What I have done is, mainly, to point out the user's fallacies. This user has argued with fallacious reasoning throughout and cannot handle any contradiction. How do you argue with someone who thinks "there are issues" and "not appropriate" are valid objections to an edit?
 * When people contradict him, the user pretends to be courteous by saying "thank you" and "please", but does not deem the contributions of other users worthy of consideration, dismissing their reasoning with empty phrases.
 * BTW, I learned of his actions on this page by coincidence. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Help
Hello good morning, my name is Jose L Rios Gracia. I would like to contact some one that can help me complete the page thank you

Jose Rios — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guaynabo's best of the best (talk • contribs) 12:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * What page? Can you provide a link? If you're creating a new article, use the article wizard. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Help please
I want to report a personal attack. This editor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bishonen has just made (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A_free_rational_democratic_human&oldid=790733028) an unjustified accusation, followed by intimidation and a threat to drive an editor (me) out of Wikipedia. If it's true that Wikipedia is a democratic and civil place, I would like to see that thugs and bullies, like this one, are being called out and blocked. Thanks.A free rational democratic human (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That is not a personal attack, it is a warning that you should heed. Please read, understand, and follow the Neutral Point of View policy before making any further edits.  Please also see this link for why you were warned. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Unwanted conversion of RfC to RM
An editor has converted an RfC that I raised to a Requested Move (diffs here).

The result is one that gives the appearance that I am requesting a move - my intention was only to discuss one aspect of moving the article. Without a specific article title that I wish to move the article to, it makes no sense to request a move now. The naming of the article is highly contentious, having been discussed on seven previous occasions.

I don't see a WP:DRR/DRN category that quite fits this issue, as it not article content, sock-puppetry etc, and I don't feel the issue, RfC or RM, has been discussed well enough to go to arbcom, but I don't see a place to discuss it. However, some urgency is required due to the hot-topic nature of the article name, and I don't want a Requested Move discussion taking place without a proposed new article name!

Thanks, Batternut (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Not "an editor" but an uninvolved administrator making an edit under community sanctions. But leaving that aside, it will be be better if the conversation take place in one place so if you have any comments to make please do so at:
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
 * --PBS (talk) 09:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Request for Speedy Deletion
I would be grateful if an editor / admin could delete this page: Carlo Pittore as I have removed its content (per WP requirement for creator request for deletion) and understand the line between removal and copy-editing. I've started a new draft with a clearer direction of course now set. Thanks in advance. Cheers. Maineartists (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , since you've already tagged it for speedy deletion, the admins are already aware. You don't need to make any separate request.  They will see it and take care of it in turn.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! Still learning something every day here at WP. Cheers! Maineartists (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Correction to the Petrotec page
Hello editors,

It has recently been brought to my attention that some information on the German Petrotec Wikipedia page is a tad misleading. While factually correct, the phrase below is not fully including some information.

“Ende 2010/Anfang 2011 geriet Petrotec in die nationalen und internationalen Schlagzeilen, als bekannt wurde, dass der Tierfutterhersteller Harles und Jentzsch in Uetersen über den niederländischen Zwischenhändler „Olivet NV“ von Petrotec jahrelang erhebliche Mengen Mischfettsäuren – Reststoffe der Biodieselherstellung – die zur technischen Verwendung deklariert und aus ungeklärten Gründen mit Dioxinen belastet waren, bezogen und verarbeitet hatte.[4]”

Petrotec had claimed numerous times that the mixed fatty acids their company provided were not intended for use in the feed industry; only for technical use. Below I have listed several articles including this statement from Petrotec.

http://www.zeit.de/2011/03/Dioxin-Futtermittel/seite-2 http://www.focus.de/finanzen/news/agrar-petrotec-mischfettsaeure-nicht-schuld_aid_589758.html https://www.welt.de/aktuell/article11968576/Biodiesel-Hersteller-sieht-sein-Produkt-missbraucht.html

While looking at this page, I also noticed it was missing that Renewable Energy Group acquired Petrotec back in January of 2015. I included some sources supporting this below.

http://biofuels-news.com/display_news/8677/reg_closes_acquisition_of_petrotec/ http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2014/12/30/reg-completes-acquisition-of-petrotec/

Along with the changes to this page, I am following up on the creation of Renewable Energy Group’s own Wikipedia page. It is my understanding that a request for a page has been filed previously and a page has not yet been created.

