Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 94

Checking hostile behavior
I'm here, a little uncertain if this is even the right place, wondering about how to deal with an editor that seems to be counterproductive in their editing (such as I have seen), hostile in discussion, and notably prone to inaccurate interpretations. The most recent posting I have seen is on my talk page under the section "Handling it here". It's confrontational and bothersome, to be sure, but what I'm concerned about in the long run is that this editor was repeatedly reverting valid edits and when addressed by myself and another editor (independently), responded with persistent and hostile denial of the issue. This response often included factually inaccurate statements, such as about what was posted when, and paranoid inferences about intent in following. I can detail the inaccurate points, but one example would be a reference in the last posting to here (WP:ASK), apparently indicating a belief that I had posted here at some point during the discussion, which is utterly untrue (for whatever it's worth, though it did inspire me to inquire here now), with offense given in consequence. To try to be gentle about it, I think this person may not have complete benefit of their faculties. What concerns me then, is that this is a fairly active editor and there appears to be no self-check on the original behavior of precipitous reversion, nor means to engage. I don't even know that the specific situation at hand requires further action, but since the editor removed the entire section with the original comments from their Talk page, I am interested to at least see awareness of the behavior collected in some manner, as well as hear any perspective on such matters. ENeville (talk) 04:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Its a bit hard to evaluate without knowing the specific article and material in question. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Understood. I wasn't sure how direct to be.  I'd say it's more a matter of the editor in question, Montanabw, rather than specifics of the precipitating edit dispute, which I forsook for the benefit of atmosphere (but still disagree with).  My concern is that myself and another editor (Notyourbroom, whom I do not know outside of comments on this matter) criticized Montanabw for inappropriate reversion.  Montanabw's response demonstrated no contrition, and follow up expansions on the importance of the underlying issues elicited no understanding.  Montanabw's comments have been punctuated by references to unfounded personal inflections attributed to myself or the other editor, such as collusion or insult, which only confuse and distract from the relevant point (although I guess they do support a general characterization of counterproductive hostility).  The most recent installment occurred on my Talk page after I posted here, and would seem to indicate that I may now be a focus of hostile efforts by Montanabw.  I should note that I was away from WP until I posted here and posted the 'note' on my Talk page.  So now, in addition to my concerns about a pattern of reversion harming WP and an editor who seems impervious to feedback, I guess I'm concerned about what I may face personally from a much more active poster in consequence for holding that such concerns matter. ENeville (talk) 18:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if you are actually being harassed by another editor then you could go to Wikiquette alerts. But as no specifics have bee posted here, it is hard to see what you expect us to do. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Can photos from a porn site be deleted as an unreliable source?
Photo's on page ejaculation are stills from a video stream recorded on X-Tube, they have been uploaded by the performer as far as I know, but can such content be deleted as unreliable. I don't think the images are clinical enough to include in a medical/sexuality article. They also don't seem to add anything to the article, and IMO lower the tone of it.DMSBel (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There may be good reasons for excluding these images, but in what way are they unreliable? I can't see how they can be showing anything other than what they purport to show. If you want to argue that the images are unnecessary, then say so. Debates about content work best if not portrayed as something else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * What I was thinking of was just whether a porn-site is a reliable source of information as the content is not made for educational use and doesn't have a clinical tone, after all it is made to arouse not to educate. Encyclopedias are dispassionate, not sexual manuals, or to get people in the mood. I also think the four plate images are uncessary, and asked what they significantly add that is not already there. No answer given except that they illustrate - but we already have illustrations and a video and it's more an issue of tone. What I mean by reliable is a clinical or medical source rather than a porn-site. DMSBel (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Some background on the issue: The editor above,, is just forum shopping. He is in a lonely and long crusade against sexual content on WP and he is especially focused on the Ejaculation article, where he 1)tried a few times to edit war to remove the pictures and 2)repeats the same non-policy-based arguments ad nauseam on the talk page pleading for the removal since months. He refuses to acknowledge basic policies like WP:NOTCENSORED and ignores consensus (including a recent RFC on the images that firmly showed consensus for them to stay). I'd like to see some other eye on his contributions and think about a topic ban. -- Cycl o pia talk  11:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You used that term (a favorite of yours it seems for anyone who disagrees with you and looks anywhere else for assistance) in the Arbcom discussion and they said quite firmly that going to them was not "forum shopping" at all. I hope some of them see your comment here. You are also hounding me by following me here as though I don't have a right to ask a question. Please note Cyclopia has put a note on the ejaculation page to point to my question here. I can only assume given the tone of his post he wants to draw support for his view here too. He says here the RFC firmly showed consensus - the fact of the matter which can be checked on the current ejaculation talk page is that the closing editor of the last RFC said "he would hestitate to say there is a consensus". I have pointed this out repeatedly on that page and this is proof he doesn't read. He assumes consensus, and even a stronger consensus than there really is because the pictures are still in - it really is just a status quo. There were more editors in agreeance with keeping in the last RFC, but I think the closing editor summed it up well. Please read it all, its on the current talk page. But in absolutely no way is there a firm consensus. There have been other editors object since that RFC, so I don't know where he gets lonely from. However anyone who does object is met with disdain and a WP:NOTCENSORED end of story attitude, so I guess thats why they don't come back. He has called me a troll, a lonely attention seeking editor, a sock puppet, and generally implied I should not be listened too. I am glad you came here after me Cyclopia for others to see you hounding me. Put a watch on me if you want. I had ignored the page for months, I came back when another editor expressed the same view as myself thats all. DMSBel (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please, everyone, let's focus on the issue at hand and leave off characterizations of other editors. We're talking about a picture, and if there were any doubt that the pictures depict ejaculation, there might be a question of reliability, but I do not think that is in question. That the source of the pictures is pornography does not, in my view, affect their value--whether they should be included in the article is really an issue for the talk page of the article. My feeling is that the pictures are about as clinical as they could be, FWIW. DMSBel, would you accept similar images made in a clinic? --Nuujinn (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have said that if the four-plate goes I'd accept the video collapsed, or even as it is. Personally I think the diagrams are enough, but i'd accept a image made in a clinic. I think the video is more slightly more clinical than the four plate (at least the video uploader seems to have made tried to make it clinical, though it still is uncouth to me). What no-one has explained though is what the four-plate adds, or why it is so essential that they fight so hard to keep it.DMSBel (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

