Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2013 April 4

= April 4 =

YouTube
What is the copyrite policy of Wikipedia related to YouTube materials? Is it allowable to place references to YouTube in the lists of external references?Сергей Олегович (talk) 03:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * YouTube is seldom a viable reference. Partial exceptions are made when the links are to YouTube videos placed by known reliable sources and do not violate copyright. It is seldom that a YouTube video tells us anything which could not be more usefully conveyed by sourced text. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  03:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your detailed answer.
 * Re: Reliability. In general, I agree with you. But in this particular case I am speaking about documentaries of BBC, National Geographics and similar establishes sources. In particular, the documentaries on history of USSR, WWI&WWII, Cold War etc. This sources often provide much more wide picture then written texts available in Russian at the moment. So I see it as consistent with the POV principle to list references to such materials in the lists of Exernal links (NB: not as references) in corresponding articles.
 * Re: Copyright This issue is the most important for me at the moment. The said above links sometimes get deleted on the basis of supposedly copyright breach reasons. Most frequently this happens in articles on history episodes which are still highly controvercial in Russia (Stalin's legacy, Gulag, Communism, etc.). I consider this as POV breach on formal pretext.
 * My question is: is there any copyright policy of Wikipedia that prevents using links to YouTube. Сергей Олегович (talk) 04:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You should not link to any content that is itself a copyright violation and many YouTube videos are. Basically, if you see a BBC/National Geographic video etc. on YouTube and its not uploaded by the channel itself, you should assume it's a copyright violation unless you have good reason to believe otherwise. See Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc. for an indication of how widespread it is. For the policy statement, see WP:ELNEVER.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the detailed explanations. Now the situation is much more clear to me. Сергей Олегович (talk) 05:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that links are not a required part of sources, especially for sources that exist in media outside of the internet. All that is required is a full set of bibliographic information such that someone could track down the source at, say, a local library.  For a video or episode of a television show, information as to the TV show, it's original air date, and the basic information like that, is all that is needed.  A link, where it wouldn't violate any other Wikipedia policies, is nice, but you should never feel the need to violate basic policies to force a link; this includes linking to YouTube copies of videos which have no clear provenance.  In short: links aren't required for media which exists outside of the internet, so you don't have to include such a link unless you're very sure the linked copy of the media is authorized and not a violation of copyright.  -- Jayron  32  05:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Matthew Price (ice hockey)
Hi. On the 30th March 2013 somebody vandalised the page "Matthew price" Ice hockey player. Can you please revert the page to the date prior to 30 march 2013.

Regards Jane Hamilton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.91.26.226 (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ The Anonymouse (talk &#124; contribs) 03:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The Sims Task Force Re-Branding Vote started on 3 April 2013
I wanted to know how long should I keep this topic vote open. We are a very small group, around 25 to 30-ish members, and today April 3, 2013 I opened the floor about re-branding The Sims Task Force, a Wikipedia's Project under Video Games project, and as noted above, stated two options between re-branding to Maxis Project or Electronic Arts Project with voting lines open and discussion about which way should we go. May question is what is the typical length of consensus period? The link to the poll is located here for your reference. Sundogs talk page sandbox 04:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Proposals on topics with far larger following - hundreds or even thousands of active editors - the "traditional" period is about a week, this is usually sufficient time to get a representative sampling of opinion. However, as you've said only 25-30 people are involved in this issue maybe you could post a notice about the matter to each of their talk pages - then you wait until a clear consensus of opinion emerges in the discussion. Please keep in mind the difference between a simple vote and consensus. Roger (talk) 06:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

How to provide reference? should I give reference of persons or institutions please guide me
m — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsbcwiki (talk • contribs) 05:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * See reliable sources and referencing for beginners RudolfRed (talk) 05:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Footnotes, but not for sources
Is there a specific order in which we should use footnotes on Wikipedia? I'm not referring to tags, but rather the use of *, †, ‡, ^ or other typographic symbols, in lists. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 08:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Such symbols are not used at all, typically such notes would be "referenced" by a superscript Note 1 which links to the footnote. See method D at WP:EXPLNOTE, it is the most commonly used method to sort references and explanatory footnotes into separate lists. Roger (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I need to add efn to that section: they are very useful for tables. --  Gadget850 (Ed) talk 09:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I didn't mean footnote, I'm not sure what the right term is. They're used in keys for lists. Regardless, these absolutely are used when the MOS is adhered to, per MOS:ACCESS. In order to comply with this subsection, they are necessary for accessibility for blind readers. Take a look at recently approved featured lists such as List of songs recorded by Cheryl Cole (dagger and purple bg colour), or List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Chaminda Vaas (asterisk, dagger, double dagger, and which uses them instead of colour) and you'll see what I mean. But I'm not sure which to use, and in which order, is the issue. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 09:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Typographic footnotes are rather quaint; the order and symbols depend on which method you use. One method uses:
 * Other methods include the use of parallels ||, the pilcrow ¶ and other symbols.--  Gadget850 (Ed) talk 09:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I assume from you saying there are multiple methods implies that there is no go-to standard for Wikipedia, and that either method is alright, then. Cheers. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 12:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I assume from you saying there are multiple methods implies that there is no go-to standard for Wikipedia, and that either method is alright, then. Cheers. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 12:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Stefan Jovetic
hi

