Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 64

Archive 60

←

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

→

Archive 70

Vandalism, sockpuppets etc

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 10:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Article Gup users User:Jkc94 , User:RandomStringOfCharacters, User:Tablecoaster22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.16.120.112 all appear to be vandalising , and reverting to vandalised versions of this article? Shortfatlad (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that User:RandomStringOfCharacters is helping you out, not vandalizing. Nevertheless, for future disruptions like this, post your concern to WP:AIV (administrator's intervention against vandalism); they'll see it there faster than here. —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 01:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think User:Random.. was trying to undo the vandalism, but probably it got on top of them.Shortfatlad (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure how that one happened. I'm wondering if huggle only showed the addition of that text. Anyways, must just be a mistake, sorry! RandomStringOfCharacters [T] 02:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh! I see what happened, there was a large string of vandalism edits by one user, but the user before that had also vandalized. I'm surprised I didn't catch that. RandomStringOfCharacters [T] 02:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Another response, because I just noticed why it actually happened, this is the diff huggle gave me. I couldn't even see the rest of the vandalism. That's sort of lame. RandomStringOfCharacters [T] 02:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism of article

Answered

 – some limited discussion on talk page Jezhotwells (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Walter_Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A controversy exists regarding the current leadership of Christian Research Institute, CRI. The article on Walter Ralston Martin addresses this controversy. My attempts to add additional information regarding Dr. Martin's very own words on this subject are being repeatedly removed. The repeated suppression of this material is an attempt to allow only one side of a controversy to be presented. My additions have not changed/revised/deleted any words in the previously existing article. My contribution has been in the form of additions only.

GraftedIn73 (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest explaining the reason for the additions on the talk page of the article. This appears to be an edit war between two parties with conflicts of interest (GraftedIn73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 05nitram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)); neither has taken their concerns to the talk page. Neither party's edits are clear vandalism; I can see 05nitram's concerns that the additions are weakly sourced, but (s)he hasn't clearly expressed that. —C.Fred (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Please help me learn how to converse with User:Andrwsc

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 10:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The user seems to apply merit-less deletions to my templates, articles, and links, seems to apply merit-less blocks to my account, and seems to refuse to answer my questions and requests to Wikipedia:DISENGAGE#Stay cool. I have felt harassed by the user for years but I keep doing my best to WP:AGF. Now the user is pressing hard to delete List of country subdivisions, a page I have put considerable work into, impeding my attempts to fix the page, and is not replying to any of my attempts to compromise. I feel I have upheld Wikipedia:Civility. I am starting to think the user wilfully abuses admin privileges. I am not an admin so I cannot research specific instances of Special:DeletedContributions/thecurran but listed below are links to our direct conversations from most recent to oldest:

): User talk:Andrwsc#If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.

(: User talk:Andrwsc/Archive 12#May Image:Flag of Putrajaya.png be applied to Template:Country data Putrajaya?

(: User talk:Andrwsc/Archive 12#Taiwanese subdivision flags

(: User talk:Andrwsc/Archive 10#French Regional Flags

(: User talk:Andrwsc/Archive 10#ISO 3166-2:JP

(: User talk:Andrwsc/Archive 9#ISO 3166 Pages

S: User talk:Andrwsc/Archive 8#Coats-of-Arms

): User talk:Thecurran/Archive 2009#Blocked

): User talk:Thecurran/Archive 2009#Flag templates 2.0

): User talk:Thecurran/Archive 2009#Flag templates

): User talk:Thecurran/Archive 2009#List of country subdivisions

(: User talk:Thecurran/Archive ≤2008#Re: Coats-of-Arms

): User talk:Thecurran/Archive ≤2008#Please use the standard flag template when possible!!

Please help me. I feel the user is trying to WP:Bully me off of Wikipedia. I am not notifying the user of this discussion just yet but should you feel it is best thing to do, please do not hesitate to do so. I am open to any and all consultation.

Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran let it off your chest 03:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for posting here. I've offered some initial thoughts here, pending a better understanding of your concern. Please don't be offended by an AfD; consider it a badge of honour. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, and so forth.

I don't see anything in Andrwsc's posts linked that strikes me as unusual. A little brusque in places, perhaps, but that's not unusual here. I infer that your emoticons classify the threads in some way; I spent more time on the sad than the happy, thinking the sad were more likely to reflect your concern, but I didn't see anything unusual. You both edit in similar topics, so I'm not surprised that you've crossed paths a number of times. I see you were blocked for one hour; I think that could be seen as a mild slap on the wrist. Your unusual talk page configuration might have led to your missing a warning there. Which leads me to:

I do find your talk page counter-intuitive. Most archives are designed to be static records so I imagine most users, seeing Archive in a page title, would assume there was some other place to go. I suspect you're within the bounds of policy etc, but perhaps not creating the easiest channel of communication.

Finally, it would behove you to notify Andrwsc of this thread, and, if there are particular points you would like to raise in detail, please do point them out. --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reading so much. It seems my reaction to the block was not commensurate with its brevity. I will notify User:Andrwsc of this post. Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran let it off your chest 05:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Volusia County Roads Update

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 10:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have never edited on Wiki before and tried to update the following link on Volusia Roads, but it looked like Chinese to me, so I'm passing on what I have so far so that maybe you can help to do it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_county_roads_in_Volusia_County,_Florida

New icons will be needed for missing road signs in table:

1. CR415 – N. Tomoka Farms Rd (Daytona Beach Scenic Thoroughfare) 2. CR430 – Mason Avenue (Clyde Morris Blvd – I-95 Dead End) (Daytona Beach Scenic Thoroughfare) 3. CR483 – N. Clyde Morris Blvd (Mason Ave – SR40) (Daytona Beach Scenic Thoroughfare) 4. CR4001 – Halifax Ave/John Anderson Dr (US92, DB - Beau Rivage Dr, OB) 5. CR4009 – Williamson Blvd (Daytona Beach Scenic Thoroughfare) 6. CR4011 – N. Beach Street/Riverside Drive/Old Dixie Hwy (Fairview Ave, DB – I-95/Flagler County Line) 7. CR4015 – Derbyshire Road 8. CR4017 – Jimmy Ann Dr (Daytona Beach Scenic Thoroughfare) 9. CR4019 – LPGA Blvd (US92 - Riverside Dr, Holly Hill) (Daytona Beach Scenic Thoroughfare) 10. CR4026 – Sixth Street 11. CR4027 – Grandview Avenue 12. CR4028 – Eighth Street 13. CR4029 – Beach Street/Wilder Blvd (Fairview Ave – Wilder/US1) 14. CR4035 – Martin Luther King Blvd (MLK) 15. CR4037 – Lincoln Street 16. CR4039 – White Street 17. CR4040 – Main Street/Fairview Ave/George W Engram Blvd/Dunn Ave (Daytona Beach Scenic Thoroughfare) 18. CR4042 – University Blvd 19. CR4043 – Highland Avenue/Heineman Street 20. CR4044 – Third Street 21. CR4048 – Madison Avenue (N. Beach St – Heineman St) 22. CR4050 – Orange Ave/Silver Beach Ave (A1A - Nova Rd) 23. CR4052 – Dr Mary McLeod Bethune Blvd (MMB) 24. CR4062 – Belleview Avenue (Clyde Morris – S. Beach Street) 25. CR4068 – Belleview Avenue Extension (Tomoka Farms Road – Clyde Morris) (Daytona Beach Scenic Thoroughfare) 26. CR4069 – Anastasia Drive 27. CR4072 - Big Tree Road 28. CR4073 – Palmetto Avenue (Beville Rd/US1 - MMB)

OTHER COUNTY ROADS 29. Aviation Center Parkway 30. Coral Sea Ave 31. Corsair Drive 32. Midway Ave 33. Richard Petty Blvd 34. Fifth Street 35. Magnolia Ave (City Island Only to S Beach St) 36. CR2803 - John Anderson Dr (Beau Rivage Dr - High Bridge Rd, OB) 37. CR4075 - S Atlantic Ave. Continuation of SRA1A south of Dunlawton Bridge (where it exits to mainland) to Ponce Inlet.

Horus33 (talk) 06:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, you need to post this information on teh talk page of the article so that other editors interseted in the artcile can assess this information. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Nationality of football (soccer) players

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 10:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there,

I have a dispute with some guy who considers a wikipedia page as his own. But this dispute is concerning a more general issue: The nationality of football players. My oppinion is that tha nationality of a football player is given by the National team who plays for. This is the way FIFA (the world football/soccer governing body) dealt this thing, as one player cannot play for more than one senior national football team.

Now, the player in cause is Carlos Espínola. He played four times for the Paraguayan National Football team, so, in my opinion, he should be considered a Paraguayan. But, since he has acquired the Ecuadorian citizenship, some guy who thinks he owns the Liga Deportiva Universitaria de Quito page, changes everytime the page, considering that Espinola is ecuadorian.

