Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2014 February 12

= February 12 =

Calling a fact/citation into question?
What is the correct mechanism for calling a fact & its citation into question? In attempting to independently verify a piece of content, I fear I may have discovered an instance of citogenesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.203.73 (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If it is a potentially contentious item about a living person you should remove it and then you can attempt to verify if there is a reliable source out there.
 * Otherwise you have a wide range of options, from the generally most helpful/least contentious to the least helpful/most contentious
 * 1) look for a source and update the citation
 * 2) place a  tag on it
 * 3) remove it from the article and place it on the talk page in a discussion about your concerns
 * 4) simply remove it, particularly when even if it had an acceptable source it would not really be appropriate for the article.
 * You can also in addition to any of the above go to the Wikiproject that supports the article (check on the talk page) and ask for those who are knowledgeable about the topic for their opinions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There are more possible tags at Template messages/Cleanup. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, if there is an objectionable or questionable fact, you can always put in the template next to the fact and have someone more experienced in the subject handle the dispute. If all else fails, bring up the fact in the articles' talk page. Aerospeed (Talk) 01:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit notice
User talk:CTF83!/Editnotice appears to be messed up. It says "Hi, 28bytes" when I view it. It possibly got messed up when he/she moved my page. Can someone fix it? C T F 8 3 ! 02:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The REVISIONUSER template fills in the username of the last person to edit that page.  Earlier it was an editor named  28bytes.  Now it is you.   It will update whenever someone edits the page.  RudolfRed (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * And REVISIONUSER in the edit notice doesn't display at all when somebody edits User talk:CTF83!. As far as I know it isn't possible to display the user in an edit notice. If REVISIONUSER is on the actual page being edited, or transcluded there, then the editing user will be shown if they preview the page, but that isn't very useful. The saved page will show the editor who saved the last version. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I guess I have the wrong thing. Which template will show the user name of the person currently viewing the page? C T F 8 3 !  03:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I think someone knows who they are, all remove that. Thanks! C T F 8 3 !  03:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Click to enlarge photo
While following up on another question here, I found VA-1L (U.S. Navy) which has an image in the article. The caption, in addition to explaining what is pictured, reads "(Click the photo to enlarge it)". This is the first time I've seen this and think it's a bit unnecessary. I poked around a bit at image guidelines and such but didn't find any mention of whether or not this is discouraged. So, is this mentioned anywhere? Dismas |(talk) 03:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and removed the unnecessary comment, but remember, anybody can edit Wikipedia, so if you see something that needs fixing, be bold and edit it yourself! Aerospeed (Talk) 03:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've been here several years, so I know that anyone can edit Wikipedia.  What I'm getting at is that I had an opinion about the phrasing but didn't know if that opinion was wrong based on some guideline somewhere.  Dismas |(talk) 03:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I've put that (Click the picture) notice in all or most of the Navy squadron articles I've been working on. Most of the photos are high quality airplane photos, with detail such as the name of the squadron on the plane itself, details of specific variants of the aircraft pictured, etc. In these specific cases, I thought I'd do the reader a favor and invite him to take a closer look at the plane (the details of the planes seem to be important to people interested in aircraft squadrons). I don't think it does any harm, and it may do some people some good. Also, I put a lot of effort into getting "just the right photo", often from many possibilities in the Commons. Not that my work matters much, but it DOES make for a better viewing experience for anybody interested in the article. Lou Sander (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:CAPWORD says:
 * Wikipedia has its technical means of getting readers to the full size version of the image; therefore amending the caption with a direct link to the image (for example, "click for larger view") is not appropriate.
 * A strict reading says this only applies to situations where an extra link to the image is part of the caption, but I think "click for larger view" should generally be avoided. Most readers probably know it or can guess it when they want an enlargement, and there is already an enlargement icon [[File:Magnify-clip.png]] to the right of the caption. The icon is the same whether it actually enlarges the image or not, and there are probably more readers who realize they can click the image itself. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Not that it matters, but it's ironic that the first image used in WP:CAPTION contains a factual error. It says that Burma Shave is/was a canned shaving cream. Not so -- it was a brushless shaving cream in a tube. My captions tend to be errer-free. ;-) Lou Sander (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Can't request a new article
I wanted to request an article/ I got to: Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places There is no category for my request. The page says I can add "add a category at the bottom of the page" but there is no button or highlight to do this. I was hoping to request a list of countrues by POPULATION. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.49.220 (talk) 06:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * But we already have List of countries by population. Or did you mean something else?  Dismas |(talk) 06:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Malayam
malayam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.76.199.110 (talk) 06:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello. What is your question about editing Wikipedia? --ColinFine (talk) 08:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Click here.--Shantavira|feed me 09:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Help regarding adding image ?
Hello, I've a doubt that can I add an image of myself to my user page in Commons or English wikipedia and other wikipedia ? I got inspired by this page but I remember that once I've added an image of myself to my user page but it got deleted by someone saying that promotion or something. Please someone clarify my doubt--Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) talk 06:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The criteria for uploading images to Commons are that it meets the copyright conditions (either explicitly in the public domain, or licensed appropriately) and that it is "useful to other Wikimedia projects". However, commons:Project scope explicitly says "by custom the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of another project is allowed." USERPAGE does not explicitly say anything about whether you may put images on your user page (apart from copyright and disruption issues). In my view as long as the image is not explicitly promotional (eg holding an advertisement for your company or club) it would be acceptable on your user page. --ColinFine (talk) 09:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank You for the reply. will upload an image on my user page--Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) talk 13:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Tom Brokaw wiki page
I am trying to edit the photo at the Tom Brokaw wiki page because the photo is not flattering of him --- especially now with the news of his health --- There are so many more photos to use which are more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikenbc16 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I assume you are trying to replace the photo with a different one, rather than to edit it. Where is the one you are trying to replace it with? Maproom (talk) 08:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Please be aware that Wikipedia takes copyright issues very seriously. Images you find somewhere on the Internet are hardly ever usable on Wikipedia; a picture that you took yourself usually will be. Please see Image use policy. --ColinFine (talk) 09:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Citing different pages or chapters of the same reference with VisualEditor
Hi, What is the best way to implement something like the functionality of Template:Rp in VisualEditor? I don't really want to resort to source editing. I've looked around a bit, unproductively, so I figured the best bet was to ask here.Thennicke (talk) 07:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The best place to ask is WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 20:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And looking at User talk:Thennicke shows that the question has been answered here. This will be archived so I'll have to update the link in case anyone else wants to do the same thing.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 20:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Images on Wikipedia page
Ally Capellino

