Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2012 November 8

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

November 8

A question about acceptable citations

Today I came across a woefully inadequate article on Mining on Vancouver Island that I thought I might improve, being a Mining Engineering graduate native to Vancouver Island. Much of what I know about the topic, however, comes from museum exhibits in former mining communities like Cumberland. Is it acceptable to cite museum exhibits or other similar material? It's not formally published in the normal sense of the term, nor is it documented online in any detail, but public museum exhibits are generally considered to be reliable sources of information (that being pretty much their only reason for existing). Rashkavar (talk) 04:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on the nature of the exhibit. You can certainly cite museum catalogues and even a simple publication, like a museum's own flimsy guide leaflet about a particular exhibit, can be cited. You might want to repost your question at Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard, where it should attract the attention of users with more expertise in this area. - Karenjc 10:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Navigation within reference desk archives

I am looking at an archived reference desk page Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 August 14 and I think (though I'm not certain) that there was talk page discussion about one of the topics (responding to prayer requests) from August 14. Is there a way to get to the archive of the corresponding talk page? Thanks CBHA (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The talk page is here Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Humanities, and there is a link to the archives. It looks like 93 has the date you're interested in. RudolfRed (talk) 04:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

How can I edit my Artilce Headline

Hi I am newbie here.. I have written an article about a company but by mistake i have made a wrong name in the title..

How can i change it.. help me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivg.officeyes (talk • contribs) 10:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Officyes.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For your question, see Help:Moving a page. However, the page you really need is the FAQ page for organisations, since the page has been marked for speedy deletion as advertising. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome! You might also want to check out Wikipedia:Notability. Articles, for any subject, require independent, published sources to demonstrate the subject's notability.--xanchester (t) 10:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Officyes.com has been speedily deleted as spam and for lacking importance or significance.--ukexpat (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

New article rejected for lack of references

I've had a new article rejected twice for 'lack of references' - I've provided links to two internationally-published books which reference the subject of the article. There's little or no other online references to the subject. The subject shares the same name as another already on Wikipedia, so this is effectively the first reference to this new subject, and I feel the Wiki is required to not only document the subject I'm writing about, but also to differentiate the subject from the one already referenced on Wikipedia.

I can't seem to get the message across to the reviewers that in order to have some online refernces to a subject, someone has to write the first one...... and I feel that I'm writing this first reference.

Comments, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicfan1353 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome. Wikipedia's notability guideline requires significant coverage by sources. Two minor mentions in two books by the same author on the same subject is not sufficient.--xanchester (t) 11:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The notability guidelines suggest that a national radio broadcast may be sufficiently notable, and the subject fits the bill in that category. As I say, the main motivation is to distinguish the new subject from the existing one, already on Wikipedia, that shares the same name, and to a certain extent, is less notable (IMHO) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicfan1353 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

If there do not already exist multiple references in independent reliable sources, then by definition, the subject is not notable by Wikipedia's standards, and there should not be an article on it. By all means write an article on the subject, but not in Wikipedia. If you can get an article published by a reputable independent publisher, then that subject will be closer to being notable. --ColinFine (talk) 14:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, the 'multiple references' for the similarly-named subject already on Wikipedia consist of their own Myspace page, and an online interview, neither of which strike me as being published by a 'reputable independent publisher'..... As I say, all I want to do is add some clarity to two similarly-named subjects, the newer one of which I feel is equally as notable as the one already on Wikipedia...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicfan1353 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