To support my affirmation, I can tell you that many southamerican football players have EU passports, but all are playing fot their original national teams, so they are considered Argentineans or Uruguayans. It was even a big scandal regarding some fake EU passports for those footballers playing in Argentina, as you can read here: http://www.journallive.co.uk/newcastle-sports/football-news/2008/07/14/raids-linked-to-italian-passport-probe-61634-21334569/

Thank you very much, Andrei.besutiu

Hello, Wikipedia:WikiProject Football would be a good palce to ask for help on this. I had a quick look in their archives, but couldn't find a determination. Try posting at WT:WPF and I'm sure you'll get some useful answers. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Impending deletion of contribution

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Human ecology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Today I added the website "ASHE-Australian School of Human Ecology" to the Human Ecology list of "Colleges and Academic Departments of Human Ecology". Also I contributed an article titled "Why A New Science".

I am now trying to contest the speedy deletion of my contributions.

ASHE owns copyright of the article mentioned above. This article also appears on our website under the link /theory.htm

Anyonw contesting the legitimacy of my contribution may visit www.humanecology.com.au to satisfy themselves that this is a extant site and School.

As a newcomer to Wiki I am feeling rather overwhelmed with the sheer amount of reading being asked of me in order to contest this deletion. I have endeavoured to follow the instructions but I need help as I seem to be running into 'talk page' problems.

If there is anyone willing to assist me then you may contact me via my registration on Wiki which is mdaiah or throught the ASHE website or directly to <email redacted>

in appreciation of any assistance,

Mdaiah (talk) 07:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, you posted copyright material on Wikipedia - that is why this happened:

• 07:40, 4 December 2009 User:2over0 deleted "ASHE - Australian School of Human Ecology" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.humanecology.com.au/theory.htm) was deleted.

No point in contesting it, it already happened. If you can create an article about ASHE that is not a copyright infringement and that supports its notability with verifiable reliable sources then the article will likely escape deletion. Please don't expect to learn all of the Wikipedia policies and guideline overnight, but please do read and understand WP:Five pillars. Please don't post your email here or anywhere on Wikipedia, this is a highly visible page and you are likely to receive large quantities of spam if you post your email here. You can enable a blind email link under the my preferences tab.

Please remember that this is a collaborative project and that you don't own anything that you contribute to this encyclopaedia. There is a notice to thiseffect underneath the edit box. This is not "small print" - it is a fact: Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. See the Terms of Use for details. If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you submit it. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Kaczynski

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 10:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Theodore Kaczynski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would like to add an external link to the Ted Kaczynski entry. It is www.unazod.com. It is a free site, no advertising, focused on Ted Kaczynski, his life, thought and in particular research and information on possible crimes he did before becoming the Unabomber, such as the Zodiac Killer and the Tylenol Murderer.

The link meets all guidelines. There are several links that are silly, like a link to family photos, and several that promote Ted's writings or thoughts. A person who is a Green Anarchist and apparently supports Ted's philosophy keeps removing the link, as www.unazod.com investigates if Ted was a mentally ill serial killer more so than a politically motivated activist.

The link meets all guidelines and should remain.

Akwilks (talk) 07:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Well it seems like you've brought this issue up on the talk page. That is a great start but I suggest you continue your discussion there. I feel bad since it looks like nobody is continuing the discussion with you there so I'll probably try to join you in content discussion there. Let me give you some suggestions here though: "Stop your agenda of covering up Ted's crime because you like his politics" is the wrong approach to take. You're making some interesting assumptions about User:Maziotis. Suggest reading this page. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 07:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If not enough people are coming to comment, I would suggest that you open a request for comment to solicit more opinions. GlassCobra 15:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

removing bio page warning

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 10:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Aldeoni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Aldeoni's biography. The facts stated are true and correct. How we can remove the message at the top of the biography page:

"This biography of a living person does not cite any references or sources. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately. (June 2009) Find sources: (Aldeoni – news, books, scholar)"

Quantitum —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantitum (talk • contribs) 19:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP and WP:BIO. You need to find some reliable sources to show how this person is notable. We cannot take your word for it. – ukexpat (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Operation Strike of the Sword

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 10:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have edited numerous times with sourced information but an unknown author keeps on deleting my casualty count for the US side and adding their own with different numbers each time. I would like the right information to be listed there and I feel that because of the authors views he/she is exaggerating and twisting his sources. I have made several attempts to contact other authors but nothing please help. I have no problem showing my sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.85.167 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 5 December 2009

Well, I see no evidence that you have introduced references to support the information you have added. As you are an IP it just looks like common or garden vandalism. You have also removed references and you haven't discussed anything at the article talk page. I recommend you read up on how Wikipedia works, starting at WP:Five pillars, get an account and remember to sign your posts with four (~)s.. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Please also read the policy against edit-warring. Fences&Windows 16:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

Discussion moved

 – first to WP:ANI and then on to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2009/December#Is there a convention for use of country when refering to US cities --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have encountered a couple editors on here (I don't know if I should give their names or not), who kept reverting my constructive edits. They were all minor changes and they reverted them for the wrong reasons, without consensus. A while ago, I used to remove countries inside infobox templates (within the birthplace parameter). I then came to my senses when another editor snapped at me and said that the countries should be included, not just the city and state. Ever since then, I used this piece of advice and added the appropriate nations to infobox templates on biographical articles. These two people were on the verge of doing the 3rr rule. I must say that I am a bit frustrated that these 2 people are undoing my edits just because they provided their reasoning and I simply disagree with them. I need help, rather someone's opinion on this matter. There must be at least 1,000 articles about notable people and have an infobox with a parameter that includes the city, state and country. I am not sure whether articles such as Tom Cruise, Betty White, Patrick Dempsey, or Jerry Lewis (just to name a few) should have all of the countries removed and just be left with a city, state within the birth place parameter? That's the impression I have. Tinton5 (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, one of the editors said that the policy changes at times. So, that would be the answer to my question. Forget what I typed above.

There should be guidance on this at WP:BLP, I would have thought. Perhaps you could ask at the talk page. The documentation at Template:Infobox person suggests birth_place = Place of birth: city, administrative region, sovereign state. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sam Smith (Rugby League)

Resolved

 – additional material sourced and corrections made. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sam Smith (rugby league) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I have read the article about Sam Smith (Rugby League player) the article is completely wrong about Sam's history. I was a personal friend of Sam, and played amateur rugby league with him, in the 1947/48 era. He lived in Woodhouse Street in Hull, and played initially as an amateur for East Hull, and then later for a club called Alexandra. He was then signed as a professional by Hull Kingston Rovers, and from there was capped for Great Britain and was part of the World cup winning team. He worked as a docker in Hull, and died very prematurely. I have no recollection of him playing for any team other than Hull Kingston Rovers. I know he lent his world cup winning medals to a friend - who lost them !! I knew the family well, and it grieves me to see his history so very wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.1.252 (talk) 12:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bring this to our attention. I have posted your concerns at the talk page for the Rugby league project as folks there will have access to sources and be able to correct this information. I can't find much online but i don't really know much about the sport. Wikipedia relies on verifiable sourcing for its artciles. I agree that the artcile in question is poorly sourced. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've just glanced at Hull KR: A Centenary History 1883-1983 by Michael Ulyatt. On p59 it says a Sam Smith was transferred to Hunslet in the 1953/4 season. I'll add to/correct the article depending what else I find. LunarLander // talk // 22:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I've made additions to the article. LunarLander // talk // 00:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

article in progress subject to deletion

Resolved

 – Mainspace article G7'd, OP working in sandbox --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The article I created on my userpage BlitzFact under the name of /work in progress isn't on Wikipedia yet if I made the correct manipulations. I am still using it as my sandbox and as it mentions it is work in progress. I don't understand how it can already be subject for deletion. BlitzFact (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems there are 2 distinct pages that you created, as listed at Special:Contributions/BlitzFact. User:BlitzFact/my sandbox is indded a sandbox, as you described. The page Work in progess (sic - missing r) has been tagged for deletion, because it's in the encyclopaedia and probably shouldn't be. Don't worry about that one, or, better yet, add {{db-author}} to the top. Then concentrate on the sandbox version, and come back here when you're happy with it and ask for some feedback. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Or seek feedback at WP:FEED. – ukexpat (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

How do I fix a page about a book (slated for deletion as an ad)?

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Can someone point me to info/guidelines that will help me edit a page about a book. The page has been slated for deletion on the grounds that it is an advertisement or propaganda. There are many Wikipedia pages about books, and I would like to know why a particular page is considered an ad. It is written objectively, gives a summary of the contents, mentions the author, covers the history and provides proper reference links. It is on a Wikipedia page in a foreign language, but it's easier for me to read the rules in English. I assume the guidelines are the same for all languages.