We would like the images to be bigger within the box with a heading tagged. Can you advise?

Is there a way to delete an image once uploaded as we would also like to upload via another user instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauren.howe18 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * see Donating_copyrighted_materials
 * also see WP:COI -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  10:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I made the image larger, a change was was probably inappropriate, and was promptly reverted by TheRedPenOfDoom. I also trimmed off the ugly black margins of the picture – so the interesting bit is now somewhat larger. Maproom (talk) 12:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * if you changed the image, maybe the problem was with my cache, but when I viewed it after you changed the size, the image i saw was distorted, and thats why I reverted. I will see if clearing the cache makes a difference. But either way the thumb version is larger than the improperly placed gallery version that was there when the original request was made. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * the issue was with my cache - sorry! but in looking at both versions, i think the default thumb size is fine with no need to enlarge the size. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You say "we": what is your connection to Ally Capellino? -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  13:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Where is these songs from?
When were the songs from GTA 3 recorded, what albums are they on and who are the componists? Talking about Double Clef FM and Rise FM? And when were the original songs from Head Radio and Lips 106 recorded? --89.249.2.54 (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol move vote.svg Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps.--ukexpat (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Lloyd's List - Edits now appearing
Hello,

I have made a few edits to the page Lloyd's List and none of them are appearing? I can see that changes I have made in the History here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lloyd%27s_List&action=history but the home page looks the same.