can You semi protect stevan jovetic profile so it doesn't get vandalized thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regan89 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Requests for page protection must be made at WP:RPP-- Ushau97 talk 12:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Simplified Chinese

 * Header inserted --ColinFine (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Good morning! I am attempting to edit your article "Perfume River". When I attempt to paste my original article with traditional Chinese characters, Wikpedia changes them to simplified characters. How do I keep the original characters? Thanks Tfailmezge (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You could try asking at WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 20:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Long Sentence Pop-up help
Hi, I am editing a wikipage with a lot of contents and long sentences. I am wondering how I can fit in short sentences and when the reader places the cursor on these short sentences, a long sentence will pop up to describe the short sentence better. I do not want to link it to a new page though. Thanks for the help in advances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.57.212.13 (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I take it you mean a Wikipedia page (since this is the help page for Wikipedia editing). That is not the way Wikipedia articles work. It would be preferable to rewrite the article with shorter sentences. Which article do you need help with?--Shantavira|feed me 15:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Reference Page
I need to make edits to my reference Page but I cant locate it withing my Wikipedia write up it just says but i dont know how to the page to edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.51.178 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 4 April 2013‎


 * The details of the reference are contained in the section of text which is being sourced by the reference. If you click on the caret (^) alongside the reference number in the reference section it will move the cursor up to the relevant piece of text where the reference number is called up. Click the edit link at the top of that section to edit the section. You may find it useful to read WP:Referencing for beginners. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Shakespeare's first term 'strange bedfellows' in "The Tempest"
Hello,

I was looking up the original source of Shakespeare's term "strange bedfellows" and did not see it in your lengthy list; however, could you please add the reference (a shortened version, of course)-The Tempest--Act 2:

As the storm resumes and thunder sounds, Trinculo is forced into the nearest shelter, which happens to be Caliban's gaberdine (a loose-fitting cloak). As Trinculo famously puts it, "misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellows," and he uses the phrase more literally than we do. He must, to avoid the storm, actually lie down with the petrified Caliban (who thinks Trinculo a tormenting spirit) and share his garment as bedclothing. Trinculo's "strange" can mean either "foreign," "unknown," or "odd," while we use "strange" only in the last sense. We've also adapted the phrase to more metaphorical uses, meaning by "strange bedfellows" unexpected partners.

Source: enotes.com/study guides/Shakespeare quotes

Sincerely,

--74.104.138.130 (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Bev Cormier Ritz, Boston, MA

P.S. I refer to "Wikipedia" often for my research and find it to be a site with a "wealth of information"! Thanks.


 * Where exactly is the "lengthy list" you refer to? I presume you want to add the information about the phrase to it. Roger (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If you mean the page Strange bedfellows, that is a disambiguation page, which points to pages covering things named 'Strange bedfellows'. An occurrence of the phrase in a text is not appropriate for it, because the only thing that it could be linked to would be The Tempest, and a reader following the link would have little idea why it had sent them to that page. --ColinFine (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm also unsure what the OP wants, but perhaps some of the titles listed on the Strange bedfellows dab page could be included in List of titles of works taken from Shakespeare. Deor (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Fullscreen video problem
In Signpost here, there's a video of a frog eating a beetle. It plays OK. But if I double-click to make it full-screen, I see a completely different video, which says it is "A-Secreted-BMP-Antagonist-Cer1-Fine-Tunes-the-Spatial-Organization-of-the-Ureteric-Bud-Tree-during-pone.0027676.s011.ogv".