My thought on this image is that the creator uploaded it himself directly to Wikimedia. Whether he also uploaded it to other websites is not concerning to me; that is certainly allowed, as the image has been released into the public domain. I'm actually unsure how it was determined that this was derived from pornography. There's no description in the file data of the larger film it was cut from and certainly no link to where else it may be hosted. --Danger (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No the image came from the X-tube site, it streams live-feeds, it had comments there before it appeared on Wikipedia, one of them said something like "hey man its you on wikipedia". Another editor had discovered the source long before I joined the discussion and had there had been a heated debate about it then.DMSBel (talk) 14:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The movie was made and uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons in 2006, and we have a declaration by the author that it was not on the internet before that time. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? And while some porn sites will gladly show anything plausible or implausible, I'd say that the movie is about as "clinical" as it can be, given the subject matter. I certainly don't thinks it's obscene, or even erotic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Add: When the images went up on the Commons, Xtube was only 4 months old, and did not have life streams. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I am going by the comments on this video on Xtube and that reference to it being on wikipedia was several pages into them. I'd have to go back and check dates to be certain, not something I particularly want to do, are you sure about your dates and the live-streaming?DMSBel (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I found the comment in question. It's currently on page 2 of the comments on the Xtube Krooga page. The comment by a third party reads "It`s you in Wikipedia-your vids? Great,yummy." Notice how a) it's phrased as a question and b) it's not by the creator/subject. I'd also have to say that while I've not gone over all the body parts with a lens, I fail to see any obviously identical material. Yes, I'm certain about the date the image was put onto Wikimedia - check the Commons page. Unless someone magically hacked into the data base, the original movie was uploaded at 01:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC). I wasn't even aware of Xtube's existence before this discussion, so my information on Xtube live feeds is from our page on Xtube, which does not provide a source for this particular information. However, the comment you mention is dated "8 month ago", so nearly 4 years after the movie appeared here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Checked up says it was uploaded three years ago, sorry a lot of these sites stream live, my mistake. Comments there about it being on wikipedia are from 8 months ago. Seems to be about the time it was actually put in the page. DMSBel (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It was put in the article in January 2008. Given that you were able to trace where it came from (or rather where you think it came from) it shouldn't have been a problem to check that, too. 84.177.73.40 (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the image is relatively well composed and offers more detail than is usually in more "clinical" photos, where the lighting and composition is often poor. The diagrams are nice, but they only really tell the reader what the internal anatomy of the penis looks like, rather than what a male ejaculation looks like. Video is even better for this purpose, but in the interest of making the article accessible to users who cannot view video, a picture should be provided as an alternative. --Danger (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * What other clinical photos are you talking about? It seems the whole purpose of the article has now become in some minds more about showing an ejaculation rather than explaining it! Is this an encyclopedia? Diagrams which contain the main explanatory and biological information are "nice", but seemingly not as important as seeing the ejaculation, even if we have to scrape the bottom of the barrel by going to a porn site to find images. Sorry but this really galls me. We seem to be becoming obsessed with seeing everything sexual in photos and videos on wikipedia. And it usually starts with a joker saying why's there no photo. Wise up people. Get your heads out of wikipedia for a month or two and look at some other quality reference works and get a feel for their tone on sexual matters. DMSBel (talk) 14:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Severerash.jpg is an example of the type of clinical photo I was thinking about. Poor lighting that fails to compliment the subject (in this case, oblique lighting might have made the rash more visible.), poor composition and out of focus through much of the frame. Looking through medical texts is fine, but the photographs are generally very poor. We have access to much better images; why not use them? To clarify, by "nice", I meant they give some information, but not all information that we could reasonably have. To have an article about ejaculation without at least a photo of ejaculation would be like having an article on horse locomotion that included only diagrams of the musculoskeletal anatomy of horses without a photograph of a galloping horse. Just because other references might do this, for whatever reason, does not mean that we must.--Danger (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure if it's homemade picture, the rash can be seen fine anyway, perhaps slightly bad angle, I don't know, maybe it shows up better at that angle. Should we scrape the bottom of the barrel till we find perfection? I thought you meant clinical photos with regard to ejaculation anyway.DMSBel (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I just meant that as an example of clinical photography and why the images that may make it into medical books—and that is the approximate quality of medical books' images—might not be the best images we can get. If the fellow with the rash had gotten into a studio, we would have a better picture. The fellow who took the video of his ejaculation seems to have known what he was doing from a photography standpoint. I imagine that you and I have similar views on the reasons that high quality images of ejaculation are easier to find than images of hives. But still, in my opinion, scraping the bottom of the barrel is fine if we get better quality images. I mean, perfection is hard to find in the best of circumstances. :-) --Danger (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Studio?, yeah get Spielberg to direct it.;-) He was ill, do you think he cared about lighting, set dressing!! "clear off spielberg and find me some ointment!" . But why has depicting the ejaculation become so much more important than explaining it. We are increasingly getting the encyclopedic purpose the wrong way round, at least in some of the sexual articles. And better lighting etc. is not the most important issue it is tone, character that counts here. DMSBel (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In what ways is it not adequately explained? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Depicting the ejaculation contributes towards explaining it. Ejaculation already has a nice wordy description of the process from, but images and videos can also add understanding which words alone cannot. I fail to see how we've got it "the wrong way round" by using an effective explanation using both a description in words, supplemented by images and occasionally videos. As for deleting an image as not being a reliable source: how is one source of an image more reliable than another? If it clearly depicts something relevant to the article, it's unimportant where it comes from (providing it's licensed in a way which is compatible with wikipedia).  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  16:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry I have answered that all near the top, it was clarity on that I wanted, whether photos sources can be deemed unreliable. DMSBel (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * DMSBel, if you think the explanation isn't as good as it could be why don't you improve it rather than trying to get rid of the four plate photo and video every other month?--84.177.73.40 (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I am saying in the discussion as seen here the greater importance is placed on having photos, while the diagrams (which explain much more) are seen as of lesser importance than having photos. Everyone ask themselves if they could have only the diagrams or the video and the photos, which would they drop? It should tell you what you think is more important - explanation or depiction. The first is what an encyclopedia is primarily aimed at. DMSBel (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And there's the nice part of not being paper. We're not limited to one or the other, or on having image/media content for only a few highly-important articles, as a paper encyclopedia would be. We can have both. So what does it matter what one would choose if brought to an either/or choice, when no such choice is actually required? We're not running out of hard drive space here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Greater importance placed on photos over diagrams? The question is which images are best able to supplement the article in explaining ejaculation to readers. You are simply misrepresenting the discussion here, it seems to try to get rid of images which you feel should be censored, and it's not the first time you've tried this; whether it's a photograph or a diagram is completely irrelevant, it's simply a matter of how images can be used to explain ejaculation. Using generalistic arguments that diagrams are automatically better than photographs is quite simply false and isn't helping the matter.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  16:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Simple it makes people consider their priorities in working on wikipedia. If you guys can't see the problem by now, then truly I give up. I have no desire to edit here any further. I get hounded to this page, I don't mind input and others contributing, but Cyclopia deliberately linked to here then stalked me here to undermine me, and insult me as he has frequently done. I don't need that. That is misconduct. Think i will report it before i go. DMSBel (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If your only purpose here is to attempt to censor content against WP:NOTCENSORED by gaming the system and finding other excuses to remove constructive images, then perhaps that is best. If you can improve an article, go right ahead; but I'm not seeing a constructive argument here. It seems you're simply arbitrarily stating that photographs shouldn't be used as a means of bypassing WP:NOTCENSORED, and such an argument doesn't consider the actual circumstances here. You've already stated on previous occasions now that you feel that sexually explicit images shouldn't be allowed on wikipedia; well the community disagrees, and it's time to accept that.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  16:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I am reporting Cyclopia, I don't like being stalked. DMSBel (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Nobody's "stalking" you; I simply keep a wide open eye on you, as I fully expected something like that (moving to another forum without noticing the talk page, with the hope that people following the article didn't show up) on your part. I deliberately linked to here because it's what you should have done, and you having not done it is against policy, as someone else has told you. But you're free to "report" me of course; don't forget to leave a notice on my talk page. Cheers. -- Cycl o pia talk  18:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I genuinely was not aware there was any policy saying I had to link. Can someone show me for future reference. In any case, all you had to do was link, not undermine me the way you have. You are continuing to try and undermine and suggest bad faith, just say what your accusations are stop implying them. Then we can let some other editors decide. DMSBel (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Anyone at all got a link to the policy that states editorial assistance questions which are related to an article's content have to be placed in the article talk page to the question here. Sorry all I can find what it says at the top of this page which says i need to put a link at the beginning of my question on this page to the article. Which I had done I just didn't realise it had to be in a template format. I will correct that now. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Sorry forgot to sign inDMSBel (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Forum_shopping: You can obviously draw attention to the issue on noticeboards or other talk pages if you are careful to add links to keep all the ongoing discussions together  (emphasis mine). -- Cycl o pia talk  02:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