Who moderates these changes and how long will it take to update? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.212.70.122 (talk) 11:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If you are seeing an old version of the article it may be because you need to update your browser's cache. Your edits are visible, but you need to correct them because you are using external links within the body text of the article.  Wikipedia doesn't do that, so you need to read WP:EL. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Proper attribution when taking newspaper sources from a blog
Hello, I have some newspaper references for an article, but the newspaper articles were used in a blog as sources and it was the blog that gave me the info. Therefore, how do I give proper attribution? The reason I think I should reference the blog is because I asked a user a question, he did the research and then posted it in his blog with references. I was thinking I would source the info in the article with the newspaper as a source, and then on the talk page leave a link to the blog for attribution. Is this a proper way to do it? Rgrds. (Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.) --64.85.216.222 (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey there, IP 64. I think you should cite the newspaper. The origin of the content you are interested in is the newspaper. The thing you will quote is the newspaper. The dates you use and the facts you will refer to are from the newspaper. So use the newspaper. :) There's no real way to thank another source without coming off as spammy. And frankly, all of us are that guy. We go out and dig up sources from God knows where and then slap them into articles with no thanks at all. Makes a man outta ya! It'll make a man outta him too! But you could always drop him a line and say, "Hey man, thanks for the info, would you mind if I donated your efforts to Wikipedia?" Might make him feel warm and fuzzy to be a contributor. Warm and fuzzy like a caterpillar on a frying pan.  Jesus, when did I become a folksy cowboy?  Take care, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds good, I'll cite the newspapers from the blog in the WP article and then leave a note on his talk page letting him know and thanking him. Rgrds. --64.85.216.222 (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Um. Actually, that's not right.  You should never cite a source directly unless you have seen it yourself.  See Citing_sources.  The best you can do is to cite the source and then qualify it by saying "cited at..." and give details of the  place you actually read it.  Which, being a blog, is dubious.  The blogger is OK to cite the newspaper directly if s/he edits Wikipedia, but the person who only read the blog should only cite the blog. -  Ka renjc (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit Images
Ally Capellino

Is it possible to have the image of Alison Lloyd on the top of the information within the box?

The following image is also missing from the page, File:Ally Capellino Accessories.jpeg

Lauren.howe18 (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The place within the info box for a corporation is generally reserved for the logo of the organization. If the article were about her as a person, then yes, her pic should be in the infobox. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The image of the products have been removed as there are copyright issues that need to be addressed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, the image of Alison Lloyd requires a permission to be communicated to OTRS as the original uploader and the source of the image are not the same. See the notice at File:Alison Lloyd, founder of Ally Capellino.jpg for more details.--ukexpat (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Citing encyclopedias
What about citing encyclopedias? Is that encyclopedias are taken as reference in Wikipedia?

Because some of the wiki articles have Encyclopedias as reference. Ex:. Some experienced guys in Wiki said that encyclopedia should not be provided as reference. It can be only included as external links. Please confirm me ASAP.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 12:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In general, citing encyclopedias is allowed but not preferred. Whether a particular source is appropriate for a particular use in a particular article is however, dependent upon a number of factors specific to the source, the article and the suggested content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

//In general, citing encyclopedias is allowed but not preferred//

How did you conclude the point above? Is that any paragraph explain this point briefly? If means point out me. I am not able to get this point by CTRL+F.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Look at WP:TERTIARY, and see what it says about tertiary sources in comparison with primary and secondary sources. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks.

//Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. Wikipedia articles may not be used as tertiary sources in other Wikipedia articles, but are sometimes used as primary sources in articles about Wikipedia itself //--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Old, out of copyright, encyclopedias can be particularly useful when understanding of a subject has changed over the years, or historical data is needed, Early Encyclopædia Britannicas are quoted in lots of articles. Arjayay (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

i got to my summary by taking "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." and the fact that encyclopedias are tertiary sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles do not use my whole screen. (might have something to do with the Betas I'm in)
http://imgur.com/2xdGvG2

This only happens when I'm logged in. When logged out, all the pages look fine. I tried skimming through my settings and couldn't find anything that could have caused this.

