Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 89

Style question: lead/infobox
In a recent discussion at Talk:Melissa Joan Hart regarding the birthdate of the subject of the article, I was told that "The lead and infobox summarize information from the article, and aren't supposed to contain information that isn't in the article proper." This sounds like a decent rule, except I can't find documentation to back it up anywhere in the style guides. I checked Manual of Style (lead section) and what's more, Manual of Style (biographies) seems to imply the opposite is true regarding birthdate. Furthermore, a brief survey of my favorite people's biographies indicates that the convention of 'birthdate in the lead, birthdate in the infobox, no birthdate in the main body' is extremely widespread, so if there is a rule then the vast majority of biography articles are deficient -- and there's no telling how many regular articles are affected too. So I'm open to suggestions. Elizium23 (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * An info box should include a brief overview of all relevant  information. If the correct  userbox template is being  used, then all  the parameters that  are allowed will be in  it  already. There is no  compulsion  to  populate every  item however, but  it's a good idea to  do  so  if the info  is available. Naturally, all  info  in  the box wll  be expanded in  the article. Likewise the lead, which  should sumarise what  is to  come in  the sections that  follow. Please read WP:BTIP for information on  how to  write biographies. For examples, check out biographies that  have passed the Good Article or Featured Article benchmarks.--Kudpung (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, maybe my question wasn't quite clear. Let me ask it directly: must the date of birth be restated in the body of the article, when it is already correctly placed in the lead section and the infobox? Take a look at Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan, a featured article, which only has the birthdate in the lead and infobox. If I am being told correctly then this article is deficient in a way that managed to escape the featured article review process. Elizium23 (talk) 04:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The usual place to put the dob is in paretheses (brackets) right after the name in the first sentence of the lead something like this; Kudpung (b. 22 June 1948) was born in Malvern, Worcestershire, England, ...
 * 90% of our bios start off like that. Unless it is absolutely necessary to repeat that date in the text, such as for example it coincided with an earthquake that hit his region on the same day. There is no hard ans fast rule, and it's a question of common sense. Rather a minor issue to spend a lot of tme debating on.--Kudpung (talk) 04:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Then 90% of our bios aren't following WP:Manual of Style (lead section). A lead is a summary of the article. A lead shouldn't contain any information which is not present in the body of the article, or else it isn't summarizing the article. The lead is a separate mini-article: just as the lead must be able to stand alone, the article has to be able to stand alone.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As a little more background on this particular request, the OP wants to have the body of the article state "Hart was born on Easter Sunday" rather than "Hart was born on Month Date Year" on the basis that the MDY are covered in the infobox. Other editors (including me) feel that such a presentation in Wikipedia article is unacceptable. Active Banana    (bananaphone  16:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what I want, and that's not what is at issue here. I was accused of "deleting" information when I performed the reverts on your edits, even though the body never included the exact date before you got there. I was also accused of violating WP:3RR although I verifiably never did. I followed WP:BRD to the letter. I admit it was a little difficult discerning your ulterior motive when I saw your initial revert asking for a source. But I acquiesced to the opinion of an administrator and I accept the decision as fair. I simply resent these other accusations and am asking for some documentation to back them up. If omitting an exact date from the body of an article is something that will slip by WP:FEATURE review then obviously it isn't a big deal in the backwater of B-list celebrities. Elizium23 (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The guide is Manual of Style (biographies) which has info on what the opening paragraph should have, basically name/dates/nationality or similar/what they did/why they are notable and nearly all biographies follow this general pattern which is also supported by WP:MOSBEGIN which part of WP:LEAD. MilborneOne (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No one disputes that the birthdate should be in the lead. The question asked was whether it needs to be in the article as well.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * - and that's been answered. Please continue this diecussion on  the article talk page.--Kudpung (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, since you gave the wrong answer, the conversation got extended. The correct answer is "yes, all information in the lead must be repeated in the article's main body", not that it would not be repeated unless absolutely necessary.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The answer was not wrong. You  came here asking  for help and if the answers don't  fit  the replies you  expect, we all do  our best  to  help. Now please continue this discussion  in the right  place, or take it  up  with  me on  my  talk  page.--Kudpung (talk) 06:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This seems like the correct place to discuss it, being that it's a general question for assistance on style. It doesn't seem like a hard question, but with all due respect, only two people have weighed in with any kind of answer and they both contradict each other. So I'm still at a loss for what this means to 90% of biographies that don't have the birthdate in the main body. I guess we can move the discussion to Talk:Melissa Joan Hart if you feel that's more appropriate. Elizium23 (talk) 05:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As you must have realised there is no specific rule about the birth date, but WP:LEAD states that the lead should be a succinct summary of the article. Also note that responses on this board come from a range of volunteers, some of whom may be admins, but guidance given here is in good faith and is not an official ruling. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as your general question: (1) Virtually all of our articles about sites on the National Register of Historic Places include an infobox that gives the number by which the place appears in the Register's database. Several FAs have such infoboxes, but I seriously doubt that any of them include the database number anywhere except in the infobox.  (2) Several FAs that cover US city articles mention the fact that these cities serve as county seat without mentioning the county seat status anywhere else in the article.  If FAs can include small bits of verified information in the infobox or lead without mentioning it in the body, I don't see why any other article can't.  Nyttend (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

A reasonable approach to an edit war?
Hello - I'm trying to resolve a dispute over content on Pamela Geller. I've made several attempts to address it amicably, but the other editor ignores my attempts, the issues involved, reverts to their preferred version (the last time, they changed it to a version that leans much further toward their position), and responds confrontationally. I've exhausted possibilities with the editor. My question is, do I take this to Rfc, the  Admin Noticeboard, or someplace else? I must admit I've been through this kind of situation before, and I'm trying a different direction: Be exhaustively reasonable, and if the other side refuses to cooperate, not engage in the usual long, acrimonious debate and find a different solution. Life is too short, and the acrimony is a waste of time. Maybe that solution doesn't exist and I'm stuck with the debate for now, but I thought I would give it a try!

I should add that, in case you're not familiar with Pamela Geller, she's controversial and topical, and POV could be part of the problem (and a third editor made that criticism); I'm trying to work around that by focusing on the content.

Here are the details; I'll include full details; I don't expect you to read it all, but whatever you need is here:
 * 1) I made edit A, with a comment clearly explaining why.
 * 2) The other editor reverted it (edit B), with only the comment per the ref, which did not make sense to me or address my comments.
 * 3) I reverted it (edit C), referred them to the Discussion page, and opened a new Discussion section. In the Discussion, I clearly showed the two versions, listed my concerns, and proposed a compromise.
 * 4) The other editor reverted again (edit D), and posted to the discussion not addressing the issues that had been raised, and made obviously unfounded accusations of OR and POV. My only statement was that 'the Dome of the Rock is one of the holiest places in Islam'; I don't see how that could be POV or OR.
 * 5) I responded in Discussion, again asking they try to come to an agreement.
 * 6) Trying to be more proactive, I edited in a compromise that included the content of both of our edits (edit E), and reached out again in 2 ways: In the Discussion and on their talk page. In the article Discussion, I asked that we not edit further until we come to an agreement, I solicited their concerns, and clearly laid out my own.
 * 7) The other editor reverted my change and replaced it with something leaning much more heavily toward their position (edit F). They didn't respond to my attempts to reach out, not responding to my post to their Talk page and responded in Discussion with comments that again ignored the issues raised.

Again, they seem unwilling to address any points raised, and persist in reverting. What next?