This band existed; the BBC felt them notable enough (being a splinter group from one that was recorded multiple times for the BBC) to commit them to a studio recording broadcast to the whole of the UK, and this is a matter of record in the accepted 'bible' on the topic of BBC Sessions (one of the references in the article) but because no-one took the trouble to document them at the time, we can't document them now on Wikipedia? Even when there's potential for confusion with the other band of the same name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicfan1353 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The notability of other articles does not affect the notability of the article in question. It true that the Hiding Place (band) article lacks sources, and may qualify for Articles for Deletion, but that has no impact on the notability of the similarly named article that you are submitting for creation. Articles on Wikipedia require multiple independent, published sources to establish notability. If the subject is notable, it should not be difficult to find other published sources.--xanchester (t) 18:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I still don't see why we can't generate the first reference to the notability of this band. As I said, they were broadcast to the whole of the UK, the lead singer had recently left a band that had been recorded and broadcast by the BBC on three or more occasions... just because nobody wrote something down about them at the time, does that mean we shouldn't write the first reference to them now? Musicfan1353 (talk) 22:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Because that flies the the face of what Wikipedia is about and some of its most basic policies. See the verifiability policy and the original research policy. Wikipedia reports but does not create notable information. Would you expect the Encyclopedia Britannica to create notability about some subject? Just like Britannica, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, nothing more and nothing less, and creating notability is outside its purpose. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Activating an account over all different projects

Hi, I'm contemplating a WP:CLEANSTART due to continuing on- and off-wiki harassment events. I remember using a tool at some point to get this account activated across all WP projects (about 700) and would like to use this for my new account, too, but for the life of me cannot remember where I found that tool (probably on meta, but where...). Does somebody here know where to find it? Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean a Unified login? If so, it should be automatic - check your global account status under the My preferences menu.

If you mean something else - sorry, not a clue... Yunshui 雲‍水 11:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not it. If under preferences you click "manage your global account", you see the WPs on which your account is active. This account shows 680 project sites. My new account only shows those where I manually logged in. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Have you tried Special:MergeAccount on Meta? Yunshui 雲‍水 11:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I did, that's not it either. If I recall correctly, it was some kind of script that would log an account into every existing wikiproject. Took a few minutes to complete and would list all projects one-by-one. I guess it's not really essential any more, giving the unified login we now have. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any need for this. With the right settings, if you are logged in to a unified account at one Wikimedia wiki then your account should automatically be created and logged in if you view any page at another wiki. That happens for me and I like it. It means I can see which wikis I have visited and when I first visited them. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I'd rather not leave even this trace for any potential wikihound that I'm going to use a different account. Is it possible for someone to revdel this section? Thanks and sorry for not thinking of this earlier... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Please clarify that anagrams are not regarded as original research?

Hi - I've been having a few problems with the pages Aleister Crowley, Aiwass, Thelema & The Book of the Law. The trouble comes from how anagrams within the text of 'The Book of the Law' are viewed by editors and contributors. Crowley comments on an anagram written in verse 1,15. There is also an evident perfect anagram in verse 1,7 - "Aiwass the Minister" = "I sin, I was the Master." I don't think that the presence of an evident anagram constitutes original research, especially when no attempt is being made by myself to interpret the anagram, theorise or speculate about it, but others disagree. Can you clarify whether simply stating the presence of an anagram is original research in your view or not?

Thanks. Dara Allarah (talk) 11:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Unless a reliable source has commented on the anagram, what you're proposing is indeed original research. For instance, the example you offer above can also be rearranged as "Miss a hearse, nitwit". Can you prove that Crowley wasn't referring to the foolishiness of immortality here, instead? Without a published source to that effect, your interpretation is no more valid than mine - hence, we need to verify that the anagram was there intentionally (or at least, that commentators have noted it). Yunshui 雲‍水 11:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I think Yunshui's interpretation is preferable. Maproom (talk) 14:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Your example "Miss a hearse, nitwit" is not an example of what's called a 'cogent anagram', whereas "I sin, I was the Master" is. A cogent anagram is one that is cogent with the original text. In this case the identity of Aiwass the minister is cogent with the statement "I was the Master". Crowley states in his commentary to the Book of the Law that "A "minister" is one who performs a service, in this case evidently that of revealing." The Book of the Law is the only time Aiwass is referred to as a Minister in any of Crowley's work, and it is out of step with the Egyptian pantheon as if anyone qualified as a minister to Horus it would be the God Thoth.