Mchcopl (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe this is caused by the Typography refresh beta. Samwalton9 (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If you like the rest of Typography refresh, but want it full-width, then create User:Mchcopl/common.css with the following:

/* Disable part of the "typography refresh" */ .action-view #bodyContent { max-width: none !important; }
 * -- John of Reading (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

How do I insert that into my browser? It's not working when I try to put it into the javascript console. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mchcopl (talk • contribs) 14:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Click this red link, User:Mchcopl/common.css, and the system will ask whether you want to create the page. Copy those two lines into the edit box and save it as usual. The software will then send that CSS fragment back to the browser when you view a Wikipedia page. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Update: This part of the typography refresh has been rewritten. The above CSS is no longer required. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of 'Laser Battle' page
I am curious as to what was the reason/what were the reasons for my article "Laser Battle" being removed and is up for speedy deletion. Why is this happening? I followed the pattern of currently published articles that wrote on similar subject matter, and I was in no way advertising Laser Battle or the company they belong to. I described the aspects of the sport itself in order to answer the basic journalistic questions: who, what, where, when, why, how, etc. I chose to write my article following those guidelines so that I could remain neutral and objective. I followed the guidelines provided and focused on writing about the sport, describing all aspects of it, same as if it were any other activity like soccer, lacrosse, archery, etc. If someone could please contact me on this help desk and explain why "Laser Battle" was removed, I would greatly appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottKLaser (talk • contribs) 14:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, the deleting admin explained the rationale on your talk page. The article was deleted "under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic." I didn't see the article, so I don't know what sort of content was there and can't guide your properly. You can either politely ask the declining admin or the nominator  for an explanation or ask an admin on your talk page via " " to restore your article to your sandbox so that you can continue to work on it. But the typical thing we see here is someone who works for the company (and who has an inherent conflict of interest) is writing an article that they are sure is objective, but it isn't because people with conflicts of interest typically have difficulty being objective about their own company/service/product. Not saying that's you, just imparting a bit of my experience. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * , user was the editor who tagged the page for deletion, not the deleting admin. That was . It is usually the tagger who leaves a msg on the creator's talk page, not the deleting admin (althoguh some admins leave such a msg if the tagger does not). DES (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, man! I caught the mistake on my own, but the edit conflicts kept buggering up my attempts to fix it. I think I finally got it, though! Although now it looks like I didn't make a mistake and you yelled at me for nothing! Ha-ha! Take that, evil man! :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In this case it soesn't matter, but once soneone has replied it is better to strike errors in your previous msg than to remove them. DES (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged. Will keep in mind for next time. And you're not evil after all. :D Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * , text such as "It was created by Scott Keller and Kent Gregory, two friends and entrepreneurs from Maryland who wanted to create a sport that was completely portable, not confined to an indoor location, and was adaptable to kids and adults. Their locations are out of Southwest Florida and Dallas, Texas, but they travel nationwide for corporate, college and private parties, while performing birthday parties regionally to their office locations. are highly promotional, and sound as if they come straight out of a marketing flyer for the game. So does "Laser Battle was created and trademarked in 2006, and has been played all over the country...". This page would need a drastic rewrite to be a proper encyclopedia article, neutral in tone. It would also need more citations to published coverage by independent 3rd parties that are reliable sources to establish notability. Also, if you are one of the creators of the game, as your username suggests, you have a clear conflict of interest and should not create such an article at all. The page was deleted by and you can ask at that user's talk page for reconsideration, or you can ask for a copy of the text at WP:REFUND. If a new version is started, I would urge the use of the articles for creation process. Please read the notability guideline linked above, and our guideline on promotion before restarting this. DES (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Let it be noted that I am not an administrator.  I tagged the page for speedy deletion as being overtly promotional, but I did not delete the page.  That action was taken by, who apparently agreed with my nomination.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That was my fault calling you an admin, . I noticed my mistake and clarified it in my original post. Sorry! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In agreement with DES now that I have more info., important to note is this: Not everything is worthy of inclusion at Wikipedia. In order for a business, or a sport or a musician to be notable, it generally must (clears throat) "receive significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. So unless this trademarked Laser Battle has received a lot of independent press coverage (not press releases or fluff pieces), it's not likely to be considered notable, even if you get rid of all the promotional language. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

ScottkLaser, User:WikiDan61 is correct, non-admin WikiDan61 assessed the article as qualifying for a Speedy Deletion, and I agreed. There is potential for writing an article about the game, but that article wasn't close.