Thanks! guanxi (talk) 05:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If the reasonable approach doesn't work, then Revert and warn. If the deleting editor exceeds 3 removals in 24 hours, report at WP:3RR. Sometimes it is the only reasonable way. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Continuing to revert is not the way to resolve an edit war, and WP:3RR applies to all parties involved. If the edit war continues, you can try our dispute resolution options. If there are only the two of your involved so far, a third opinion might be a good idea. You might also consider requesting temporary page protection at WP:RPP to encourage discussion. Unless there is blatant vandalism or spamming going on though, you should stop reverting and wait for consensus. GiftigerWunsch  [TALK]  11:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Numerical ranges for page numbers in citations
No specific article. When providing page numbers in citations, is there any style guidance on when to abbreviate the page range. For example, for the page range 141 to 149, which of the following is preferred? "pp. 141–149", "pp. 141–49" or "pp. 141–9". I've checked MOSNUM and couldn't find any guidance. I'm sure I've read some guidance in the past but can't find it today. Many thanks. Knavesdied (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:ENDASH. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks JJ but unless I'm missing something the information in WP:ENDASH doesn't give me any guidance. It gives "pp. 211–19" as an example but no style guidance on if "pp. 211–19", "pp. 211–9" or "pp. 211–219" is preferred and what the rule is. Any other suggestions on where to look? Thank you! Knavesdied (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that MOSNUM and ENDASH are not helping you out. It does not seem that we have a convention on how much of the figure to include in the upper bound of a range that falls within at least the largest place value included. When dates are given within the same century (like 1884–1891), it seems very natural to omit the century (1800) in the upper bound: 1884–91. Obviously, the full version is the least ambiguous. Omitting the common most significant places in the boundaries of a range also seems to help the reader comprehend the relative magnitude of the range spanned: if the range actually only spans two units, 1884–1885 does not demonstrate this as clearly as 1884–5. When read aloud, using your example, the most explicit form is "pages one hundred forty-one to one hundred forty-nine", but this seems excessive, which is why you raised the point. Shortened as much as possible, to "pp. 141–9", reads like "pages one hundred forty-one to nine"; this seems to be somewhat confusing. To me, at least, "pp. 141–49" seems most natural to read aloud: "pages one hundred forty-one to forty-nine". Visually, I think a good rule of thumb is not to leave a single digit standing alone: both 1885–901 (the single digit here is the '1' representing 1000) and 1885–6 look a bit strange, but 41–5 looks ok, and there is no way around 1–7 or 9–17. MOSNUM encourages editors to use their best judgment and employ a consistent practice when a convention is not specified in the MOS; I hope my brief examples help; maybe they will be included in the Manual sometime... hopefully another editor or two will chime in and provide some consensus on the matter. –Paul M. Nguyen (chat&#124;blame) 13:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would not get the idea of not using anything but full numbers. Bits are cheap. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Bits are cheap? OK, so let's stop using all abbreviations (no "BBC", always "British Broadcasting Corporation"). The MoS says, quite clearly: "A closing CE–AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year (1881–1986)". I haven't looked further WRT page numbers, but I know it is standard practice to use either two, three or four. I personally have a strong preference, of course, for the minimal—the cleanest and most efficient; so "pp. 105–09", "pp. 3,229–37". I occasionally see hard-to-read big numbers when journals use cumulative pagination (a bad idea, IMO): "pp. 13,340–13,344", where we should pity the readers and write "pp. 13,340–44". Tony   (talk)  14:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For biomedical topics, we essentially follow the guidelines in International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Sample References that the vast majority of medical journals follow, with slight variations. Note the examples given there consistently use the fewest digits possible for the endpage, e.g. "N Engl J Med. 2002 Jul 25;347(4):284-7." or "Arch Ophthalmol. 2009 Feb;127(2):179-86."


 * You are bound to follow the Manual of Style rule about en dashes – not hypens – for ranges. Tony   (talk)  09:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing of the kind; despite the claims of its regulars, MOS is a guideline - and a badly constructed one, neither English usage nor consensus. Ignore it freely if it gets in the way of writing an encyclopedia; this may cost you an FA if the particular language reformer who wrote something into MOS happens to review your article - but that's a problem with FAC, not with the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

CAUCASIAN
I understand this term is used to describe white European/white American people especially in medical journals although many have dropped its use. But I read the Journal of Medical Case Reports and this term is always used in their medical case histories so this should be added to your list of medical journals in your article. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.165.143 (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know which  article you are referring to, but  this is a idea that  you  could propose on  the article's talk  page. To  encourage more response, you  caould also  leave a message on the talk  pages of the major contributors to  it, asking  them  to  have a look  at  the article talk  page.--Kudpung (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

biography of living person: known for one event only
hi. a biography was created where the only sources are one half page web blog and one two paragraph biography from an online source posted over a year ago. this is a person notable for one event only and as such information not related to professional events should not be included in the page. i believe this is in violation of wikipedia policy. repeated attempts at talk have failed. thank you.

WP:VAN, WP:NPF, WP:BLP1E,, {{db-person}. {{db-)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MR90 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 26 October 2010 UTC


 * The dispute at this article has also been raised at WP:BLP/N here. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

How to do global multi-article substitutions
Since Anne of Great Britain has been moved to Queen Anne, is there an automated mechanism that can be used to perform the following substitutions in article space to all relevant occurrences:


 * Queen Anne with Queen Anne
 * X with  X

Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This could be done with AWB, but the advice at WP:NOTBROKEN says there is no need to make these changes. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Harry Gamboa, Jr.
Why was image of Harry Gamboa, Jr. removed from his page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Gamboa,_Jr.

What is process to return image to its place?


 * The deletion log entry reads:
 * 18:25, 9 October 2010 User:After Midnight (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Gamboa 72dpi.jpg" ‎ (F6: Non-free media file with no non-free use rationale)
 * Roughly, the image was deleted because it was a copyright image with no clear explanation of why it was needed in the article. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Sexual Fetishism
A template is up for deletion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_fetishism. Previous templates I have seen had links to AfD discussions. I think I'm misunderstanding things or an atypical template is being used. Could someone take a look. Tjc (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * See Deletion process for a description of the three kinds of article deletion. Only the third kind would have a link to a discussion; what you saw yesterday was a notice of proposed deletion. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank for explaining that to me John.I'll research a little deeper next time I'm stumped.Tjc (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Juan Williams: Issue about acknowledged & apologized for verbal sexual harassment
I think it would be helpful to have some advice and thoughts on this BLP article. There is a difference of opinion about the relevance of including information (that is cited and sourced) about a well-documented matter whereby Juan Williams was disciplined for verbal sexual harassment over several years at his place of employment - the Washington Post. Williams publicly acknowledged and apologized for some of his behavior. The matter was widely reported at the time (early 90s) and the text in question is sourced and cited - including content drawn from the Washington Post's own report on the matter. One or two editors feel that it is a relatively unimportant matter in the scheme of things and prefer a minimal mention within the body of the article just as part of the section dealing with his chronological history. I and one or two others had felt that it should be in a separate small section - which one of the first group of editors disagreed with. He enacted a compromise and placed it in the chronological section - but with a sub-heading. I thought this was a good compromise and I worked with it. However another editor has now deemed that the sexual harassment matter is being given undue weight and feels that it should be just referred to in the same way as all the subject's career information without any sub-heading. Is documented sexual harassment (whether verbal or physical) that was a major news story at the time it happened something of import? Or is there some statute of limitations that permits it to be down-graded to a less important mention en passant within an article? Some guidance and constructive assistance would be appreciated at Juan Williams. Especially from women editors who may have a perspective on this that is not currently reflected in the article. Thank you. Davidpatrick (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Biographies of Living persons/Noticeboard is the place for this. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Need help providing accuracy
After a few VALID (in my opinion) edits to Almeda University, the site was placed on an editors freeze as of it were being vandalized. I felt that my additions were 100% valid and possibly required further discussions. The Wikipedia editors have engaged in an outright smear campaign against Almeda University. They flat out refuse to allow any positive information but want to quote every bit of negativity they can find anywhere! For example, when 3,500+ ePubliceye.com's users ranked Almeda University as ABOVE AVERAGE Wikipedia Editors deleted it.

But when one man with an opinion writes a book and calls Almeda "Non-wonderful" the editors insist it stays.

I am not seeking to make Almeda University's entry look like Harvard University! I am looking to get Wikipedia to stop their smear campaign against Almeda.

Two years ago, some idiot (or ruthless competitor) posted that Almeda was for sale. Your editors IMMEDIATELY posted it. When I edited it out (Almeda Was NOT FOR SALE) they again FROZE the editing as if it was being vandalized. It took Almeda over $2000.00 in legal fees to get the entry removed.