While Crowley does not directly refer to the anagram of 1,7 he comments directly on the anagram in 1, 15 saying ""Prince-priest" is an unusual word, and not in tone with other references to me. I suspect therefore a secret cipher of some sort. For one thing, it is an anagram of PRINCEPS ITER, not bad for Alastor the Wanderer, or PRINCIPS ERIT, he shall be the chief (see verse 23). But such Qabalah is hardly to be considered serious. The recurrence of the letters PRI is however curious and may be significant....etc" Meaning - the anagram itself is not serious, not that Themuru qabalah is not serious. Crowley also provides pictorial proof that he was aware of an anagram in III, 47. 'Then this line' is an anagram of 'the nine hilts'. When we examine the hilts drawn on the 9 of swords in the Thoth deck we find they are identical whereas in the other cards they are dissimilar (sometimes only in tiny ways such as the weave on the hilts).

Briefly - the Book of the Law is filled with anagrams, ciphers and codes, as much as Lewis Carroll's works are. Indeed, Crowley put 'Alice in Wonderland' and 'Through the looking glass' on his recommended reading list for the A.'.A.'. syllabus.

In recent times anagrams have been used and accepted in court as evidence. For instance in the recent court case of Dan Brown Vs. Baigent and Leigh, the Judge accepted that Dan Brown's villain 'Leigh Teabing' is an anagram of Baigent and Leigh and said "I have already observed the anagram in the name Teabing as being another example of how The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail was clearly in the mind of Mr Brown when he finalised his book."

Its unlikely that commentators will mention the anagram in the future as most books on Thelema are written by members of the OTO, and published by OTO members working for specialist occult publishing houses. So although there are a lot of books on Thelema and Magick out there, and they seem to fulfil the criteria of valid third party published works, on closer inspection the field is dominated by fraternal nepotism that furthers the agenda of the OTO. Very little independent critical analysis is available concerning the matter of the dictation of the Book. Dara Allarah (talk) 14:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Your anagrams are original research. One can make all kinds of things out of a phrase like "Aiwass the Minister":

Atheist Swear I'm Sin

Arise Atheism's Twin

Arise Nastiest Whim

It is ridiculous to suggest that any particular phrase has any significance... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

These are not cogent or meaningful anagrams, nor evident ones, nor grammatically correct. I don't suggest that 'any particular phrase' has significance. Dara Allarah (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I like "Wise hermit is Satan". That's cogent as well, given the context. Point is, there's nothing published saying that your anagram is the right one - you're assuming it from context, which is, yep - original research. Without sources, it's not useable, sorry. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my edit. That was an error. I'm fairly new to wiki.  :-)

Amusing, but not cogent to Aiwass unless you can show he was a 'wise hermit'. :D However - in mine we already know that Aleister Crowley called himself the 'Master Therion'. Furthermore, its common practise to use the word minister for words containing master in cryptic crossword puzzles. Dara Allarah (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's be totally clear about this: unless you can find a published reliable source that tells us that "I sin, I was the Master." is an anagram of "Aiwass the Minister", and that this is of significance, including this in an article would constitute original research, and would not be permitted. Articles are based on verifiable material, not on contributors speculation. This is non-negotiable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

A quick google check shows many sources, though they are either arcana of dubious reliability or circular references from WP. That said, the assertion "ABC is an anagram of CAB" is intrinsically verifiable, like an arithmetic assertion. The question should really be seen as one of notability, not verifiability. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Everyone here seems to be missing the point with the advice being given. Whether or not the anagram is verifiable or not, or whether it needs to be or not, misses the point on why it should not be included: It is a mundanely trivial thing and not relevant to a scholarly understanding of the subject. If I found out that George Washington ate pork chops on a particular Tuesday in November, 1790; even if I had multiple scrupulous sources which were very reliable and positively confirm the fact, it still wouldn't be appropriate information to the article because it adds nothing worthwhile in understanding the historical and scholarly significance of George Washington. Likewise, playing Scrabble with the letters of a famous person's name lends nothing to understanding who they were or why they were important: it may be a fun (and sometimes funny) intellectual exercise, but it is trivial and pointless and doesn't belong in a Wikipedia biography of the person, even if we find a few sources that happen to report the same anagram. --Jayron32 05:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I would usually agree with you, however there are mitigating factors with this one that make it an exception to what should be a matter of common sense and a general rule. 1) The Book of the Law is not a straight text and the presence of anagrams, ciphers and riddles in it is attested by its author. This point has notability, and is not a matter of contention. 2) Whether the book was dictated by a supernatural entity called Aiwass or was written by Crowley himself is a subject of scholarly debate, and as such the anagram informs that debate as it is cogent to the issue of the identity of Aiwass by its own anagramic cogency. So - this is a highly non-trivial inclusion that is extremely important to Thelemites of both Religiosity and Skeptical persuasions alike. Its also why I don't feel justified in doing more that presenting the presence of the anagram in the text on WP. No theorising as to what it means, no speculation upon it, (that would be original research) - just 'it's there'.