DMSBel, you are wasting the time of good faith editors watching this page. Please either present something new, or take the discussion back where it belongs. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Controversial edits should be first  discussed on  the article talk  page. If that does not achieve agreement, consensus can be reached through  either a properly formatted debate,  or by starting  a formal Request  for Comment before taking  the matter to  any  more notice boards or help desks. An RfC, if properly  announced, will  draw comments from  many  more editors than those just involved with  the article. Dispute resolution  should be the last  resort - WP:Forum shopping  is definitely not  a good idea. This topic has fallen outside the EAR remit and will shortly  be closed and archived. --Kudpung (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Can i use unicode.org content?
I wish to create a javascript tool for locales(languages,countries..) conversion from enwiki to tawiki of some articles. I just found Unicode.org/cldr project, can i use it for wiki? will it be allowed to copy their xml content? http://www.unicode.org/repos/cldr/tags/release-1-7/common/main/ta.xml. Thanks -- Mahir78 (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I just found this extension http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CLDR --Mahir78 (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that Village pump (technical) might be the best place to ask about this. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Avoiding 3RR
I have made three reverts at List of The Angry Video Game Nerd episodes trying to maintain an edit based on policy and with a reasonable amount of support (Talk:List of The Angry Video Game Nerd episodes). If I do a fourth I will violate 3RR. Where can I go to try and get support for my efforts to improve a page. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you read WP:3RR as it allows for reversion of vandalism or unsourced material. The rule is aimed at edit warring. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

A small but apparently unbreakable dispute
Another editor and I were involved in a recent Tfd to delete R help. The Tfd closed after a few days, and the decision was to Keep the template as is. The other editor then proceeded to "be bold" as he put it and make changes to the template anyway. At first it seemed like disruptive edits, however the other editor proved that he was sincere by not entering into an edit war (thank goodness). At present, we seem to have reached a complete logjam in the discussion. I would have gone to WP:3, but there was one other editor who made a brief comment in the discussion. Any and all experienced counsel would be appreciated!

&mdash;  Paine Ellsworth  (  CLIMAX  )  23:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

PS. The most recent discussion is here: Template talk:R help.
 * Responding editors should be aware that there is an ongoing WP:RM on the topic. --Bsherr (talk) 00:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI: Another administrator has closed the discussion in question.  It's nice to know that this option is available!  I will remember it in the future, if needed.  Happiest of New Years to you and yours!
 * &mdash;  Paine Ellsworth  (  CLIMAX  )  18:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

How to deal with duplicate content and possible plagiarism.
Are you an editor with particular interest in duplicate content or plagiarism?

Can you assist (or point me to policy or provide advice on how to deal) with duplicate content? Is it appropriate to have the same section in two articles? I'm guessing we have a policy or guideline on that. Here's evidence of the duplicate: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copyright&diff=prev&oldid=404099724 (see my edit summary)

This issue came up after I noticed some dubious content in Copyright and commented on it; discussion here. I also came across some possible plagiarism, which I noted in said discussion.--Elvey (talk) 22:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Does Plagiarism help? – ukexpat (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Posting an article that would title the same as an existing one, but is totally different subject matter
I would like to post an article on virtual set technology, as it relates to the broadcast industry. There is currently a virtual set technology (VST) article posted, but this deals solely with audio, and has nothign to do with Video or the virtual set concept as used within the broadcast industry.

Please advise how I may post an article by the same name, but different topic.

Thanks very much for all you do as Wikipedia, and for addressing my little issue in such a big world! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.200.61 (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the article's actual name? There is no article titled virtual set technology. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is already, however, an article titled virtual studio which sounds like what you want to write about. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:DISAMBIG explains how to name articles with similar names. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Bambu rolling paper is being used as a forum for misinformation by one of their staff :(
Hi, I've had an ongoing dispute with a user ArnaudMS regarding the page Bambu rolling paper. Admins have PP the page before to stop ArnaudMS but he's back and keeps putting up false information without references. I've asked other editors for help, but no matter who works on the page he keeps putting up a false date of 1764 with no substantiation. A few of us did research and were able to find a reliable date of 1908 using the OHIM / European Trademark office. The user still reverts this information and then says some mean things on various pages. Then ArnaudMS keeps putting up his brand images, which are taken down because of misuse, then he puts them back up again (then they will be taken down again).

Could a 3rd party editor please review the page Bambu_rolling_papers and help make it truly 3rd party written, with only clearly referenced text and legal images.

Sorry for having to ask for help but I am not going to engage in an edit war. Thanks!!!! Nahome (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if you were all to read WP:TPG and follow the recommendadions for talk page formatting and message signing, and read up on  WP:CITE and get  the inline citations  formatted according to  guidelines, we may  have a clearer overview towards offering an opinion. After all, it's only  a very  short article. Thanks.Kudpung (talk) 05:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for your input but I didn't want to edit the page further b/c ArnaudMS will attack. If I try it - you'll see the attacking result :(  Nahome (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I will jump in later today at least to put the references into standard format and add some "citation needed" tags. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I gave it a try Jon, hopefully I at least made your editing easier. I followed the reference template and removed the inappropriate links and the non-referenced item at the end. Please improve it further though as I am sure I got some stuff wrong.  Nahome (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nahome: Thanks for working on it, but as you will see the references displaying at the bottom are still just the numbers linking to external sites. The material inside the ref tags needs to be put into proper format so the references display at the bottom of the article. I will fix this later if you haven't yet. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I repaired the references so they display properly and while I was there, noticed some tendentious statements which were not supported by the cited web pages, regarding sundrying and saccharine flavor. I deleted these, with an explanation on the talk page. I also changed the 1764 reference to make clear it is a company claim, but even this is partly unsupported by the very sparse Bambu web site (the date is there, but not the other details about Alcoy). Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My edit got reverted, the deceptively sourced statements and misformed references are back in the article, and two users are busy reverting each other on the hour. I hope an admin will take a look, as this page is way out of control. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have warned ArnaudMS that he may be blocked for disruptive editing if he keeps re-inserting his claims about Bambu rolling papers (such as the 1764 foundation date) without persuading the other editors that his claims are justified. EdJohnston (talk) 06:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Ed I see why it's so important to them that they remain on the List of oldest companies. They have it hyperlinked to their Bambu.com web page!  They say how they are one of the 1000 world's oldest companies. See http://www.bambu.com/history.php, This information we have uncovered about the true foundation date being 1907 must be quite devastating to their marketing.  I hope they will amend their marketing and quit using us as their false springboard.  Can you please help Page Protect the List of oldest companies.Nahome (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * HELP - NOW THEY ARE ATTACKING MY PERSONAL USER PAGE AND ALSO 3RR'S THE List of oldest companies. Please assist asap :(    After an Admin warning the user 71.164.114.50 re-attacked me and wrote some long amazing posts on my page.  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nahome&oldid=405228494 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nahome&oldid=405250909 User claims to be from Newport - quick Google of the store they claim to be from says Newport NH  But IP traces entirely to someone/somewhere else entirely (I'm sure that is just a lie like everything else).   Please block them from being able to attack me or Wiki any further.