Thank you for your time and I appreciate you considering the following edits to the page, along with the creation of a REG page. Dkarthanreable (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Dkarthanreable
 * , issues with the text of a page on German Wikipedia should be addressed on the talk page of that article on the German wiki. The English Wikipedia has no editorial control or direction on that independent project.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

What's going on here?
With all that WP requires, and editors hold accountable, could someone please explain to me how this page was allowed to be created? and how it still manages to exist? knowing that the creator is a close personal friend of the subject; and created the page with the subject - and clearly, from the history Dan Shea History, shows an inability to remain neutral? So many feet are held to the fire for the slightest wrong move on WP; and yet this occurs? Am I missing something here? Thanks in advance. Maineartists (talk) 01:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * That's the unfortunate nature of how Wikipedia functions, only the editors/articles brought to attention will be scrutinized. I suggest bringing this to WP:ANI if you think there's a case. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 02:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have never done that before; although I'm quite sure there is a close-and-shut case here. Hoping someone with more experience and knowledge will take the reins. Maineartists (talk) 02:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually,, I think WP:COIN is the appropriate noticeboard in this case where a conflict of interest is known or suspected: "creator is a close personal friend of the subject". ☆ Bri (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, wow!, I didn't even know there was such a board! Thanks so much for stopping by to point me in the right direction! I appreciate it! Cheers! Maineartists (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If the problem's with just one article on a non-notable subject, I wouldn't bother with ANI/COIN, just take it to WP:AfD and it'll be deleted. If it's at any point re-created, tag it with db-repost and move on. Only use noticeboards when an alternative solution isn't available, no need to add to the already huge backlog unnecessarily and you might end up getting your own actions examined; for example, someone might point out that your account name, User:Maineartists, implies shared use and is thus in violation of our naming policy (WP:ISU) which could result in your being blocked and forced to change it. Who needs it? 78.28.52.142 (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Rejection of the page
Shivtarkas93 (talk) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jakes_Bejoy#Discography

This particular page has been rejected. Initially citations were missing. I had added them and now they say present it in form of footnotes. I am yet to understand what needs to be done.Kindly help me out so that page could get published Shivtarkas93 (talk) 03:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * For help with articles in the Draft process, please follow the instructions in the Submission declined box at the top of the page of the draft: "If you require extra help, please ask a question on the Articles for creation help desk, ask the reviewer that declined your submission, or get help at our live help chat from experienced editors." (See the links there.) But it looks as if you've corrected at least some of the problem and you might ask for re-review. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I need help editing a Farsi page that has inaccurate information
Hello!

I need help editing the following Farsi wikipedia page: https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/کلی_مدیسن This page is linking my name to an adult film entertainer and is pulling inaccurate information into google results (in English) about me. I never have been and never will be an adult film entertainer. Any help is GREATLY appreciated!

Thank you! Webster1337 (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Webster1337


 * My name is Tudor Georgescu, but I have counted 13 of Tudor Georgescu listed in the phone book of Bucharest. Do you think that your name is one of a kind? Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, the name says Emily Elizabeth Poeschl and the photo says Micaela Johnson. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This post is a mirror request from here:BLP Noticeboard. You are not being helpful. Please WP:DONTBITE and WP:AGF. If someone else can translate this page and assist this OP, please do. Obviously this page, and / or subject, is confused or misplaced. A little help goes a long way. Thanks in advanced. Maineartists (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll mind that. Apparently the article was about Kelly Madison (who is indeed a porn star). Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Census data on the Portage, Indiana page
I inquired on the talk page of "Portage, Indiana" the following: "Hello, I've been looking for concrete population numbers for Portage around 1950, and I saw that it was listed on the page. However, the census links that I clicked on in the references did not take me to the actual information. Rather, they took me to the general search page for census info. (This also means that those citations are not entirely valid, because they don't support that info). I'm just wondering if there is a way to access this info, specifically, through the Census Bureau, because the search process on the census page, for me, is confusing. Thanks!" I was told to take my concern to the reference desk for further help. I have two concerns regarding this page: one being the possibility of incorrect citations for the census data info on the page and two (most pertinent to myself) is how I can access this Census data for my own research. I tried the talk page hoping that the info contributor would be able to tell me where the data is located which did not happen, unfortunately. Thank you Willowwalsh (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The reference desk is, indeed, the right place for that inquiry. This page is for help with about how to edit. Click here to go to the reference desk. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Help please
I was working on a page for many days, and finally was finished, but I clicked save changes and it brought me to the page where I have to change it because someone else had changed it since (only 2 changes). That's ok, but I then tried to go to vidual editing and it deleted all of my changes and I don't know how to get them back. AA Quantum (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * That's a bit too vague to enable a response. Could you say more? Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Request to create maintenance categories
Please create Category:Wikipedia articles that are too technical from March 2006 with Monthly clean up category.