Now it appears that the Wikipedia editors are again on a smear campaign by misrepresenting Almeda with sloppy data gathering and careless presentation.

NOBODY is vandalizing the entry. We are only asking for a full representation of valid facts -- which include both pros and cons.

Last issue -- why does Wikipedia insist in maintaining links to items that have been proven as NOT TRUE. The post about Connecticut was later withdrawn bu the state (in a letter to Almeda's attorney) - but Wikipedia REFUSES to remove the malicious entry because there is still a link to it in the Connecticut state archives.

How can I -- as a representative for Almeda University -- work with an editor that doesn't have an axe to grind and just wants to post non-biased truths?

ATaylor667 (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)ATaylor667ATaylor667 (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears that the article is open for editing now, with no level of protection applied. Recommend you try again, but be careful.  You've identified yourself as a "representative of Almeda University," and that will trigger complaints that you have a conflict of interest (See WP:COI), even if your edits are totally neutral.  I would suggest that you discuss your proposed revisions on the article's talk page, get some consensus there, and then make changes.  Regards.  Saebvn (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

keplerian dynamics
I clicked, on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve, 'keplerian dynamics' and instead of further notes on that topic, was linked to Keplers biography etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.241.208.183 (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've changed the link to jump to Kepler's laws of planetary motion instead. Any better? -- John of Reading (talk) 12:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Multiple issues with "Dwell time"
I would like an editor to review the article and talk page for dwell time and attempt to resolve an ongoing dispute over the accuracy of the information presented there. The information on that article does not match its citations but one user has reverted every attempt at fixing the content since at least May. At very least there is a issue, and I believe that much of the information being presented there is not directly related to the article topic. Andrewman327 (talk) 07:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)andrewman327
 * Well, looking at this the article is palpable nonsense. In fact I wonder if the artcile has a place here at all.  The dictionary definition of dwell time is: he period during which a dynamic process remains halted in order that another process may occur. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Multiple issues, indeed. Agree with Jez that it appears to be nonsense.  Anyone up for a SPEEDY?  Saebvn (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The only thing left after removing all the synthesis and pointy "See Also" is a dictionary definition. Anybody wanna do the AfD honors? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy sound an excellent option !  Velella  Velella Talk 17:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC) .... and done.  Velella  Velella Talk  17:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK; so not quite so speedy. Anyone got the energy to go for an AfD ?  Velella  Velella Talk  19:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have placed the Copy to Wiktionary tag on it, it can be speedied after the automatic transwiki move has happened. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Intervention needed.
Being aware this site is frequented mainly by the English speaking community, and that Americans are a big part of it , I understand some of the current political battles spill over into here.

This being said, the article on Socialism is in dire need of intervention. I understand some politicians have an agenda, but there is a limit to how much something is allowed to get vilified because of it.

The current article about socialism that is being portrayed as if it were communism is WAY beyond acceptable ! Not being objective is bad enough, turning wikipedia into a tool for spreading political propaganda is something else. Pictures of Stalin in the border ?

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

Not wanting to debate about the exactitude of a wikipedia article ,this article is imo made in a way that any layman glancing at that wanting to know what the word means thinks socialism = communism.

83.101.79.66 (talk) 08:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your concern, but  we are here to  offer editing  help -  not  to  arbitrate over any  subtle leanings in  controversial articles about  politics. That  said, the place to  voice your  opinion  should be on the article talk  page, and as far as I  can see, you  haven't done that  yet. Why  not  give it  a try? --Kudpung (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Xavier College
A look at recent edits, Editi summaries, and the Discussion page for this article will show a somewhat unconstructive series of happenings. My approach may not have been perfect, but I am now very uncomfortable about the comments being made towards and about me. I am happy to withdraw, at least temporarily. I haven't made any changes to the article for a while, but the abuse level against me has been building. It's like there is a gang of three who simply want to squash me. I would love the eyes of other, non-involved editors on the scene please. HiLo48 (talk) 10:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You've already had the eyes of other, non involved editors on the scene. Two  of them were regular councellors from  this department. What they  found was a disorderly confusion like a classroom  full  of kids when the teacher is out of the room. There were some calling  a spade a spade, while other were packaging  their insults in holier-than-thou schoolmasterly tones, and with  it, clearly  practicing WP:GAME. In  that  particuar situation, as I  see it, you  are all as much to blame as each other for the lack of civility. However, where there is a consensus, especially  if it conforms to our policies, it has to be accepted, and I'll reiterate what I said to  you  all on the talk  page: if you live in glass houses, don't throw stones, don't take the bait, read all the blue links you've already  been given, and walk  away without trying to have the last word. --Kudpung (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to declare that response unhelpful. It comes from someone who contributed to the discussion with "So you can all shut up." Unfortunately, language of that tone has been all too common on the article's Talk page (not from me), so all it did was add further to "the lack of civility" mentioned in that very post, and thus inflame the debate. I copped further abuse AFTER that comment. So I now seek the eyes of polite, helpful, constructive, non-involved editors please. HiLo48 (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If you wish to seek assistance here, please provide a fair and balanced rationale, such as not forgetting to include this:
 * Kudpung's comment was eminently sensible. I don't see how you can continue to irritate us all by reverting our edits, and then turn around to attack the tone of our comments rather than the substance of them. Yes, you are correct - we are all irritated. Incredibly irritated at having to repeatedly come back to this article to argue with someone over the inclusion of two sentences which never merited being added in the first place.
 * For what is basically a storm in a teacup, snarky comments cloaked in pompous schoolmasterly language have heavily contributed to the ill feeling that has been expressed by the editors of that article whose only wish was for you to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies and accept the consensus. You appear to have already agreed to stop disrupting the article to insist on the inclusion of unencyclopedic trivia, thus with all due respect, I suggest again that  you take time to read all the blue links you have been given, most especially this one and perhaps giving this topic a rest. If you feel that  you are still being victimised by your co-editors, you are most welcome to ask for your issue to be considered at one of our dispute resolution notice  boards where a panel of administrators and even more uninvolved experienced editors will review the situation.--Kudpung (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Speaking of giving it a rest, we still need polite, helpful, constructive, non-involved editors here please. Not further comments from someone who simply added to the ill feeling and inflamed the situation. HiLo48 (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It would help if someone could give a five-sentence summary of what the dispute is about. A glance at Talk:Xavier College suggests that HiLo48 is in a minority on some content matter, not sure what it is, and he is critical of the civility of the other editors. If he is really the only person defending a specific change, then WP:CONSENSUS would suggest he should yield the point. Can anyone give diffs of the article changes in dispute? EdJohnston (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I will try to explain things a little more. It will probably appear to be from my perspective, but I will do my best to be objective. Firstly, I will repeat what I said at the start of this section - I am happy to withdraw, at least temporarily. I haven't made any changes to the article for a while, but the abuse level against me has been building. So yes, the (lack of) civility of other editors is what brought me here. That includes User:Kudpung above, who claims to have come to the article to help, but, to my mind, made things worse by using uncilivil language himself.
 * The irony of the content "dispute" is that it is about students from the school concerned acting in an uncivil way, in a pattern that repats itself on an annual basis. What concerns me about this is that it would be very easy for a conflict of interest to exist, and be concealed. Among other personal attacks, I have been accused of having just such a conflict of interest myself, and wanting to denigrate the school. I can only deny it and say that, if anyone could be bothered looking and counting, they would find that the majority of reversions of negative vandalism to this article in the past year or so have been by myself. The content that was proposed (and did exist for while, having been originally added by someone else, not me, as alleged in an insulting Edit summary) is very well sourced. Those arguing against it say it is trivial. I would argue that, involving what is effectively repeated criminal behaviour as it does, it is a lot less trivial than the school's annual Maytime Fair, which commands a conspicuous section of the article.
 * Be that as it may, right now I am more concerned about the lack of civility of other editors in pushing their point of view. It has been a very unpleasant experience. HiLo48 (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * HiLo has been politely answered and advised by many, several times.
 * In general, HiLo has ignored the answers and advice, and not always politely.
 * HiLo has been asked many questions. He has yet to answer any question that he, himself did not initiate.
 * HiLo has been asked to explain himself many times. He hasn't.
 * HiLo has been advised, several times, in several different ways, by several different people:
 * A balanced summary of the whole situation would be a useful addition to the article. Individual incidents are, by themselves, not notable. However, a "continued history of incidents that have raised attention" is, if presented in the right manner, "worthy of mention". But please note: What is "worthy of mention" is the "continued history of incidents" - not the individual incidents.
 * HiLo has refused to acknowledge (or it would seem, understand) that "consensus" is not the same as "unanimous". He also doesn't seem to understand that consensus does not mean "people have to agree with me and my point of view".
 * HiLo says: "It has been a very unpleasant experience." - I would comment that it is a situation of HiLo's own creation and escalation, and hence is a self inflicted wound.
 * HiLo also says: "right now I am more concerned about the lack of civility of other editors in pushing their point of view." - I'm afraid that is neither a realistic, nor balanced, summary of the situation. Pdfpdf (talk) 07:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It would help if someone could give a five-sentence summary of what the dispute is about.
 * Here goes: 1) Xavier College has a history of having its students' misbehaviour getting into the newspapers. 2) HiLo wants to add information about the latest incident (only). 3) He has been informed many times in many different ways by many people that these individual incidents by themselves are not notable. 4) He has also been informed (many times in many different ways by many people) that A balanced summary of the whole situation would be a useful addition to the article. 5) He repeatedly ignores and avoids points 3 and 4. Pdfpdf (talk) 07:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think shouting is going to help your case . The amount of people doing something does not make it legitimate, not by a long shot, whatever it is they're doing.83.101.79.66 (talk) 07:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think shouting is going to help your case - Thanks! I was going for emphasis, not shouting; I have changed them accordingly. Most appreciated. As for your other comment, I suggest you read WP:CONSENSUS (no, I'm not shouting, that's the name of the link.) Pdfpdf (talk) 08:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that the article about that group of a few dozen neo-nazi's that suddenly decided the holocaust never took place and subsequently removed all references to it from wikipedia ? If it is, I've read it. 83.101.83.47 (talk) 07:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? Click on the link, read it, and stop wasting other people's time. With the exception of pointing out that ALL CAPS is often interpreted as shouting, I fail to see any +ve value in your additions. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way.I also feel sorry for you if you fail to see that no matter how many people feel something is notable or not has nothing to do with it's relevance. This just looks like censorship . Your failure to see anything is really no excuse for that holier than thou attitude either. Wikipedia is large enough to accommodate any referable fact in any addendum to any article if needed . Kind Regards 83.101.83.47 (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way. - Thanks. I have to admit that I wasn't thrilled with the situation.
 * I also feel sorry for you if you fail to see that no matter how many people feel something is notable or not has nothing to do with it's relevance. - Wow! First of all, there's no need to feel sorry for me, and even less need to be patronising about it. Second, I have NO idea what you are talking about, particularly the: "This just looks like censorship" comment. It seems VERY (Oops, sorry, you don't like caps)
 * It seems very clear to me that you haven't read the history of the conversation, and are simply "shooting from the hip". "Your failure to see anything is really no excuse for that holier than thou attitude either." - Woo Hoo!! Who's being patronising now!! At least I went to the effort of explaining my (so-called-by-you "patronising") comments. How about reciprocating?
 * And while you are at it, what does Wikipedia is large enough to accommodate any referable fact in any addendum to any article if needed. mean?
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, beyond you pointing out the all caps thing, for which I have genuinely and sincerely thanked you, the rest of this interchange is a complete waste of time - both yours and mine. If you have something sensible and useful to talk about, then please do. Otherwise, "I'm out of here". Pdfpdf (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict)
 * Can anyone give diffs of the article changes in dispute?
 * Yes:


 * Preliminary stuff
 * 11:41, 19 July 2010 HiLo48 (→History: shoplifting)
 * 16:09, 19 July 2010 HiLo48 (→History: Better, more complete source)
 * 17:47, 19 July 2010 Mvjs (rv. I think one can refer to the discussion on the talk page had on this sort of issue before. In the grand scheme of things, this doesn't represent a notable part of the school's history.)
 * 18:36, 19 July 2010 HiLo48 (Reverted edits by Mvjs (talk) to last version by HiLo48)
 * 10:09, 20 July 2010 128.250.110.143 (→History)
 * 17:17, 20 July 2010 HiLo48 (Reverted removal of text. It's true and well sourced. Front page news in The Age is notable. Please discuss before removing again. (Discussion already started!))
 * 16:59, 27 July 2010 HiLo48 (→History: Expulsions)
 * 11:29, 5 August 2010 Nworsn (History)
 * 12:16, 5 August 2010 HiLo48 (→History: Restored well sourced, notable (front page of The Age on multiple days) material deleted without any discussion or justification.)
 * 14:30, 17 August 2010 114.78.177.241 (→History)
 * 14:44, 17 August 2010 HiLo48 (Reverted unexplained deletion of material)
 * 15:02, 19 September 2010 Jim09 (removed information on shoplifting which is not part of the school history)
 * 15:26, 19 September 2010 HiLo48 (Reverted. It happened. It's history. It's notable. It's perfectly sourced.)