This is why I'm handing the hot potato to you guys to decide upon. Its intrinsically verifiable and relevant to the topic, which has notability. See Aiwass and Talk:Aiwass Dara Allarah (talk) 08:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Your formulation in [1] was: Verse 1,7 of the text contains an anagram of the name "Aiwass the Minister" which is "I Sin, I was the Master". This is not verifiable. The only thing the text actually contains is: "Behold! it is revealed by Aiwass the minister of Hoor-paar-kraat." If you claim that the text "contains" the anagram "I Sin, I was the Master", then your wording implies that the author directly wrote that it's an anagram or at least made the anagram deliberately. And the 3 words are just part of a longer sentence. It seems nonsensical to me to pick 3 words of one sentence in a whole book, rearrange the letters of those 3 words, and then claim it means anything about who wrote the book. As shown by examples here, it's easy to make anagrams. There are computer programs to do it. Millions of anagrams could be made by picking words from a book. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

In Crowleys day - 1904 - there were no computer programs and people were creating anagrams and decoding them using the bare and unadorned human brain. There was no machine bias, and evident intrinsically verifiable cogent and perfect anagrams held more weight consequently than they do through our modern lenses. Thus - people historically and routinely declared new scientific discoveries as 'firsts' with anagrams in their texts. The issue is: was Aiwass the author or was Crowley? By doing no more than stating the cogent and perfect anagram that is intrinsically evident within the text then I make no comment as to who the author is. Did Aiwass write it or Crowley? I come down on the side of Occam's razor but this is merely my opinion and not fit for inclusion into a WP article. If you read the anagram to suggest that Crowley wrote it then you are reading the meaning into that and are advancing your own original research on the topic. I am keen to avoid this. I may have my own views as you do but a statement or anagram may be read in different ways by different people and WP editors really have no business deciding on what a statement in an anagram cogent to a scholarly debate really means before there is scholarly consensus, even while we might be aware of the most likely meaning due to the Occams razor factor. Doesn't mean to says that Occam's is always right. In the meantime I suggest that the anagram may be presented as intrinsically verifiable and cogent to a topic of established notability - especially in the light of the nature of the book -that is it not a straight text and the expected presence Temura (angrams), Gematria or other Qabalah need not be contested on the grounds of its inclusion any more that it would be in an article on the Zohar. That such things occur in either work is no big thing amongst scholars that tackle non-straight texts. Dara Allarah (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

No. You have been told by multiple contributors that your original research regarding anagrams will not be permitted. You are wasting your time trying to convince us otherwise by filling this page with yet more speculation. If you wish to publicise your own ideas on Crowley's work, find a more appropriate forum. Wikipedia does not base content on contributors own research, end of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I have seen a number of people exploring the issue from different angles. The issue was more complex than most editors expected it to be from the outset - is all. I haven't seen it in terms of an 'us or them' 'me vs you' thing. I think the conversation has exhibited a healthy curiosity and a testing quality to it that shows an admirable concern for upholding WP standards. LeadSongDog doesn't seem to agree with you that this is Original Research btw, and you haven't responded to him. Jayron thought it wasn't about verifiability either but was concerned with upholding scholarly standards. Views have been exchanged - evidence has been presented - people have had time to reflect. But if everyone has finished responding (?) I'll ask for a show of hands for or against the anagrams inclusion and look forward to a consensus decision. There's really no need to be so unilaterally authoritarian about this. Dara Allarah (talk) 08:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