Secondly, is the best place to appeal the deletion on the page that links to the box warning of impending deletion? To be more specific, at the top of the article there is a notice stating that the page has been nominated for deletion, and within this text there is a link to a page http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Te_verwijderen_pagina%27s/Toegevoegd_20091208 that lists pages nominated for removal. Is that the best place to appeal and ask questions, or if not, how does one make an appeal and seek advice on how to fix a page to prevent it from being deleted?

Thanks!Manyhats (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The best place to start is WP:Spam. – ukexpat (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You should join the discussion at the deletion page [1], your assumption that the guidelines are the same for all languages is not correct: the ground rules may well be different on Dutch Wikipedia so you should should familiarise yourself with the Dutch rules before addressing the problems that have been identified. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Issues resolved (I don't know how to indicate this at the start of my question). Many thanks!! Manyhats (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

List of Governors of Idaho

Resolved

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Back in August, I ran into a little trouble with formatting at List of Governors of Idaho#Governors of Idaho. I added Idaho's new lieutenant governor, Brad Little, to the table, but I messed up the table formatting in the process. At the bottom of the table, part of the "terms" column (a number one, indicating that Gov. Otter is serving his first term) somehow got stuck in the first column. I wasn't aware of this page back then, but now that I am I'm requesting assistance with this problem, especially since no one has fixed it in the last few months. Thanks, A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I tried to fix it; take a look and see if the table accurately represents the state of affairs. I added a rowspan="2" before the '32' so that it spanned the second row too, and then transposed those other 2 elements to get the last cell of the penultimate row in place. Do let me know if that's not right. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That's completely right. Thanks very much for fixing this – I really appreciate it. See you around. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Not at all; my pleasure. --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Marsh Arabs

Resolved

 – article watched. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

A user is repeatedly undoing an edit on Marsh Arabs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), accusing me of "POV pushing" - yet my edit is the one that is preserving a neutral, balanced POV in the article. I have requested that my concerns are answered on the talkpage, but without any progress. Please assist if possible. Their behaviour is now verging on edit-warring. Svejk74 (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I have left a note at the article talk page and the other editor's talk page. If they persist then you should consider taking it to WP:3RR. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll keep an eye on it. Svejk74 (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

POV Pushing in entry of Human Rights Foundation

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Human Rights Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Consensus over inclusion of information that belongs in other entry impossible to reach despite efforts. Undue weight to certain views. POV pushing. Please see talk page.--Proofknow (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

More eyes would be welcome. However, I think we have consensus... but it has gone against Proojknow. I propose that, once consensus on the content is reached at the "main" article, an interested editor bring an abbreviated summary to the talk page at HRF for discussion. In the mean time, other than wp:I DON'T LIKE IT from Proofknow, I don't see an objection to its inclusion. I believe I followed this from the PoV board to the article originally, but I can't find the entry.- Sinneed 22:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an entry about Santa Cruz autonomy referendum, 2008. It follows that Wikipedia also has a talk page on that issue. Despite this, editor Sinneed insists in including a discussion about this topic in the Human Rights Foundation main entry. So the simple question, beyond POV pushing, is: why? A similar discussion on this issue was had previously,Talk:Human_Rights_Foundation/Archive_1#Proposal_for_section_on_autonomy_referendum_observation and the prevailing consensus was that debates/discussion of other topics belong in those topics' entries or talk pages. --Proofknow (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I find this all a bit impenetrable having looked at the archives and talk pages. Perhaps a WP:RfC with a carefully worded, neutral question? Jezhotwells (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

( test, I thought I posted here earlier?) I was suggesting that if there are multiple prominent POV's, then each POV should get an article ( like pro-choice and right-to-life ) but I was asking for refs to wiki policies here ( I think this would be a POV fork not sure). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Your analogy is completely inaccurate and totally inappropriate here. This is a content dispute, we don't split articles just because there are different sources supporting different approaches. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, a notable POV can be a topic all to itself just as much as a political party etc. Looking at the discussion, someone said that qualifying a statement with "some claim[]" doesn't make the point more likely to be included. And, often these disputes go back and forth due to trying to settle an ill posed question when a new option could make a better article. If you are debating over how to discuss complicated POV's related to this topic, it may make more sense to not discuss the POV's in much detail and just link: you wouldn't launch into complicated explanations of conservatives and liberals on each topic for which they have differing POV's. Further, the OP suggests the disputed info belongs in a different entry- this other entry may in fact itself be or could be a POV (moving mention from abortion to pro-life for example). So, even if you do go to RfC, your carefully worded question could be something about the general suitability of the questionable material for includsion anywhere( is it sourced, does it capture a relevant feature of something notable in context etc). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

At last, some sense: you wouldn't launch into complicated explanations of conservatives and liberals on each topic for which they have differing POV's. The material included by editors in question simply does not belong in this entry, considering there are other places suited to debate the issue at lenght. A link is more than enough. As you have stated Nerdseeksblonde, rightly IMO, differences about other entries should be resolved in appropriate pages, and not in every entry where somebody may have differing views.--Proofknow (talk) 15:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not taking sides yet but I guess I got an analogy that at least one party finds apropos. So, then what was the issue with not allowing someone to say, " the Idiot Group claims foo[] and the Smart People say doh doh doh[]" ? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not willing to take a side at all... I keep saying... If you think the content represents a PoV then consider: add balance... or find a violation of WP guidelines and cite it... or relax and reach consensus at the main article page, then bring it here... or make some other proposal besides censoring the segment. That is my PoV... that either the content can stay, or that consensus can be reached to remove it or change it. And yes, the incredible longwinded yack about the underlying politics makes my head hurt. I don't know, I don't care, and it doesn't matter to WP... and they just... won't... stop. The issue here is the content, not the politics of Proofknow and Cathar11.- Sinneed 18:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The logic for inclusion that HRF attendeded as international observers of what was declared an illrgal event which led to considerable unrest. What a govt says is relevant. The counteralance obyiously is that the prefecture of Santa Cruz thought it legal. It wouldnt have took place otherwise. That should surely be possible to incorporate in a simple sentenceCathar11 (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss at the relevant article talk pages. WP:EAR is not a forum, it exists to provide pointers to editors needing assistance. Wikipedia develops through consensus and editors assuming good faith. If you can't achieve consensus, request an WP:RfC or walk away. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. I would have posted on talk page but was met with this message: "Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#POV_Pushing_in_entry_of_Human_Rights_Foundation, I'd say any debate about this topic is permanently removed from this entry. If editors have an issue with the legality of that referendum, you are welcome to go to that entry and discuss until consensus is reached. See WP:TE--Proofknow" Cathar11 (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

New article question? Maybe

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for a biography of Manu (Shanker Mishra) was turned down by the editorial Board even though the sources were verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lance bensch (talk • contribs) 18:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

1st, I refactored this by adding the section heading... Not sure yet that it is accurate.

Lance - How can one of us, here, help?- Sinneed 18:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this in reference to the author Manu of Cho-gyal]?- Sinneed 18:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You could make a request at WP:Requested articles. Otherwise, why not start an article in your userspace. Then you can ask here or at the help page for someone to take a look and see if it meets the basic Wikipedia criteria. Your addition at List of people known as The Great was removed because it was inappropriate there. I have placed some links on your talk page. Please read them. Don't rush in too quickly, it takes some time to figure out how this project works.Jezhotwells (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Tim Ellis page

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Tim Ellis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Two notices have been placed at the top of a biographical article about me.

The notices were both put by two users who appear to have been causing a lot of problems in both the history and the discussion of the article.

User 123.243.53.233 has placed a Peacock tag

User DOGGUS has placed a Puffery tag

Could someone please take a look at the article and if the tags are not valid please remove them. TimEllis43 (talk) 05:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, check out the talk page. Holy SPAs, Batman! I'll try and leave some comments on the talk page, but this might need more people to watch. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It would seem reasonable to leave such tags, the article is a mes and the referencing is appalling. I have left a note at the talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL: OK, having someone show up and complain that his own bio was flagged for peacock terms is not likely to be met with a presumption of correctness. This genre is not of much interest to me personally but BLP's are a constant attraction for social pages and self-promotion. Many people who aren't used to descriptive scholarly writing or "how you may describe a crime scene" don't attempt to go after stark factual descriptions and insist that all writing should contain lots of positive but imprecise adjectives. Generally you want to question each adjective and see if it really means anything. If you can source gibberish, then it is still possibly something you can include (" the only person that cnn refered to with a neologism" ). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Content validity

Resolved

 – explanation given Jezhotwells (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a question regarding validity of the Etymology section of the 'Manhattan' article. The first line of the section states "The name Manhattan derives from the word fuck..." Is this correct? Or is this someone's idea of a joke?

