![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
just saw the bio on huberman and his strad/violin stolen by a fellow musian at a concert in ny.why wasnt the recovered strad returned to the huberman family.recovery of the instrument stolen should go to its original owner/survivors ..family huberman had.merchandise stolen shouldnt be sold or resold .isnt that the way we do business ..the strad didnt have the the proper paperwork to be sold in the first place..everyone who touched the strad knew it belonged to huberman and anyone with ethics should return the stolen goods ..your comments..the chain of deceit should be broken ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.136.21 ( talk) 14:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Please, can someone fix infobox error at Stanislava Pak Stanković? I really dont know why is it not working... -- WhiteWriter speaks 12:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
characters. I fixed them by pasting the infobox into another article (
Lady Gaga in this case to see how she liked it) in preview and when it worked there pasting it back. Obviously, the copy and paste action stripped out the non-breaking space characters. By the way, why is this person notable? I am inclined to AfD it at the moment.
Spinning
Spark
17:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Good afternoon, I recently went onto my husbands facebook account - his name is Mark Chase. When I typed in his name I clicked on a page named Mark Wayne Chase & realised that the page belonged to someone else. I was horrified to see photographs of my family on this page. It stated that all the information had come from Wikipedia as Mark Wayne Chase is a public figure. I would like these photographs deleted from this page immediately as there are photographs of my 7 year old son. I wondered if they had been taken from my Facebook page (Trudi Michaela Chase) by mistake - but as I said - I want these photographs taken down, I have not given mine or my husbands permission for these to be used. Please remove them immediately. I look forward to hearing from you. Kind regards, Mrs Trudi Michaela Chase 86.160.137.132 ( talk) 18:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I think List of Touhou Project characters is in need of serious cleanup. I am a fan of the series, but clearly not all of them need to be listed. Many of them have had only minor appearances in the work, and there are also separate Touhou dedicated wikipedia to help catalogue the entirety of the characters. I want to limit the list to only the most major characters and make it more wiki-appropriate, but I do not want to get into an edit war. What is the best way I can accomplish this goal? ChaosAkita ( talk) 00:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
File:The Soup Dragons - Hang Ten!.jpg
How do I add a request for speedy deletion of an image I uploaded and is no longer used in an article? Robcamstone ( talk) 11:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
After posting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Alternative_medicine section I have realized that the issue is actually out of the scope of WP:MEDRS. The issue is not necessarily as to what additional sources may be considered reliable in regard to alternative medicine articles, but rather developing styles of wording that would allow to use unreliable sources for unproven claims. It's especially useful for cases whereby many people are practically using an alternative medicine for some health issues yet the official research is absent. There are many people who has agreed that there are gaps on the Wikipedia in covering alternative medicine.
My question is: In what venue all the issues regarding covering of the alternative medicine can be established and standardization can be approved? As WP:MEDRS is dealing with reliable sources and how to use them to cover proven claims, this policy should be dealing with sources that an unreliable per WP:MEDRS and how to use them to cover unproven claims. Thank you. Ryanspir ( talk) 13:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not retracting my prior position at all. I never said that unrealiable sources could be cited. Consider the set of all possible sources. The set of those included by WP:RS is necessarily smaller than that, and the set of those included by WP:MEDRS is both smaller still, and a subset of those included under WP:RS. You can probably argue an exception to WP:MEDRS in some cases, but it is extremely unlikely that you'd be able to argue an exception to WP:RS, especially for this topic. And with respect to Amazon reviews, WP:V is pretty clear on this. Policy arguments aren't going to be persuasive here if what you want is to change a sitewide policy. You may be better served by asking for advice at WP:RSN (if you have a particular source in mind) or WT:V (if you want to discuss changing policy to allow Amazon reviews). —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 13:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
And even if one of us had actually said that Amazon reviews were useable as sources on Wikipedia, that doesn't change the fact that they most certainly are not, and does not estop other editors from removing them. We're not setting policy here, we're describing what present policy is. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 02:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
User:Mistyfarris/draft_of_BAFFC_article ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I have just finished a draft of my first Wikipedia article. It is for a bar association for which I do not work and am not a member, but I have done consulting work for them. I looked at the article for the American Bar Association to get an idea of how to describe the association appropriately. But because it is my first article and I have some connection to the bar association, I wanted to ask for feedback before making it public.
My first impulse was not to write the article, but I was surprised that, although it is referred to by at least several other articles, it had no entry of its own. I thought it would be helpful to have this article to link to those references. Mistyfarris ( talk) 03:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
You're right that I was struggling with sources. The best information I had came from a founding member who is still alive. Of course, Judge Clark has died, as have virtually all the original members. Because it's a nonprofit members organization, it doesn't generally seek out or get much news coverage. I hoped it would be okay to look more to the organization's website because it seemed that was the primary source for the American Bar Association entry. Like any bar association, they are important entities that belong in an encyclopedia, but they are not generally newsworthy and they don't tend to keep great archives. What if I could find announcements in the news of CLE programs, and delegate nominations, etc. I will also check with the exec director and see if there are more historical documents available. And of course, I can rewrite the lead more carefully. Thank you for your input. I'll make some changes and see if it gets better. Mistyfarris ( talk) 19:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
This notability thing confuses me. Why then do the Dallas Bar Association, the Chicago Bar Association, the Washington Bar Association (among others) have pages that make no references to secondary sources and seem to have a narrower scope that the association of a federal circuit court? Maybe I can find a biography of Judge Charles that discusses BAFFC since it was founded at his initiative. What about the fact that several other Wikipedia articles make reference to it? In a quick search, I found that Robert G. Pugh it makes reference to his being the "second president of the Bar Association for the New Orleans-based United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals." Tucker L. Melancon's page says he had a role in "Bar Association for the First and Fifth Federal Circuit." Admission to the bar in the United States contains a section on Voluntary and private bar associations that includes references to Wikipedia links to city, ethnic, and other voluntary bar associations. There are also Wikipedia articles for attorneys who played a significant role in founding or leading the BAFFC--articles that should include a reference to the association. I'm sorry if I sound snippy. I don't mean to. I just think it is an important organization, but it doesn't commit scandals. Generally the news coverage consists of attorneys claiming membership or offices and information about their CLE presentations, etc., but I understand that's not enough. Maybe I need to go to the references in other articles to correct the name and add external links, at least until I can find more outside sources from biographies or other sources. I'm also getting access to the archives and they might have copies of articles or other published material about the organization. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistyfarris ( talk • contribs) 04:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for all the help. Mistyfarris ( talk) 04:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
178.108.36.109 ( talk) 08:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Melissajwoodside was deleted ...under the terms speedy deletion. Can this matter be resolved please 178.108.36.109 ( talk) 08:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
David in DC & MarkBernstein have long been squabbling with Dervorguilla about some alleged WP:QUOTEFARM or WP:BLPGOSSIP material taken from an op-ed by Harvey Silverglate and reprinted at Aaron Swartz and Carmen Ortiz. On 7 Feb 2013, long-term user Ocaasi comes in and makes a couple of authoritative edits, which seem to resolve the dispute; MarkBernstein seems to concur (“Nice.”). Ocaasi then disappears, most likely to carry out his newly assumed duties as an admin. Ten hours later David in DC reverts. Dervorguilla restores much of the Ocaasi alteration step-by-step, giving each step its own, wikilawyered edit summary and Talk commentary. After enough of this provocation, MarkBernstein makes a bold revert. The material is swiftly restored by Dervorguilla and swiftly re-reverted by MarkBernstein. David in DC now asks, is Dervorguilla “trolling for another block?” If you can help her figure out the answer, please do! Requesting aid with behavior, not content. ( Dervorguilla is using her alternate account here; she’s not out to provoke any editors that happen to be tracking her regular-account contribs). -- J.K.Herms ( talk) 08:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Interac_(Japan) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Regarding Interac_(Japan) KeroroGunso ( talk · contribs) & Laevatienn ( talk · contribs) have made arguments on the talk page about the nature of the article, as it is mostly made up of union-related-labor-dispute content that echos the types found on Tozen, General_Union and Unfair_Labor_Practice_(Japan). The result here is a lack of depth or breadth in dealing with Interac as a company, which lowers its quality score in WP:Japan and WP:EDUCATION. Looking at the edit history seems to be a lot of work by Ckatz ( talk · contribs), Statisticalregression ( talk · contribs), Nihonjoe ( talk · contribs) and others. KeroroGunso, Laevatienn, and myself recognize the NPOV issues in the article as it is made up of union-related-labor-dispute content. Discussion about this has been made on the Talk page, but no response has come from anyone with a different opinion. Attempts to remove this reverted time after time, and I believe that it would be more appropriate for a reference to be made to the union-related-labor-dispute content and have that content on the pages of the relevant parties or topics, such as Tozen, General_Union and Unfair_Labor_Practice_(Japan). What is needed from an editor here is for someone to have an unbiased look at what is related to the company as an organization, and what is related to the union-related-labor-dispute(S). Advice on how to make the page stronger as for company-related content to move it more toward NPOV, and advice on how to realign or move union-related-labor-dispute content to their appropriate areas or pages. The union-related-labor-dispute content is well-stated on the other relevant pages, and editor help is needed to bring the page more toward a description of Interac that would serve a new person visiting Wikipedia for the first time. Taurus669 ( talk) 10:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I have been editing several linked pages dealing with Spanish history in the 16th century, particularly as regards the Catholic reconquest of Granada and the subsequent revolt of the Moors (or Moriscos) in that area.
I have just published a book - "Bubión - the story of an Alpujarran village" - for which I did a considerable amount of research into sources - including Spanish 16th-century chroniclers and other works in Spanish, French, English, including some Arab works in English translation.
I find in Wikipedia several overlapping sites, several of which are not well-informed, relying on secondary sources.
I have concentrated on "
Morisco Revolt", which I found to be the most complete. However, it should be renamed "Morisco revolts in Granada": I cannot find how to change a title.
"
Battle of Granada" or "
Fall of Granada" is unsatisfactory, and all its information is contained on other pages. In my view, it should be deleted: again, I do not know how to do this.
Other sites on which I have worked are "
Emirate of Granada", "
Treaty of Granada" - no major problems here.
A separate technical problem relates to "
Poqueira", where I tried to put in a better photo than the existing one: the name of my picture appears but not the photo, and I could not handle this.
Help appreciated!