 * Start of controversy
 * 16:45, 3 October 2010 Senis (Removed tabloid gossip pieces under WP:NOTSCANDAL as they were not objective.)
 * 18:03, 3 October 2010 HiLo48 (Reverted deletion. See Talk, and please don't delete again until consensus is reached there. Calling The Age tabloid is not a smart reason.)
 * 03:56, 5 October 2010 Active Banana (→History) [Addition of "undue" tag]
 * 06:47, 5 October 2010 HiLo48 (Reverted unilateral addition of "undue" tag by an editor who failed to discuss the issue at all.)
 * 06:49, 5 October 2010 Active Banana (Undid revision 388753110 by HiLo48 beg to differ [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xavier_College&diff=next&oldid=388753110
 * 09:24, 5 October 2010 HiLo48 (Reverted repeated unacceptable change by an editor who is becoming bad mannered on the talk page. Please DISCUSS before adding it again.)
 * 00:00, 6 October 2010 Active Banana (Undid revision 388781201 by HiLo48 (talk) tagging to indicate current discussion DOES NOT NEED TO BE PREAPPROVED thats what the f***ing tag is for)
 * 00:26, 6 October 2010 Pdfpdf (→History: I think it is abundantly clear what the consensus is!)
 * 06:16, 6 October 2010 HiLo48 (Consensus is not a vote, nor is it swearing at other editors. Discussion is the key, not abuse.)
 * 06:33, 6 October 2010 HiLo48 (Consensus is not a vote, nor is it swearing at other editors OK. Discussion is the key, not abuse. (Better Edit summary))
 * 20:36, 8 October 2010 Mitsuhirato (→History: made 'controversy' section a bit less POV, and added more info.)
 * 20:06, 30 October 2010 Senis (removed vandalism by HiLo48, see talk page)
 * Pdfpdf (talk) 08:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * HiLo is the victim of his own disruptive editing and refusal to  accept consensus, neutral  advice, and several Wikipedia policies. My  suggestion to  him is to use his expertise as a teacher to  help  improve some of our  other school  articles that  are genuinely  in  need of attention.--Kudpung (talk) 08:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I will just make the obvious point that, not surprisingly, none of the above mentioned the, to me, unacceptable language and bullying editing style of those who disagree with my perspective. Being part of an uncouth majority is never evidence of being right. HiLo48 (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * People are not blocked for merely being stubborn, even though the endless complaints by HiLo48 are hard to take. I suggest that this thread could be closed with the understanding that if HiLo48 once again restores the contested paragraph to the article, as he did on October 5, he may be blocked for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For the third time in this discussion - I am happy to withdraw, at least temporarily. I haven't made any changes to the article for a while, but the abuse level against me has been building. To now say that my stubbornness is THE problem here is simply not true. Yes, I have been determined that I have something valuable to say. I have said it. Politely. Several others have now been considerably less than polite. And keep busily reinforcing each others' bad behaviour. It's gang behaviour. It's bullying. If responses to my comments had been more rational and polite I may have desisted a lot earlier. I will simply state that I believe that such behaviour on Wikipedia is both unacceptable and unhelpful. Anyone who thinks it is OK has lost my respect. That's it from me. (Although I do intend to add a final constructive suggestion to the article's Talk page.) HiLo48 (talk) 08:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Mr HiLo: As I've said ( more than three times): "Wake up and smell the flowers". As I've said: your self-riteous self-opinionated self-justification may keep you warm at night, but it doesn't have very much to do with reality. As somebody wise once said: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, particularly yourself." Stop blaming the rest of the world for your problems, and start taking responsibility for your own actions - we Australians are not Americans (yet). Pdfpdf (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Although I do intend to add a final constructive suggestion to the article's Talk page." - Sorry HiLo, (yes, I am genuinely sorry), but given past experience, I have very strong doubts that your final suggestions will be constructive. My expectation is that they will be self-justification for your abherent behaviour. Sincerely, I hope you prove me wrong. In fact, I will be pleased if you do prove me wrong. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, this is WP:EAR, where editors may make requests for information on aspects on editing Wikipedia. It is not a forum to continue lengthy disputes that belong on article talk pages. Please take this dispute back to the talk page. If you can't resolve it there then consider starting formal dispute resolution processes. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. I have a request for information about WIkipedia, because maybe I'm confused. It goes to the core of my concerns here. Is it really OK for an editor to say to another editor "Wake up and smell the flowers" ( more than three times)? If it is OK, I will change my own approach and stop expecting better behaviour from others. HiLo48 (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * ROTFLMAO!!! You just don't get it, do you. How sad.
 * The point is not how many times I've said it.
 * The point first is that I have said it at all, and more particularly, that you have completely ignored it, and anything else said by anybody else that doesn't fit in to your very narrow and very biassed view of the world.
 * The second point is, you REALLY need to change your own approach.
 * The third point is that if you ceased being a complete self-riteous self-opinionated WP:Dick, and behaved better yourself, others wouldn't lose patience with you.
 * As I've said before: The situation is a self inflicted wound. Start taking responsibility for your OWN actions; stop blaming the rest of the world for your problems. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I am writing to request that a disinterested editor review the changes I made to the Groves page. They may already have been reverted due to the heavy level of "community interest". A review of the diffs and my edit summaries should make it clear that I rv considerable emotive and martyrological content for the sole purpose of wikifying the article. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Although no comment has been made on  its talk  page for over three years, olicit that is the place to solicit  any feedback.  A brief 'unattached' look  at the article raises the question  whether this is indeed a biography, or a history  of the use of rubber and plastic bullets, their associated dangers, and campaigns against  their use. As very  few editors have in  fact  contributed to  its creation  or development,  I  would suggest  that  your edits are covered by under WP:BOLD. They  are not  the kind of edits that  require long  and tedious debate,  but  I  would be more concerned in looking  to  see what  parts are not directly relevant to  the biography, and should be cut.--Kudpung (talk) 09:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Coupled with the emotive edit summaries here and here and totally ignoring of the article talk page warrants some explanation. Why come here in the first instance? Use the article talk page, it will create less drama. -- Domer48 'fenian'  11:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Using edit summaries as a forum can  be considered disruptive editing. Please consider starting  a correct  and civil  dialogue on  the article talk  page. If problems continue, please consider escalating  to  an appropriate noticeboard.--Kudpung (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree Kudpung, and having opened a dialogue here on the actual Article Talk Page, I find the blank revert, coupled with yet another provocative edit summery less than inspiring of confidence. Using edit summaries as a forum, while ignoring open discussion can be considered disruptive editing.-- Domer48 'fenian'  13:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It would appear that rather than engaging in the open discussion, the editor has decided to launch into a whole series of personal attacks and clear assumptions of bad faith. With these personal attacks the drama which should have been avoided seem to be constructive. Clearly the article talk pages should not be use in such an offensive way. -- Domer48 'fenian'  14:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To whomever may be interested, please see the Emma Groves talk page for my responses and the continuation of this thread. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

What are the Wikipedia policies covering criticism of companies pages
My question concerns the Wikipedia category for critism&controversy pages of companies. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Criticisms_of_companies

Can someone please expain why some companies have uncontested criticism pages, while other companies' criticism pages are deleted. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Articles in Wikipedia should have verifiable references from reliable sources. It is likely that those pages which you mention as having being deleted failed this.  It is also possible that others exists which should be deletion. WP:Deletion policy explains the criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the only reason for deleting a "criticism & controversy" page in Wikipedia is the lack of verifiable references from reliable sources? Ottawahitech (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, it's better to integrate criticism into the article itself than to have a full "criticism" section. In the example of a company, if one of its products has been criticized, and the criticism is reflected and noted in reliable sources, it would be better to have information about that criticism in the section on what products the company makes. For example, "Foo Corporation manufactures widgets and doodads. While its widget lines have generally received high ratings for usability (cite goes here), its doodads were criticized by Consumer Reports in 2005 as 'substandard in quality' and 'significantly overpriced'. Consumer Reports also noted that the company was slow to respond to warranty claims. (cite goes here)." That's a lot more informative and naturally flowing than having the criticism off in a completely different part of the article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you stating your own opinion or is this Wikipedia policy. Just curious. Ottawahitech (talk) 11:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We distinguish policies (essentially binding), guidelines (also essentially binding, but slightly less so), essays (opinions that don't necessarily represent a consensus). Unwritten general practice is also very important. What Seraphimblade described was our general practice in this area. You may be interested in the content guideline WP:Content forking and the essay WP:Criticism. Neither gives a definite answer. Basically, "criticism of" articles can normally only exist as subarticles, i.e. they are justified if, and only if, a full discussion of notable criticism would be too long for the main article. If you are comparing the treatment of criticism of two competing companies, you should perhaps focus primarily on the amount of criticism in either case, and how it reflects the respective amounts of criticism in reliable sources, before asking for equal treatment in terms of the existence of a criticism article. Hans Adler 11:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for trying to help answer my question. I think what the three of you are saying is that any Wikipedian who sets off to create a criticism of a company page, regardless of how much criticism content already exists on the main company page and how cluttered that page may be, is on their own, since there are currently no policies at Wikipedia covering the criticism of companies pages. Do I understand this correctly? Ottawahitech (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Gharia article
Dear Sir,

I have been reading gharial article in your reputed Wikipedia. I would like to share some of the efforts Chitwan National Park, Nepal has been playing on gharial conservation, which is missing in that article. Gharial Conservation Center was established in Chitwan National Park in 1978, since then 751 garial has already been released from this Center in major river system of Nepal namely Narayani, Kaligandaki, Rapti, Babai, Koshi and Karnali. Center at present has 700 gharial crocodile. This is one of the major successful program undertaken by Department of National Park and Wildlife Conservation, Government of Nepal. Every year Park carried out the gharial monitoring activities. According to 2008 census there are only 81 gharial left in the major river system of Nepal. Hence I fully agree the notes made in the article that protection of released gharial in the river system is major challenge in gharial conservation work. Thanks Sincerely yours

Narendra M. B. Pradhan, PhD Chief Conservation Officer Chitwan National Park, Nepal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.41.222.99 (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, it would be best to post this information, with relevant references on the talk page at Talk:Gharial. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Humane rights in the UAE
I am an American divorced from a UAE national living in the UAE i need help as i have a daughter the age of 18 who is also a UAE citizen and her fiance is also a UAE citizen and has been sentenced to life in prison at the age of 22 and he is innocent he has been abused in the prison and every one with him has been sentenced to 4 years and i need to find some answers on what course of action to take i am a person who fights for the justice of all as God says .--Angelinthemist (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, you need to contact a lawyer. We don't answer legal questions here as we are an encyclopaedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Berne convention and infrigement
I represent the Swedish Nationalmuseum. They have own photogrphers taking pictures of art they have. In Sweden and Europe there is a 50 years protection for the photographers photo of for example a painting. You claim on your pages that there is no protection in USA on that. But US is nowdays a member of Berne convention and the protection of Berne convention for such photos os 25 years. So how can you claim on your pages thet there is no protection for a picture of a painting?

I hope you change your text and take away pictures that are not free. For example the painting A premier made by Zorn is probably a photo from the Swedish National museum and protected.