--138.162.140.54 (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This was vandalism. It was removed 18 minutes before your post here. If you still see the vandalized version at Manhattan#Etymology then bypass your cache. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Jaikoz

Resolved

11 December 2009 (UTC)

Jaikoz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a content dispute going on primarily between myself and two other editors regarding what we should do with the Jaikoz article. We agree that it doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability, but none of us want to delete; one wants to merge, one wants to redirect, and one wants to keep. Should I just send this to AfD even though I don't support deletion? Should I back off and let someone else deal with it? --Explodicle (T/C) 16:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you've tried to resolve it on the talk page, so I think an AfD discussion is appropriate. You can indicate your preference for a redirect in the nomination. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Explodicle (T/C) 17:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

University Of Atlanta

Resolved

 – --Orlady (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

University of Atlanta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Supercopone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mistro12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The article on the University of Atlanta is slanted and full of miss-information against the School. The article claims the University of Atlanta was founded as Barrington in 1991, this is untrue. The University of Atlanta was founded in 2006 according to Distance Education Training Council as you can see from the website link http://www.detc.org/school_details.php?id=285 The University of Atlanta is a completely different school. The article also cliams that the University is online only, this is not true as well, not only does it have a school located in Atlanta it has many other locations around the world. I have no affiliation with the school at all, I just tried to fix some facts and was not allowed to correct some miss information. Deletion request have been made many times and even seconded, but others have pulled them down with no discussion. This article needs some real help, not more misinformation. PLease Help !!!!!!!!!! --Supercopone (talk) 08:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The above user (created in January but a "sleeper" until December 5) may well be connected with User:Mistro12, who reappeared just recently after his edit warring about this school's article was defeated last May. Both of them write with a style that betrays English is not their first language. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I am marking this case as "resolved." Supercopone seems to be a WP:SPA account focused on sanitizing the University of Atlanta article for promotional purposes. The Supercopone account has been blocked (not by me). --Orlady (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

As has Mistro12. They are both apparently socks or at least agents of the guy who runs that university. They've been desparate to distance themselves from their predecessor school. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

dispute about Ruby McCollum listing

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ruby McCollum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I posted a complaint about the Wikipedia entry regarding Ruby McCollum. The Wikipedia reviewer agreed with me and steps were taken by the man who has deemed himself the expert in this area to resolve the problems I had, as well as additional problems the editor had. (see the talk page for this subject please) My aunt then reviewed what I was happy with, emailed me and I posted her comments. That's when things started to get ugly between me and the "expert," C. Arthur Ellis.

Here are my problems:

1) He keeps confusing a page about Ruby McCollum with a place to discredit my grandfather. He keeps putting in he was indicted, but never tells about the resolution of the indictments. I am not trying to change history; merely indicate that an indictment does not prove guilt, and he is including this information (and omitting so very much more about this person) to malign his character. If you read the main page, there it is again. It does no good to take it out; he puts it back.

2) If you see Ellis' talk entries, he has accused my family of buying off a newspaper that won't send him copies of articles. Not true and offensive to me and likely to the editor of the paper, to whom I sent a link to the article and talk page.

3) Ellis claims his books, for which the Wikipedia page was merely a sales sheet before he made edits, have received merits they have not. His own wife and co-author wrote the five star review in the Midwest Book Review and the claims as a "laud" a listing in the American Library Association book directory.

4) When I thanked him for removing a libelous book from the market, he owned up to having published something considered libelous, noted his changes and them went on the attack again.

I think Ellis should be barred from making edits to the Ruby McCollum pages and I, too, will accept being barred. He is no scholar and I'm about ready to get a lawyer over this fool.

Thanks,

Mary Paramore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.192.13.89 (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy, that talk page is not very nice. The IP who claims to be Ellis is completely over the top and some of your comments are not very good, even though you felt you were provoked. The article itself is completely un-encyclopaedic, badly referenced and verges on an attack page. I will see what others here think, but perhaps this should be taken to WP:ANI (correction) WP:Wikiquette alerts. Also please do not issue legal threts. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I would just reiterate that the final article needs to be verifiable and encyclopedic. Speulcation, gossip, merit discussion, plausibility about unknown or putative fringe/wacko ideas shouldn't be barred on the talk pages but there are issues about soap boxing and wikipedia objective irrespective of any legal issues. No one benefits from faud or deception, be it defamtory or unjustifiably flatering. Encyclopedias and other intellectual works have historically been targets for all kinds of legal restraint and I don't get the feeling that legal threats are taken too well here. Venting and banter make this more fun, but the hope is to make everything about the article not the people. It is clear in most cases, even hard sciences ( witness Climate Gate) , that personal issues to come up but wikipedia is not the place to settle those or make decisions of any kind for the readers beyond making some subjective decisions about source reliability. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

So noted about anything legal. That would not involve Wikipedia. That would be offline regarding libel in his books, not the "conversation" here. 163.192.13.89 (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Mary Paramore

request for changes to stub about Kathleen Kenna

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

hi there, Really appreciate someone posting a stub about me, but it requires some corrections and additions.

Kenna was a political reporter and deputy national editor at The Star for more than 10 years, then its Washington bureau chief (1997-2001). Opened the paper's first south asia bureau, based in mumbai, india, in 2001.

Covering the war in Afghanistan when attacked.

Two years of surgeries and rehabilitation in Canada, then moved to Berkeley.

At University of California, Berkeley, for one year (2004-2005) as International Visiting Scholar, School of Journalism, and Sproul Fellow at Canadian Studies Department. At San Francisco State University for 3 years (2005-2008), to get MS in Rehabilitation Counseling, specializing in traumatic brain injury and PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) in veterans returning from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Interned for 2007-08 at Swords to Plowshares, a non-profit in San Francisco aiding all veterans, especially the homeless and those with mental disabilities. Worked as a rehabilitation counselor at the California State Department of Rehabilitation, specializing in veterans with multiple disabilities. Now working as a writer and continuing education in counseling.

thanks, Kathleen Kenna —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkenna (talk • contribs) 21:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I would be happy to help, but while I see much additional content, I don't see a source for the information that meets the requirement for wp:verifiability. The wp:five pillars on which Wikipedia stands include that we only add content that is in published, verifiable, sources. If there is anything inaccurate that you wish to have removed, please let me know, as that is easier, especially in an article about a living person (wp:BLP). I will post this message on your user talk page as well.- Sinneed 22:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look and see what I can do. Some of the dates may be difficult to reference - (~24hrs)Shortfatlad (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

NOTE if you are willing to reveal it your date of birth would be useful.Shortfatlad (talk) 12:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Resolved

 – contentious material removed, article has been nominated for deletion at WP:Articles for deletion/Jim Wilkinson (U.S. politician) Jezhotwells (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Jim Wilkinson (U.S. politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thank you in advance for your assistance. I am being personally attacked on my Wikipedia page. Jim wilkinson (US politician) is the page. Can I work with you to have my entire wikipedia page taken down? Or can I get you to put restrictions so that no one (including me) can edit the page? These attacks are causing me great personal harm. Thanks. Jim Wilkinson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.220.223.114 (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well the attack material has been removed. The article as it stands is unreferenced and not very encyclopaedic. However it seem that the subject is notable so it is likely that others will edit it in due course. If you feel that un-cited material is unduly biased, please raise the matter at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and articles should adhere to a neutral point of view. This may not accord with what the subject of an article feels is appropriate. Thanks for raising this here, and as you can see, un-cited attack material has been removed. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up a bit of what looked like damage, neutralized some wording. The article desperately needs sources.- Sinneed 01:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism complaints

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I was on my page and I noticed that I have messagess about editing and vandalism. I have never edited a page or any content on wikipedia. If that is the case, someone else may be going through my id to edit content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.22.97 (talk) 04:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The "IP" you've got has probably been used by someone else before you. The address number can change and is 'randomly' assigned when:

• The computer is turned on and off
• The modem is turned on and off
• The internet provider does maintence.

To avoid this you can create your own account.Shortfatlad (talk) 10:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Need additional editorial feedback on SmartDraw page

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors,

Another co-author and myself have been trying to replace a deleted page about the software program SmartDraw and we've been working with the admin who deleted it tedder (talk). The working version of the page we're tinkering with can be found here: User:Emeseg/SmartDraw. Tedder has given us some feedback (Tedder on SmartDraw) which I am unclear on. Specifically, is it pro forma to consider a product manufacturer's description of their own product advertising, thus does every single feature description have to be backed up by third party sources?