Please also create Category:Articles needing expert attention from March 2006 with Monthly clean up category.

At the time of this request, this category was not empty. Anonymous contributors are unable to create new categories on English Wikipedia (though this is not the case for all Wikimedia projects). 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I noticed late this is probably done nightly by a bot, but oh well. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

My Son's page was deleted.
Why was my son's page deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pat6464 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Answered here. JohnInDC (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Unites States First shopping mall
I have read on Wikepedia 69.58.248.1 (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)where Tallulah, LA boasts as having the first shopping mall in the United States. Internet searches indicate that Country Club Plaza in Kansas City was the first shopping mall and Southdale in Edina, MN was the first enclosed shopping mall. I don't know if there is a classification/category issue or bad information? I would appreciate any clarification or correction. Thanks, Duane V. Arledge69.58.248.1 (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * If you're looking for information, you need to post an inquiry at the reference desk. Once you work out the history there, you can change the article if needed. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Template issue - not displaying website parameter
Hi. The template Template:Infobox Political youth organization seems to have a problem that's beyond my ability to fix. The website parameter isn't displaying entered URLs, though it seems to work fine in other infobox templates. Any help appreciated. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It should be OK now. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * That was quick! Thanks! <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

A page has been set up by someone else and needs deleting?
Hi, I work for an MEP and was about to set up his Wiki page and noticed one has already been set up? Can this be deleted and a new one set up by me? Or should I simply edit that one? Can pages be locked when politicians are concerned? Your help is appreciated. Kind regards, Nick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickukip (talk • contribs) 14:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If you work for someone, you should not write or edit articles about that person -- see WP:COI. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi ! Welcome to Wikipedia. Can you elaborate a bit more and perhaps link the page to which you are referring? Thanks! Maineartists (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

कोली
मेरा आपसे प्रश्न हे की कोली पर लिखे गए लेख हटा क्यों दिए जाते हे wikipedia से ? कोई दुश्मनी हे क्या कोली जाति से english wiki में इतना कुछ लिखा हुआ हे or हिंदी wiki में सिर्फ 2 लाइन ऐसा क्यों.......or कोई लिखता भी हे तो उसे हटा दिया जाता हे