Bergerie (
talk)
15:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Jimmy Savile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jimmy_Savile
Has Savile, a dead man with a "clean" criminal record while alive been treated fairly in the press and by Wikipedia??? I would like a licensed criminal solicitor or barrister in the UK to weigh in on claims made in the article. A space for a third party review has been created on the article's talk page. Thanks. johncheverly 7:31 pm, Today (UTC−4)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koueH9D04yg I am told that The Daily Mail is not a reliable source, even after the article uses a Daily Mail source in an attempt to accuse Savile of paedophllia through speculation and hearsay. Also, the article does not use BBC and other news reports that exonerate Savile: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xrp6cHjets. That particular video features an Assistant Chief Constable on the West Yorkshire Police force stating that it does not have any evidence nor reports against Savile, let alone any criminal charges against him.
I think this is a witch hunt. All it is is a bunch of posthumous he said/she said stuff.
Compare the Savile Article against the Joe Paterno and Penn State Child Sex Abuse Articles and there is no comparison. Wikipedia is like the English Court of Public Opinion, out for a witch hunt that the facts do not substantiate. johncheverly 02:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
(UTC)
Whatever you think the significance of all that might be, it seems irrelevant to improving the content of the article. All this correspondence was discussed before Thatcher's death, and is mentioned under "Public image and friendships" in his biography article. What changes do you think should be made to the article? Ghmyrtle (talk) 5:32 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)
I definitely think there needs to be some quotes from Sir Jimmy Savile OBE's mistress Sue Hymns that "There's absolutely nothing there. People make those things up."
Also, his neice, Amanda McKenna, also has refuted the scandalous stories.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koueH9D04yg
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-saviles-family-reveal-their-outrage-870828
And she tells how she was hurt over the years by false rumours about her uncle. BBC’s Newsnight even began an investigation into unfounded allegations relating to under-aged girls.
She says: “Uncle Jimmy always said, ‘People were looking for the big secret about me but the big secret is that there isn’t one’.”
Any mentions of his posthumous AUTHORIZED BIOGRAPHY??? Why not???
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/features/leader/9806293.The_real_Jimmy/
Also, of the over 40 people that claim they were "molested" by Savile in the West Yorkshire region of England, NONE ever reported the incident to the West Yorkshire Police, and there is no evidence of any criminal behavior by Savile.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xrp6cHjets
Paul Gambiccini's Claims??? Why are they even included in this article??? Listen to all 11:30 minutes of this interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DutNY63LqO0 Complete bullshit there. This motherfucker has no concrete information. It's all a bunch of hot air by a has-been that never made it.
Talk about payoffs, don't you think you ought to add info from this article??? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/savile-to-cost-bbc-insurers-millions-8590981.html
Show me the fucking money=30 million pounds worth.
Also, what's the statute of limitations on the charges against Max Clifford, Freddie Starr, Rolf Harris, Jim Davidson, etcetera??? These guys are in their late 60's, early 70s now.
Is there anyone on Wikipedia that can give some kind of context of the English Legal system??? Were the laws the same in the 1960s and 1970s as they are today???
These are the things that are nagging me and that I come me to Wikipedia for wanting to read FACTUAL ANSWERS ON. johncheverly 17:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I hope this is the right forum in which make this complaint! I am new to Wikipedia (have been here 17 days) and I feel as if most of my additions to the community have contributed positively to it. I am concerned about the conduct of user CarolmooreDC. She recently accused me of "libelous" conduct and threatened me with bans here, writing "given your biased edits and admitted strong Negative POV and the fact your PhD advisor recommended you look at these people for your dissertation, you really are getting into an area where you could be banned from editing these related articles at all under this this biographies of living people-related arbitration." (elsewhere on my talk page she implies that my getting banned is "just a matter of someone being sufficiently motivated to present the copious evidence of your BLP violating habits to the proper venue", which I regarded as an attempt at intimidation.)
Her attacks re: "bias" stem from a personal admission of mine that I am studying fringe political groups for a Master's thesis, and don't like some of them; an *unprompted* admission I made in good faith when I was trying to understand WP's COI policy.
Her attacks re "libel" stem from my changing a sub-title of the Hans-Hermann Hoppe piece from "Allegations of Homophobia" to "Allegations of promoting anti-gay violence." As can be seen from the history page, this title was simply a paraphrase of text within that section -- CON text which had been accepted for weeks by editors as a fair characterization (she is of course entitled to disagree with the CON text and argue that it is WP:Synth, but calling someone -- particularly a noob -- "libelous" and threatening a ban for his/her simply paraphrasing accepted CON text in a title sub-section is, in my judgment, extremely inappropriate. This follows a broader history of demeaning, insulting conduct and personal attacks she has leveled against me. She has formed a sort of tag team to attack me with commentator S. Rich, who previously accused me of "bad-mouth[ing] the various people you are writing about in WP" based on a "subtle" motivation "to preserve the work you are doing on your thesis" (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Steeletrap/Archive_1). His comments have not been quite as egregious as Carol's, but given his history of personally attacking me, it is also a cause for concern.
Thank you for hearing my reply. I apologize if this isn't written in the proper format! Please let me know if you want any more information surrounding Carol's previous comments to me or mine to her. Steeletrap ( talk) 19:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Could you please capitalize "T" in the word "Technology" in the article title? Or can you advise how I can do it. Thanks, Nastya Yurkina ( talk) 07:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Mohamed Zairi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have come across an article about Prof. Mohamed Zairi. It seems to be very promotional and lacking of RS/citations, and also includes alot of "unnecessary" information, such as a _long_ list of books he has published. I am new here a wiki so I don't really know if I'm in the right place to raise these concerns, so if I'm wrong in posting this here, please forgive me. Amlaera ( talk) 11:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
See also Mohamed Zairi Bibliography, which Amlaera created as a staging area, and which is now being reviewed at AfD. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 19:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Lashawn Antonio Covington ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Here we have a brand-new user whose only edits are to his own user page, most of which appear to trumpet the user's own criminal associations. In addition, this registered user would appear to be the same person as IP editor 98.243.47.45, whose only edits have been disruptive ones, generally adding the name of this user to various Michigan-related articles. Even if I could figure out a suitable template, I'm not sure that this editor really has much interest in editing the encyclopedia. Suggestions welcome. JohnInDC ( talk) 17:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I think this needs an admin to 'really' fix. Popped up on "Check Wikipedia".
2013 in Singaporean football <- needs to be relocated to Template space. Thanks. Revent ( talk) 19:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Its been 30 minutes now since I hit save on an edit to this article and its still thinking about it. All attempts to access the article on a new window don't work either. Obviously, my computer and Wikipedia are in the meantime continuing to work perfectly normally. Help! -- Rskp ( talk) 08:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Ancient Roman architecture ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
this article is in need of serious attention. it is somewhat biased, out of context at some points, and has only one citation. it also has unorganized sections, for example, the section arches and domes ends with an explanation of what an arch is. i strongly suggest a major edit, perhaps even a re-structure. Thetntm ( talk) 01:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Most recent common ancestor ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article mentions a claim that within the last 10 to 5000 years, humanity as a whole has a common ancestor. The citation is a pay site. I strongly doubt the claim and put up a cleanup tag explaining why. Someone else toomk it off saying for me to see the sources; but, it's at a pay site as I said.
BTW:"THANK YOU for complying with these simple instructions" (on this page above) comes off as unpleasantly sarcastic. Richard Peterson 199.33.32.40 ( talk) 00:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Marisa Pavan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dear Wikipedia,
The photograph appended to the entry relating to MARISA PAVAN is not of her, it is of her twin sister PIER ANGELI. I know because I wrote her biography.
J Allen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierangeli ( talk • contribs) 23:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Criticism of Muhammad ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
It is, I believe, not a good work done by the editors to criticise Muhammad. He was a religious leader just as any other religious leader like jesus or moses. Simple biographies of these personalities should be provided by this site. If any harsh comment is done on them, then it can incite the anger of public. I request the management to look in to this issue and take a proper action against these irritating criticisms of westerns or other socities. Thankyou, Manny Abid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.109.40.194 ( talk) 18:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
Location map}}
; resolved by helpful editors at
Template talk:Location map. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/
01:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Sorpe Dam ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi, as I stated a year ago on Talk:Sorpe_Dam, the little red spot on the location mark is off by some 150 km. Nobody seems to have been able to do anything about it. How do these dots get inserted into the maps anyway? The coordinates are correct.-- Cancun771 ( talk) 15:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
px
from a parameter
[1] and have suggested to not depend on this at
Template talk:Location map#Possible error with Germany map?
PrimeHunter (
talk)
23:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Kamyanyec ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi, I was undoing a move of the article Kamyanyets and incidentally misspelled the name and now, for the technical reasons, can't move it back. The same applies to the article Tower of Kamyanyec. Administrators' assistance is very welcome. What you basically need to do is replace "c" with "ts". Cheers. -- glossologist ( talk) 12:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
There's nobody replying to this on the help desk so I thought I'd post it here, does anyone want to give me an idiot's guide to editing the home shirt at Raith Rovers F.C. to reflect the new one shown at http://www.raithrovers.net/9017/201314-kit-revealed.htm or does anyone want to edit it to save the bother? ( Lbarnett-bl ( talk) 23:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC))
Hi
At 13:23 I posted an SPI request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto. It has not yet (14:57 UTC) appeared on WP:SPI. Have I overlooked something?
Martinvl ( talk) 14:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
University of Texas Medical Branch ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello. I have a declared COI but requested some edits on the UTMB talk page. Editor CorporateM declined most of proposed edits. I asked for reconsideration on a couple of points via his/her talk page; CorporateM requested that I ask another editor. Is this the proper venue to do so?
To propose changes throughout the entire article, would a userspace draft be the best means? I'll try to point out errors vs. asking editors to compare versions, but in "being bold" I'm not sure what else to do. Any suggestions are welcome. Thank you. Myra McCollum ( talk) 19:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I would like help. My family from my grandmother down have been kept out of all Wikipedia information. here is a link to a family tree site that will show you the real family tree http://cobboldfht.com I hope you can see that my cousin Emma Kitchener-Fellows is not the only ancestor of Lord Kitchener her father Charles had a a sister Kenya as well as the Knighted brother Henry. Kenya had three Daughter and the have had five sons between them as Emma has had one son. I am now the oldest of these Son's. I am trying to go over to Africa to make efforts to create reconciliation with the African's who are descendants of the people who suffered under the military campaigns led by Kitchener.