To be precise, you've had several people "Yes, it's OR," (to which you may add myself), one person saying that you are misrepresenting the source (to which number I may also be added), and one or two others saying that the statement isn't notable enough for inclusion. There is no way in which you are getting a positive response towards including your personal anagrammatic analysis in the article, so I really think it is time you stopped wasting time on this, yours and ours, and accepted that the inclusion is not appropriate. And if you cannot understand that a group of people saying "no" in different ways and for different reasons doesn't add up to "yes" or even "maybe", then you might want to reconsider the basis of your participation here and accept that you need to absorb the instruction you've been given. Mangoe (talk) 12:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your vote. Dara Allarah (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Reference: "Liber Al vel legis is scattered through with riddles requiring the use of the system known as the Qabalah to unravel." ‘The Ending of the Words – Magical Philosophy of Alesiter Crowley’ – Oliver St. John and Sophie Di Jorio. 2012.

Dara Allarah (talk) 10:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello.

Hello Wikipedians! Can you please tell me why my talk page is red? Dol Grenn (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Because it didn't exist yet. I have put a welcome template with some (hopefully) helpful links, so it's blue now. Happy editing! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Fraudulent editors still allowed to post and comment on topics they have been shown to manipulate fraudulently!!!!! Really?? !!! Wikipedia loses credibitity.

Copypasta rant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AMedieval_Warm_Period http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/ James Delingpole James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books, including his most recent work Watermelons: How the Environmentalists are Killing the Planet, Destroying the Economy and Stealing Your Children's Future, also available in the US, and in Australia as Killing the Earth to Save It. His website is www.jamesdelingpole.com. Climategate: the corruption of Wikipedia By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: December 22nd, 2009 286 Comments Comment on this article If you want to know the truth about Climategate, definitely don't use Wikipedia. "Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy", is its preferred, mealy-mouthed euphemism to describe the greatest scientific scandal of the modern age. Not that you'd ever guess it was a scandal from the accompanying article. It reads more like a damage-limitation press release put out by concerned friends and sympathisers of the lying, cheating, data-rigging scientists Which funnily enough, is pretty much what it is. Even Wikipedia's own moderators acknowledge that the entry has been hijacked, as this commentary by an "uninvolved editor" makes clear. Unfortunately, this naked bias and corruption has infected the supposedly neutral Wikipedia's entire coverage of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory. And much of this, as Lawrence Solomon reports in the National Post, is the work of one man, a Cambridge-based scientist and Green Party activist named William Connolley. Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period. All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement. Connolley has supposedly been defrocked as a Wikipedia administrator. Or so Wikipedia claimed in its feeble, there's-really-not-much-we-can-do response to anxious questions from one of Watts Up With That's readers. In September 2009, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee revoked Mr. Connolley’s administrator status after finding that he misused his administrative privileges while involved in a dispute unrelated to climate warming. If this is true, it doesn't seem to have made much difference to his creative input on the Wikipedia's entries. Here he is – unless its just someone with an identical name – busily sticking his oar in to entries on the Medieval Warm Period (again) and the deeply compromised, soon-to-be-leaving (let's hope) IPCC head Dr Rajendra Pachauri. And here he is again just three days ago, removing a mention of Climategate from Michael Mann's entry. And here is an example of one of his Wikipedia chums – name of Stephan Schulz – helping to cover up for him by ensuring that no mention of that embarrassing Lawrence Solomon article appears on Connolley's Wikipedia entry. And here he is deleting criticism of himself. Connolley, it should also be noted, was one of the founder members of Real Climate – the friends-of-Michael-Mann propaganda outfit (aka "The Hockey Team") which, in the guise of disinterested science, pumps out climate-fear-promoting hysteria on AGW and tries to discredit anyone who disagrees with the ManBearPig "consensus". Here he is, for example, being bigged up in a 2006 email from Michael Mann: >> I've attached the piece in word format. Hyperlinks are still there, >> but not clickable in word format. I've already given it a good >> go-over w/ Gavin, Stefan, and William Connelley (our internal "peer >> review" process at RC), so I think its in pretty good shape. Let me >> know if any comments… >> and here are some of his associates: From: Phil Jones To: William M Connolley ,Caspar Ammann Subject: Figure 7.1c from the 1990 IPCC Report Get that? The guy who has been writing Wikipedia's entry on Climategate (plus 5,000 others relating to "Climate Change") is the bosom buddy of the Climategate scientists. Nope, this isn't a problem that is going to go away. Wikipedia may well be beyond redemption – as this useful resource site for Wiki-inaccuracies would seem to suggest. Like so many hippyish notions, Jimmy Wales's idea of a free encyclopedia for everyone was a noble intention which has been cruelly and horribly abused by some very ugly people. Do you want to know just how ugly? I've been saving the worst till last. Here it is: William Connelley's Wikipedia photograph. UPDATE: (thanks, wondrous Thomas 33 for your delving). Et Tu, Jimmy Wales? It seems that the dread Connolley once earned the approbation of the Wiki-King himself, as he boasts here on an old blog: 2005-12-19 Connolley has done such amazing work… Back to wikipedia… Nature has an article on wikipedia vs Britannica. It was an interesting exercise, and as the most notable climatologist on wiki :-) they interviewed me, which lead to the sidebar article "Challenges of being a Wikipedian" (see the Nature article; click on the "challenges" link near the bottom). It contains the rather nice quote from Jimbo Wales "Connolley has done such amazing work and has had to deal with a fair amount of nonsense" (does Lumo still read this?). He can also be found gloating evilly over his powers: 2006-01-16 Wikinews A few snippets from wikipedia… I'm now an admin, and hence have ultimate power to CRUSH ALL MY ENEMIES HA HA HA HA!!! <evil laugh trails off into the distance>. Sadly no: the rules prohibit me from abusing my powers and there are always other people watching anyway. And not that I have too many enemies, Of Course. Some of the comments are interesting though: try the RFA, scroll down for the Opposes. And I've just made my 10,000th edit. That slacker Lubos only has 2.3k, & Charles matthews has a feeble 54k. Tags: Climategate, ManBearPig, Wikipedia, William Connelley — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.119.194 (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