I suppose it's a bug, haha. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What browser are you using? It seems to be working fine for me using FF 19.0.2 Technical 13 (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am using FF 19.0.2 88.104.28.176 (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OH! I just figured out what you are doing... That is not the fullscreen button. That is wikimedia's thumbnail enlarge button, I know, it is confusing.  What is the difference, right... The "fullscreen button" only appears if you mouse over the video, and it appears as an "X" with arrows at all four points.  The thing you "thought" was full screen that looks like a window nested inside of another window is actually just a link to take you to the page that the file is located on. Technical 13 (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * File:A-Secreted-BMP-Antagonist-Cer1-Fine-Tunes-the-Spatial-Organization-of-the-Ureteric-Bud-Tree-during-pone.0027676.s011.ogv is later in the page. There is a full screen icon with a four-way arrow. That works for me. But if I double click an image from a video then I get full screen for the latest video I had played, regardless whether it was that one I double clicked. I don't know whether this is a bug or expected behaviour. I also use FF 19.0.2. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I had the same experience. --  Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * PH and G850... See my post right above yours... I figured out what the user was doing. Technical 13 (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No you didn't. As the IP said, and me and G850 replied to, it's about double clicking the image. It's not about clicking any button, and the button you mention has a completely different result from what the IP correctly said happened. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I just double-clicked for full-screen - which is pretty much standard, for YouTube, BBC iPlayer, VLCPlayer, Windows Media Player, and various others.

Surely, if it's bringing up completely the wrong clip, there's some problem with it. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Updating Dick's Last Resort
Hello, I work for Dick's Last Resort and have been tasked with getting our correct logo and menu items, as well as an updated description of our company on the Wikipedia page. What is my best way of getting our current info up? The logo and several of the menu items are extremely old and no longer represent the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddmurphy (talk • contribs) 16:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:COI and WP:PSCOI for how to edit when you have a conflict of interest. You can request that the logo be uploaded at WP:FFU. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * On the article talk page, create a new section - you can use this link.


 * Put (just like that, with double curly brackets) and then explain the changes you'd like. Give links to the logo and references to support any of the facts.


 * Also, it'd be a good idea to read WP:BESTCOI. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

HELP WITH SOME BOXES
I made some changes on the WP U2 page but then it chaged its original format. the the Wikiproject box, the Quick links box, the discussion pages box and the Statistics box  went to the bottom instead of staying the right where it always were. Please, help me to undo this but keeping the new adds

See, this is where I add and I need to keep it there:

Miss Bono  (zootalk)   17:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I see that you asked the same question at WP:EAR. Please don't ask the same question in more than one place, as it leads to a mish-mash of answers. I have archived that question. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Archiving this one too as it is being handled at WP:THQ.--ukexpat (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Log in
Hello, I created an account. I do not believe I used an e-mail to register this account and the password is not working. How can I access my account? I am trying to create a page for my company. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.44.193.1 (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You can't. You would need to create an account and then go through the usurpation process.-- Laun  chba  ller  18:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * And don't create a page for your company unless reliable sources show your company is notable. See WP:CORP for guidance.  Astronaut (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Additionally, it is strongly recommended that you do not create a page for your company. Please read WP:COI and WP:NPOV.  Thanks,  Gold   Standard  22:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

txting
what does -:) means in txt messaging· — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.74.220 (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's probably a guy with a mohawk smiling.-- Laun  chba  ller  18:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't use the help desk incorrectly. This page is only for questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia. For other types of questions, use the search box or the reference desk.  Gold   Standard  22:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Darcy Ward
Sirs

Why have my perfectly reasonable edits to the above page been subject to re-editing and why have I been subject to threats? removed unreferenced claims about a living person - 88.104.28.176 (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia also, disgracefully, allows the young lady in the sexual assault case to be labelled as "drunken".

D A Farrar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subedeithemongol (talk • contribs) 18:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You will need to cite a reliable source that that is indeed his nickname. I have also removed the other alleged nickname pending sourcing.--ukexpat (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[1] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:

Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR)

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source


 * Read on, at WP:BLP.


 * The only 'threats' I can see are warnings on your user talk page. If you add unsourced negative information to an article about a living person, you will be blocked. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * P.S. That applies here, too - so I removed part of your original message. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Sirs

A reliable source for my comments pertaining to pleading guilty to drink and drugs offences:

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/10240453.Speedway_star_Darcy_Ward_fled_police_while_drunk_and_on_drugs/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subedeithemongol (talk • contribs) 19:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That's fine, but you absolutely must use a reference for claims like those. If you need help with how, see Referencing for beginners. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * But we also need to consider how much WP:WEIGHT we give to that in the article, if any, even if there is a source.--ukexpat (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