(Google Translate machine translation from Hindi:) "Koli: I ask you why the articles written on the colony are removed from wikipedia? There is no animosity, what is written so much from the Koli tribe in the english wiki, or just 2 lines in Hindi wiki, why it is ....... or if someone writes it, it is removed." — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * If I understand you correctly (and I may not) you are asking why there is so much about the Koli tribe here in the English Wikipedia and why there is so little, with many deletions, at the Hindi Wikipedia. We cannot answer that because English Wikipedia has no control or authority over the Hindi Wikipedia. Each language's Wikipedia stands on its own and makes its own rules. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm having trouble with another editor.
I'm having trouble with another editor, who has not only violated the 3RR, but has sent invectives and insults my way when I tried to hammer it out peacefully. What do I do? OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 02:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have not violated 3RR, I only reverted twice. When I tried to change the article to how OrangeJacketGuy seemed fit I was reverted and told to act like an adult. Yes, I called him worthless and lost my cool but people reverting my goodfaith work does not sit well with me and reverting my work over and over again is not what I call peaceful. Just because you do not agree with the information on the page does not give you the right to revert others work. I have worked with that page for years now. There have been arguments about BYU and there was a reason why they were not listed as a rival. I was simply removing it from someone incorrectly adding it recently and you started reverting me. You tell me to take it to the talk page but you could have easily done that yourself at any time and didn't.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess I'll add stalking my contribs to my request for assistance. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * WOW. I think I have the right to know when an accusation is made against me. You should have tagged me in your original post.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 03:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) OK. First, it is appropriate to "ping" the editor about whom you're seeking assistance at the Editor's Board. But, let's first address a couple of accusations. 1) 3RR. If I'm not mistaken - the 3RR refers to the history involving these 3 edits, , . Well, you're in luck -- because you've both violated it: . Second, the insults: Talk OrangeJacketGuy, "You are worthless". Yes, these do not speak well for WP:CIVIL; but it's not so over the line that it can't be rectified. It's not continued harassment at this point; and a simple redaction of said comments would go a long way. To address the claim re: Talk Page - when an editor invites you to the Talk Page, don't wait around: bring your complaint, concerns and questions there. Consensus speaks louder than edit summaries and rvs: otherwise, we get into a pissing match and nobody wins. Also, "(nope)" is really not a defendable edit summary argument to rv. Provide a reliable source on the Talk Page to refute the claim. Finally, the last 11 edits have been made by the same 2 editors, and this can be seen as "edit warring". Obviously, there is a passion for the game, and it runs deep. However, don't let it effect your ability to edit calmly and with a NPOV toward other editors and their opinions. Best of luck! Maineartists (talk) 03:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My "(nope)" response was in response to someone who added BYU as a rival within the last 24 hours with the explination of "(BYU and Boise have been rivals for the last 15 years)". Considering they have only ever played 7 times, and only 5 in a row, and have never been in the same conference, I would say my Nope was warranted. Maybe, just maybe, there was a reason they were not already listed as a rival. And yes I admit I lost my cool and should not have said what I said but reverting accurate edits without taking it to a talk page did not sit well with me. I hate edit wars and am only doing my best to have accurate information.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 03:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I don't think I made it clear: a concise, thorough, acceptable "edit summary" that justifies a revert does not usually qualify with a (nope) on WP; "warranting" or not. One must give a detailed reason, cite WP policy, challenge the edit so that a further inclusion will not take place. The language currently displayed in most of the edit summaries on the history page are not that substantial enough to rv. Also, when one reverts another editor's edit, proper WP protocol is that the rv'ing editor brings the topic to the Talk Page and invites the reverted editor there to explain why they were reverted; and offering them the opportunity for consensus or better sourcing. You seem to be under the impression that it's everyone else's duty to bring discussions to the Talk Page except you (although I have seen you enter a discussion there). If you hate edit wars, I would suggest inviting those you are having a problem with to the Talk Page, "ping" them directly, and hash it out once and for all. Get a consensus, and then it will be done for good. OrangeJacketGuy is not opposed to the Talk Page, he has brought 2 sections there himself that went completely unanswered. Best of luck, man. Maineartists (talk) 04:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Help please: please review and rewrite Love Jihad
The article Love Jihad has multiple issues and unsourced claims. I tried to resolve those but me and another editor ran into disagreement. It would be good if an unrelated third party can offer help to review the article and issues. This article needs major clean up. Ideally, good to have someone to help rewrite it. Please point me to other forums also where I can seek independent help for improving this article. Thanks. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * This is a forum for providing help on how to edit, not to request people to do things for you. The proper place to make those requests is on the article talk page, but considering the size of Wikipedia the response may be very slow in coming, if at all. The other possible place to request help is at an appropriate Wikiproject, but be aware that many of them are not really very active and that many of the ones which are have a long list of things to do. Short, simple requests are more likely to be fruitful than long, multifactored ones. To help with conflicts between editors, consider dispute resolution. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. You are confusing this desk with the Help Desk. This desk specifically states: "Editor Assistance is intended as an informal method of requesting one-to-one advice, feedback, and counseling from another editor who may be more experienced about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and how they may apply to the issue or situation that you are experiencing. This process can also help in resolving disputes." The OP has every right to ask their question for guidance here. If you choose not to help, do not bother to assist. There are others with time and knowledge who can and will. Simply referring them back to the Talk Page is a waste of time. Especially in this case. 222.165.9.81 My advice to you would be to register at WP with a username first. Your edit history is substantial enough that you should be recognized. Other editors will take you far more seriously with a username more than an IP "Special:Contributions" number. I have reviewed the Talk Page history (and also yours) and it is incredibly lengthy and almost overwhelming in its presentation. WP editors not only lose interest but are more likely to simply not engage in overly presented debates toward a discussion. In short: chose one thing you wish to change at a time, and gain consensus. Slow and steady wins the race. The last piece of advice by sums up the entire page. I do not feel at this time that there is any need to bring any "third party" to either serve as ring leader between two opposing editors or even offer to review the article and its issues. Those who are invested presently know the material better than anyone stepping in cold at this point. Anyone with knowledge of WP would simply say: change your course of editing, collaboration, discussion and immediacy. Hope this helps. Maineartists (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree with what you have said about me and my advice and reject your criticism. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 05:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Dawson turner
Dawson turner portait is of Thomas turner esq of hillview house Gloucester. .thomas turner was a banker in Gloucester turner Morris and jeynes. Also high sheriff Gloucester. Son of john turner banker and Hester smyth of hatherly house Gloucester. Thomas turner in about 1825 published a book narritive of a journey. Through the eye of a fly his portait and family motto are in front page of book. Motto esse quam videra, now the site owner of Dawson turner have used Thomas turner portait as Dawson turner. I have edite the false profile as being Thomas turner they keep changing it back. I not happy that one will use incorrect information on their site .( Portait Thomas turner ) will consider legal action if not corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.183.150.181 (talk) 08:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to cite a professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic source to support your claims that the picture is incorrect; or perhaps provide us with an alternative picture. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