BarrieJones (talk) 11:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of a "Copypasta rant", but it seems remarkable that a users first, and so far only, edit was inserting this collapse box ?? - Arjayay (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

That was me. Yunshui 雲‍水 22:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

delete Henley Management College, South Africa

This page - Henley Management College, South Africa - is outdated and wrong. The school has since (in 2008) changed its name (refer to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henley_Business_School) and we are not allowed to trade or carry on business under Henley Management College name due to company law and government academic accreditation requirements. Could you please delete this site. It's a problem as we recently had a journalist using this info in the press about us. Jon Foster-Pedley, dean Henley Business School, South Africa Fosterp (talk) 13:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. If there are any inaccuracies, go ahead, be bold and fix it! You are encouraged to. And remember to cite your sources.--xanchester (t) 13:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I have moved the article to Henley Business School, South Africa, and changed the name in a few other places, though there are still plenty of articles that link to the old name, which should be updated - see 'What links here' from the article. However, I have added a tag to the article saying it is unreferenced. Unless some references to independent reliable sources are added, the article is liable to deleted at any time. --ColinFine (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Second help needed: Template:Did you know nominations/Apollo 11 lunar sample display, Apollo 17 lunar sample display

I know there is an entry of Latest revision as of 13:28, 8 November 2012 on this (and previous edit), however I can NOT read it in normal view. Can you fix. It is beyond my technical ability. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I can see these edits, using Firefox 14. The comment by Victuallers (talk · contribs) is about a third of the way down the page. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, so can I now. Maybe somebody "tweaked" something to clear this up. I use 2 PCs and NOT using Firefox. The problem showed previously on BOTH PCs. BUT, like I say it seems to be working now. Thanks for looking into it.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Assistance with a requested edit