Best regards

Staffan Teste www.bildombudsmannen.se   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.250.142 (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have redacted your email as this is a high visibility site and the notice at the top of the pages says, "As always, please do not include an e-mail address or other private details.". In answer to your question you need to contact [mailto:info-en-c@wikimedia.org info-en-c@wikimedia.org] directly with this complaint, as stated at WP:Contact us/Article problem/Copyright. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you prefer you may contact the WikiPedia foundation agent at:
 * Mike Godwin or Sue Gardner, Designated Agent
 * Wikimedia Foundation
 * c/o CT Corporation System
 * 818 West Seventh Street
 * Los Angeles, California 90017
 * Phone: +1 (415) 839-6885
 * Facsimile number: +1 (415) 882-0495
 * Jezhotwells (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Addition to Ron Howard Page containing pertinent information widely distributed in the media
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Howard

I recently added a factual addition to the Ron Howard page:

Howard is most recently known for his refusal to remove gay hate speech in his upcoming film, The Dilemma, starring Vince Vaughn. Despite repeated calls from the GLBT community and the recent increase in gay teen suicides, Howard has defended his actions on artistic merit.

This news has been widely reported in the press, including ABC News, the Herald Sun, the Los Angeles Times, etc. When I was first flagged, I thought it was because it appeared in the wrong section of the page. I then looked at a number of other listings and found that they included a section called "Controversy," so I followed this commonly used convention and added a new section.

Ron Howard has publicly acknowledged that he has made this decision. What I added is simply what is being reported in the news. I would be highly disappointed if Wikipedia selectively allowed certain facts to be reported and others not. This would seem to fly in the face of Wikipedia's neutrality policy.

Kind Regards,

Tom S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoDisappointed (talk • contribs) 16:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello, Tom. Did you include any sources with the content you added to the article?  Did you discuss your content with any editors after the content was initially reverted?  These are basic editing principles on Wikipedia.  They apply especially to biographies of living persons for obvious reasons.   Tide  rolls  16:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please also be sure to ensure the information you add is written from a neutral point of view.  Focus on the facts and be careful not to skew things to one side or the other.  This is critical with biographies of living persons. --RadioFan (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you very much for your help! I took your advice and cited sources (ABCNews.com, Anderson Cooper, etc.) and stuck simply to the facts. Here is what I posted:

Recently, Ron Howard has come under fire for his use of a gay slur in the upcoming movie, The Dilemma, and its trailer as reported on ABCNews.com:

CNN's Anderson Cooper and Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) spoke out against the film's trailer in the wake of the suicide of Rutgers student Tyler Clementi, who commited killed himself after being bullied for being gay. Both Cooper and GLAAD objected to the use of the word "gay," calling it an unnecessary slur against homosexuals. "Unfortunately, by leaving it in the movie, they are now contributing to the problem," GLAAD President Jarrett Barrios told The Hollywood Reporter.

Since then, Howard has refused to remove the gay slur from the movie, citing “censorship” issues.

I believe that I met all of your requests. Unfortunately, it was automatically removed. I REALLY AM trying to follow Wikipedia rules, so I am completely confused as to why it was again removed. I believe that this is critical information and should be included in Ron Howard's Wikipedia posting. Could you please let me know what I am doing wrong?

Thanks,

Tom S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoDisappointed (talk • contribs) 18:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nebulous references to purported sources, such as "as reported on ABCNews.com", are unacceptable per WP:BLP purposes. Peter Karlsen (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I really don't understand!!! Why are you suggesting that I am making this up?? The URL for the exact quote can be found at http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/ron-howard-gay-joke-stays-dilemma/story?id=12012612. We all know and love Opie, but I thought Wikipedia was about facts and, like it or not, this is a fact. Should I include the exact URL when I repost??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoDisappointed (talk • contribs) 18:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the "exact url" is required for any online source. However, you cannot copy text directly from sources without attribution as a direct quotation through the use of quotation marks,, or similar (see Plagiarism for a more detailed explanation.) Peter Karlsen (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Peter. As you have no doubt now confirmed, I am not making this up (see link above). I've read the page on Plagiarism and it is bit confusing. On that page, however, it states that if I need help, to ask one of the editors via this page. Could you please let me know exactly what should be included in order to post this content? Your help is greatly appreciated. SoDisappointed (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Tom S.


 * I dont think anyone sees this as made up. It's pretty clear that this is in the news.  What we must be careful of, particularly since this is a biography of a living person, is that the information is presented neutrally  While I appreciate your eagerness to get this information in the article, perhaps you aren't the best person to do it.  Maybe its time to let someone else add the info in a more neutral manner and less "soap boxy".--RadioFan (talk) 00:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see any way that copy and pasting copy from a well-known news source could be considered "soap boxy." It is clear that there is bias here. I guess the numerous articles about anti-gay editors taking over Wikipedia must be true. I am truly saddened by this. You have provided me roadblocks all of the way, first it was considered vandalism, then I was cited for "nebulous sources" (when, in fact, you admit in the last post that "it's pretty clear that this is in the news."). I guess since you couldn't think of anything else, you simply say that I am too "soap boxy" to be able to cut and paste copy FROM A RESPECTED THIRD PARTY. Your actions clearly undermine the integrity of Wikipedia. Until you give me a credible reason why this should not be added, I will not give up. SoDisappointed (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)SoDisappointed


 * You've been told that you need to cite this properly. Two good sources are probably - a blog so needs careful attribution but can be used and . Your edit was a bit one-sided - it probably needs to quote Howard and also say that the film's star defended the joke. Dougweller (talk) 06:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, fine. While I believe that I did adequately cite Mr. Howard's defense by stating that he defended his inclusion of the gay slur on the grounds of "censorship" issues, I will do EXACTLY as you say and add both Howard's and Vaughn's comments. But let me make this clear - this IS a test of Wikipedia's fairness. I am following ALL of the Wikipedia guidelines and suggestions. If it gets removed again, then I can come to no other conclusion than Wikipedia is biased. Are we clear??? If not, please tell me EXACTLY what you believe to be fair. To be fair and in full disclosure, I am a former employee of the Washington Post and Newsweek. Once I was repeatedly denied my opportunity to make a fair inclusion, I immediately contacted my editorial contacts at both publications. I also contacted the editorial staffs at ABC news and Anderson Cooper at CNN. I also contacted the Ellen Degeneres show and GLAAD. We all await your decision on the next inclusion. I will wait until 10am EST to consider any other "suggestions," then I will make my next post. I am trying to be as reasonable as possible and give Wikipedia the chance to provide me clear guidelines. I have made a good faith effort to follow the rules and am asking now for any further guidelines. I don't know how I can be any more fair. SoDisappointed (talk) 07:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)SoDisappointed


 * Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * We also need to consider whether this information is better for the article on the movie than on the director.--RadioFan (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Seb az86556 has added a neutrally-worded mention of the 'controversy' to the article; I edited it to add the joke itself so we all know what we're talking about. Perhaps it's derogatory, but it's hardly a 'slur' 'gay hate speech' as claimed by SoDisappointed.  --CliffC (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks to Seb and you for those additions. It's presented in a nuetral way without labels that allows the reader to make up their own mind.  Personally I agree that it looks like much to do about nothing.  The issues faced by LGBT people are real as has been evidenced by recent suicides.  I wish advocacy groups would focus on that instead of red herrings like this. --RadioFan (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope none of you have gay kids. You clearly have no idea how much it hurts to hear the word gay used in a derogatory manner. Most gay suicides aren't due to one single event; rather, they stem from a lifetime of hearing that being gay is bad. It has a cumulative effect. Shame on you for not recognizing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoDisappointed (talk • contribs) 20:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * HOW DARE YOU??????? What kind of crap are you trying to pull, to assume that none of us have gay kids (or were gay kids)???? You are being asked to follow the same rules as anybody else when writing about living people, and we are attempting to help you, even though you seem unable or unwilling to follow simple instructions like "sign your posts". Bullshit assertions of a non-existent homophobic bias are harming your case, not helping. I'm proud to be a parent of a student at The Alliance School in Milwaukee; I have been president of a small Metropolitan Community Church congregation; and I've been on the board of the local Business Association. I was quite possibly being called "faggot" before you were born, my So-Disappointed friend. Why don't we all concentrate on improving this article instead of hurling nonsensical accusations? Besides, every right-winger on the planet will assure you that we are all fanatical advocates of The Homosexual Agenda here at Wikipedia; and many of the morons who vandalize my userpage agree with them. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  21:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a former gay kid and a current gay adult, SoDisappointed, you are way, way offbase here. I understand where you're coming from, believe me; I am sick and tired of hearing 'gay' used as a slur, and even more sick and tired of the people who don't understand that it's problematic. However, and this is important, articles on Wikipedia must be neutral in all cases and report only on facts. Of concern also is the policy on mentioning living people, which must in all cases everywhere on Wikipedia be fully and reliably sourced to prevent accusations of libel or defamation. This is not a community policy; it is in effect across all Wikimedia projects and is dictated by the Wikimedia Foundation. Ok? → ROUX   ₪  21:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I stand by every word I wrote I highly doubt that I would have had this type of resistance were it not for the fact that it dealt with a gay slur. And, by the way, your "some of my best friends are gay" argument holds no water with me. It is hurtful speech and the cumulative effect of this kind of stupidity results in kids killing themselves. ''' Period. The end. I'm done wasting my time with small minded people like you. '''
 * SoDisappointed, I think you're disappointed without cause. I think you're honestly the first person I've ever seen to even think Wikipedia is anti-gay. (I've seen it said it's exactly the opposite many times, both on and off the project, and mainly by those who are offended that homosexuality would be treated in a neutral manner, not as some great wrong.) The truth is, it is intended to be neither. Wikipedia is intended to remain strictly neutral, never to be a soapbox or platform for any cause, even a noble one. That doesn't mean we exclude criticism, but it does mean we put it in the appropriate place. Since the criticism is of a specific film, it makes the most sense to integrate it into the film article, which you will note has been done. While you seem to think you've encountered hostility here, I'll note that your tone has been rather hostile yourself, accusing other editors of bias&mdash;and no one I see here is claiming to have a "gay friend", many of the editors you're speaking to, if you'll read their comments, are themselves gay, and have every bit suffered the prejudice you speak against. I realize sometimes that neutrality requirement can be difficult to deal with, when one is convinced that they've got a cause worth bending it a little for. But here, it doesn't work that way&mdash;it doesn't get bent for any cause whatsoever, not even a little. The information you wanted to include on Wikipedia is now included. This is a collaborative project, and so there may not be a consensus to include it exactly where and how you want it. But it is still there. Continuing to attack those who have made every effort to help you is not going to get anyone anywhere. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is built around neutral treatment of topics, particularly biographies of living people. Should this be treated differently because it involves a topic of interest of the gay community?  I dont think so.  Please dont assume that your edit was targeted because it involved such a topic.  That's highly offensive (as seen above by Roux's comments) to the editors involved. --RadioFan (talk) 01:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I am man enough to apologize if I hurt anyone's feelings, but I felt like I was taken through the ringer just to get something posted. I asked for help and followed ALL directions. I tried toning what was a simple quote from a major news source so that it would be included in Ron Howard's profile. Along the way I was told that I was on "my soapbox" and was told that I what I brought up was "a red herring." Gay or not, I don't understand people who don't believe that the use of this hurtful word is acceptable. I don't think we would be having this conversation if, for example, the "N" word was used. But those are only my own personal feelings. I simply wanted this posted (in as neutral of a way as possible), so I guess I should be happy. Unfortunately, I felt like I was being thrown roadblocks every step of the way.

Again, I will apologize for my part, but I urge you to go back through the process. From the very beginning, I was accused of "vandalizing" Wikipedia. Along the way, it was inferred that while this issue is extremely important to me, that it wasn't really an issue (and, therefore, my point of view and those of others in the GLBT community were simply not valid). Whether others agree with me or not, what I fought so hard to have included is, in the end, fact. Inclusion of this fact was all I ever wanted. SoDisappointed (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)SoDisappointed
 * You are really, really wrong on a wide number of things there. Like... really wrong. I will attempt to explain why (I'm hoping you'll listen to a fellow homo without making accusations like you have been throwing around), but I will be doing that tomorrow. I really need to get some sleep. Could you please rein in your outrage for tonight? Please? → ROUX   ₪  03:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Ya' know, it is just this kind of comment which drives me crazy. You sir are NOT my "fellow homo." I thought I was being the better man by explaining my point of view and apologizing if, in explaining myself, I offended anyone. I am sorry if you come from a time when this kind of language was considered acceptable (e.g., when you were called a "faggot" before I was born), but times have changed. Rather than sit alone behind your keyboard and judge, why don't you try getting out once and a while and realize that others have different opinions than yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoDisappointed (talk • contribs)
 * I'm going to try one more time, ok? I am a fellow homo, and I can use whatever words I like to describe myself. I have pointed out that I am gay in order to try and get through to you that I understand where you are coming from, and I agree that gay slurs are an endemic societal problem. In fact, several others in this thread, whose sexuality I neither know nor care, have also indicated they understand the same thing. Plus, you're conflating me with OrangeMike, whose point in using the word 'faggot' was to explain that he has been on the receiving end of slurs based on perceived sexuality. You don't have to be gay to have been affected by homophobia; way, way back in high school (fifteen years ago, to be more precise) one of my closest friends was a very heterosexual boy who was slender, somewhat effeminate, and very shy. He endured more taunting about his sexuality on a daily basis than any of the actually gay and lesbian kids, including the one student who had the balls to come out (not, for the record, me). Nobody here is judging you. The problem lies in the edits you have made, and in your reactions. Several people have tried to explain to you why your edits were problematic. We keep giving you blue links to read, and it appears as though you haven't been reading them.


 * In a nutshell, the Wikimedia Foundation, which owns all Wikipedia sites in all languages, as well as related projects like Commons and Wiktionary, has implemented a blanket policy known as the Biography of Living Persons Policy. What this states, in summary, is that anything that mentions a living person which could reasonably be considered to bring that person into disrepute from their point of view must, in each and every single case, be presented both neutrally and with what we call reliable sources. That is, sources which can be understood to have a high degree of reliability and fact checking. To give an example, the New York Times is considered reliable, Perez Hilton is not. This policy is absolutely non-negotiable, and applies to every single page on every single Wikimedia project, period.


 * Second, we have the concern of what we call soapboxing, or using Wikipedia to promote an agenda. Again, I agree with you that gay slurs are an endemic social problem. I work in one of the last bastions of serious cock-swinging heterosexual male culture, and it has been a constant education process to get guys I have worked with to understand "that's so gay" is not acceptable anywhere. That being said, I have to leave those feelings at the door when I log on to Wikipedia and edit articles. Again, this is because of our policy on neutral point of view; we must present facts, and allow readers to draw their own conclusions. Had your edits been about an entirely opposite set of circumstances, but using the same sort of biased language, the reaction would have been the same: not neutral, and must be rewritten. Again, and I cannot reiterate this strongly enough, I agree with your biases, and consider them biases only in the technical dictionary sense that they are non-neutral. But our biases must be left behind when we edit Wikipedia, otherwise the entire place will just become a battleground, as it has over some topics.


 * Third, the very same reaction would have come whether this was about a gay slur, a racial slur, a nationalistic slur, or any of the myriad ways in which we humans seek to belittle and depersonalize The Other. (As a side note, RadioFan's 'red herring' comment, while I understand where it was coming from, was somewhat misplaced. The horrifying rash of suicides of gay and perceived-as-gay kids lately is somewhat the fault of movies, television shows, and songs that make gay slurs. Like it or not, we live in a media-saturated culture, and the behaviour presented by media and the stars we worship becomes normative; people model their behaviour, consciously or not, based on what they observe. Art holds up an oft-uncomfortable mirror to life, true, but for gay kids--and those perceived as gay--struggling to get by, seeing things like this in movies made by highly popular filmmakers known for their often humane treatment of various subjects simply reinforces the negative bullshit being thrown at them. As such, advocating against this sort of thing is generally not a 'red herring', it is attacking a significant part of the problem. Sometimes advocacy groups get it wrong, as with the various trans and allied groups which still freak out about Silence of the Lambs, claiming it paints transgender people in a bad light. They fail to note that within the movie itself Hannibal Lecter makes the very clear point that Billy is not, in fact, transgendered "though he thinks he is, he tries to be." I digress, but my point is that this sort of advocacy really is attempting to solve part of the problem.) Of course the other concern here is that much is made of the quotation from the movie; we do not know how other characters respond to the statement.