Omgcapitalism (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

When the creator of, or major contributor to, an article has a conflict of interest their edits are going to receive greater scrutiny because of the COI. That's unavoidable as it is very hard for such contributors to write from a neutral point of view. However COI is not an insurmountable problem if neutrality can be maintained. Anything in the article that speaks to the notability of the subject should be supported by reliable sources. – ukexpat (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand. If there were a claim on that page arguing that SmartDraw is superior to an alternative product (there isn't such a claim currently,) I am in full agreement that validation from reliable sources is necessary. Will look for some additional sources ascertaining the product's notability. Thank you for the clarification. Is there anyone I can contact to move the page from User:Emeseg/SmartDraw to SmartDraw once we're finished so the editorial history can be preserved?Omgcapitalism (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that lengthy feature lists and the like are often symptomatic of an advertisement. Bullet lists, in general, are deprecated; use plain narrative text in most cases. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

supplier incoming quality

Answered

 – directed to WP:RD Jezhotwells (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

How to control huge supplier imcoming material quality with less manpower in assembly industry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sathyavolu sar (talk • contribs) 07:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I see, from your talk page, that you have been directed to our reference desks which is where you may find the answer. Or, if you have access to a good library, you may find books on business economics of use. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Naming my name against another article posted before registering

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I had posted an article "Theory of trouble shooting" in haste without registering first under Root Cause Analysis. The same has been published by me in "scribd.com" as well with similar name with my login e-mail of "<removed>" (document no. 13748855). This mail id is also mine & I shall respond to any query raised to this mail id.

Now I want that "Theory of Trouble Shooting" contributed by "troubleshooter" may please be changed to contributed by "rajeev_naik123" so that I shall get better chances of UPLOADING IMAGES for some of my new articles. You can go through them in "scribd.com" (document no. 20209068 & 13731738 respectively). The content of these papers are important to be discussed with general public at large so I intend to upload them with images on wikipedia as well.

Can you help me in this endeavour please?

Rajeev naik123 (talk) 07:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't find an article on English Wikipedia with the title "Theory of Trouble Shooting". I looked at the site you mentioned and the essay there and would advise you not to post this on Wikipedia as it will swiftly be deleted. It is not an article, it is an unreferenced essay on some half-thought-out original theory. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a "social publishing company". Wikipedia articles are backed by verifiable and reliable sources. I will post some useful links on your talk page. If you need help with using the social publishing company webasite, I would suggest that you ask there, you would stand a better chance of getting help. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this but based on comments above it seems to be a somewhat common problem. From time to time, I think there are discussions about how to publish original research ( how to do a merit review) or even a wiki parody/comedy section. Social publishing or vanity press is not normally discussed here however. I have asked, and will ask you, how you would suggest wikiepedia do a merit review? This is not a rhetorical question to which I am convinced there is no good answer, but rather sincere since any incremental thoughts may be helpful. AFAIK you can't just have a decent " journal about everything" with expert merit review. But, if there is interest from wikipedia management, maybe there is some tractable way to approach this here. There are various e-journals that have varying degrees of stated and "Actual" review. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rajeev, as has been said this content is not suitable for Wikipedia. It is an essay that comprises original research, and is not encyclopedic. You may want to look for alternative places to publish this work, though you have already published it on Scribd. Another option is Google's Knol. Fences&Windows 18:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I simply wish to obtain more information on a 45 rpm record.

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I wish to get more information on a 45 rpm Epic Record number 5-10201. The Artist' name is: Robert Cameron, and the song title is: "I'll Get By (as long as I have you)". I need to know the release date of same. Not a hard question, but am getting tired of the 'runaround' frome page to page that is a waste of my time and am wanting to pull out my hair. Feel free to contact me at: <e-mail address redacted>. I await your response. Happy Holidays to one and all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.234.97 (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess this points to my crusade about "obscure but notable" topics and facts. Inclusion of this type of information anywhere is basically an editorial call, does wiki have any relevant articles and did you look? The record company should be authoritative more or less, do they have an online DB for references of their own works? This isn't really a general Q+A page, but if it helps clarify a role for wikipedia may be ok up to a point. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The Reference Desk is probably the best place to ask for assistance with this sort of question, but a quick Google search gives this hit - is that the one? – ukexpat (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Concerned about an image

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The image associated with the Ellen Church article was uploaded by someone who apparently only speaks Russian; they have tagged the image as having an expired Argentine copyright, which seems unlikely. Does anyone know how to find out the copyright status of photos that are in the Smithsonian collection? (I believe that is where the photo is from.) Alternately, perhaps someone who writes Russian could leave a message for this person and ask them about the photo (and whether they even realized what the text they added said?) Brianyoumans (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions is the best place to ask about this. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking further into this as the image is sourced from a copyright page at the Smithsonian Institution, I have listed it at the WikiCommons deletion page [2]. I placed a template, which has a Russian option on the uploaders WikiCommons talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Biewer Terrier

Discussion moved

 – to AfD at WP:Articles for deletion/Biewer Terrier Jezhotwells (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Biewer Terrier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) page is full of misinformation. It appears to have been written by someone that knows nothing about the Biewer Terrier. When changes have been made to correct the current information it is changed back immediately by an autobot, without any investigation into the changes. There is only one club that is supported by the originator of the breed and that is the BTCA, Inc. You can see on that web site the endorsements of Mrs. Gertrude herself. Many links were provided for proof of what is being done for Biewer Terrier that have been removed.

If the correct information is not going to be allowed to be posted I request you remove the Biewer Terrier name and move all information to the Yorkshire Terrier page as a variation of the Yorkie. The Biewer Terrier is not a Yorkie.

I talk to Mrs. Gertrud Biewer every other week and visit her yearly. I believe I would be considered an authority on the breed as Mrs. Biewer has become a member and supporter of the BTCA, Inc.

BTCA To see signed documents by Mrs. Biewer

Purebreds Purebred dog web site

Detected Purebreds Purebreds that can be tested for

Breed Discription Purebred breed description by Mars Veterinary

Zarina1 (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, the article as it stands appears to be highly promotional in tone and very un-encyclopaedic. The one edit made by Cluebot, may be challenged - the link is in the revision history of the article. Any information in the article should be supported by reliable sources. Your personal knowledge is irrelevant her on Wikipedia. All statements should be properly sourced. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have listed the image used in the article at WP:Possibly unfree files/2009 December 10 as it is a possible copyright infringement. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Consistent Vandalism in Drift City Article

Answered

 – but reversions continue. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Article Link: Drift City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, In the wikipedia article on "Drift City", Drift City, there is consistent vandalism from an unknown user, posting how the game is falsely based on "The Transporter" film, and other false statements. The IP address of the offender keeps changing, this time showing up as 75.154.186.99 in the history section. The vandalism has had to be undone multiple times; something needs to be done about the vandal, as he or she continuous to disrupt the article in question. G.Ballblue (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If the vandalism continues, you can ask for page protection at WP:RPP. – ukexpat (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, what a mess the article is. It needs referencing to reliable 3rd party sources, a clean-up of grammar, spelling and style, compliance with WP:MOS. As to vandalism, many of the IP edits appear to be actually content differences. I see no evidence on the talk page of editors actually engaging in discussion about the edits of which you are complaining. No-one has placed templates on the user talk pages about the edits. Please read WP:Vandalism for further information on this. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Central Yavapai Metropolitan Planning Organization

Request unclear

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Central Yavapai Metropolitan Planning Organization (CYMPO), located within Arizona, is a partnership of Yavapai County, the City of Prescott, Towns of Chino Valley, Dewey-Humboldt and Prescott Valley, and the Arizona Department of Transportation, was established in June 2003 according to federal mandate when the region achieved a population in excess of 50,000. Its purpose is to cooperatively plan the transportation future of the Central Yavapai region that falls within the 401.46 square miles of the MPO Planning Boundary.

Vision The Central Yavapai Metropolitan Planning Organization (CYMPO) envisions planning and implementing a regional, integrated multi-modal transportation system that safely and efficiently allows the movement of people, goods and services to, through, and within the CYMPO Planning Boundary area.

Mission Statement The mission of Central Yavapai Metropolitan Planning Organization (CYMPO) is to provide leadership in planning and promoting a comprehensive multi-modal transportation system that will provide for regional mobility and connectivity that encourages a positive investment climate and fosters development sensitive to the environment.

What is an MPO? A Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is the policy board of an organization created and designed to carry out the metropolitan transportation planning process for urbanized areas with populations greater than 50,000, and designated by local officials and the Governor of the state as set forth by the Federal Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1973. MPOs were created in order to ensure that existing and future expenditures for transportation projects and programs were based on a continuing, cooperative and comprehensive (3-C) planning process. This planning process includes an analysis of alternatives to meet projected future demands, and for providing a safe and efficient transportation system that meets mobility while not creating adverse impacts to the environment. Federal funding for transportation projects and programs are channeled through this planning process. Below are key documents of the process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DebHernandez (talk • contribs) 23:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you have posted this to a noticeboard for editor requests, I can't figure out hwt you want us to do? Jezhotwells (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors image contributions

Discussion moved

 – to Talk:List_of_alleged_alien_beings#RfC_on_pictures Jezhotwells (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I am looking for assistance regarding the use of images and illustrations that do not introduce new ideas and abide to the WP:NOR but can be perceived as such by other editors. I am referring in particular to this case. Thanks.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you consider carrying on contributing to the debate at Talk:List_of_alleged_alien_beings#RfC_on_pictures as that is where the matter will be decided by consensus. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Dunbar content

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to request that on the Dunbar, Wisconsin content page you would add the existence of the one local church in the area.