Nahome (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that has been blocked for 31 hours. If you still need to ask for page protection, use Requests for page protection. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Fledgling Jason Steed
Why does Wikipedia carry articles on seemingly non-notable books such as Whispering to Witches, yet repeatedly deletes an article on Fledging Jason Steed - a book which has been named as a favourite by stars such as Justin Bieber and Taylor Swift on the Ellen show, and by Malia Obama on the Teen Zone show?--80.176.190.43 (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Take a look at the notability guidelines for books and "but...but this other article exists". – ukexpat (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes - I understand all that but... it seems to meet at least the minimum Wikipedia book notability guidlines, including reviews by Wikipedia-approved "reliable sources" organisations such as Kirkus, and being stocked at more than 70 libraries across America,. Not to mention being named as the favourite book of the daughter of America's president. --80.176.190.43 (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The most recent deletion discussion was in June 2009. If there are new reliable sources to show that it passes the notability guidelines for books then a new article might be possible. It should be created as a user space draft so that it can be reviewed without risk of immediate deletion. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Recreating this article is not worth the time/effort. It will be deleted within minutes and you will probably be banned as a sockpuppet at the same time. Hey ho - let the Wikipedia 'police' have their jollies, and don't bother playing into their hands.--BullLane (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Race (classification of humans)
This subject, the human classification by race, has been ring-fenced by two editors who are relentlessly pushing a single point of view as if that is the only one extent. I have objected by generating long lists of the counter opinions of other qualified geneticists and biologists who disagree that race is entirely a social construct, and provide evidence that many scientists believe (especially in the medical field) that humans can be usefully divided by DNA markers, anatomy, geographical origin, etc., in order to provide more tailored medical intervention. At every turn my many suggestions have been met with scorn, bullying, threats or, if the evidence I supply is incontrovertible, complete refusal to discuss the issue. (One example, my scientists have been rejected as "unreliable," using as evidence a study by a Stanford team that agrees with them. When I supplied TWO Stanford teams who agree with me, there was no reply whatsoever.)

I do not seek ot overturn the general gist of the article; rather, I wish merely to have some small section to indicate to readers that the subject is hotly disputed and that many legitimate workers in the field disagree with the political/sociological interpretation/classification of human races. Tholzel (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your signature is not displaying properly -- it has no link to your talk page. See WP:SIG. Regarding the race discussion, please see the advice given at WP:ARBR&I. This is a hotly disputed area and what you consider to be 'a small section' is unlikely to be accepted without major debate. Wikipedia is not a forum. If you find yourself continuing to make your arguments without persuading anyone else on the talk page, please take that as a sign that you should consider dropping the subject. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 06:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank-you for your suggestion. Unfortunately, there are plenty of editors who disagree with the current one-sided version, but they are also prevented from getting a foot in the door. My complaint is that the article is controlled by two editors of like mind who are deliberately excluding a major aspect of the subject matter, no matter how many other editors disagree. I do not wish to argue the points, but just let readers know that the subject is highly contentious with strongly differing opinions by sources as qualified as the only ones currently allowed.Tholzel (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of content
Hi,

I wanted to seek guidance on the above article. In February 2007, after much research and contact with the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch, I added the following factual piece of text: "The Bell Jetranger Helicopter used in the film was involved in a serious accident in 1989, when it collided with overhead electricity cables when the pilot was approaching a field to land. Luckily the crew escaped with minor injuries. However the helicopter did not fare so well, it was written off and broke up for parts."

This piece of information has recently been deleted by an editor on the grounds that "it's not actually relevant to the film"

That being the case probably half of the rest of the article could be deleted as being not relevant.

Is this in keeping with Wikipedia policies?

Booke23 (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this is probably covered by the key question, "does this content add to the reader's understanding of the subject?" – ukexpat (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Can I point out that one shouldn't insert information into an article, factual or otherwise, based on "much research and contact with the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch": this will fall under WP:OR. Instead, information needs to be derived from published reliable sources, per WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your replies. I should point out that the information I refer to is actually taken from an official accident report published by the AAIB. This report is not available online but is in the public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Booke23 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Again my question, a little more bluntly, "So what?" - what relevance does this have to the article about the movie? – ukexpat (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I wonder how many readers of the original article thought "So what?" Not many it seems as the above paragraph remained on the article for nearly 4 years. In an article about a film, judging if facts are relevant or not is very much subjective. As I said, a significant amount of the remainder of this article and many others like it could be removed using this rationale. However this is an encyclopedia. Part of the definition of encyclopedia is "a summary of information from all branches of knowledge" So surely supplimental information is required. If I wanted to read basic facts I'd look at a dictionary entry.....which is what some articles on wikipedia are in danger of becoming with policies like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Booke23 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact that it was there for nearly 4 years is, to be frank, irrelevant - there have been cases of serious vandalism and hoax articles that have been around for as long or longer before they were dealt with. But back to the issue - you would have a point, maybe, if the official report indicated that the use of this particular helicopter in this movie damaged it in some way leading to its demise, that would possibly be relevant. However, the mere fact that it crashed three years later is, as far as this article is concerned, of no relevance. I am sure many vehicles used in movies meet untimely ends some time after filming wraps, but that does not mean that its relevant to the articles about the movies. Similarly, the fact that one of the stars of a movie dies, even if in tragic circumstances, some time after filming, is not relevant to a movie article. – ukexpat (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * We shall have to agree to disagree. I just looked up the first helicopter based show that came into my head: . And there I find an extensive paragraph describing what happened to the helicopter after the show. Including details of subsequent owners and details of an accident that destroyed the helicopter. Completely irrelevant to the show. But I, and thousands of users want to read about it. Because it's interesting. Booke23 (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Blue water Navy
The blue water Navy article needs immediate help. It's just in a big mess.Bcs09 (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That would be . – ukexpat (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A heads up here, the user is calling it a "big mess" due to consensus on a proposal not going his way. Situation is under control now with a Mediation Cabal request having been answered and a consensus recorded. G.R. Allison (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Attempt to correct fact about Richard Holbrooke
Three times I have modified the "Early Life" section of Richard Holbrooke to remove "His original name remains unknown.[2]" and replace it with "His original name was Goldbrajch." I added a footnote that the source is "Declration of Intention, Southern District (New York) Court." I have that document in my possession. I also have two other sources where Dan Holbroolke indicated his birth surname was Goldbrajch.