New page didn't appear at Special:Newpages
I just created Ɛ́ as a redirect to Latin epsilon; it's an accented version of Ɛ, which already redirects there. The time of its creation was 20:12, 4 April 2013, but to my surprise, it didn't appear at Special:Newpages. Here are four consecutive entries on Special:Newpages: 20:13, 4 April 2013 ‎Dahaneh-e Zurak (hist) ‎[1,817 bytes] ‎Carlossuarez46 (talk | contribs | block) (create) 20:12, 4 April 2013 ‎Deh-e Rud Musevi (hist) ‎[1,719 bytes] ‎Carlossuarez46 (talk | contribs | block) (create) 20:12, 4 April 2013 ‎Deh-e Bazuiyeh (hist) ‎[1,708 bytes] ‎Carlossuarez46 (talk | contribs | block) (create) 20:11, 4 April 2013 ‎Save, Rwanda (hist) ‎[5,150 bytes] ‎Aymatth2 (talk | contribs | block) (initial stub) Why wouldn't it appear? Is it perhaps because it's such an unusual title? I notice that Ɛ́ takes longer to load than most pages (especially redirects!), so I wonder if the software can't treat it normally. Nyttend (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like redirects are hidden by default. Near the top of the page there is a "show" link to show them.  If I click that link I see the page you're asking about.  RudolfRed (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Duhh...Sorry about that; I completely overlooked the link you mention. Nyttend (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what to do re: upset new editor wanting to own an article
I'm not sure whether this is serious enough for ANI so I'll ask here first. is a new editor and has added a lot of content to the Anma article. He appears to have a conflict of interest, since he runs a website on the topic and has pasted text from said website to the article, as well as adding it as an external link and using a book he wrote as a reference for the article. When I made some minor edits to the article, he left me a message that indicated he wished to own his contributions (e.g. "Being that I am one of only a handful of fully certified "Anmashi" (anma practitioners) in the USA certified in Japan I would like to ask that you consult with me before altering my hard work"). I left a polite message in reply on his talk page, and he responded by deleting most of Anma, saying "due to the continued destructive edits being done I have now taken down all the info I had posted and no longer support the use of my info about Anma on wikipedia." When I reverted the deletion, Yotsume, now editing as, said "What the heck do you think you are doing restoring info I deleted to the anma wiki!!! I posted it first and now have decided to no longer support wikipedia. I am no longer going to allow the info to be posted. I will have the owners of the info including my self pull their copyrights and contact you directly to have the info removed permanently!!!" Furthermore, he blanked his user talk page and re-deleted the sections from Anma.

If someone could advise me on what to do, I'd really appreciate it. I'm thinking that Anma should be semiprotected until this situation calms down. --Atlantima (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You need to be more selective with your own edits;
 * When you did this, you added unreferenced information like, Anma is one of the oldest forms of massage in the world and it is the oldest form of bodywork in the orient.
 * You can't do that = see WP:BURDEN.
 * However, you are totally right to remove the copyrighted text; and if the user adds it back they should be warned/blocked. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nm, user has been blocked, meh. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't write that text or any of the other "unreferenced information". If you'd bothered to look at the edit history, you'd see that I actually added a request for references to the very section where that claim is made. My only edits to the article are: A. formatting (e.g. wikilinks, Japanese term templates) B. adding tags (e.g. cite needed, close paraphrasing) C. wording changes (e.g. "Each category of techniques allows you to work the body in a uniquely different way." to "Each category of techniques is meant to work the body in a unique way.", "Another use of Anma techniques is the cultivation of the therapist's own health. As a whole human beings have grown very weak in health, endurance, and we use less of our brain's capacity...." to "Anma techniques are also said to improve the practitioner's own health and mental well-being." D. reverting Yotsume's mass deletions (The diff you linked falls into this category) E. removing Yotsume's external link --Atlantima (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you'd bothered to read what I wrote (BURDEN), you'd realise that 'reverting' is adding, and you can't add unref'd info.
 * I'm not saying you were the major problem here, I'm just suggesting you watch out when undoing things. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You say that I "added unreferenced information". I'm telling you that he added it, I added "needs references", he deleted it and the unreferenced tag, and I reverted the deletion. You have equated tagging statements as unreferenced to "adding unreferenced information". What would you have had me do? I could have not reverted, leaving the page devoid of everything that Yotsume deleted, which included referenced claims. Or I could have tediously combed through the wall of text and make sure that everything has references. Surely the BURDEN was Yotsume's to reference what he wrote.--Atlantima (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In any case, I can't do jack about it now, since the page is now fully protected for the next week. Which seems a bit overzealous.--Atlantima (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

No.

"he added it, I added "needs references", he deleted it and the unreferenced tag, and I reverted the deletion".

Note the bold part; the rest doesn't matter.

You added something unreferenced to an article.

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source".

Even if it's reverting something.