I have previously corrected this information on here and it has again been changed, This time it is very professionally done. Please can this be rectified. the integrity of wikipedia is accepted and this only makes it more damaging to my efforts. thank you, Duncan John Saunders — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Saunders77 ( talk • contribs) 12:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I'm butting heads and seeking advice.
[Note: Shortened from long version.]
Guy Macon is being
WP:POINTY, authoritarian, and is blind to his errors. He's been preventing the addition of any info regarding fakes to
Secure Digital. Most recently:
Guy
removed my article talk page comment and he
reverted (diff) my removal from my talk page of his previous comment - thereby for a SECOND AND THIRD TIME violating the very rules he had just reminded me of and warned me not to violate.
I was going to post the following to his page and revert his revert the above two violations but decided to come here instead for advice:
I'm wondering what to do next. -- Elvey ( talk) 19:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Byron Shire Echo ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sorry to ask what is obviously a FAQ but how do I get you to re-examine an article that is flagged as deficient?
The article Byron Shire Echo, contributed a couple of years ago, has been correctly labelled as non-neutral and unreferenced but I have now edited it to remove (hopefully) those problems.
Although the article has still been provided by a member of the Byron Echo staff (me) can it be re-assessed please?
-- Tree Faerie ( talk) 07:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Feminist Sex Wars ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I recently added a 10 second original video (shown on the right):
...to the article Feminist Sex Wars. It shows the division (within liberal, feminist ideology) between pro- and anti-sex work feminists, which is the subject of the article. I put it on in the spirit of improving the article so that it wasn't just text.
Chapter 15 on Adding Images, in Wikipedia's Missing Manual suggests ...an article without at least one illustration seems incomplete. I was applying the same logic as that to my film but found that it was deleted on the grounds that the Video makes little sense and does not add to informational value of article. (26th March 2013)
I thought I had made it short, clear and concise, and my intention was to illustrate the existing article rather than add any new information. Do I really have to go through a reverting the edit, justifying why I've reverted it back, discussion on talk pages (possible edit war)? I was really hoping that this might just be a less confrontational technical point, that an experienced editor could revert it with a comment like "Reverting to help user (as requested) - video is merely illustrative."
I would appreciate any help. Thanks -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 08:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I've got to say, I don't see any kind of informational content to that video; and yes, that is the reason for an illustration (2-d or 3-d, still or moving). -- Orange Mike | Talk 16:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering if there's a specific policy against including non-noteworthy trivia about a subject in an article. For instance, it might be possible to reliably source what someone, particularly if they are famous, had for breakfast on a certain day. Such content would meet verification criteria but on its own would not normally be considered relevant, unless a specific reason can be be brought up, for inclusion in an encyclopaedia article. Is there a specific policy to cite against including trivia like this or does it come down to gaining talk page consensus on whether it is too trivial or not for inclusion? Thank you in advance for your comments. Wcp07 ( talk) 09:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
On Canada's page, in the Metropolitan Areas chart can you add pictures? I tried it myself, but I didn't know how to do it. Thanks. My name is Ekjaap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.232.109 ( talk) 17:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Romford F.C. ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello,
Can anyone please tell me why the list of ex players which I painstakingly researched, has been deleted, without my consent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RomfordReject ( talk • contribs) 07:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Charles Durning ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There has been a good deal of controversy regarding the military service of a recently deceased prominent person. I recently filed an FOIA request with the National Archives and received a copy of the individuals military service record. The information in his record is at variance with almost ALL secondary and tertiary sources. However, the military record is a primary source and Wikipedia prohibits primary sources. What to do? Oldbubblehead ( talk) 06:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the assistance. This is all very good advice. Oldbubblehead ( talk) 08:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I moved a template from my sandbox to userspace, and it copied the edit history of the sandbox to this template. The template is Template:Musa (acuminata × balbisiana). I request a history split to this page, and my sandbox, since that seems like the most practical solution. Thank you in advance for the help. - Sidelight 12 Talk 10:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi there,
Coincidentally this has happened to me on two pages recently. Never come across this before (been editing since 2006), never even been involved in an edit war at all.
I've looked up dispute resolution but all the steps there depend on agreement between the editors to ask for assistance. What do you do when the other editor is sure they are right and don't want to engage in any of the official Wikipedia processes for resolution?
The first one is this one:
Talk:Concerns_for_an_early_Mars_sample_return
His version of the page is the main article: Concerns_for_an_early_Mars_sample_return
My version of the page is in my user space here: User:Robertinventor/Concerns_for_an_early_Mars_sample_return_new
It is a civilized enough discussion, but there seems to be no point of contact on how we want the article to appear. Neither of us is able to work with the other's version of the article, and he is not interested in RfC or dispute resolution. He just thinks he is right and that there is no need to ask for outside help.
As you will see from the history of the debate, it started when the other editor Warren Platts replaced my version of the main article page with his with no preliminary discussion just a notice to say he regarded the article as OR and so had changed it. I reverted it, and asked for discussion first but he wasn't interested.
After a couple of reverts I warned that it was an edit war but he continued to edit the main article. I worked on my own version in my own user space to avoid edit warring behaviour.
We engaged in extensive discussion of the issues on the talk page but are not getting any closer to resolution, and seem to have reached a complete impasse.
Warren Platts sees me as trying to edit wikipedia towards my own POV that there are people with concerns about a Mars Sample Return. I think it is basically the issue of an editor who has never before been involved in editing an article on a controversy who is under the impression that to do it with a NPOV means to remove any suggestion of bias or differing POVs. But of course he doesn't see iike that though I tried to explain.
His version of the page omits even most of the concerns raised by mission planers for NASA about a MSR addressed in their policy reviews. You would get the impression from the article that you could return a MSR to Earth today if you had the finance, which none of the published sources say.
He also doesn't seem to understand why anyone might think that his version of the article has editorial comment.
It is a civilized discussion. He just simply doesn't see why it is a matter for debate, or dispute resolution. He is not interested in my suggestions to attempt dispute resolution.
It is a more straightforward matter, to do with how you interpret the published scientific research on the topic.
He doesn't want to discuss the issue with me any more even on the talk page and has not been able to explain his issue to me. His main point seems to be that as a mathematician I shouldn't be editing a section on biology, and can't understand the topic. But though it is not my subject that I trained in, I have a long term interest in the subject, have kept up to date, and read many of the recent research papers on it, and have no trouble at all discussing it with microbiologists friends outside of wikipedia including professors and lecturers in biology.
So I don't think it is really my understanding of biology that is the problem.. But he is not interested in RfC, or dispute resolution, he is just sure that I am wrong.
I tried a RfC as you see, but realise this is probably not appropriate when the other party is not interested in engaging in discussion or in comments on the dispute. It has probably made things worse if anything. I got one reply asking for information, and no opinions either way.
This is the first time in eight years of wikipedia editing that I've ever got involved in an edit war, or any kind of extended dispute over content, the nearest before was an AfD discussion about an article I wrote that was quickly decided in my favour.
The Warren Platts dispute originated in several discussions at nasaspaceflight.com such as this one: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31914.0;all and has spilled over into wikiedia.
I expected opposition on that forum as (I knew already from previous discussions that many of the members are strong advocates of human spaceflight to the surface of Mars. Any need to be careful about contamination issues, or any suggestion of the presence of life on the Mars surface would seriously delay their main objective to land humans on the surface of Mars as soon as possible. As you see it got quite heated.
I don't know of any connection between the batteryincluded dispute and the ones in the nasapaceflight.com forums or anywhere else outside wikipedia.
Robert Walker ( talk) 08:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Now at AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concerns for an early Mars sample return. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 19:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
(1) I am User:Dr Lindsay B Yeates (which is my real name) in relation to the matter at hand, and I also have a long and reliable history (more that 10,000 edits) as User:Lindsay658 -- in relation to my other "non-academic" work.
(2) It appears as if User:Ronz has not understood the clear content of the messages at [2], [3], [4], [5]; and I base this upon what appears to me to be an entirely inappropriate (in the sense of speaking about some sets of entirely different circumstances) message at [6]. My dissertation is freely available to all and sundry at no cost. It is only available through the repository storage at the University of New South Wales. Therefore it is most definitely not "Spam". I was very strongly advised, by one more expert at Wiki than myself, to keep myself "at arms length" (and, by the way, such "keeping at arms length" also involved creating a new user name, such that I was not disguised in any way), and place the link within "Further Reading", rather than place it in the list of sources; and that is precisely what I have done. leaving aside the matter of whether or not the dissertation itself (which is a scholarly work) expresses opinions, a simple viewing of the appendices attached to the dissertation will reveal a whole host of important historical resources for editors that are, otherwise, unavailable (see [7]). How do I respond to this, in my view, mistaken intrusion by "Ronz", without causing offence -- when, to me, it seems that he has neither read, nor understood the content of ( WP:HISTRS).
(3) In relation to [8], is there some way that "Anglicanus" can be warned about his language? (I am sure that I outrank him as a scholar, and I am also certain that I have made many more edits in a far wider range of articles over a far longer period of time, and after eight years study into his life and work, I'm absolutely certain that I know much more about Hugh M‘Neile). His "reasons" for edits are also rather offensive -- especially at a time when the article is clearly marked "Under Construction"
(4) Once more, in relation to [9], is there some way that a senior person can explain to "Anglicanus" that, given his alteration of the article's title, he also becomes responsible for reducing the "redirect" complexity generated by his change of the article's name.
(5) Please advise me about (2), and please ask some senior person to act, behind the scenes in relation to both (3) and (4). Dr Lindsay B Yeates ( talk) 02:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
"Spinning Spark" and "Jonkerz", "Thanks" to both of you for your assistance; however, I feel that I need to explain to each of you that the situation, in relation to my dissertation, is a little different from how you have represented it. Firstly, it is not "a biography of James Braid"; it is an extremely detailed examination of the events of a nine month period that mark the birth of hypnotism (November 1841 to June 1842), and the boundary work that Braid was forced to perform.
There is a direct and very strong connexion with Lafontaine; because not only was it his (Braid's) visit to an "animal magnetism" demonstration given by Lafontaine in Manchester that set in train the events, experiments, etc. that resulted in Braid's discovery of "hypnotism" (BTW, "hypnotism" was the name given by Braid, and Braid, also, gave the name "suggestion" to the directions given to a subject who has been hypnotised), but there were a number of very heated disputes between Lafontaine and Braid that had very direct influence on Braid's practical and theoretical development of the set of practices that eventually (by June 1842) had become "hypnotism".