nationality
hello America is a continent not a country, ie, citizens of the USA are US Citizens not American. ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2EB2:F890:455F:E8C5:F9DA:8671 (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based on published reliable sources and people from the United States are nearly always called American. South America and North America are continents. Together they are called "the Americas", very rarely "America" which nearly all people will assume refers to the United States. We want our readers to understand us. See also American (word). PrimeHunter (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And America is not a continent. North America is, and South America is. Meters (talk) 21:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of definition. Continent says: "The six-continent combined-America model is often used in France and its former possessions, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Romania, Latin America, and Greece". But American people meaning from the US seems universal in English texts. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Assistance required in creating a Wikipedia page
Dear Wikipedia editors,

I am an employee of Gelvenor Textiles (www.gelvenor.co.za), I wish to create a Wikipedia page for Gelvenor Textiles, however since I am an employee I feel that it would be biased if I had to write the article. Therefore I would like to request assistance from the Wikipedia editors to help in creating the page. I will submit the information and the reference links in order to create a Wikipedia page for Gelvenor Textiles.

I look forward to hearing from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeetleInc (talk • contribs) 08:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * We have a process for that! Click here and follow the instructions under the "How to request an article" section near the top. Good luck and best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 01:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Kurmasana Picture
In the article which describes Kurmasana, there is a picture given of a man doing kurmasana In the picture ,the man doing asan is not sitting and his head is hanging in the air, moreover his knees are also bent Which does not matches with the correct way of doing the Asana described in the article Please clarify if the picture is correct or not and why it is not matching with the other pictures shown for kurmasana 2402:8100:384C:293:4AFF:D7FC:FBB:146B (talk) 05:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Wrong picture
My name is Lewis Colick. My photo had somehow been replaced with a photo of Ian Sander. Please restore my picture. Lewis Colick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B068:93EA:655B:B2FB:8070:9C3C (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, I am assuming you are asking about the image displayed in Google Search. That image is not from Wikipedia (Lewis Colick has no image), but apparently from celebritybio.org. Google is mixing information from hundreds of sources - Wikipedia is only one of them and has no influence on the Google search display. You'll have to contact Google directly (a "Feedback" link is available below the Google search biography) and the original source site to fix their error. GermanJoe (talk) 08:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

My scholarly sources keep getting reverted in page "New Testament"
Need admin help for article New Testament. Someone keeps deleting my sources. Please assist. Thank you, Mark

It is an historical fact that virtually no historians debate and it is academically dishonest to exclude. If you feel you need to revert this change I need the name of the site admin. These volumes are textbooks