It is Dunbar Community Bible Church. The website is DCBC4God.org if you would like to include the link. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.230.215.234 (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If the church is notable, why not be bold and make the addition yourself? – ukexpat (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not notable, so please don't add it. It only gets two Google hits, and of course there are others local churches. Fences&Windows 23:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Using YouTube video as source

Discussion moved

 – to WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Using_YouTube_video_as_source Jezhotwells (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There has ensued discussion in Talk:Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley regarding the use of YouTube video of a subject as a source on that subject in a biographical article. I'd like to have this clarified since the policies on self-published sources and sources for biographies doesn't mention this. The argument against goes that if a video has not been published or authored by the subject in question, it can't be used as a source in accordance with Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. In my view, however, this is a far too narrow interpretation of the policy. It seems to me that the purpose of that policy is to make sure that a blogger, tweeter, etc can't be used as a source of information about a subject. Only if the subject is the author can it be considered a reliable and good source. However, in the case of a recorded video of a subject, shouldn't the actual speech be considered as the source? Fabricating a video of someone in a convincing way is virtually impossible, so reliability shouldn't be an issue.

The case in question regards a controversial statement made by Lord Monckton, for which there exists qualified sources documenting the event. There exist on YouTube I think two videos in which Lord Monckton himself clarifies the background and motivation for this statement, but there do not seem that there exists any textual sources or similar that mention these, most likely because they are amateur-filmed videos so they don't exactly get any widespread circulation. In light of all this, shouldn't these videos be considered as valid sources?

Cpx86 (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, this should be posted to the reliable sources noticeboard where editors experienced in sourcing can discuss it. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. I will do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpx86 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Warn or Ban Suggestion

Discussion moved

 – to WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Copied_from_Wikipedia:Editor_assistance.2FRequests.2C_probably_belongs_here Jezhotwells (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

This person, who has the user name: Puppyph and is also using the IP: 124.106.168.42 is trying vandalize SkyCable and Global Destiny Cable's Wiki Pages and is also acting up like a Wikipedia Policy police.

He thinks that the sub-article, Future channels is considered as a vandal when in fact the sub-article itself already has a disclaimer.

Is there a way you can ban this person or warn him?

Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.48.224 (talk) 11:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Copied to ANI Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

animated demo?

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I have animated instructions for how to do the basic needlepoint stitches. Am I able to contribute them? Needlemaven —Preceding unsigned comment added by Needlemaven (talk • contribs) 19:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Starting an article. It would need to be cited from verifiable and reliable sources. If is is essentially original research then it will be swiftly deleted. You may find some useful information at WP:Starting an article. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a how-to guide, so I doubt these instructions should be hosted on Wikipedia. Depending on what these instructions are, it is possible that we might want to link to them from Needlepoint. Fences&Windows 23:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Or if they meet the requirements for Commons, they could be uploaded there. – ukexpat (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Posting Photos

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Can someone please tell me how to post posts of navel ships on pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astraldunepirate (talk • contribs) 23:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi - Wikipedia:Images is a good place to get further information on uploading images. Please do not post copyrighted images as they will be deleted, all images must comply with Wikpedia's image use policy. I have placed some useful links on your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for guidance on releasing article to Public

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I am Keakea123 - or Frank Summers I have put up an article about CHRIS SHAW and it is in my User section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keakea123

I have tried to amend/change it as a previous helper suggested. I am not much good at this, but it seems to me now that it is about the same informatioon as the one for Danny La Rue.

May I have further comments/criticisms please so that I can get this released ?

Appreciate you comments, Regards, Frank —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keakea123 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly you should move this to a user subpage, such as User:Keakea123/Chris Shaw, rather than your user page. The article is unreferenced, does not follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style guidlienes for article layout. I see that two other ediors ahve commented at your talk page to this effect. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Help with editing

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Colorpuncture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am new to Wiki editing - and am already completely frustrated. Every edit I have made has been reverted immediately by two other editors reverting more than three times a day and now I have been accused of violating the three times a day rule. I have stepped only briefly into the discussion but have found that largely one-sided as well.

Initially, I attempted to address only one instance, the problem with the article immediately stating via a quote: "There is no known anatomical or histological basis for the existence of acupuncture points or meridians.[2]" This is one man's (Felix Mann's) biased opinion and does not reflect current research in this area (published in 1996) as articulated in detail in the wiki article on Acupuncture. This item has been discussed previously in regards to this article and others have requested change here. I changed that area to remove the biased reference and refer readers to the full discussion of acupuncture on Wiki - which was immediately reverted.

It appears that these editors insist on slanting this article to their own bias and refuse to allow any other information to be provided by others included already discussed and added info on acupuncture in the wiki on that topic. Other edits that I made were to change "belief" to "theory" which of course something is a "theory" rather than a "belief" if it can be researched and I added other references (which I may need to do a better job of sourcing - please excuse that as newbie status). However, these other editors do appear to desire to give a negative slant to the subject of Colorpuncture rather than allowing for a multi-perspective and unbiased presentation of the current information on this topic.

As a newbie, I do not know how to approach this when it seems I am being stonewalled by these editors in adding anything to the article. What are their qualifications to be deciding here what is posted and what is not? Though I made various other edits - some quite minor - none remain.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantummech (talk • contribs) 16:14, 12 December 2009

There are wiki guides etc for dealing with medical topics. Pesonally I've run into a whole spectrum of contribs and it is possible that a small group or single editor can bring a tone to an entire article. Certainly there are people who either reject or accept various alternative theories out of hand and balance in content between popular beliefs and better tested ideas can be difficult and subjective. Try posting here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine for more complete guidance and I may try to post some sources on the related talk page. The objective here of course is documenting the state and past state of human thought on a topic, not settling a debate, but of course no one wants to mislead readers and there can be a tendency to push certain viewpoints out of various motives. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It's quite simple: you're making unsourced changes. This is original research. You need to provide sources for all edits, not just add your own personal knowledge. I've reverted your edits again. Fences&Windows 22:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

OR Cloud

Resolved

 – tag removed. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

People skills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A user inserted an OR box above the People Skills article and raised questions on the talk page. (Note: The user who uses several names including, AJCham and DrMandrake, has been against the article from the outset and initially by assuming the role of Helper caused its Quick Deletion. Subsequently, there was a several month process of re-writing the article.) After clarifications by editors and citations from reputable sources, requests were made to remove the OR box.

In response, the user complained about two content references being insufficiently explicit. Two changes were made to further tighten citation linkage and reference connection. The user still objected and initiated a Request for Comments. During the following 30 days visitors made a few minor changes. There were no comments about Original Research and/or Synthesis. Over 150 visitors per day continue to view the article. What are the relevant policies and procedures for removal of the OR box? PSY7 (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no point a tag remaining on an article if there's no clear idea why it's there. Individual problematic parts can be tagged without having to have a glaring banner at the top. Fences&Windows 22:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks fine to me, I checked out the referencing. Whilst improvements can be made, i see no serious problem with it so I removed the synthesis tag. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

When does an article contain too much information?

Answered

 – suggestions given. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching the article on Frank Wead, aviation pioneer and screenwriter. In the past weeks it has gone from a 5K article to around 26K, all from one editor. The editor has good, detailed information, but it seems to me he is, in effect, writing a book on Wead and posting it on Wikipedia. Information on Wead's dormitory mates and addresses of various bases where he lived, and other examples of what seem far-too-detailed material are, in my opinion, cluttering the article to the point that someone wanting basic information on Wead would have to dig for it in the article. I absolutely do not wish to discourage knowledgeable and energetic editors, and have not confronted the (apparently unregistered) editor about the issue. Rather, I wanted to understand more clearly myself what the guidelines for WP are. Is there a limit to the amount of desirable detail, or is anything that is accurate and verifiable acceptable, no matter how large the article becomes? Monkeyzpop (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Section headings would help break it up. Also, try talking to the IP editor about whether the info on his navy colleagues is really necessary. Fences&Windows 22:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, there is some guidance at WP:UNDUE that might help. Fences&Windows 22:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Even with fundamental policies I always sanity check based on what I think an encyclopedia user would find useful if the article came up on google. As a kid, I used to browse encyclopedias while on the toilet and often use paper versions for various purposes. Wikipedia, not being paper, means it is harder to read while on the toilet but it also doesn't neet to fit on a bookshelf of kill any more trees if it is too large. So, personally, I tend to err on the side of inclusion. Note that included material still needs to be encyclopedic. Trivia. gossip, however you want to define them, are probably not encyclopedic. Wikipeida talks about a mindless collections of facts which should not be confused with an article. So, essentially, you could arguc that clutter is unencyclpedic or irrelevant if it doesn't strike you that a reader is aided by that stuff. Perhaps terser article with more links would be more apropos. For obscure topics, it is likely there are a few good references to which an interested reader could go to get the questionable stuff with one click while avoiding a cluttered main article. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Undo function