 * I understand where you are coming from, believe me. But you are making a whole lot of assumptions that are a really bad idea. I have been living out and proud since I was eighteen, and had been out everywhere except school for a good couple of years before that. I was doing advocacy work, visiting end-stage AIDS patients to entertain them and provide company, and supporting initiatives to provide safe spaces for queer youth from the age of thirteen throughout my teenage years. I sat on the board of directors of the Victoria Youth Pride Society. I worked to raise money for AIDS charities, and donate to the AIDS Committee of Toronto and Supporting Our Youth every year. I have spoken at high schools about the problems that queer kids face. I marched in Pride parades when they were still political acts, not just corporate-sponsored parties. I cried the day my government finally legalized gay marriage, and I have cried a lot lately, for different reasons, every time I hear about another kid who has been bullied to the point where he or she felt their only recourse was to kill themselves. OrangeMike, of whom you have made some entirely unwarranted assumptions above, has a kid who may be queer (and if not certainly goes to school with kids who are, or have been perceived as being so) and may well, if I am not misinterpreting what he said, be queer himself. You owe him an apology.


 * Finally, I'm going to relive my long-past drag queen days for a moment to say: girl, you better check yo'self before you wreck yo'self. You're throwing out a whole lot of assumptions and personal attacks and failing to accept that we are acting in good faith. This is, on Wikipedia, almost always a hallmark of someone who is trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox, or as a venue for promulgating The Truth. Again, while I agree with your aims in their entirety, it is your execution that is causing the problems. Nobody here is judging you. Rather, you are judging people. → ROUX   ₪  12:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My wonderful child may or may not be "queer" (not everybody at The Alliance School is, you know); that's irrelevant (as is my own sexuality). -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't proofread myself carefully enough. I meant to say 'may be'; fixed. → ROUX   ₪  13:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What a shame. Every remotely controversial change to a biography of a living person is (or should be) interrogated scrupulously for compliance with verifiability, reliable sources and neutrality policies. Your first two insertions violated all three. Wuhwuzdat's reversion of your second edit described it as vandalism, which it was not, and you deserve a sincere apology for that. In their response to your first post in this thread, TideRolls linked you (with the blue sources) to an essay about reliable sources, but unfortunately no one explained citation to you. In your fourth edit, you included inline mention of a CNN commentary and a statement by GLAAD as a good faith response to the request for verification by reliable sources, but you did not cite in a way that made it easy for the reader to verify, and Peter Karlsen reverted, with the presumably mystifying edit summary "rem unref per BLP" which is Wikipedian argot for "Removed unreferenced material per Wikipedia's biography of a living person policy". Seb az86556, CliffC and others rewrote the section so that it conforms with our policy and style.


 * I'm sorry this was such an unpleasant experience for you. I believe everything might have gone a lot more smoothly and collegially if someone (including I who have been watching this from your first post on this board) had taken the trouble to explain to you the essential policies at play. I'm sorry. This transition, from reader to editor, needs easing and smoothing. There are several projects and trials afoot in an attempt to address the problem. Anthony (talk) 09:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * SoDisappointed still doesn't get it. The last comment above includes "try getting out once and a while and realize that others have different opinions than yours".  To put it bluntly, your opinion doesn't matter. My opinion doesn't matter.  No editor's opinion matters here.  Wikipedia isn't here to include your opinion or anyone else's, especially with biographies of living people.  Opinions or original though cannot be included.  If there is a reliable source which agrees with your point of view, great, include that, but be sure that it's done in a neutral way.  It's really as simple as that.  Just because someone (numerous editors actually) did not agree with your approach, that doesn't mean their opinion is all that different on the subject.  There are rules around here and everyone has to follow them.  The implication that this was treated differently because it involved a gay issue is wrong. violates the assumption of good faith (which is central to WIkipedia's success) and quite frankly very offensive to a number of editors.  --RadioFan (talk) 11:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Unreadable font
--Babylonzoo5 (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)'''HELP HELP i can not get wiki to work in a font that i can read please can any one help
 * Hi, fonts and font sizes can be changed in your web browser. There is some additional information at Help:Fonts. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

sorry i somehow posted my comment on here by mistake, now deleted.Fridakahlofan (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure holding down Ctrl while you hit + or - increases/decreases font size in both Firefox and Internet Explorer. Anthony (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Rajpal Yadav
So, I made a change to a stub ( I believe it was) and it wasn't really up to date so I added something and make another thing a link and I got a message saying it was not "constructive"... I was just wondering how something that is true as I had seen this movie and actually own it, too, is not constructive? I am not looking to get credit obviously as I didn't create an account to change. I would appreciate it if the person that gets to review this does their research before sending dumb messages... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.197.254 (talk) 01:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well your first attempt destroyed the formatting and broke a wikilink, so that is probably why it was reverted. The most important thing to focus on is to add citations to verifiable, reliable sources for information that you add. Just because you saw a film, is not regarded as a reliable source. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

code for outside links, etc.
I have the draft of an article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fibitz/Mars_black.

I wanted to have two more links, "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Artist%27s_Handbook_of_Materials_and_Techniques" and "http://www.artiscreation.com/black.html#cipigmentblack", but they don't seem to have been formatted correctly. I just copied the previous line--what should I change? Also, this needs to be a disambiguation of the only current entry for Mars Black--is there a proper way to post this?

And is this where and how I'm supposed to sign?

Fibitz (talk) 03:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)fibitz


 * The Artist's Handbook of Materials and Techniques,
 * Voila. Edit this section to see the code. →  ROUX   ₪  03:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Your signature is fine. Just use the four (~) tildes, you don't need to write fibitz after them.  Check out Citing sources/example style and Citing sources for information on citing sources.  I would suggest that you name your article Mars black (pigment) when it is ready to move.  Please note that you cannot use Wikipedia itself as a source, see reliable sources or as an external link. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Renaming the PINpad article
An edit was made recently to our PINpad article, changing the term "PINpad" (with no space) to "PIN pad" (two words). The edit seems reasonable, and (for example) is consistent with ISO 9564's (PIN management standard) usage. The logical extension of this edit would be to move/rename the article to "PIN pad", however an "article" of that name already exists, as a redirect to Personal identification number. I would like to rename the existing "PINpad" article to "PIN pad" and have a redirect from "PINpad" to "PIN pad"; I don't think it is necessary or appropriate for either to redirect to "Personal identification number". However I'm reluctant to try to make the change - last time I tried something similar (swapping an article and a redirect), it didn't go well, and I needed an Administrator to fix it for me. Can someone help me out here? Thanks Mitch Ames (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What you need to do is have PIN pad deleted by and administrator and then move PINpad to that name. You might be able to get help with that at WP:RM. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, now that I post this, I see that PIN pad is a redlink. I'll just move it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was PIN Pad (check caps) that already existed. I have now re-redirected this to PIN pad. I hope that's what you wanted. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That's seems to have done the trick. Thanks. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

External link to rolling stones songs
Most pages on songs by The Rolling Stones (e.g. As Tears Go By (song)) have an external link to the band official site. The link is supposed to point to the lyrics of the song, but all the links I have tested are not working; in addition, the site is full of advertising. I guess that the links should be removed (or updated). Is there a way to do it rapidly? At present, I have no time. Thank you. --78.15.185.234 (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:Checklinks found the archived page at the Internet Archive, and I updated the link in that article. If you find such a dead link, simply add the template dead link after the relevant link and someone will probably fix it sooner or later, if you can't find the link. Link rot gives more information about this. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, great! Thank you! This should be done for almost all pages on songs by the rolling stones, when I have some times, I will do it!--78.15.185.234 (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)