Both Lafontane and Braid were fiercely attacked by M'Neile; and Braid's published response to M'Neile has been characterized as “a work of the greatest significance in the history of hypnotism, and of utmost rarity”. And, of course, as a consequence of the forgoing, the events examined within the dissertation are of the utmost importance and the highest significance, not only to the articles on Braid, Lafontaine (to which I will perform some editing in the near future) and M'Neile, but also to the articles on Hypnosis and the History of Hypnosis.
Finally, in order to make my point unequivocally clear to you. My purpose is not to promote myself, or any of the ideas, etc. that I might, or might not have developed in body the dissertation itself (approx. 377 pages), it is to make available the extensive bibliography (of more than 1,500 items) and, especially, the otherwise hidden/unavailable/unknown source material that I unearthed/exhumed/discovered in the process of my research, which has been transcribed, corrected and annotated in the appendices to the dissertation (approx. another 450 pages), which amongst other significant source material includes:
All of which are not available separately; and are only available within the document lodged in the UNSW Repository.
The importance of these particular (never-examined-by-scholars) newspaper accounts is that they combine two things: (a) a reporter's account of what exactly took place (they were all public lectures or, in M‘Neile's case, a sermon delivered orally to a large congregation), with the additional text of precisely what was said that had been transcribed, in person, by a stenographer present at the time.
So, here's my question: Just to ensure that I have clearly understood your directions, am I permitted to use the following procedure. (using [10] to explain how I will do things):
I hope that this procedure meets your recommendations, sincerely Dr Lindsay B Yeates ( talk) 02:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, freely available through the National Library of Australia's long thread of links to the UNSW Repository: [11]. Dr Lindsay B Yeates ( talk) 03:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, first of all if this is not the page I should be requesting this then I'm sorry, but I do not know where I should be asking and I'd like to know where I should post things alike in the future. Could this template {{ru|FRG}} →
West Germany link here
Germany to avoid redirectioning in the same fashion templates like these {{fb|FRG}} or {{bk|FRG}} or {{fh|FRG}} (
West Germany,
West Germany,
West Germany respectively) all link me directly to Germany instead of West Germany? Thank you.
Tibullus
(talk)
02:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
User:Zaid231/sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hello Wiki Editors, I'm hoping to get clarification on a few things in regards to content I recently posted on my User Page. Upon suggestions from editors, the content was article revisions and new 3rd party links for my page guardNOW; my understanding was that by first testing out content on my User Page, it would lower the risk of deletion and allow me to receive help and feedback as I proceed - it seems that event this content was deleted. I posted it so I could have more experienced editors have a look at the new references (I have several others, but want to get an idea of which are best to use on my re-created page). This is the link to my Sandbox, if someone could take a minute to offer feedback/suggestions, it is much appreciated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zaid231/sandbox
Thank you for your time, Zaid231 ( talk) 18:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Hopefully it's ok to ask this process question here, since didn't get response at WP:FORUM SHOP talk page (and only got one biased one per below elsewhere). Do find this an important issue to settle since some will go around doing this kind of WP:OR if allowed. (And I'm getting tempted myself!)
I put something that's probably more WP:OR/SYNTH on WP:BLN since it's in a bio. Obviously a mistake since no one answered except an involved editor who merely linked to the relevant talk page discussion. (Later I did add a couple things in a second section more directly BLP related).
When I asked at the BLP notice if it would be a problem to move the WP:OR section to WP:ORN, the editor of the questionable edit finally bothered to respond, merely linking to WP:FORUMSHOP. So is moving to another noticeboard if there is no response forum shopping? Thanks! CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 14:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I urge you to give a careful look at the two responses you've received here and then to consider the extent to which they apply to the facts concerning your actions at BLP and your next contemplated step. Reviewing the BLP thread just now, its clear to me that you did not present a well-formed policy-based question there. That may have been the reason for the lack of participation by onlookers there. Moreover, given the lack of a question, I think user:Srich, who is hardly a partisan or POV-pushing editor, gave you good advice to return to the talk page to pursue your concerns with the other involved editors. This was hardly a contentious dispute. SPECIFICO talk 03:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
See Talk:Sousveillance for an RFC on the use of a picture which needs outside comment. Any additional comments would be useful to prevent an edit war and help provide resolution. Thanks. -- Jayron 32 23:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Payza ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The "criticism" section and advert template tag are repeatedly removed from Payza. I believe this action is by Payza staff as the article is written like an advertisement and edit comments suggest the criticism section has no evidence, despite citing seven different sources. Xmeltrut ( talk) 07:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that a user uploaded the same image twice to Wikipedia ( File:Photo of Rick L. Weddle.jpg and File:Rick L. Weddle.jpg), as well as once to Commons ( File:Photo of Rick Weddle.jpg). In my attempt to fix this, I requested speedy deletion of the first one here per F8, and the second one per F1 and F8. However, since the filenames here and at Commons are different, I was forced to use both db-f1 and db-f8 on the second one rather than db-multiple, because db-multiple assumes all filename parameters are the same. Was this the best way for me to do what I did? -- 71.199.125.210 ( talk) 00:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Blackboard Inc. ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello, I am looking for help with an issue that resulted from a histmerge a few weeks ago. I had created a draft version of the Blackboard Inc. article in my user space, where I worked on revising and updating the article. After discussing the changes with other editors, the draft was moved live to replace the then-current version of the Blackboard Inc. article. However, when this merge happened the original revision history of the article was replaced with the revision history from my user space.
Does someone here know how to restore the original revision history so that editors can see all the previous version of the article? I should note that my work on this article was as a paid consultant to Blackboard Inc., which was clearly disclosed to the editors who were involved in reviewing the draft.
I've tried following up with the administrator who moved my draft version live, but he says he doesn't know how to fix the issue, either. Can someone here help with this? Cheers, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 13:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm way over my wiki time budget but have two added citations getting red error messages that I haven't been able to figure out what the Css is complaining over (the process/format used to work fine!). Cite#15-16 (?or 17- look for red! <G>)
If someone can fix those up, I'd appreciate it. I can be reached here if there is a time sensative question.
// Fra nkB 20:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
|summary=
and |Substantiation=
) which are not known in that template. Simply remove them. Click on the message's "help" link for more information. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
22:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I have begun my first contribution. As per advice I read in the wiki guidelines, I have created a draft page before submitting. I am on a steep learning curve with policies and format. I am hoping that some more experienced editors will lend me their knowledge and opinions before I go forward.
User:Yogijbrown/draft_article_on_Mark_Whitwell
Any helpful suggestions are appreciated. Thanks in advance. J. Brown 04:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to preclude an intense disagreement, so I'd like to know what is generally preferred across most of Wikipedia.
There are two articles, one on a specific subject and the other on a wider subject that summarizes the specific one. The wider-subject article is mostly nonsummary content. Both articles link to each other.
I'm planning to add new content on a related subject to one of the articles. Either article would be suitable, but I think some editors will object in one case and some editors will object in the other case. Between the following editorial choices, which is generally preferred in Wikipedia?
1. Add the new content to the specific-subject article, because it's within the article's scope, defined by the article's title.
2. Retitle the specific-subject article to make its scope narrower and to preclude or exclude the new content; and add the new content to the wider-subject article only.
3. Create a new, third, article for the new content (if notable) and retitle the old specific-subject article to narrow it to preclude an overlap of scopes. Right now, I don't know if I have enough for notability, although I do have enough for weight.
It's possible that the most frequent editors of the old specific-subject article will object to all of these solutions and won't propose an alternative that grows Wikipedia's content within policies and guidelines. What they're likeliest to accept is adding the content to the wider article and leaving the specific-subject article titled as it is, but that would result in the specific-subject article being titled to cover more than it does after the most frequent editors will have refused proper content for it, resulting in an impression among Wikipedia readers that no such content exists.
I have not identified any of the articles here because before I do that I'd rather explain why editorial work is needed and the present draft of that explanation is extensive; and a dispute before that posting may be harder to resolve.
I'd like what I propose to be closest to Wikipedia-wide consensus. I probably need to select one of the first two options. Consensus may change, but I try to stay within Wikipedia's norms. Does anyone here have any recommendations or thoughts?
Thank you. Nick Levinson ( talk) 16:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, when a person Googles Helen Palmer Geisel, the photo of the blond woman wearing red is not Helen Palmer Geisel. HPG was Theodor "Dr. Seuss" Geisel's first wife. The photo of the blond woman is his second wife, Audrey Stone Dimond Geisel.
This is a terrible mistake as Ted Geisel walked out on first wife when she was ill and he consorted with the much younger, and incidentally married, Audrey Dimond. Helen ended up committing suicide in 1967 over their affair.
Please correct this mistake if you can.
Thank-you,
Shannon Lee Mannion [redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.38.210 ( talk) 01:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Please do not include contact details in your questions. We are unable to provide answers by any off-wiki medium and this page is highly visible across the internet. The details have been removed, but if you want them to be permanently removed from the page history, please email
this address. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/
03:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
First of all let me say that I am bringing this here because I don't know how best to deal with it or even if it's something that needs to be dealt with. I'm not sure if the user I'm about to mention has done anything wrong. Note: I have not alerted the user to this posting because, like I said, I don't know if they've done anything wrong.
I have the article for Quincy Market on my watchlist. User Ingfbruno added an image which I didn't think had much to do with the Market. It's not a shot of the Market but of a couple of items for sale at some shop. Hardly representative of an entire marketplace. But I also noticed that the user had added their own watermark, complete with copyright symbol, to the image. This was the second image that they had added to the article. The first was much more appropriate in composition. Once I saw the copyright in the watermark though, I began looking at the editor's other images. They all have the same copyright. And there are quite a few images which have been added to many articles.
The user's username and the name on the photos are similar, so I believe the editor is the photographer. What I don't know is: Are images with watermarked copyright notices allowed here? Is this even a matter for en.wikipedia given that the images are on Commons? Should the editor be warned about trying to promote themselves? What, if anything, should be done?
Any help with this would be appreciated. Thanks, Dismas| (talk) 03:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I stumbled upon a redirect/disambiguation maze featuring the acronym FIGJAM. A map:
There is one other incoming redirect to the disamb page: FigJam ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The only other link on the disamb page goes to the article of a band that happens to have a non-notable single named Figjam. I'm not sure where to start fixing this mess. There is no actual FIGJAM article, although it's meaning is verifiable due to it being defined in external sources related to Phil Mickelson.