88.104.28.176 (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that "adding or restoring material" applies to reverting. Reverting his deletion of text is essentially the same as if he had not deleted the text. My revert left the unreferenced information (which he added) with a tag (that I added) indicating it was unreferenced. I don't think that reverting a page which had sections blanked by a vandal should require the reverter to resolve every "citation needed" tag that was in those sections or else be accused of "adding unreferenced information". However, it's clear that you disagree, so can you help me learn by telling me what you would have done instead? --Atlantima (talk) 23:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 100% wrong. "adding or restoring material" does apply to reverting. Why wouldn't it?
 * When you 'undo' or 'revert' an edit, you might be adding things to the article. If that means you're adding things that are not referenced, then I'm afraid it is "your problem" - you need to show why it was acceptable to add that info.
 * It may seem unfair, but that's the only way things can work.
 * Unfortunately, it means you need to check edits, and often not just 'undo', but just remove the parts that are 'bad'. Mr. Wales once said - I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * How am I supposed to know which parts are "bad"? I do not have access to all sources on this subject. Assuming good faith, I cannot just KNOW that anything without a citation is "pseudo information". User:Orangemike, the admin who protected the article and blocked Yotsume, has said nothing on the matter. If what I did was so "100% wrong" wouldn't he or someone else besides you have said something? Reverting and Help:Reverting don't say anything like "When undoing a deletion you have to make sure that the text that you revert is completely flawless and you cannot restore any content with tags that indicate a problem or else you have caused that problem.". Sorry if I don't completely trust a day-old IP account on the intricacies of reverting policy, but your interpretation seems rather extreme. In the interest of compromise, I could go through the whole article when the protection expires and delete every sentence not immediately followed by a reference. --Atlantima (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Atlantima, you did nothing wrong, and Mr. Anonymous is being, in my view, hectoring and pedantic. While it is true in principle that every editor should take responsibility for the entire content of what we post or restore, the fact is that if we all abided by Anonymous's exacting standard, a lot of page blanks would be left standing, as no one would have time to verify every "citation needed" on the unblanked page.
 * Wikipedia is a volunteer effort, and volunteers have lives to lead outside of their contributions to Wikipedia. While I'm sure Anonymous meant only to give good advice and to maintain high standards, the tone of these remarks is of the kind that too often discourages editors from staying with the community. As an active editor since 2006, I will state that if I felt personally responsible for fixing every questionable statement in every article I watch, I would drop out of the community right now and never return. So cut us some slack, Anonymous. We're doing conscientious work for free. We deserve credit, not blame for not doing more. — ℜob C. alias &Agrave;LAROB  17:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

no answer to semi protected edit page
hi,,,i wanted to edit on best selling album page, so I placed my request along with the semi protected edit template on the talk page so that someone who is autoconfirmed can make the change with the source I cited ( m. Jackson History past ,present, future) ,,,but that was a week ( 6 days ) ago and nothing has happened,,,,,help.......--65.8.188.32 (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You only have two edits and neither of them is on a talk page. Perhaps you made the request under a different IP or when you were logged in, but it is not clear from your two edits which talk page you are referencing. Furthermore, I don't think that http://fanofmusic.free.fr is a reliable source. The site is simply credited to "Guillaume" and "Johan", with thanks to "Nelson, Hanboo, Pierpinto, Edu, Davidalic, Mario and all the others." Self-published fan sites, which that appears to be, are not reliable sources. --Atlantima (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * My guess is, it was "History Past Present Future was taken out of the best selling album page" this?


 * In which case, see the response here - "you haven't provided a reliable source". 88.104.28.176 (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_best-selling_albums...its this page and its at the bottom,,thanks,,,,--65.8.188.32 (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, you mean Talk:List of best-selling albums.


 * I suggest you continue the discussions on that page.


 * If you can't come to an agreement, see WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment: the claims by such as these;

"To be on this list, albums released:


 * before 1975 are required to have their claimed sales figures supported by 20% in certified units
 * between 1975-1990 are required to have their claimed figures supported by 20-50% in certified units. (That is 2% for each additional year after 1975)
 * between 1990-2000 are required to have their claimed figures supported by 50-65% in certified units. (That is 1.5% for each additional year after 1990)
 * in 2000 and onwards are required to have their claimed figures supported by 65-85% in certified units. (That is 1.66% for each additional year after 2000)"

...are complete bullshit.

There is no wikipedia policy that supports those views, and it's a classic case of WP:OWN.

That article needs attention, to stop that one user constantly rail-roading it. It's been going on for years. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

thank you for your support,,,,--65.8.188.32 (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess nothings happened yet, I saw your post on the talk page for "Best Selling album", but no ones answered....--65.8.188.32 (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)