Please look at pages such as Manual of Style/Layout. For example, the article didn't have standard headings. That can be fixed, but when I see things like that, I see signs that someone hasn't bothered to find out how to format an article. Some aspects of article writing are subtle, and I don't expect new editors to pick up on everything, but something as fundamental as section headings, followed by every single one of the 4 million articles in existence, is fairly basic.

Many people think if they avoid a statement like "click here to purchare our product" they have avoided advertising. However, phrases such as  but they travel nationwide for corporate, college and private parties, while performing birthday parties regionally to their office locations. are not close to acceptable.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Arthur Melbourne-Cooper
The article about Arthur Melbourne-Cooper on Wikipedia is completely wrong. It was presumably written by Tjitte de Vries who has been trying to promote AMC for many years. The article should be withdrawn as it is beyond repair. AMC was a minor figure in the early years of British cinema but has been promoted and puffed-up by de Vries to a significance he does not deserve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.205.149.174 (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I have cleaned it up a little - removing the editorialising, removing some original research etc. It still needs more work if anyone is interested.--ukexpat (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a dispute among the sources, not well expressed at the moment, because not all relevant sources are properly cited. This should now go to Talk:Arthur Melbourne-Cooper DES (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

HELP with Adding relevant photograph to article abut artist Sueo Serisawa
Sueo Serisawa I uploaded a photograph of a painting that I own of Judy Garland by Sueo Serisaw that is mentioned in the article about him - I feel that the addition of the unique photograph will improve the article and aid in demonstrating his style as an artist to readers and researchers. I completed all the boxes on the upload form for the photograph and feel that it meets Wkipedias crieria for Non Free use I have tried to insert the photograph in the relevant section that is 'Style' but the instructions are not clear and I am visualy impaired which makes it more difficult. Can you help with inserting this photograph into the article? The URL for the photgraph is: File:Judy Garland Portrait by Sueo Serisawa 1940.jpg.

the caption should just read Portrait of Judy Garland by Sueo Serisawa circa 1940 from teh VonOhse ireland collection 2014. Or soemthign simiar that meets the Wikipedia format for captions of paintings. Thank you vono — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vono (talk • contribs) 20:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have added the image to the article. However, it will fit the Wikipedia Non-free use criteria much better if some commentary on this specific image is added to the article. Do you have the information needed to do that, ? DES (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your generosity in sharing this image, by the way. DES (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Bernard Carvalho
The entry under "Bernard Carvalho" contains information that is not accurate. The following appears in his bio:

In addition to his political and football careers, Carvalho has also held positions in the tourism and airline industries on Kauai as well as lobbyist for chemical companies DOW, Syngenta, BASF and Pioneer.[3]

Mayor Carvalho is not and has never been a lobbyist for anyone. This is an attempt to discredit him because of an issue related to the seed companies that are currently doing business on Kauai.

This notation indicating he is a lobbyist also appears in the box on his page.

Thank you for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.186.194 (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Removed, thanks for pointing this out. -- Neil N  talk to me  23:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As best as I could determine, there was no support for this statement in the source to which it had been cited. However, if a reliable source is presented that does support this fact, it may need to be returned to the article. DES (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Is oversight needed?
Hi. I just reverted an edit on the talk page of Argument from authority. I reverted the person because they were speaking nonsensically and overwrote someone else's comment, and assumed it was spam or something.

I went to notify them about reverting their edit, but then I saw they included both their email address and phone number. Isn't that against policy? Do I need to tell somebody so they can erase that edit from page history? meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's already been revdel'ed.&#32;~HueSatLum 23:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I revdel'd it and I had just clicked the "email the oversight team" at WP:Oversight when I found that some anonymous oversighter (non-OSers can't see the OS log to see who it was) had already dealt with it. For future reference, it's best in such cases to go to Oversight (which has handy links to email the team) rather than publicise things here. If the diff doesn't need oversighting or deleting, then there's no harm done if the OS team are told. BencherliteTalk 23:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh. Sorry. Didn't mean to make things worse. Will do next time. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)