I considered the following actions, but wanted to discuss them first:
Thanks in advance. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 23:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I am requesting that my own editing and discussion behavior be reviewed at Steven Crowder and its talk page in regards to JohnKAnderson. I am not requesting dispute resolution - I'm attempting to use some third party reviewers for that purpose in order to avoid putting this on the dispute resolution noticeboard. I'm simply trying to review my own conversational and editing behavior to see A) if I'm following guidelines correctly; and B) how I could handle the dispute better on my part. Thanks! 5minutes ( talk) 00:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to merge and edit the Port Gamble, Washington and Port Gamble, Mill Town pages because I work as the marketing coordinator for the company that owns the town and they want the pages to reflect accurate information. I read the articles and thought I was following what I was suppose to be doing but I'm being told that I'm not and I'm going to get blocked. I'm not trying to piss everyone off, I don't know website coding and I'm trying to read the articles and follow what's there but the edits are getting deleted. What do I need to do to merge and change the pages? Portgamble ( talk) 21:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)portgamble
I have noticed in the first paragraph of the page that it mentions this as Truffaut's only English language film. This is not true he has made at least one other one that i know of called The Story of Adele H.
" This was Truffaut's first color film[4] as well as his only English-language film."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451_(1966_film)
--
Jckinnck (
talk)
06:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I've already done some copy editing and cleaning up here, but am requesting assistance for several good reasons. I've been mopping up articles relating to California Impressionism, mostly in the wake of expansive edits by one contributor, and while a person could probably spend the summer on this, it's dispiriting, and could look like there's a personal agenda. Secondly, the indiscriminate laundry lists of exhibitions, references, etc, is indicative of the editor's style, but is especially inspiring in this article. I'm tempted to really carve, but believe it would be better to let others take the wheel. I've already done a lot, but suspect that beyond this article there's a lot more of this kind of thing that I haven't even looked at yet. JNW ( talk) 02:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I would ask for two things from an uninvolved editor. First, review Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 to see if the article has any problems with basic wikipedia policies (i.e. WP:NPOV). Second, review the talk page for the current disputes. Provide some thoughts on those dispute and proposal thoughts to move forward. Thank you for your time. Casprings ( talk) 03:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
In an RfC a few weeks back 9 editors (brought in from some irrelevant wikiprojects) were for changing the main description of an economist to theorist, even though there was only one reference that he was a theorist (later deleted!) and seven that he was an economist. Six editors were against it. (He was a professor, author of economics books, but his biography did not have a lot on the academic credentials because no one had yet done the work. The RfC was started by an editor who intensely dislikes the bio subject the day after I promised to beef up the economics section!)
Where is the best place to go to appeal this reliable source policy violation? Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 19:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Am I acting within policy to give a 4im warning for vandalism that is not exceptionally severe, but nevertheless is clearly bad faith, if the account is apparently a vandalism-only account? Jackmcbarn ( talk) 21:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I would like to create an article about Ernest J. Fawbush. As explained in Wikipedia's article on "Tornado Alley", Mr. Fawbush -- with his colleague Robert Miller -- was the first person to predict a tornado. Mr. Fawbush is dead, but his children (daughters) are still alive and I am in communication with them. Can I cite information provided by them?
I know that Wikipedia prefers printed documents as sources, but in this case, the best source of some information about Mr. Fawbush is his own family. If it is acceptable to use the statements of living witnesses, relatives, etc., how would Wikipedia prefer the information to be cited?
Cwkmail ( talk) 05:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
AHRQ Health Care Innovations Exchange ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I tried to update the information on the AHRQ Health Care Innovations Exchange article but my edits were reverted. Full disclosure--I am the Web Content Manager who works on this project. All the content on the actual site is public domain material. The goal of the site is share innovative practices that improve quality of health care, increase patient safety, etc. I believe my edits improved this article by reducing some of the promotional language and providing categories of topics that users will find on the actual site. Is it possible to have my edits restored and/or provide guidance about how I can improve the article. I want to describe the government project without using marketing language that violates Wikipedia standards. I believe my last set of edits were a step in this direction. Should I be using the dispute resolution noticeboard. I am not trying to be confrontational but would like the ability to make edits to this page to make it more informative and current. FieldsTom ( talk) 14:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Revised Article for SUN Area Technical Institute I submitted an article for SUN Area Technical Institute which was "speedy deleted" on the grounds that it was promotional. User:Seraphimblade provided me with feedback and I have revised my article avoiding promotional wording and eliminating the descriptions of our program offerings and the so-called "laundry list" of credits and certifications. All of facts under "History" come from binders of old school board meeting minutes and district agreements. I understand there is a proper way to cite newspaper articles, but the other sources I'm not so sure about. I had originally scanned them and provided PDF's on our website however the school's director explicitly told me not to provide those documents online. Thanks so much for any help and criticism you can provide me. -- Coffee ninja12 ( talk) 17:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Howdy, I'm looking to create an article about a mobile application that uses a common noun or verb for it's name. How should I title it so as to deal with disambiguation?
Looking around I could not find a naming convention that fit. Joe407 ( talk) 09:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I really could use some feedback on this Wikipedia_talk:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification_of_editors_on_clear_policy_issues so can figure out how many editors I can contact who in the past have explained policy to an editor on one article, when the editor goes on to yet another article and engages in the same policy violations. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 18:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Check the user's talk page to see how many warning templates have been placed there (some may be in the archives or have been deleted, but can still be located in the talk page history). generally, each warned issue has four increments, after which, as Mendaliv states, ANI would be the next step. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
There is mention in an article of an individual whose English WP article has been deleted because the individual was not considered notable in his field. If that individual is mentioned in the text of a different English WP article, is it permitted, encouraged, or discouraged to wikilink to an article about that individual in a foreign language WP? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Not sure this is the right venue, but I am having difficulties deciding what WP:HYPHEN means for open access journal versus open-access journal. These pages have been moved several times in the last few years and some stability would be good. Note that many organizations and initiatives outside WP use the form without a hyphen (e.g., Directory of Open Access Journals, Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities, Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing, Budapest Open Access Initiative, Global Open Access Forum, Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, Registry of Open Access Repositories, Social Science Open Access Repository). Any advice here or (perhaps preferably) on Talk:open-access journal would be welcome. Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 17:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
After the never-ending back-and-forth about K. Michelle's age, I was able to find two sources verifying her age that I believe are pretty legit - a school yearbook archived by the University of Florida and a reprint of the university newspaper. Not only do people keep rolling her age back, now they're deleting the links as well. Assistance would be nice. LoomisSimmons ( talk) 20:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I discussed with someone on this request — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.190.16.37 ( talk) 13:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
To whom it may concern,
I have been trying to correct a link on Steven Snyder's Wikipedia page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Snyder) within a patent template for some time now but have failed to do so.
If you look at the References section, the correct patent citation for this format doesn't allow you to insert an appropriate hyperlink for the patent in question. Instead, it generates a link from the Espacenet Database based on the information inputted. Unfortunately, I can't find the correct patent on this database, even though I can find it on the USPTO and PTO Direct ( http://www.ptodirect.com/Results/Patents?query=PN/D392266). No matter what changes I made to the citation, the link still remains broken.
If you could please help me resolve the situation, I'd greatly appreciate it.
Richard
RMRicondo ( talk) 14:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I've entered in my page a <ref>{{Harvnb}}</ref>. When I click on it, it correctly returns the reference. But when I click on the reference, it does not refer to the bibliography. Would you help me please. Thank's. Christian COGNEAUX ( talk) 09:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Please warn and block user 83.109.148.70 for several disruptive edits. See the users talk page for a list. User talk:83.109.148.70 -- BIL ( talk) 20:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Quick question: are there any policies or guidelines relating to editors who have English as a second language? Vashti ( talk) 01:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
MY NAME IS MICHAEL ALFORD I CREATED THE NAMESAKE DESTINY'S CHILD. TRADE MARK OFFICE HAS A FILE ONLINE WHERE I FILED A PETITION TO CANCEL. MATHEW KNOWLES VS. MICHAEL ALFORD. THE SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN WIKI-PEDIA POST WHEN YOU SEARCH DESTINY'S CHILD. THANK YOU SPIDERMANCOMTELBEY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spidermancomtelbey ( talk • contribs) 14:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Occupational health psychology ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello. Could you please tell me what is Wikipedia's policy on editors who constantly assert/claim they are professors etc so as to try and assert authority/control over other editors? I mean 'anyone,' can claim to be a professor, of 'anything' on Wikipedia. If all editors did that where would things be at?
Two editors, iss246 and psyc12, continuously make these claims (false or true) on the occupational health psychology talk page. And I have had enough. The opinions/comments/suggestions of more experienced editors would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Mrm7171 ( talk) 05:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, since I am new to wikipedia,I don't know much about it. Previous day, i was reading an article named "sethi" which is basically a caste of our region. There was some information that violated the religion's caste. When i tried to edit it, some use "Vigyani" and l "tsigma bo" put a lock. So i request you to please make that article available for editing and reviewing. It will be your gesture towards the new users joining to wikipedia. ATHANKS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devil badshah ( talk • contribs) 05:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Moro National Liberation Front ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article on Moro National Liberation Front appears to me to be heavily biased, and the most frequent editor identifies as MNLF Director for Advocacy and Special Projects.
I submit that there is a conflict of interest when any organization is allowed to maintain a wikipedia article about itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.187.153 ( talk) 21:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
have ayone considered that stonehenge might once have had a roof and is there any computer simulations or graphics of it regards deon cloete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.23.21.242 ( talk) 18:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Central Bank of Chile. ChickenFalls ( talk) 14:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I was reading something about For Mustang and this is how the page starts:
Ford Mustang
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No one like you. You have no friends. Go back the the faggot land ans suck your dads didck
The Ford mustang has the biggest ball u can ever find but they are not bigger than mine. is the worst car neither does darnell you could ever drive. garret has no dick is an automobile manufactured by the Ford Motor Company. It was initially based on............