GaryMokotoff (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Gary Mokotoff


 * This is a content dispute and should be discussed on the article's talk page. If you have sources other than the declaration, please discuss them them there. – ukexpat (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

added ' popular media ' king of the hill - order of the straight arrow that features a snipe hunt camp for the scouts & some links to the episode in " snipe hunt "
hi, i edited snipe hunt as above using a link tp another wiki page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Order_of_the_Straight_Arrow

i got a message saying it was an unreliable source : Hi there. Thanks for your interest in the article Snipe hunt. Unfortunately neither of the references you provided are considered reliable, so your edit has been reverted. Have a read of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Examples of sources that are considered unreliable and therefore not allowed on wikipedia include any wiki sites, including other wikipedia articles, networking sites such as facebook and myspce, forums, and blogs. Also have a read of WP:Cite web to learn how to format references properly. For starters you need to place 'ref tags' on either side of the website you are using as a reference. If you wish to add popular culture mentions to articles in the future please ensure you have a reliable reference that is formatted properly. If you cannot find a reference from a reliable third party, then it should not be mentioned on wikipedia.

this to me seems contrary, if the other article (order of the straight arrow ) is allowed to stand , but i can't link to it in a related article , how does that work ? could someone explain ?

cheers paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmoza (talk • contribs) 09:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Thanks for posting here. The answer is that there are lots of poorly-referenced articles here, and only a relatively small number of editors who are concerned with cleaning up sourcing and, as a last resort, starting the deletion process on articles that can't be well sourced. The Order of the Straight Arrow does have a notice on it about its lack of good sourcing. Can you track down some more reliable sources for either of them? It would certainly be appreciated if you could. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Cuomo edit war
Has repeatedly ignored my requests to acknowledge January 1 as the date Cuomo took office. He/she is causing great disruption to this page, and refuses to offer any legitimate counter-arguements on his/her position other than "Disagree", despite the points I have made on his/her talk page and in my reverts. We have not had any feedback or support from any other users. I have maxed out my three reverts, so cannot do much further, except to see if he/she makes some argument on his/her position. Sinisterminister (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Both of you have breached WP:3R so I would advise you both to leave the article alone for the rest of the day. – ukexpat (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I have acknowledged this and will stop. 75.73.50.195 has made a rather desperate comment on the discussion board. Fortunately, GoodDay (talk) has provided some helpful backup. Sinisterminister (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The NYT says he was 'sworn in' on 31 December 2010. I suggest you leave it at that without  trying  to  put your own interpretation  on  it, hope that  nobody  reports  you  for WP:3rr,(blockable) and try  to  be a little less aggressive on  other editors'  talk  pages. --Kudpung (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The NY Constitution says an elected official assume office at midnight New Year's Day, following the previous year's November election. If oath taking was taken so literally? The US. Presidency would've been vacant for roughly 10 minutes, every Inauguration Day. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Kudpung, while I appreciate your input, I think you are missing the point of the debate, which is the legal distinction that has been made between a swearing in ceremony and the official, legal point at which an elected official has taken office. That said, I agree with GoodDay. Ceremonies are just that - ceremonies. And the cited source (here) reveals BOTH that while the swearing in ceremony took place on the evening 12/31, but Cuomo did not officially become governor until 1/1. This was all stated in one sentence in one New York Times article cited. I am not "interpreting" anything, and am not sure where you are seeing this. The facts are quite clear. Sinisterminister (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes I only  partly  read the NYT  article, and I  have no  knowledge of, and no personal interest in  the Constitution of the United States. That said, I was far more concerned with  the tone of your messages to another editor when you are in breach of policy, and not signing  your posts.  Kudpung (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Kudpung, I'm not sure who you are responding to. And why are you referring to the US Constititution? And who is not signing their posts? This is all very confusing. Please clarify. Sinisterminister (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Chicago
Hi. Please look the recent edit history of Chicago. The user Verygentle1969 keeps adding a sentence that is unsourced trivia. I have deleted and explained why but he/she keeps adding it back with no explanation and without addressing the issues raised. This trivia simply does not belong. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You have explained your deletion in your edit summaries, but a new editor probably won't have discovered the History tab yet and won't have seen your messages. I suggest you post at User talk:Verygentle1969, very gently, explaining your concern. I've begun the page with a standard welcome message. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The user User talk:Verygentle1969 ignored my concerns, after I told him of them on his talk page. He again edited without source or comment. I deleted his latest edit as unsourced.  Any help you can provide, would be appreciated.Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * He's made the same edit four or five times today; I added a 3RR warning to his Talk page. Let's hope he doesn't do it again. (He's made edits of similar type to Mexico City and List of Independent Cities.) JohnInDC (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleted article information
Is it possible to get a list of any old article I created that was eventually deleted. I had a bunch that were deleted for lacking sources a while back before I learned to give a proper citation, and I wanted to go through them, but there are so many from a long time ago I lost track. I don't know which ones are really worth trying to save, but at least a list would be helpful. Can something like that be requested? Maybe some sort of bot that matches article created by me with eventual deletion and make a list?Mathewignash (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you don't get a good reply here, ask the question again on your talk page and add the template. Only an administrator will be able to see your deleted contributions. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Dax-Devlon Ross
User:DDRfan/Dax-Devlon Ross (writer)

This is my first article and it is about a living person of note. I am requesting assistance in whatever changes I must make in order to make it fit the Wiki guidelines. I appreciate any/all help. Thank you in advance! DDRfan 16:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)DDRfan


 * First you need to establish that this person is notable enough for a Wikipedia article to exist about him. To do this you must show that he has attracted media coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the writer himself. There are additional guidelines at WP:AUTHOR. My Google searches find books by this author but not much that is about him.
 * Then, sadly, I think you need to post the links to those reliable sources at Requested articles and not write the article yourself. Your user page says that you have worked with this writer and that you are a fan of his. This makes it likely that you have a conflict of interest in writing the article and are unlikely to achieve a neutral point of view in your text.
 * All bad news, I'm afraid, but most of these links are already on your talk page as part of the messages there. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite agreed. Basically, you're writing ads/puff pieces, nothing near neutral encyclopedia articles. The draft in your userspace has the same problem. If you're an admirer and former coworker, probably best to let someone else write this one, if an article's appropriate at all. Maybe you can find a topic you're a little more able to be neutral on. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite agreed. Basically, you're writing ads/puff pieces, nothing near neutral encyclopedia articles. The draft in your userspace has the same problem. If you're an admirer and former coworker, probably best to let someone else write this one, if an article's appropriate at all. Maybe you can find a topic you're a little more able to be neutral on. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I will delete it. Wiki is obviously not the place for me. DDRfan 18:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)DDRfan — Preceding unsigned comment added by DDRfan (talk • contribs)

Sylvester Stallone filmography
Your filmography of Sylvester Stallone left out a moive that he stared in back in 1967 with Edd Byrnes called the RED BLOOD,YELLOW GOLD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.243.221.98 (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So long as reliable sources confirm that he was in that film, you can add that to the article. When it says "You can edit this page", really, you can! Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Article contains many grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriela_Spanic

This article was obviously edited by someone whose first language is not English. Please review.

Parts that are grammatically incoherent include, but aren't limited to:

'1998-2002 La Usurpadora and Hiatus

Gaby was invited in 1998 to star in one of the most important roles of her life, the novela "La Usurpadora" who until then would be Thalia.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyra borealis (talk • contribs)


 * Why don't you go ahead and fix it? – ukexpat (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Citing xls tables
Not quite sure how to cite these language use tables. They are from the U.S. Census Bureau, here (see Detailed Tables » [XLS - 850k] ) and will be cited on Welsh language. Help would be appreciated. Daicaregos (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * looks like it may have the information you need. Is that what you're looking for? Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of something like: . Would you use a "format" section? Any other changes? Daicaregos (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd throw in "format=xls" and omit the "work". If you include both "work" and "publisher" the reference will mention the USCB twice. -- John of Reading (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll do that. Thank you both for your help. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy issue with article
I have tried (in vain) to edit the Wikipedia article on the Patriot Guard Riders. The original author states: "The Patriot Guard Riders is a motorcycle club that attends the funerals of members of the Armed Forces at the invitation of the deceased’s family.[1][2][3][4]"

This is completely false as the Patriot Guard Riders themselves state in several locations on their website that they are NOT a "motorcycle club". They are in fact a legally incorporated, non-profit organization which does not require it's members to ride motorcycles, does not have meetings and do not collect dues.

When I have explained this to the author (who keeps changing the edit back to "motorcycle club") his reply is that it is OK to use motorcycle club because "he feels" that they are! He also states that it does not matter what the PGR wants to be called.