Hello. I have a conflict of interest, so while I have read that one should "be bold," I don't want to edit the Wikipedia article about my employer. I requested some changes (and provided corresponding citations) on the Talk page of this article, but it has been about one week and I haven't heard back. Would someone here be kind enough to consider reviewing/taking action on the changes I requested in this Talk page post: Talk:American_Coalition_for_Clean_Coal_Electricity#Can_changes_be_made_to_Info-box_and_Members_and_history_section.3F Thank you. --BiancaPrade (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I've taken care of it. Deor (talk) 12:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Article written about me which is complete nonsense

A few years ago, some 'friends' of mine created an article about me on wikipedia for a joke nd promised they would remove it. I have just realised that the article is still online. User:Sergio-lamela As you can see the article is complete nonsense and doesn't even make sense. I would appreciate it if this article could be removed. Thank you

Sergio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.242.12 (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

(Wikisyntax fixed) - I have summarily deleted the page (which in Wikipedia's terminology was a "user page", not an article), because it was utterly awful. I deleted the accompanying user talk page for good measure, for the same reasons, and because there was nothing on it worth keeping. Our collective apologies that nobody had spotted this issue (or that those who did spot it did nothing to remove it) between April 2006 and today. With best wishes, Bencherlite^Talk 16:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

EDIT - Hello, i have checked - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sergio-lamela and the userpage still does not seem to have been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.159.156 (talk) 06:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure it has. It was deleted two days ago by administrator Bencherlite. --Jayron32 07:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks deleted to me – did you possibly get the wrong page link? Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

help in setup wikipedia page for a Recording Artist from the Bahamas

Hello, I need help in setup wikipedia page for a Recording Artist from the Bahamas. What is the procedure and how is it setup? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melanique Babb (talk • contribs) 18:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Before you do, take a look at the inclusion criteria set out here to see if they are notable. If they are not, then an article about them is not appropriate and will probably be swiftly deleted. Remember that any evidence that they satisfy those criteria must be substantiated by inline references to reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia. Since your account is new, you cannot create the article yourself, but you can suggest it at articles for creation. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

article

Hello,

i want the article about me, JAnice Murillo, deleted. I did not authorize my personal information to be displayed or public. How can i delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janicemurillo (talk • contribs) 19:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Normally, articles cannot be deleted based on the subject's request. See Wikipedia:FAQ#How can I get rid of the article about myself or my company?, which recommends improvement of an article instead of deletion. Wikipedia has a special policy on the biographies of living persons. However, in this case, the page in question is not an actual article (User:Hilda hutton/Janice Murillo ) and qualifies as something that is termed a WP:STALEDRAFT, and can be deleted normally through the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion process. The page is also lacking in independent sources, which increases the chance of deletion. I hope that helps.--xanchester (t) 19:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The draft has now been nominated for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hilda hutton/Janice Murillo. - Karenjc 00:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Problem with chess template

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8	h1 T h								8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

I was trying to make this chess diagram using the chess diagram template. You can click on "edit" for this section to see how I did it. But somehow, the pieces are all shifted on place to the left of their starting positions. What's wrong? Legolover26 (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the example at Template:Chess diagram small#Standard diagram, you've left out the nearly-blank line after the "tright" line:

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

Three knight checkmate example

-- John of Reading (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You are missing the <header> parameter at {{Chess diagram small}}. If you don't want a header to be displayed then you can make the parameter empty but you still need a pipe. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I have corrected the diagram at its original page, Checkmate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legolover26 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

easterhouse the band from 1980 onwards.

it is not a problem but the article says easterhouse were called after a area in glasgow. easterhouse estate is in edinbourugh, my pal from school peter vanden was the bass guitar player, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.112.105 (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed the space at the start of your question to make it display properly.

Please see the first line of our article. Easterhouse is a suburb about 6 miles (9.7 km) east of Glasgow city centre, Scotland. Can you provide a reliable source that confirms the band were named after somewhere in Edinburgh? I can't find an Easterhouse in Edinburgh via Google. - Karenjc 23:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)