When i enter the edit page, all the inappropriate stuff disappear! can you help fixing this page and let me know why the stuff was disappearing from the edit page? thanks
ETT of life
Paddle board yoga ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Would someone mind taking a look at this article? I'd reverted when some particularly questionable material got introduced, which was subsequently reverted again without comment, and had a third (and more established) editor step in and expand somewhat. I'm not going to revert again without getting outside input. Thanks in advance! —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 20:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
I have been working on an article for over a month now, and I finally feel semi-comfortable submitting it.
However I am looking for an editor who is willing to look over the article & it's references before I submit it.
If you can be of assistance I greatly appreciate it.
71.166.175.90 ( talk) 13:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I tried to fix the link (removed it and added again) from the English article to go to the Turkish "Canik Başarı Üniversitesi" but cannot work out why it is still pointing to the wrong page. The Turkish article links correctly to the English one at Canik Başarı University.
Any idea how I can fix it? How can we see what went wrong e.g. there a log somewhere to see how it got pointed wrongly to "Vakıf" in the first place? Jzlcdh ( talk) 19:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Bolding subtitles about the question whether subtitles of academic journals that are not part of the article title should be bolded in the lead. Not many people have participated in this discussion yet, so more input from editors here is welcome. Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 10:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Rajesh Touchriver ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please go through the article on "Rajesh Touchriver", now re-written using the format of a contemporary of his, Shaji N Karun on the wiki page. Please advise if the tags can be removed. Thank you. Shepherdson7 ( talk) 11:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC) Shepherdson7
Thank you Spinningspark. Will be a lot more careful about these the next time as these weren't intentional. Have revised it to make it comply better. Shepherdson7 ( talk) 18:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)Shepherdson7
Actor/Reality Tv actor/Internet Celebrity, please create this article. IMDb article - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5647420/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.52.173 ( talk) 05:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
Can so one put the logo up of Williams Chicken on the page for me http://www.logosdatabase.com/logoimages/77290400.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indoorsoccer ( talk • contribs) 21:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Benjamin Franklin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Benjamin Franklin was not the 6th president of the United States. He was never a president, someone is screwing around in his page. Can you remove this false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.244.36.228 ( talk) 23:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I created an article ( Pierce Penniless) using my Sandbox, but now I want to clear my Sandbox to create another article, but the sandbox seems to contain the first article and I don't want to erase the article itself, just the sandbox. If anyone could help me with this or advise, I'd appreciate it very much. Thanks. DocFido ( talk) 14:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much, everyone -- now I know. DocFido ( talk) 15:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Burzynski Clinic ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I just finished reading the Wikipedia exposé on Dr. Burzynski's ANP treatment.
I have several questions:
Your article cites the Cancer Is Serious Business movie as “one sided and biased”...I failed to see any argument in favor of ANP and/or Dr. Burzynski's successes....has he had any? How has he been able to withstand years of being indicted by the FDA and still be in business? Why am I in touch with several people who have had success with ANP, and why are there patients who particpated in Phase III Clinical Trials prior to 2012 still allowed (by the FDA) to have access to ANP therapy. Most importantly, if these patients (Bay Area's Noah Stout for one) are still alive because they were allowed access to ANP therapy, why hasn't that been reported?
I'm not interested in politics or conspiracy theories....just appreciate a "level playing field!"
Thank you,
David Lauser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlauser ( talk • contribs) 06:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Template:Infobox company ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I noticed that in the company infobox, image and image caption parameters had been added. Should this be reverted? Please advise. Aeroplanepics0112 ( talk) 00:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
An editor has created two articles ( List of Wisconsin Historical Markers in Kewaunee County and List of Wisconsin Historical Markers in Brown County) that are misnamed. Wisconsin Historical Markers are official markers placed by the Wisconsin Historical Society. Only one of the seven markers listed in the two articles is a Wisconsin Historical Marker. (See [12] for an official list.) Therefore, the articles should be renamed "List of historical markers in Kewaunee/Brown County, Wisconsin". How can this be accomplished? 70.235.84.220 ( talk) 16:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Juan Dominguez (lawyer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Various anonymous editors from 198.185.18.207 and 38.98.37.10 have contested that the information on Juan Dominguez (lawyer), a BLP article, is not NPOV and against wikipedia policy. They have continually deleted content on the article stating that J. Dominguez was accused of attorney fraud and resulting in the legal case being dismissed. The anonymous editor continue to insist upon deleting the section. In fact, they previously replaced it with a blurb stating ONLY that they have awarded millons of dollars on his behalf, which does not appear possible since the verdicts were terminated. For me this borders on an attempt to whitewash a BLP article that is completely in-line with Wikipedia:Core content policies. I would really appreciate help on this. Jeanpetr ( talk) 14:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Question before we continue more: Is this fellow even notable? —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 15:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
So we probably shouldn't even be using the language "He has been named a “Super Lawyer” for four years". Given the difficult nature of addressing this factoid in a NPOV fashion, I argue we shouldn't mention it at all, nor consider it an indicator of notability. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 13:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)A lawyer on our list is not a “Super Lawyer,” or, for that matter, a “Rising Star.” Rather, proper usage would be he or she “has been selected for inclusion in Super Lawyers–Rising Stars Edition 2008.” Used properly, the term is not descriptive, comparative or self-aggrandizing (which in some jurisdictions could raise ethical concerns).
I believe this issue is still ongoing; the possibly COI-afflicted editor has blanked the section on Tellez v. Dole claiming a consensus existed for it on the talk page. I don't believe this is correct, and furthermore, the Tellez v. Dole case would seem to be the only matter that makes this subject notable. Further input would be welcomed. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 15:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Peter Watts (road manager) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Good Afternoon,
My name is Puddie Watts, I am the widow of Peter Anthony Watts. I would like to speak with you regarding misinformation on our page. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by PuddieWatts ( talk • contribs) 22:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
This Is Not A Personal Attack
His name is "TheRedPenOfDoom". This is a link to his talk page - /info/en/?search=User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom. There are a number of warnings on his talk page, including a few serious warnings too . He does not reply to most of them and continues his disruptive editing. If he replies, he does that in an objectionable language.
See this - Finished reading Wiki Guidelines[edit]
I have finished reading the Wiki guidelines and I will be keeping a close watch on all your edits to make sure you are not involved in any war edits as a subject you might even be blocked. I saw someone pointing out that you were involved in an edit war. I am assuming good faith in you and hope you do not take part in any edit wars. Thanks Marcelrios (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC) I discovered that you made some recent changes on prankvsprank, making a few changes. I am still waiting to hear from the website about the reliability of the article so that there is no biased POV here. I suggest that you look into Wikipedia:Systemic bias before you continue with your edits on Wikipedia. Marcelrios (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
-huh wah the fuck does Systemic Bias have to do with PvP? Have YOU actually read that? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
If you go to his talk page, you will find a lot more . Thank You . Please leave a reply.Save Wikipedia!-- 1.38.22.125 ( talk) 12:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:ANI is the board to discuss user behaviour. However, you should ensure your own behaviour is also acceptable before filing a report, as it may also be scrutinised during the discussion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
---Sir ,RedPen has been involved in edit wars , even after several warnings from different editors/admins. The proof for the same can be obtained from the complaints on his talk page and from the comments of a fellow editor above. Redpen has been involved in disruptive editing, deleting useful pages, removing well referenced information and use of bad,abusive language (like the example shown above)when he fails to defend his point. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment. All the editors/admins should join hands together and work in order to contribute to this cause .Wikipedia is no not a personal property of any of us. No one can and no one should try to misbehave. Sir, in this respect, i demand strict actions against RedPenOfDoom . Please take some action because all warnings have failed to yield results. This matter is far beyond a scope of "Just Warning" !--( 1.38.20.88 ( talk) 20:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Wrong venue. Nothing to do here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 23:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Delhi state assembly elections, 2013 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Needs an experienced editor's opinion on possible misinterpretation or misuse of Wikipedia policies in a dispute.
Dispute is regarding 'whether to include the candidate list per constituency' of all the political parties in this article. Those who oppose the inlusion state that 1) It violates WP:POLITICIAN 2) It violates WP:UNDUE 3) Similarity/Analogoues nature of the issue to 'Wikipedia's featured article list' can not be used as the criteria for inclusion
Those who support the view say that
1) Creating biography of candidate is not a purpose of inclusion. So even though many of the candidates do not have Wikipedia article on them, their inclusion in the candidate list does not violate WP:POLITICIAN 2) As all the major party's candidate list will eventually be in the table, neutrality is maintained so again it does not violate WP:UNDUE. 3) Wikipedia's featured article /info/en/?search=List_of_current_members_of_the_Maryland_House_of_Delegates also includes name of the candidates who do not have any Wikipedia article on them thus making it all Wikipedia policy compliant.-- ratastro ( talk) 14:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Reconquista (Mexico) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Boogerpatrol has removed specific content from the text of "Reconquista (Mexico) (more than once) and posted some nonsense on my talk about "opinion", when the entire premise of the subject "Reconquista (Mexico)" is opinion, not factual. The text under this subject (Reconquista {Mexico}) needs to include facts, at the present time it does not. The sources used in the article in question are opinions, the persons quoted in the article are expressing opinions (and wishful thinking), not facts, therefore the "sources" in the existing article are not factual. It is, in fact, Boogerpatrol's "opinion", apparently, that the so-called "sources" in the article, which he has not removed, are "facts", because they are "sourced", but the sources are to opinions, not to actual historical fact, therefore those sources are not valid. Boogerpatrol's opinion should not be the motivating factor in the removal of facts from an article which is rife with fiction at present, and is in dire need of correction, which Boogerpatrol does not seem able to discern, or act on. His education on the subject he is editing is either too poor, or non-existent, for him to be editing,... and he does not respond well to getting an education on historical facts on the subject at hand, because when I posted facts on his talk page in response to his editing, his reply was to tell me not to post to him in reply again. Boogerpatrol needs to either stick to a subject which he knows something about to edit, or base his edits on something other than his own opinion, because the opinion of others, used as "sources" does not make those opinions "facts". CheyenneZ ( talk) 15:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Boogerpatrol violated the three-revert rule on this page. I did engage them on the talk discussion, and Boogertown, as I wrote in the above text, proceeded to tell me not to post any response to him in the talk. So deal with him, and block him for violating the three-revert rule. The subject of the article is obviously one that Boogerpatrol, and at least one other editor are lacking in education on, therefore, neither of them should be editing that page. CheyenneZ ( talk) 16:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events —
Using the first table's final entry (2012 Dec 31, Warren Jeffs) in the first table as my template, I added an entry regarded Michele Bachmann. Text does appear on the preview page, but it falls outside the table. The footnote citations are likewise inconsistent. Clearly I'm missing some table formatting element. I did read the specific tutorial pages but saw nothing on this; even going character by character, I can't find it. What have I neglected? (see my links for screenshots).