 * Your source is WP:FRINGE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , three things: First, and perhaps most importantly, don't just revert changes without using the talk page for the article on which you have a dispute. Doing so constitutes an edit war and can get you sanctioned.  Secondly, when you do leave messages her or on talk pages, you should sign them.  You can do this simply by typing a row of four tilde characters like this: ~ .  Thirdly, your characterization of these sources is not accurate. Moody Publishers, the publisher of both cited books, is an explicitly evangelical Christian religious publisher.  Whatever usage a textbooks these two sources may have, that does not make them good sources for the statement you were adding.  Please read the standards on what are considered reliable sources.  I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know about the tildes and such. I will make a note. Can you clarify the source of Textual Criticism books I am referencing and how you consider them not reliable please? These volumes have literally thousands of citations themselves of hundreds of other science books. Thank you Mark0880 (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880

Also we need to be careful when we say things like Moody Publishers, the publisher of both cited books, is an explicitly evangelical Christian publisher. That sounds quite discriminatory. Moody is based on solid scientific research. To allow hacks like Ehrman but not verified sources like Geisler is academically dishonest. If you disagree with this, I need to appeal to the Sr admin. Mark0880 (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880

Moody's science books meet all wikipedia's qualifications for good references, too. ````Mark0880
 * Moody Publishers states: All proceeds from Moody Publishers benefit The Moody Bible Institute, which exists to educate and equip students for Christian ministry. The Moody Bible Institute, in turn, states: Moody exists to equip people with the truth of God's Word to be maturing followers of Christ who are making disciples around the world. These are their own words, so it boggles the mind that I should be "careful" about saying that they are explicitly evangelical. They are not a scientific publisher and they make it clear that they are not.  You can speak to any admin you want, but if you want to "appeal" what you really need to do is to establish a consensus among your fellow editors that supports inclusion.  This process of consensus is the foundational method of building this encyclopedia.  Your two best options are to continue this discussion at either the talk page of New Testament or bring this to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Additional side note: Trying to appeal to the community to accept your favored sources while also calling ones you don't like "hacks" or accusing others of academic dishonesty is usually a good way of quickly turning the discussion against your own proposals.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a word to supplement what Eggishorn has said: With only a few very minor exceptions, there is no person or board here at English Wikipedia which has the right to make binding decisions about the content of the encyclopedia and that includes matters such as sourcing. Administrators and the Arbitration Committee only have jurisdiction over matters concerning the conduct of participants. Content matters are decided through, as Eggishorn has said, consensus and through the application of content policies and guidelines (which are, by policy, the established consensus of the community). Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * To give you an inkling why Moody is WP:FRINGE: as seen from Moody, even Wheaton is liberal (they fired a professor because Catholics cannot be Christian enough for Wheaton). Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

This is not sufficient to exclude Moody's scientific research citations that come from the ancient sources. This is subjective and personal experience which needs to be kept off Wikipedia b/c feelings are not a good guide in academia. Mark0880 (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880


 * This is not academia, this is Wikipedia and in matters of historical research (unlike theology), full-blown inerrantism is WP:FRINGE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

You seem a little confused here. The science of Textual Criticism is a well established and research science. Feelings are not a good guide, again. Moody's references are very well cited and include thousands of references to other studies. Please stop the bias Mark0880 (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880


 * See e.g. . If fact we're quite biased for mainstream academic scholarship (which usually translates as mainstream secular academic scholarship: lots of Christians are secular and work in the secular academia). Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Your posts are not well cited and fall under the category of "crank science". Many of your statements dont even have citations - just your personal opinions. Wikipedia is not the place for that. Mark0880 (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880


 * See Casting aspersions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Tgeorgescu, it might be of assistance here if you could give a link to the discussion where it was established that "full-blown inerrantism is WP:FRINGE" or, at the very least, present your argument to that effect. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I have already quoted . The historical method supposes the critical evaluation of sources (Bible included).

"So this makes history look like a kind of battleground. In other words “you have got my story and I have got mine”. As a matter of actual historical practice, when you read historians, I don’t think this is a bad description of the way they actually work. I don’t know why certain neo-conservatives like William Bennett find this to be relativism, when I see it as a just good description of the way historians actually practise their craft, and its not a simple minded thing like “everyone has an axe to grind”, it’s not like you don’t get surprised even based on your own interpretation and its also not the case that as you work through your interpretation you do not change it radically and change your mind and your prejudices, in fact, when you do that, that’s when you are doing your best work usually. So I don’t see this as outrageous as many other people do."