This type of attitude by editors on wikipedia is very detrimental to the reputation of wikipedia. One PGR member who is also a teacher has stated on the PGR website: "I am a teacher, I use wikipedia a lot, and I count on the accuracy of the information." When editors refuse to replace opinions in an article with an accurate fact, it makes wikipedia useless.

As I stated to the author on the "talk" page, the Patriot Guard Riders have worked very hard with the Confederation of Clubs (national clearinghouse for all motorcycle clubs) to allow our members to wear PGR patches on their clothing. This is a very sensitive issue amongst motorcycle clubs and the COC has allowed the PGR members to wear their PGR patches (which members purchase, unlike motorcycle clubs where they must be earned) to "missions". The COC allows this because they do not recognize the PGR as a motorcycle club. Stating that the PGR IS a motorcycle club could damage their reputation and cause problems with real MC's.

Patriot Guard Riders Articles of Incorporation http://www.patriotguard.org/Portals/0/NTForums_Attach/PGR%20Articles%20of%20Incorporation.pdf

PGR Non-Profit, 501c3 Approval http://www.patriotguard.org/Portals/0/NTForums_Attach/PGR%20501c3%20Approval%20letter%20-%2022%20JUN%2007.pdf

"Motorcycle Clubs" are not Corporations!

We would respectfully request that the article be amended simply to state:

"The Patriot Guard Riders is an American, non-profit (501c3) Corporation who's members attend the funerals of members of the Armed Forces at the invitation of the deceased’s family.[1][2][3][4]"

This would make the article true and accurate.

Thank you for your consideration.

Scott Hayes, moderator, pgrny.org Patriot Guard Riders Rochester, NY

Winger58 (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As I already see you've been told by several editors at the talk page, we go by what reliable sources say, period. Several sources were shown to you indicating that the Patriot Guard was stated to be a motorcycle club. (Note that this doesn't mean it's a "motorcycle club" according to any given organization's standards for one, just that it would be considered in common parlance to be such). If you feel that's an egregious error, you're approaching this from the wrong direction. You need to first contact the sources who said it's a motorcycle club, explain you feel they made a factual error, and ask them to correct. If they do so, we'll change the article according to their correction. We're here to summarize and collate what sources say, not to substitute our judgment for theirs.
 * If you've already done that, and they stand by their story and are unwilling to correct, I'm afraid you're out of luck. It's a possibility that might happen, and they might say "Hey, folks, by any reasonable use of the term, you're a club made up overwhelmingly of motorcycle riders. You're therefore a legitimate and noble motorcycle club, but in a common manner of speaking a club nonetheless." (You could sue them, I suppose, if you really want to take it that far.) And unfortunately, we generally cannot take the word of an organization over that of a disinterested, reliable third-party source which has written about it.
 * If you haven't yet contacted the sources and asked them to correct, I'd strongly advise you do so. Wikipedia follows what reliable third-party sources say. We don't correct, editorialize, or do our own reporting. If the source corrects or changes what they said, we do too, but not the other way around. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request re Prostitution
Some time ago I was looking at the Discussion page for Prostitution and saw an Edit Request from Laura Agustin. Someone responsible replied to her saying it was ok but she should not write about her own work. I then wrote underneath that I would be able to do this. No one has answered me and I don't understand how to make an Edit Request there. I don't want to participate in the discussion/argument about the meaning of prostitution, just add something about Agustin's work.

Wikinawikina (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I just wrote something but it has ended up under someone else's issue. How do I ask how to make an edit request please?

Wikinawikina (talk) 12:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You don't need anyone's permission to edit a Wikipedia article. If you can add relevant, sourced material to any article, be bold and try it. I've left you some introductory reading on your talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't need anyone's permission to edit a Wikipedia article. If you can add relevant, sourced material to any article, be bold and try it. I've left you some introductory reading on your talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't need anyone's permission to edit a Wikipedia article. If you can add relevant, sourced material to any article, be bold and try it. I've left you some introductory reading on your talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Prostitution is semi-protected and can be edited by autoconfirmed users. Your account became autoconfirmed when you made your second post here so you should now be able to edit Prostitution. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Gerald Browne
I created a new page naming Gerald A. browne after the American author.it got saved and it's shown in my contribution's list.But when i open a new page and search Gerald a browne, they still say that no page exists.

Xenops belle (talk) 12:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, Gerald A. Browne (with the dot) exists. If you search for Gerald a browne, you will not get that page.  For some things like that, you need to put in a redirect page (which I have done at Gerald a browne for you, if you want to see what they look like). Syrthiss (talk) 13:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (e/c) The article is there, but the indexes used by the "search" box are only updated once a day. If it hasn't sorted itself out in 24 hours, feel free to post again here. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

PRESS FOR CHANGE
Article: PRESS FOR CHANGE

This article has been delted recently - Press For Change is still very much alive and well. We don't know who has done this, but we do know our website has been repeatedly hacked ove the last month, and wonder whether this is part of some strange person's campaign against us. Eitherway is there any way that this can be rescued. As it is deleted, I cannot edit. Many thanks Tommy 03-01-2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy1955 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Re. PRESS FOR CHANGE I was going to put up a temporary page for this article, since it has been deleted - I can only imagine maliciously. If I do that will it destroy any previous record of the page. Tommy  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy1955 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Capitalization matters. There has been no page called PRESS FOR CHANGE. Press For Change had a single sentence and was deleted in 2007. Press for Change had two sentences and no sources. It was deleted more than four months ago, 29 August 2010, per Criteria for speedy deletion. I see no sign of malice in either deletion. Please don't throw around wild speculation like that. See Assume good faith. See also Notability (organizations and companies) and FAQ/Organizations. Only administrators can see the content of deleted pages, regardless of whether a new page has been created with the same name. If you refer to another page than those named here then please give the exact name including the right capitalization. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (e/c) Hi Tommy. If you looked at your contribution (which is linked through your signature and through the "my contributions" tab at the top of the screen) you would have seen that you created an article on this topic at your user page (also part of your signature and linked through the tab for your name at the top of the screen) on September 27, 2010. It had never been deleted. Now, the reason I am using past tense is because I just deleted the page as a copyright infringement (as well as noting that it read as unsalvageably promotional and that it failed to indicate importance or significance). The deletion log entry is here. Since you are writing as if you are an owner of the content, please note that if you want to post that content here, you would have to release it into the public domain or under a free license compatible with ours for us to use it. See Donating copyrighted materials. However, the content was not suitable as an encyclopedia article in any event. Articles must contain neutral language and not read as PR pieces. Note also our notability requirements for organizations. You would need to cite to independent, reliable sources that verified the content to show that notability. Finally, please note that you may have just been speaking in a certain style, but your use of the word "we" in your post gives the impression that your account is shared by others in your organization. Role accounts are not allowed. Please also note our conflict of interest guidelines.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Date of birth formats on Biography of living persons
Hi. I was wondering if anyone could answer my question. Is there an official standard format for "date of birth" on the Biography of living persons pages? My change to the Pierce Brosnan page was reverted to "standard format." I read on WP:DATESNO that both the "Month before day" and "Day before month" formats are accepted. I guess the British/European biography pages tend to use the "Day before month" format, while the American/Canadian pages use the former. I don't really care which format is used to tell you the truth, but I am concerned about consistency. In this section of WP:MOSBD, it says, "For an individual still living: 'Serena Williams (born September 26, 1981) ...', not '... (September 26, 1981 –) ...' I don't see anywhere in that section indicating that a different format other than "Month before day" is used. So, does it really matter? Thanks for reading. Happy New Year. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's related to our general rules on respecting variations in use of the English language. Articles on Americans use U.S. practice; articles on English, Irish and Indians use English practice, etc. If there is no standardized practice in the subject's country, then we retain whatever format the first creator of the article used. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  02:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Another opinion needed on Mel Odom (artist) Talk Page
First, this problem would seem to belong on the Third Opinion noticeboard, but now more than two editors are involved. If this is not the right noticeboard for this concern, please forgive me but I don't know which noticeboard to contact besides this one.