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I created an article Henrietta Scott, Countess of Dalkeith‎ which has recently been deleted without discussion through the redirect function. I would rather it be submitted to AFD for proper determination of article worthiness. I am thinking about using the "undo" function to bring it back. Would that be acceptable? Daytrivia (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I have seen discussion somewhere, sorry can't recall where, that non-notable (in their own right) spouses should be merged and redirected to the artciles on husbands. Perhaps WT:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage would be a good place to ask about this. You could also talk to the person who created the redirect (visible through the artcile history) Jezhotwells (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

WP abbreviations

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate if anyone can provide the link of the list of Wikipedia abbreviations, e.g . OP? Thanks. —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Alphabet soup. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, there must be some more (or another list perhaps?) —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

OP is not included in that list but if you enter WP:OP in the search box then you are redirected to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

On opages such as this, OP sometimes means original poster, which in this thread is User:Mihkaw napéw. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

OP means original poster. @Mihkaw: You can find that on the WP:Glossary, which is prominently linked at the top of the page I linked above. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Scott Chisholm

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Although the 1967 case is mentioned under "flag desecration" and so forth, there seems to be little about Scott Chisholm, the Indiana State University English teacher who burned a small flag in class to illustrate the difference between an idea and its representation, between a physical act for political purposes and the same act for no political purposes.

Maybe Professor Chisholm's career was ended by this attempt at teaching and he spent the rest of his career selling encyclopedias or something. I have no idea. But I would be interested in knowing more about how things turned out.

Thanks for your consideration.

Dan Kirklin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.255.43.156 (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what article you're referring to. You might be able to get a better response if you post this at the talk page associated with the article, rather than here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

content link

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

What format should I use to link the table content of my page?

If you could help me I'd appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3lisa (talk • contribs) 23:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Help desk is the best place to ask this as experts on formatting and suchlike are on hand there.. I have always found them friendly and helpful. Please don't forget to sign your post using four (~)s and provide a link to the page that you are working on. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You'll stand a better chance of a helpful and sensible response if you link to the article you have in mind, and perhaps a link to show the effect you're seeking would be good too. You can link to another page by putting its title between double square brackets. --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Need help moving image

Resolved

 – image renamed. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody move 17_7.jpg to something more descriptive such as Stupify.jpg? I can't seem to find how to do so. Thanks. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 03:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it has been done. I know that you have to ask an admin to do this on Wiki Commons, probably the same on Wikipedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Need help with a reversion war that is starting

Unresolved

 – but no comments have been added in 7 days Jezhotwells (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Major_Overhaul, which explains pretty much the whole issue. In summary, I wrote up a detailed rationale for a major overhaul of WP:OUTCOMES on its talk page, with problem statement, solution, and a place to discuss said solution, and it was reverted by a Recent Changes Patroller. Said patroller initially cited WP:BRD, but when I pointed out he wasn't actually using the process as it is outlined and reverted his reversion, he reverted it back. Since then, other editors have reverted his reversion, and he's reverted them back. I'm not going to do any more reverts myself; I'd like to talk this out, but he doesn't seem to answer my questions or respond to my points. I feel he's digging in and not looking at the issue in a solution oriented manner. Can I get some help, please? ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 17:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You have an WP:RfC going so it is best to let others comment there. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I need an experienced editor to come in and mediate, I think. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 18:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:Mediation is that way. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If there's a revert war, good sir, it's because you started it. Are the two IPs who are taking your side sockpuppets, perhaps? Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I am those two IP addresses, (and this is a third) and I am not Noraft's sockpuppet. Notice how I only voted once? He's here asking for help in good faith, and you're following him around wikipedia casting aspersions and laying blame. Nice behavior for an administrator. Personally, I think you started the revert war with your first revert, and now you're holding the page hostage until you've decided there's been enough consensus. You've reverted the edits of three people now. Let it go. You don't own the page. Regarding consensus, nobody has come out strongly on your side, and I count four people (including myself) who have come out on Noraft's side, either before or after his original edit. Move on. 222.128.199.6 (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

So you're a meatpuppet, then? Sorry, but one user pushing a change hard + a bunch of SPA IPs who blindly support that user is not two editors. Those whom you count as expressing concurring opinions are in fact engaged in constructive dialogue with me on the talk page, while all you (singular, meaning Noraft+IPs) are doing is revert warring to some form of this monumental change against consensus. Want to earn some good faith? Engage on the talk page, stop pleading for other people to excuse your non-collaborative behavior. Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Good faith is assumed. I was also going to say don't bite the newcomers, but I took a look at the contribution history for the IP user who wrote above, and he/she isn't new, and isn't SPA. So can we stop with the allegations? Your evidence is weak (i.e. two people agreeing must be in cahoots if one is unregistered), and the investigation ruled against you. I think this just distracts from the main issue, which I've put up for mediation. I'm making attempts to resolve this, first through discussion, then through an RFC, and now through informal mediation. Hopefully we'll see something positive come out of this at this step. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 02:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

IP addresses of Users

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 14:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

How does one locate the IP address of a USER who has been blocked by sit administrators? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piitaabin (talk • contribs) 01:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a list of banned users at WP:List of banned users, but their IP addresses would vary according to the machine and connection that they use. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If you mean registered users, you can't. Only a very limited number of users with the checkuser right can find this information. This is one of the advantages of creating a user account – your IP address will be invisible to others. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If one needed the IP address for a legal proceeding, who should be served the court order requesting the information be released? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piitaabin (talk • contribs) 01:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation. – ukexpat (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Subliminal stimuli

Discussion moved

 – Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:IgniteTheMind Jezhotwells (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Subliminal stimuli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I recently added the following to the 2000 - Present section of this article:

In 2009, a feature documentary entitled "PROGRAMMING THE NATION?" directed by Jeff Warrick, was released. The film examines the alleged history of subliminal messaging in American mass-media - categorically exploring issues such as the subconscious mind, the James Vicary experiment, subliminal research, backward masking in rock music, and asserted claims of subliminals in film, advertising, politics, U.S. Psychological Operations and Project HAARP in Alaska.[44]

While this may seem blatantly promotional in nature - The film does exist and can be confirmed through several additional sources by simply Googling the title "PROGRAMMING THE NATION?".

One of which is the IMDB link here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1023345/ - which also contains a streaming trailer for the film.

This documentary also recently premiered at the 2008 Santa Cruz Film Festival as "A Work In Progress".

The completed film can be viewed temporarily online here: http://www.buzzledom.com/ptn_prescreen

IgniteTheMind (talk) 04:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you here to discuss the removal of the material above? If so, then please be aware that existence is not sufficient for a topic to be included in Wikipedia; the topic needs to be notable, according to our general notability guideline and in the case of a film, according to WP:FILMNOT too. IF there are sources to verify the notability of this film, then please cite them. Please also feel free to come back with questions. Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion of this issue is to be found now at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:IgniteTheMind. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Desert greening

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

An editor has created a page at Desert greening with very little content. Most of this seemed to have been covered at Desertification#Countering desertification so I redirected. However the same editor from multiple IPs has reverted this and now pasted the entire contents of Desertification#Countering desertification into Desert greening. I'm sure this is against guidelines (which one?) as it removes the section history and violates copyright of the original authors, but I'm not sure what to do about it. I guess it could go to AfD but I think an artile on Desert greening might be justified, as it's not just about resisting desertification but converting existing deserts. --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted to the most recent best version before the IP dumped in content from the other article and I added expansion and referencing tags. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Eric Schmidt article

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Eric_E._Schmidt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

If you go down to the bottom of the discussion page, you'll note an escalating argument about whether or not another user's "Political Views" section belongs in an encyclopedia. I'd like a neutral party to take a look at it if that would be okay.69.244.64.30 (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

On a first look, that discussion does seem to be aimed at improving the article. Views are being aired fairly robustly, but that's OK. Are you suggesting that the discussion can't be resolved? --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Paine Field

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Paine Field There is/are one or two people reverting all references to commercial air service at Paine Field. While I understand that they may personally be opposed to such service, their edits are either non-encyclopedic using such words as "unwanted", or just complete deletions of materials. The last edited comment (deleting factual ongoings about the airport had a reference of "Commercial Air Service: Jeesh,, you airline whackos have to use wikipedia to advertise. I am removing your ads." Sbrynen (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Careful sourcing of any additions will help. This edit looks better, but you and the IP might want to use the talk page to hash this out rather than continuing to edit war. I see you started a thread there; I'll move it to the bottom of the page, as per convention. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

What information is appropriate for the Paine Field Commercial Air Service Article?

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 09:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Paine Field (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There has been a lot of back and forth editing regarding commercial air service at Paine field, in the article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paine_Field#Commercial_air_service

Rather than having 3-5 or more parties going back and forth making edits regarding what is appropriate to include in an article (see article history), I thought it might be wise to contact an editor who may be able to provide some insight in what is correct and incorrect to include for this article.