- Rick Roderick


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I would also quote and . Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the information. Let's see if and how Mark0880 responds. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I dont think this last comment is worthy of a response at this time. I am merely trying to show good research and citations.... Mark0880 (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880


 * Why do you feel it is not worthy of response? Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * About Ehrman being a liberal, his own religious persuasion is not germane to our discussion, since he is paid to teach objective facts about religion, not to teach his own brand of religious faith, see e.g. . About him being a "hack", some academic criticisms against Ehrman point out that he is being too mainstream. So Ehrman is definitely academically mainstream, even people like James White (theologian) stress that it is unlikely to catch Ehrman stating an erroneous fact about the manuscripts of the Bible. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I will reply to this statement later today. Bear with me please.... Mark0880 (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880


 * James White has a video on YouTube wherein he states that students attending any [major US] university will be confronted with viewpoints quite similar to Ehrman's. Don't you wonder why is that? Because Ehrman is teaching the long-standing consensus in higher criticism and lower criticism. Ehrman got famous or spilling the beans about what scholars knew for a long time. If you read his trade books (especially the earlier ones), there is nothing in there which isn't taught for a long time in universities (from the Ivy League to state universities). Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Then you wont have any issue using Geisler and Nix, or Wallace Mark0880 (talk) 04:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880


 * I (together with other two established editors) do have an issue with Geisler and Nix. Use Walllace, with the qualification that Wallace does not trump Ehrman and Ehrman does not trump Wallace, they both coexist happily in the pages of Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * So just b/c you're not an evangelical, all the evidence Geisler presents is not found anywhere in history. Hmmmm Mark0880 (talk) 04:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880


 * I smell theologically cornered. I smell a red herring. I smell a hard heart.  Mark0880 (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880


 * Wallace professes pretty much the same inerrantism as Geisler, so in rendering your position Wallace should be preferred to Geisler because of difference in specialism/academical reputation. Besides, there are many top scholars in Bible scholarship, Ehrman and Wallace are not the only ones. So, their views matter, but they don't decide the majority view by themselves. If it seems like a contradiction, here is why conservative evangelicals can be top scholars in textual criticism: . In (mainstream) higher criticism the self-understood assumption is that the Bible is errant (a lot of Christian scholars subscribe to it and it has not been invented by Ehrman, as a fundamentalist put it, "Bible scholars and higher critics sow the seeds of unbelief; deceit and apostasy follow them wherever they go."); in lower criticism there's no need for such assumption. Major universities are, to put it simply, owned by the idea that the Bible is errant. You may want to read Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy. The gist is that in mainline Protestantism and in major US universities (from Ivy Plus to state universities), the modernists have won the controversy by a long shot, although it should be said that secular universities are not concerned with preaching the "right" religion, but they teach objective facts about religions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * (talk) Im very skeptical of newcomers in any historical research. If virtually all academics are saying X is what the research shows and some noob comes along (esp one who is emotionally charged and has an ax to grind) I dont pay much attention.  I need to get to the library and read up in Wallace.  Im still confused if Wallace, G/N, Bruce, and all the rest are looking at the same research, but this article refuses to cite such, it doesn't give me much hope for the relevance of WP.  Mark0880 (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0800


 * Wikipedia is religiously neutral, i.e. it does not consider that Christianity (evangelical or not) is inherently better or worse than any other religion (or lack of religion). So, decency implies that all religions should be treated with equal respect, but not to the extent that we shove under the carpet what is taught in every major US university. "Christianity is true" is a subjective opinion, and Wikipedia may only render it with attribution, i.e. as "Christians believe that Christianity is true". Also, "Christianity is false" is a subjective opinion which should be attributed to those groups or individuals who profess it. I have explained at WP:ABIAS that Wikipedia is heavily biased for mainstream science and mainstream scholarship, i.e. it is heavily based upon what mainstream academics consider to be objective facts. In this case Wikipedia renders as objective facts about the Bible the academic consensus or majority view of scholars teaching in secular universities, since these universities don't have the task of preaching true belief, but they have the task to search disinterestedly for the truth. Of course, evangelical colleges do teach what they see as true belief, so they are teaching subjective opinions which their believers should accept as true beliefs. I have already posted on your talk page an explanation that Wikipedia works with objective knowledge and it should never pretend that subjective beliefs would be objectively demonstrated. That explanation was written by a Christian, I have only copied/pasted it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * This isnt about religion, it's just historicity and evidence. Mainstream would be Wallace, G/N, Bruce, et al, not people like Ehrman who look for one small crack and get on the lecture circuit looking for cash. There's nothing subjective about the sources Wallace, G/N, Bruce and virtually every other scholar in the world has read.  Mark0880 (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880