A couple of editors are proposing references that contradict a New York Times article, but I don't feel their references either address the issue at hand and in one case one of the references doesn't strike me as being verifiable, reliable or third-party. This is concerning the artist, Mel Odom.

I have requested a Third Opinion in this matter when it was just two editors, myself and another, in dispute, but as I say, now there are three.

Please advise at the Talk:Mel_Odom_(artist) Mel Odom (artist) Talk Page. Thank you.Mary Cross (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * One NYT refrence A Doll for the 90's: Beautiful but No Bimbo is about Billy Boy, and apart from a very fleeting  mention, is not at  all about Mel Odom, and is not a source that contributes to  Odom's notability. The second NYT reference: A Star Is Born, and She's a Doll is acceptable. More sources are required to  satisfy 'significant  coverage' per WP:NOTABILITY. The article needs a rewrite for neutrality and to remove the promotional tones. I  see a list  of references on  the talk  page. Is there any  reason why these cannot  be added to the article? BTW/ It  is not  recommended to  ask  for help in more than one department  at  a time.Kudpung (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No one at the Biography of Living Persons board answered me. As I told you, I requested a Third Opinion but then the dispute became one between more than two editors, so I came here, not wanting to break the rules at 3O.  The list of references you see are in my opinion tangential and do not support or deny the claim made in The New York Times, in my opinion, and the one reference that does deny the claim made in The New York Times is from what I consider an unverifiable, unreliable and non-third-party source.  I'm not sure if anyone else is actually reading the references on that list besides myself.  Any in depth help would be appreciated.  Thank you.Mary Cross (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I thionk that you have had sufficient answers, the fact taht you don't agree with them doesn't make them any less valid. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact that I don't agree with them doesn't make them valid, either, with all due respect. If you feel the answers are sufficient then I would ask you to look closer.  The issue at hand is whether or not Mr. Odom painted the first make-up for the Mdvanii doll.  None of the contradictory references so far given by the other editors hold water, in my opinion.  I'm looking for someone else to read those references as well.  This is a dispute over references.Mary Cross (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, let us cut to the chase. i would appear to me that there are NO reliable sources on whether Odom painted the make-up. Given that this is such a trivial point and there is no Rs, remove the information about the barbie doll. End of story. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Further - looking at the article again, removing the trivia would mean removing the article. the subject is not demonstrated to be notable at  present. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit dispute over Criticism about StackExchange
We've been having a minor edit dispute on the Stack Exchange page, regarding the Criticism section. Some other editors and I have questioned the validity of the criticisms. They are vague, and some do not understand them. The sources are small blogs.

The details are on the discussion page. Could someone please help sort this out?

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InverseHypercube (talk • contribs) 03:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have responded at the talk page. The article has several problems including unreliable and primary sources and no clear evidence of notability. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Angie Dickinson
You forgot to add her TV movie in 1997 with Richard Crenna, Deep Family Secrets, to her film career.


 * Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If you can add relevant, reliably sourced information to Angie Dickinson, or any other Wikipedia article, please be bold and do it. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

multiple co-ordinates
Hello,

I have been working on the Sheridan College wiki and am stumped as to how I can add 2 extra co-ordinates in the top right hand corner. You see there are 3 campuses and they would like them all listed there, complete with campus name.

for example:

Coordinates: Oakville Campus 43°28'10.42"N     79°41'52.05"W / Brampton Campus  43°39'20.27"N     79°44'18.58"W / Mississauga Campus 43°35'25.77"N   79°38'48.93"W

Cumminsr (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Romona


 * I don't think it can be done using Coord. But a more fundamental question: are you editing on behalf of the College? If so, please read WP:COI - the college doesn't own the article and cannot insist on its contents. – ukexpat (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Editor assistance requested for article about Peter Munk
Hello,

My name is Sakura Saunders and I am the editor and co-founder of Protestbarrick.net. Recent additions that I have made to Peter Munk's wikipedia entry have been repeatedly erased, despite the fact that I have linked every fact to a reliable source. I consider myself an expert of Barrick Gold and have been recognized by Parliament for my grassroots activism against the company (see: http://www.rabble.ca/whatsup/walking-talk-human-rights-abroad). I am sure that whoever is editing out my additions about Munk is a paid person to protect his image, and apparently the fact that I am a recognized (and volunteer) activist regarding Barrick Gold is being held against me for adding information/links to Peter Munk's page? The note I received from Wikipedia says that this site is not for self-promotion, but the munkoutofuoft site is an activist and informational site, it exists to promote a cause and critical information. It does not exist to make a profit (nor does it even have a donation page!) and does not promote any products. I assure you that I can provide sources for every fact that I state. I believe that censoring this site sets a dangerous precident for wikipedia, one that I'm sure would damage its reputation with its supporters. I know that myself (as a past financial contributor to the site) am disgusted at my censorship in favor of a gold mining magnate!

best, and much respect to wikipedia! Cherryblossom1979 (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC) cherryblossom1979


 * With all due respects, it appears to me that the only reverts of your edits are based on your infringements of Wikipedia policy as clearly explained already on the talk page. The article already has serious defects of required sourcing - another reason why editors should read all the instructions before contributing - and could at any time be reduced to  a two-line stub, thus negating  anyone's efforts to  write this biography. Please see my comments on the talk page. --Kudpung (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Further to that, you have already raised this, and been answered, here: Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Asking the same question in multiple places is unlikely to get you further help. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit dispute over Paramore Genre
On the talk page for Paramore talk page, Talk:Paramore, I entered a discussion about the inclusion of the genre Emo. I provided a number of reliable sources to back its inclusion and edited the infobox accordingly. The user F-22 Raptored still strongly disagrees, reverting my changes, claiming that the sources are wrong without evidence to back this other than, what I believe is, his own opinion. A fairly small issue but one I don't see being resolved soon. Could someone help? Thanks HrZ (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There will certainly be references from the music press referring to the band as emo, so it will at least be valid for an editor to claim that the band has been called emo. HrZ is right to say (on Paramore's talk page) that it matters what The New York Times and NME says. Whether they are emo in your opinion is irrelevant, as Wikipedia is just a reflection of reliable information sources. You'll probably have to live with that, I'm afraid. Don't be so emo about it! :-) Wenttomowameadow (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I had a moment of incredible stupidity and found myself replying to F-22 Raptored's comments on Paramore's talk page and not your comment here! You're right to dismiss his attempts to alter the article to his point of view. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, hopefully that puts an end to the matter! HrZ (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

George Smith (Assyriologist)
According to British Baptism Records: 1839, page 128; Census Records - England: 1851 Household 82, 1871 Household 262 (Ancestry.com).George Smith was born in Middlesex, London in 1839. Please correct this error. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michal1226 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't really the correct place to inform us of this, though thank you for the information. Unfortunately, Ancestry.com may not be considered a reliable source for this on its own, particularly given that George Smith is likely to have been an exceedingly common name. I think all that can reasonably be done for now is to put a note on the article talk page, in the hope that it is investigated further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Axis of Eve
As a novice user of Wikipedia, I am having a great deal of trouble initiating a dispute over the deletion of a page called "Axis of Eve." I have been able to locate this information:

16:22, 6 July 2010 HJ Mitchell (talk | contribs) deleted "Axis of Eve" ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: unnotable topic) 16:23, 6 July 2010 HJ Mitchell (talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Axis of Eve" ‎ (G8: Talk page of a deleted page) 00:01, 8 July 2010 Yet Another Redirect Cleanup Bot (talk | contribs) deleted "Axis of eve" ‎ (Deleting broken redirect to Axis of Eve per WP:CSD#G8. (BOT))

...but I don't know where to go from there. I have visited the page of HJ MItchell but as a novice I have no clue how to actually leave him a message. So instead I am sending this message, in the hopes that someone can help me.