Essentially the "commercial air service" section of the article has turned into a political sounding board, with both sides presenting points of view that may or may not be factual, but are probably incomplete, and with both sides having separate agendas as to what should be included (for instance one says that including the names of airlines interested in providing air service is a form of advertising, while another states its is significant to the article and should be included).

Rybob1 (talk) 07:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the answer given above is appropriate. You need to establish consensus on the talk page. That involves giva and take by all. I joined the threads as you obviously missed the earlier post. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Chris Gorog

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Chris Gorog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The page "Chris Gorog" has been updated extensively, along with many 3rd party references. The page still has a request for checking neutrality and adding additional references. How do I go about getting these two alerts removed? Thanks in advance. Jennifer Wilbur 21:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstarjen (talk • contribs)

How do I get a neutrality tag removed. I have updated the "Chris Gorog" page extensively, including adding many 3rd party (neutral) sources/citings. I added a comment to the page discussion, but I am curious if I need to do anything else to highlight this and how long it will take before it is reviewed. Thanks. Jennifer Wilbur 21:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstarjen (talk • contribs)

As you have discovered you can remove the tags yourself but the article still has many other issues, including a t a brief glance, grammar, compliance with WP:MOS, could do with an infobox, could do with adding to relevant wikiprojects, and the references could do with formatting with citation templaes so that the sources can be easily identified. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Aeria Games and Entertainment

Resolved

 – discussions at talk page, revert war stopped. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Aeria_Games_and_Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There has been a recent rash of vandalism (in my opinion) on this page. I would like to ask that a third party take a quick look at the edits in the past 48 hours, and update the page to reflect whatever is appropriate.

SupermanX (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have reverted your two most recent edits as blatant vandalism and placed a warning on your talk page. If you carry on like that you will be getting a block. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

And the other vandal User:Missdestructive has been indefinitely blocked. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Help with Problematic Editing

I am having an issue with what I believe to be inappropriate use of a talk page, found here:

Aeria_Games_and_Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(Forgive me if my linking isn't done right, I am referring to the discussion page on this article)

I 'believe' I am handling this correctly, but would like a more impartial opinion. I have been removing postings with the personal information of myself, and others. I have been removing extraneous comments that should be included in the article, not the discussion page, because this is not a page to debate.

Please take a little time to review the edits, and if any were done inappropriately, undo them, and let me know why, so that I can avoid this in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SupermanX (talk • contribs) 17:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

SupermanX (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

As I explained at the talk page you both need to stop this immediately. It would be appropriate to redact email addresses as the posting of these on Wikipedia is against policy. But you shouldn't be removing the entirety of other users' posts. I have placed warnings on both of your talk pages. Any further reversions and I will take this to WP:3RR. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Article on Oral Roberts

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Oral Roberts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I wanted to see if it's possible to add a small amount of information to this article. In the early 1940's, Oral Roberts conducted tent revivals throughout Oklahoma. Often he would be accompanied by a Mr. Steve Pringle and Ms. Jo Ella Oliver. Mr. Pringle was an evangelist and Ms. Oliver was a noted Church of the Nazarene preacher.

Thanks,

Rick Herron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickh1977 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources to cite in support of this, then by all means do so! --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Authoritative sources wrong & OR

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a non-specific question. I've found a situation where authoritative sources I've found (extensive search) have a certain date demonstrably wrong. How to handle this?

All the authoritative sources I've checked say something first appeared in print in year X, but I can show a public source where it appeared in year X-20. Obviously I can't find an authority to certify that the obvious is correct. I'm trying to avoid OR and SYNTH here. I could simply cite the earlier source, then add a note to the citation ... or ???

Obviously it might turn out later that the date is X-30. So there'll never be a *definitive* answer. Twang (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The usual way of dealing with this is to say source(s) a,B, c 9etc) says X but source p says X-20. This avoids you determining which is correct. You may get further input on this at the reliable sources noticeboard. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Generally with putative superlatives many may be worhty of mention according to chronology or dispute. History is not testable and there is no way to prove "Earliest" but usually just "earliest known" or "previously foo was considered earliest by many[...] but blah apparently claims earlier knowledge []". Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Shabby_chic and Shabby_Chic_(Brand)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

As a new user, I recently proposed edits to the article Shabby_chic, including the addition of several verifiable sources (a New York Times article and the website of the United States Trademark Office). When I requested that the article name be changed such that both terms “shabby” and “chic” should be capitalized, another editor, username Ukexpat, reverted all of my changes because he viewed my edits as promotional in nature. He then proceeded to further amend the Shabby_chic article to remove references to registered trademarks as well as to Target, which licenses and sells SIMPLY SHABBY CHIC merchandise, and to Rachel Ashwell, who is known to have originated and popularized the term and corresponding style. Because he viewed my article as promotional in nature, he suggested that I publish a new article under the heading Shabby_Chic_(Brand) rather than edit the existing Shabby_chic article.

Although I advised Ukexpat that the brand could not be divorced from the “concept” or “style” in view of the history of the term and Rachel Ashwell’s high degree of relevance to the topic, he refused to be persuaded, and directed me to this forum. I further noted that the current article along with his changes remained unreferenced, and that its inaccuracies were being mirrored on a number of websites.

Accordingly, I am writing to request assistance and support in reimplementing my proposed changes so that the article will benefit its readers by providing more accurate and referenced information and by notifying of the existence of a company and registered trademarks to avoid confusion and possible legal claims against those who rely on the information contained in the Wikipedia article. It appears to me that numerous other Wikipedia articles, such as the articles on Kleenex, Bandaid, and Xerox discuss brands and registered trademarks that may have been misused by other members of the public at some time. These articles are apparently permitted to persist in Wikipedia, and in fact, serve as useful and beneficial resources. I therefore ask your assistance in ensuring that the Shabby_Chic article may do the same.

If, upon review of my communications with Ukexpat, you agree with him/her that my proposed edits belong in an article called Shabby_Chic_(brand), I request that the current, unreferenced Shabby_chic article be removed unless the statements can be properly supported by verifiable sources.

Thank you for your consideration and assistance.

KSatSCB (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a quick look at the diffs, and I think the edits you proposed would be better placed at Shabby Chic (brand). I'm undecided on the notability of that. If you'd like to create that new page, then I'd recommend that you start in a subage of your userpace, perhaps at User:KSatSCB/sandbox. You should also read WP:YFA and consider using the new article wizard; both of these will enhance your chances of writing a successful article.

As for deleting the current page, you're welcome to suggest that. The process is laid out at WP:DEL.

Regards, --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that there is an open move-request discussion for "Shabby chic" → "Shabby Chic" at Talk:Shabby chic#Move? that touches on these same issues. DMacks (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have anything to add to the discussion that I have had with KSatSCB on our respective talk pages, though I would like to thank KSatSCB for raising this issue for discussion rather than charging ahead like a bull in a china shop as is sometimes the case with new editors. – ukexpat (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

New Aritcle

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 14:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

To whom it man concern.

I just wrote a small introduction for my company I just got back on the ground. We have't really done much with the company yet thats why it isnt a lot of information. I want to just add things as they come. Is this ok? I can't find my article anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perilouscoalition (talk • contribs) 02:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You appear to have written in your userspace, at User:Perilouscoalition/Perilous coalition LLC. The article as it stands isn't ready to go into article space, as the main encyclopaedia is known. Subjects must meet our notability standard, with information drawn from reliable sources. The best thing would be to wait until your company has been covered by some reliable sources, and then let somebody else write about it here, since you seem to have a substantial conflict of interest. Of course, we'd love to have you help the project in other ways. Why not look around, and soon enough you'll find something of interest. I'll put some helpful information on your talk page too. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You user name is also a clear violation of our user name policy. – ukexpat (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

scrolling forever/trivia

Resolved

19:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Will someone who knows how to fix text on {{episode list}} template not line breaking and continuing on forever (requiring lots of scrolling) take a look at List of Star Wars: The Clone Wars episodes? Recent contributions (copy+paste of trivia) has made the formatting issue too glaring for me to ignore, however I don't know exactly how to make the table actually use line breaks. Also, fixing the numerous references to the same cite with a <ref name=""/> would be appreciated. (I also can't help feeling that the trivia on the page shouldn't be there) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the best place to request help with the template is probably the help desk As for the citations and trivia removal, why don't you do that yourseself? Note, it would be wise to discuss this on the article talk page first. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[3] Is this what you wanted - a leading space causes formatting problems

eg like this - when the text line begins with a space then the rest of the text goes off the screen.......................................... see what I mean

Shortfatlad (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The trivia part is up to you and as mentioned above - probably best discussed on the talk page - or just remove it as per WP:BOLD.

I think the reference are actually ok since they all link to different sub pages.Shortfatlad (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yea, thanks. I didn't know why the text went off screen forever.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)