 * If you would want to claim that what Ivy Plus teaches about the Bible should be discarded from Wikipedia, that would strike me as (a) bizarre and (b) contrary to WP:PAGs. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The honest honest researcher will quote all available sources and note the overarching consensus, and honorably mention the one or two that might disagree. Mark0880 (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880


 * Like I said: quote Wallace, but neither Wallace trumps Ehrman, nor Ehrman trumps Wallace. That Ehrman would be WP:FRINGE is one of the most ridiculous claims ever written inside Wikipedia: Ehrman has stood the test of time as WP:RS, being cited many times in many Wikipedia articles as a reliable source. Of course, we should avoid trade books, unless necessary (like in applying WP:PARITY to Christ Myth Theory). But speaking of Ivy Plus, I have found this (and I have only searched the website of Yale): &mdash; a top Bible scholar assigns readings from another top Bible scholar for Yale students. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Y’all want to take your dialogue elsewhere? This really isn’t the place to air your (unending) disagreement. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Is there anybody out there who wants the sites to contain ALL mainstream sources, or just leave them with the one that's controversial? Mark0880 (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880

I gather this is all about whether the New Testament was completed by 100 AD or by 120 AD. Doesn't that seem a little trivial? Anyway, if you're in doubt, go find another source - an authoritative one, like the Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, or the ditto from Oxford University Press, or Yale, or whatever. PiCo (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

http://www.queenstown.net.nz/index.php?title=List_of_mountains_of_New_Zealand_by_height
Hello, I was looking at the heights of mountains and I noticed that Mount Tutamoe is not on the list, it is 770m above sea level and is situated Kaihu Northland. It is the 2nd highest peak in Northland.

Thank you Joanne Williams — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.132.238 (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The page you link to, above, is a partial copy of the English Wikipedia page on the subject which can be seen here. The original copy here at English Wikipedia does, in fact, include Mount Tutamoe. English Wikipedia has no control over the page you link to above. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 02:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * More precisely, http://www.queenstown.net.nz/index.php?title=List_of_mountains_of_New_Zealand_by_height was copied from Wikipedia in 2007. Our own article List of mountains of New Zealand by height added Tutamoe in 2011.[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_mountains_of_New_Zealand_by_height&diff=451810231&oldid=451455781] We don't control the old copy. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

If it's not from sheep it's not wool
Hello, I get quite tired of the term "wool" being misused especially on wiki. Wool is a unique fibre that has an oil - lanoline. No other animal fibre or hair has this oil. Angora, mohair, cashmere - on and on - these are all different types of animals that produce fibre but NOT wool.

How can we correct this widely misused term? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheepfibre (talk • contribs) 21:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The definition of "wool" found in Merriam Webster and other "reliably sourced" dictionary sites do not limit the category exclusively to sheep alone. It also includes goats, and other "hairy animals" (when shorn and prepared for use in making cloth or yarn); and even classified the term "wool" to non-living materials such as "mineral wool" and "steel wool". I'm not sure exactly how WP could rein in this term to your specifications. Maineartists (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * And "Lamb's wool" can be a drink. Words are tricky like that, like "nut" if you use it in a botanical or culinary sense. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Method for finding pages with no categories set?
Is there a way of finding pages where no category has been added? I keep stumbling (on the Gaelic wiki) across pages with no categories but I cannot find a way of just pulling up a "list" so I can fix them all. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Special:UncategorizedPages. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert on categories, but is this what you're looking for on the Gaelic Wikipedia? Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow. If this is tolerated at ga.Wikipedia, it has larger problems than just missing categories. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah perfect, thanks. ga is Irish but easy to change to gd. Yes, small wikis have issues like that, lots of stubs though genuinely content-less articles are rare. Akerbeltz (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Ashland NE page on Wikipedia
I tried to make a second entry on important persons and failed to add Jeff R. Raikes correctly. Please correct. Sorry for my error. Shir Niemeyer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.222.197.249 (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * This appears to be fixed already. Take a look and answer here if what's been done isn't what you were thinking. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)