Thank you.
http://www.chuckbryant.com/images/wikitext.jpg http://www.chuckbryant.com/images/wikiresult.jpg
Is importance inherited? I tagged The R Music Group for WP:CSD A7. I hadn't found anything in the article asserting importance, and in addition I had run a Google check and found no substantial coverage to support notability.
In response, the author posted this on the talk page:
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (this is a record label and management company. that recently signed a deal with Ingrooves Fontana. Page was not finished being setup within all of the guidlines of wikipedia. I would like to finish the page.)
I know notability is usually deemed not to be inherited, but is importance for purposes of determining whether an author has implicitly asserted it? In this case, even if the article had mentioned INgrooves Fontana from the beginning, and even if I had already known the significance of INgrooves, would it follow that a statement that a record company has signed Ingrooves should be interpreted as an assertion of the record company's importance? (By the way: At the time I tagged the article, there had been no mention of INgrooves. It was added afterwards. I don't know if that makes any difference.) —Largo Plazo ( talk) 11:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Please decide something for this article. If there is still an issue, please notify me to eliminate the errors. Mohegh ( talk) 15:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC) Mohegh
Hinduism and other religions ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article is isolated but viewed, included a large amount of WP:Fringed material and hardly any religions compared to pages like Christianity and other religions until I added a lot of content to it, and some user named "Blackguard_SF" randomly started reverting the edits. Other editor joined this, and presented the views that he/she opposed, the issue went to DR [13], the editor seems to have refrained from this subject, but the user "Blackguard_SF" still seems to be disagreeing with the edits, and still reverting back to the Fringed version, after claiming "written like essay, major issues", while he never discussed this topic in talk page or anywhere else, but sure made personal attack, which is obviously not helpful or good faith. Point is, that this page needs to be reviewed once again, as it's fully changed now, and if you see any mistake, kindly let me know. Thanks Justicejayant ( talk) 10:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Good afternoon,
Yesterday my colleague and I tried to create a wiki page for a candidate running for office in New York City in the upcoming election. We had loaded in biographical text and links/references to a variety of news articles that have run in reliable publications. Late yesterday evening when I went back to check on the page I was directed to this /info/en/?search=John_Burnett_(New_York_politician) and all our text was gone. I am unsure how to meet this notability criteria to have the page show for public viewing. Advice most appreciated.
Thank you, smosher2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smosher2013 ( talk • contribs) 16:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
John Burnett (New York politician) was deleted, since it made no plausible assertion of notability ( mere candidates for office are not notable, if all the press coverage is of their run for office). If you work with the sleazeball who added smarmy language like, "Burnett comes from humble beginnings and worked his way up in the financial services industry. Along the way, he never forgot where he came from and is actively involved in the community and various New York based charitable organizations" to the article, you should both be ashamed of yourselves. -- Orange Mike | Talk 17:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
To expand on the previous answer, we have several criteria under which an article may be immediately deleted. One of those is that the article makes no assertion of significance, which OrangeMike explained well above. Another is if the article is clearly promotional (for anyone or anything, not just a corporation). In this case, the article's language is blatantly and obviously promotional, and reads like a campaign brochure. The article could have been appropriately deleted under that criterion as well. Since it seems likely that you are closely affiliated with the subject of the article, you should review the guidelines for editors who are in such a situation. A review from neutral editors may help determine whether this person is an appropriate subject for an article, and if it is so, make sure it gets written in an appropriate manner. If the sources to demonstrate notability don't exist, I'm afraid we can't allow the article at all. You may want to review the general and biographical guidelines for notability, and see if those are met here. Also, would be a good idea to review the requirements on neutrality, as that article certainly was not neutral. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Zinia Pinto ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please review my draft /info/en/?search=User:Dsouzaron/draft_Zinia_Pinto and advise if she meets the notability criteria. Thanks. Tissueboy ( talk) 09:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
A user has been redirecting the article to its Production Studio page when the page easily passes the Notability guidelines. Please someone dive in as the editor is getting very aggressive by rampantly doing the same over and over again. Marcelrios ( talk) 19:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Now the same editor is involved in an edit war with me over Stealing Mary. Pleasel ook into his edits. He keeps placing tags even though the article has all the necessary references attached to it. Marcelrios ( talk) 20:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
just saw the bio on huberman and his strad/violin stolen by a fellow musian at a concert in ny.why wasnt the recovered strad returned to the huberman family.recovery of the instrument stolen should go to its original owner/survivors ..family huberman had.merchandise stolen shouldnt be sold or resold .isnt that the way we do business ..the strad didnt have the the proper paperwork to be sold in the first place..everyone who touched the strad knew it belonged to huberman and anyone with ethics should return the stolen goods ..your comments..the chain of deceit should be broken ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.136.21 ( talk) 14:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Please, can someone fix infobox error at Stanislava Pak Stanković? I really dont know why is it not working... -- WhiteWriter speaks 12:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
characters. I fixed them by pasting the infobox into another article (
Lady Gaga in this case to see how she liked it) in preview and when it worked there pasting it back. Obviously, the copy and paste action stripped out the non-breaking space characters. By the way, why is this person notable? I am inclined to AfD it at the moment.
Spinning
Spark
17:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Good afternoon, I recently went onto my husbands facebook account - his name is Mark Chase. When I typed in his name I clicked on a page named Mark Wayne Chase & realised that the page belonged to someone else. I was horrified to see photographs of my family on this page. It stated that all the information had come from Wikipedia as Mark Wayne Chase is a public figure. I would like these photographs deleted from this page immediately as there are photographs of my 7 year old son. I wondered if they had been taken from my Facebook page (Trudi Michaela Chase) by mistake - but as I said - I want these photographs taken down, I have not given mine or my husbands permission for these to be used. Please remove them immediately. I look forward to hearing from you. Kind regards, Mrs Trudi Michaela Chase 86.160.137.132 ( talk) 18:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I think List of Touhou Project characters is in need of serious cleanup. I am a fan of the series, but clearly not all of them need to be listed. Many of them have had only minor appearances in the work, and there are also separate Touhou dedicated wikipedia to help catalogue the entirety of the characters. I want to limit the list to only the most major characters and make it more wiki-appropriate, but I do not want to get into an edit war. What is the best way I can accomplish this goal? ChaosAkita ( talk) 00:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
File:The Soup Dragons - Hang Ten!.jpg
How do I add a request for speedy deletion of an image I uploaded and is no longer used in an article? Robcamstone ( talk) 11:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
After posting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Alternative_medicine section I have realized that the issue is actually out of the scope of WP:MEDRS. The issue is not necessarily as to what additional sources may be considered reliable in regard to alternative medicine articles, but rather developing styles of wording that would allow to use unreliable sources for unproven claims. It's especially useful for cases whereby many people are practically using an alternative medicine for some health issues yet the official research is absent. There are many people who has agreed that there are gaps on the Wikipedia in covering alternative medicine.
My question is: In what venue all the issues regarding covering of the alternative medicine can be established and standardization can be approved? As WP:MEDRS is dealing with reliable sources and how to use them to cover proven claims, this policy should be dealing with sources that an unreliable per WP:MEDRS and how to use them to cover unproven claims. Thank you. Ryanspir ( talk) 13:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not retracting my prior position at all. I never said that unrealiable sources could be cited. Consider the set of all possible sources. The set of those included by WP:RS is necessarily smaller than that, and the set of those included by WP:MEDRS is both smaller still, and a subset of those included under WP:RS. You can probably argue an exception to WP:MEDRS in some cases, but it is extremely unlikely that you'd be able to argue an exception to WP:RS, especially for this topic. And with respect to Amazon reviews, WP:V is pretty clear on this. Policy arguments aren't going to be persuasive here if what you want is to change a sitewide policy. You may be better served by asking for advice at WP:RSN (if you have a particular source in mind) or WT:V (if you want to discuss changing policy to allow Amazon reviews). —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 13:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
And even if one of us had actually said that Amazon reviews were useable as sources on Wikipedia, that doesn't change the fact that they most certainly are not, and does not estop other editors from removing them. We're not setting policy here, we're describing what present policy is. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 02:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
User:Mistyfarris/draft_of_BAFFC_article ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I have just finished a draft of my first Wikipedia article. It is for a bar association for which I do not work and am not a member, but I have done consulting work for them. I looked at the article for the American Bar Association to get an idea of how to describe the association appropriately. But because it is my first article and I have some connection to the bar association, I wanted to ask for feedback before making it public.