I would like to dispute the page deletion and reinstate the page in question, for these reasons:

- the page most definitely contained a notable topic: like the Guerrilla Girls or Code Pink, Axis of Eve was an important part of the history of women's political participation in the US. It was wildly popular during the 2004 election runup, garnering thousands of website hits per day; the group was documented in countless media outlets including multiple articles in the NYTimes, Boston Glove, and even Vogue; the group engaged hundreds of young women with its innovative and satirical approach to political expression; it is often cited in women's studies courses.

- the page was established in 2004 after extended discussion among wikipedia editors and contributors (this discussion is still accessible online under the heading "Axis of evil")

- the page had numerous links, newspaper articles, and contributors (unlike many existing wikipedia pages, which have almost no content)

I am not sure why the person who deleted it concluded that it was an unnotable topic, and I regret that I was not on Wikipedia frequently enough to notice and dispute the proposed deletion before it happened. I would like to remedy this now by getting the page back up. I have tried to follow wikipedia's instructions, but I just can't seem to get anywhere! Can you help?

Tati8284 (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Tati8284
 * This page was deleted via the proposed deletion process, which allows any editor to contest the deletion, even after it's taken place. Given that you're clearly contesting it, I've restored the article. I'll also leave you a message on your talk page with some instructions for some of the more common things you might want to know. And welcome! Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Awesome - thank you for the rapid response! This will inspire me to learn more... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tati8284 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

BATTLE OF THE LITTLE BIG HORN
How do I get a copy of Gen.Terry's written order to Custer -- go up the Rosebud etc -- I want to see for myself how much discretion Terry gave Custer name and email redacted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.103.152 (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Have you tried WikiSource? – ukexpat (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism  is the article in question
I believe your information about proteins contained in this article is incorrect. It has been found that ALL vegetables are complete proteins and contain way more than the daily allotment In fact the woman who wrote up the original research recanted her information. This is a page confirming it all http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/protein.html. It has a very good chart(the second one). Here is a sample excerpt-Interestingly, it's very easy to trace the protein combining myth to its original source: A bestselling book called Diet for a Small Planet, in 1971. The author, Frances Moore-Lappé, wanted to promote meatless eating because meat production wastes horrific amounts of resources. But she knew her readers would think you couldn't get enough protein on a vegetarian diet, so she set out to reassure them, by telling them that if they carefully combined various plant foods, like rice and beans, the inferior plant proteins would become just as "complete" as the ones in meat...........But it wasn't long before Lappé realized her mistake, and owned up to it. In the 1981 edition of Diet for a Small Planet, she recanted:.....This is a highly informative page many scientist's supporting this info. Debunking the long time myths about protein and vegetarianism is long overdue.

Thank you for your time on this matter. redact contact info —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.29.215.236 (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your link does not appear to meet the reliable source requirements for article content. Active Banana    (bananaphone  01:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, using Google Scholar will bring up many reliable sources with the same information. --Danger (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm concerned I have not exhausted all the means in contacting an Editor with whom I have a dispute.
I'm concerned I have not exhausted all the means in contacting an Editor with whom I have a dispute. This is in regards to the article Constable. If you examine the edit history of the article you will see that I have made what feel to believe reasonable comments why I have disagreed with this Editor and undone changes he/she has made, which I consider to be both censorship of data as well advocacy. My experience as an Editor is extremely limited and I may not have exhausted all possibilities available to contact the user. I use my real name as an Editor in hopes the other editor might contact me directly. I am an elected official and I'm concerned that the article be accurate and neutral. Jordan Clements Ross (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The usual place to start a discussion on such matters is the article talk page. I notice that there has not  been much  movement  on  that talk  page for three years! You  can  try  posting  your concern there, and leaving  a short message or talkback template on the talk  pages of the other editors concerned. --Kudpung (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)--Kudpung (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW: To find out more about the use of 'talkback' follow the link  above, and see you  own talk  page at  User talk:Jordan Clements Ross. --Kudpung (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame)

 * I've brought this up at External_links/Noticeboard, hopefully some new voices will get involved (we're just treading the same ground, and there's nothing to be gained from me trying to deal with two of the loudest pro-link voices from the original debate). Wenttomowameadow (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

And I've moved this discussion to  the article talk  page where it belongs. EAR is for advice, not for continuing  a bickering  session  between article editors. Forum shopping is also  not  a good idea. Consider starting a discussion  with proper debate format or a Wikipedia Request for Comment. --Kudpung (talk) 13:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Can I just point out that I asked for advice on how to enact policy under attack, and that I had no interest in inviting people from the original debate to continue it here? There is no need to forum shop when the discussion has already been going on for months and the clear result is in your favour. I just want some help here, thank you very much Kudpung. You've now put the request for advice on the talk page of the article where it doesn't belong, and killed this request for help by trimming the actual request out of it. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It should be quite obvious that no  members of EAR are going  to  take an interest  in  offering  advice  when all  that  is happening  is an extension  of your dispute with User:DVdm on our help  page. No  EAR assistants have ventured to  intervene becauseof the reasons stated, and the forum shopping.  Your argument  is back where it  belongs.
 * FWIW, our advice is that controversial edits should be first  discussed on  the article talk  page. If that does not achieve agreement, consensus can be reached through  either a properly formatted debate,  or by starting a formal Request  for Comment before taking  the matter to  any  more notice boards or help desks. An RfC, if properly  announced, will  draw comments from  many  more editors than those just involved with  the article. Dispute resolution  should be the last  resort - WP:Forum shopping  is definitely not  a good idea. This topic has fallen outside the EAR remit and has been closed and archived, please understand that we are not interested in  the content of such  arguments carried out here. --Kudpung (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It has been through a RFC and I wanted advice on how to enforce a clear cut decision when I was coming under attack for it. Please stop trying to portray this as forum shopping, I have stated several times that I didn't want to discuss the issue with the link any further, and that the problem was acting on the process that had been carried out. If you hadn't edited out my actual question that would still be clear. If you look at the talk page in question you'll see that there is no need for forum shopping. If I've posted this in the wrong place then explain it to me, instead of accusing me of abusing the editor assistance system. This would help me understand, as I purposely avoided posting another RFC (as you advised) which really does seem like shopping for opinions (surely it's a more official process, whereas posting here is me saying "help, I want to do the right thing but I don't know how"). As it happens, people recognised my plea and the article in question now reflects the talk page discussion as it should without me being instantly reverted, which is precisely what I asked for help with in the first place, so feel free to mark this decimated request for assistance closed. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)