My first impulse was not to write the article, but I was surprised that, although it is referred to by at least several other articles, it had no entry of its own. I thought it would be helpful to have this article to link to those references. Mistyfarris ( talk) 03:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
You're right that I was struggling with sources. The best information I had came from a founding member who is still alive. Of course, Judge Clark has died, as have virtually all the original members. Because it's a nonprofit members organization, it doesn't generally seek out or get much news coverage. I hoped it would be okay to look more to the organization's website because it seemed that was the primary source for the American Bar Association entry. Like any bar association, they are important entities that belong in an encyclopedia, but they are not generally newsworthy and they don't tend to keep great archives. What if I could find announcements in the news of CLE programs, and delegate nominations, etc. I will also check with the exec director and see if there are more historical documents available. And of course, I can rewrite the lead more carefully. Thank you for your input. I'll make some changes and see if it gets better. Mistyfarris ( talk) 19:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
This notability thing confuses me. Why then do the Dallas Bar Association, the Chicago Bar Association, the Washington Bar Association (among others) have pages that make no references to secondary sources and seem to have a narrower scope that the association of a federal circuit court? Maybe I can find a biography of Judge Charles that discusses BAFFC since it was founded at his initiative. What about the fact that several other Wikipedia articles make reference to it? In a quick search, I found that Robert G. Pugh it makes reference to his being the "second president of the Bar Association for the New Orleans-based United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals." Tucker L. Melancon's page says he had a role in "Bar Association for the First and Fifth Federal Circuit." Admission to the bar in the United States contains a section on Voluntary and private bar associations that includes references to Wikipedia links to city, ethnic, and other voluntary bar associations. There are also Wikipedia articles for attorneys who played a significant role in founding or leading the BAFFC--articles that should include a reference to the association. I'm sorry if I sound snippy. I don't mean to. I just think it is an important organization, but it doesn't commit scandals. Generally the news coverage consists of attorneys claiming membership or offices and information about their CLE presentations, etc., but I understand that's not enough. Maybe I need to go to the references in other articles to correct the name and add external links, at least until I can find more outside sources from biographies or other sources. I'm also getting access to the archives and they might have copies of articles or other published material about the organization. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistyfarris ( talk • contribs) 04:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for all the help. Mistyfarris ( talk) 04:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
178.108.36.109 ( talk) 08:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Melissajwoodside was deleted ...under the terms speedy deletion. Can this matter be resolved please 178.108.36.109 ( talk) 08:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
David in DC & MarkBernstein have long been squabbling with Dervorguilla about some alleged WP:QUOTEFARM or WP:BLPGOSSIP material taken from an op-ed by Harvey Silverglate and reprinted at Aaron Swartz and Carmen Ortiz. On 7 Feb 2013, long-term user Ocaasi comes in and makes a couple of authoritative edits, which seem to resolve the dispute; MarkBernstein seems to concur (“Nice.”). Ocaasi then disappears, most likely to carry out his newly assumed duties as an admin. Ten hours later David in DC reverts. Dervorguilla restores much of the Ocaasi alteration step-by-step, giving each step its own, wikilawyered edit summary and Talk commentary. After enough of this provocation, MarkBernstein makes a bold revert. The material is swiftly restored by Dervorguilla and swiftly re-reverted by MarkBernstein. David in DC now asks, is Dervorguilla “trolling for another block?” If you can help her figure out the answer, please do! Requesting aid with behavior, not content. ( Dervorguilla is using her alternate account here; she’s not out to provoke any editors that happen to be tracking her regular-account contribs). -- J.K.Herms ( talk) 08:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Interac_(Japan) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Regarding Interac_(Japan) KeroroGunso ( talk · contribs) & Laevatienn ( talk · contribs) have made arguments on the talk page about the nature of the article, as it is mostly made up of union-related-labor-dispute content that echos the types found on Tozen, General_Union and Unfair_Labor_Practice_(Japan). The result here is a lack of depth or breadth in dealing with Interac as a company, which lowers its quality score in WP:Japan and WP:EDUCATION. Looking at the edit history seems to be a lot of work by Ckatz ( talk · contribs), Statisticalregression ( talk · contribs), Nihonjoe ( talk · contribs) and others. KeroroGunso, Laevatienn, and myself recognize the NPOV issues in the article as it is made up of union-related-labor-dispute content. Discussion about this has been made on the Talk page, but no response has come from anyone with a different opinion. Attempts to remove this reverted time after time, and I believe that it would be more appropriate for a reference to be made to the union-related-labor-dispute content and have that content on the pages of the relevant parties or topics, such as Tozen, General_Union and Unfair_Labor_Practice_(Japan). What is needed from an editor here is for someone to have an unbiased look at what is related to the company as an organization, and what is related to the union-related-labor-dispute(S). Advice on how to make the page stronger as for company-related content to move it more toward NPOV, and advice on how to realign or move union-related-labor-dispute content to their appropriate areas or pages. The union-related-labor-dispute content is well-stated on the other relevant pages, and editor help is needed to bring the page more toward a description of Interac that would serve a new person visiting Wikipedia for the first time. Taurus669 ( talk) 10:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I have been editing several linked pages dealing with Spanish history in the 16th century, particularly as regards the Catholic reconquest of Granada and the subsequent revolt of the Moors (or Moriscos) in that area.
I have just published a book - "Bubión - the story of an Alpujarran village" - for which I did a considerable amount of research into sources - including Spanish 16th-century chroniclers and other works in Spanish, French, English, including some Arab works in English translation.
I find in Wikipedia several overlapping sites, several of which are not well-informed, relying on secondary sources.
I have concentrated on "
Morisco Revolt", which I found to be the most complete. However, it should be renamed "Morisco revolts in Granada": I cannot find how to change a title.
"
Battle of Granada" or "
Fall of Granada" is unsatisfactory, and all its information is contained on other pages. In my view, it should be deleted: again, I do not know how to do this.
Other sites on which I have worked are "
Emirate of Granada", "
Treaty of Granada" - no major problems here.
A separate technical problem relates to "
Poqueira", where I tried to put in a better photo than the existing one: the name of my picture appears but not the photo, and I could not handle this.
Help appreciated!
Bergerie (
talk)
15:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Jimmy Savile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jimmy_Savile
Has Savile, a dead man with a "clean" criminal record while alive been treated fairly in the press and by Wikipedia??? I would like a licensed criminal solicitor or barrister in the UK to weigh in on claims made in the article. A space for a third party review has been created on the article's talk page. Thanks. johncheverly 7:31 pm, Today (UTC−4)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koueH9D04yg I am told that The Daily Mail is not a reliable source, even after the article uses a Daily Mail source in an attempt to accuse Savile of paedophllia through speculation and hearsay. Also, the article does not use BBC and other news reports that exonerate Savile: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xrp6cHjets. That particular video features an Assistant Chief Constable on the West Yorkshire Police force stating that it does not have any evidence nor reports against Savile, let alone any criminal charges against him.
I think this is a witch hunt. All it is is a bunch of posthumous he said/she said stuff.
Compare the Savile Article against the Joe Paterno and Penn State Child Sex Abuse Articles and there is no comparison. Wikipedia is like the English Court of Public Opinion, out for a witch hunt that the facts do not substantiate. johncheverly 02:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
(UTC)
Whatever you think the significance of all that might be, it seems irrelevant to improving the content of the article. All this correspondence was discussed before Thatcher's death, and is mentioned under "Public image and friendships" in his biography article. What changes do you think should be made to the article? Ghmyrtle (talk) 5:32 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)
I definitely think there needs to be some quotes from Sir Jimmy Savile OBE's mistress Sue Hymns that "There's absolutely nothing there. People make those things up."
Also, his neice, Amanda McKenna, also has refuted the scandalous stories.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koueH9D04yg
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-saviles-family-reveal-their-outrage-870828
And she tells how she was hurt over the years by false rumours about her uncle. BBC’s Newsnight even began an investigation into unfounded allegations relating to under-aged girls.
She says: “Uncle Jimmy always said, ‘People were looking for the big secret about me but the big secret is that there isn’t one’.”
Any mentions of his posthumous AUTHORIZED BIOGRAPHY??? Why not???
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/features/leader/9806293.The_real_Jimmy/
Also, of the over 40 people that claim they were "molested" by Savile in the West Yorkshire region of England, NONE ever reported the incident to the West Yorkshire Police, and there is no evidence of any criminal behavior by Savile.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xrp6cHjets
Paul Gambiccini's Claims??? Why are they even included in this article??? Listen to all 11:30 minutes of this interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DutNY63LqO0 Complete bullshit there. This motherfucker has no concrete information. It's all a bunch of hot air by a has-been that never made it.
Talk about payoffs, don't you think you ought to add info from this article??? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/savile-to-cost-bbc-insurers-millions-8590981.html
Show me the fucking money=30 million pounds worth.
Also, what's the statute of limitations on the charges against Max Clifford, Freddie Starr, Rolf Harris, Jim Davidson, etcetera??? These guys are in their late 60's, early 70s now.
Is there anyone on Wikipedia that can give some kind of context of the English Legal system??? Were the laws the same in the 1960s and 1970s as they are today???
These are the things that are nagging me and that I come me to Wikipedia for wanting to read FACTUAL ANSWERS ON. johncheverly 17:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I hope this is the right forum in which make this complaint! I am new to Wikipedia (have been here 17 days) and I feel as if most of my additions to the community have contributed positively to it. I am concerned about the conduct of user CarolmooreDC. She recently accused me of "libelous" conduct and threatened me with bans here, writing "given your biased edits and admitted strong Negative POV and the fact your PhD advisor recommended you look at these people for your dissertation, you really are getting into an area where you could be banned from editing these related articles at all under this this biographies of living people-related arbitration." (elsewhere on my talk page she implies that my getting banned is "just a matter of someone being sufficiently motivated to present the copious evidence of your BLP violating habits to the proper venue", which I regarded as an attempt at intimidation.)
Her attacks re: "bias" stem from a personal admission of mine that I am studying fringe political groups for a Master's thesis, and don't like some of them; an *unprompted* admission I made in good faith when I was trying to understand WP's COI policy.
Her attacks re "libel" stem from my changing a sub-title of the Hans-Hermann Hoppe piece from "Allegations of Homophobia" to "Allegations of promoting anti-gay violence." As can be seen from the history page, this title was simply a paraphrase of text within that section -- CON text which had been accepted for weeks by editors as a fair characterization (she is of course entitled to disagree with the CON text and argue that it is WP:Synth, but calling someone -- particularly a noob -- "libelous" and threatening a ban for his/her simply paraphrasing accepted CON text in a title sub-section is, in my judgment, extremely inappropriate. This follows a broader history of demeaning, insulting conduct and personal attacks she has leveled against me. She has formed a sort of tag team to attack me with commentator S. Rich, who previously accused me of "bad-mouth[ing] the various people you are writing about in WP" based on a "subtle" motivation "to preserve the work you are doing on your thesis" (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Steeletrap/Archive_1). His comments have not been quite as egregious as Carol's, but given his history of personally attacking me, it is also a cause for concern.
Thank you for hearing my reply. I apologize if this isn't written in the proper format! Please let me know if you want any more information surrounding Carol's previous comments to me or mine to her. Steeletrap ( talk) 19:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Could you please capitalize "T" in the word "Technology" in the article title? Or can you advise how I can do it. Thanks, Nastya Yurkina ( talk) 07:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Mohamed Zairi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have come across an article about Prof. Mohamed Zairi. It seems to be very promotional and lacking of RS/citations, and also includes alot of "unnecessary" information, such as a _long_ list of books he has published. I am new here a wiki so I don't really know if I'm in the right place to raise these concerns, so if I'm wrong in posting this here, please forgive me. Amlaera ( talk) 11:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
See also Mohamed Zairi Bibliography, which Amlaera created as a staging area, and which is now being reviewed at AfD. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 19:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Lashawn Antonio Covington ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Here we have a brand-new user whose only edits are to his own user page, most of which appear to trumpet the user's own criminal associations. In addition, this registered user would appear to be the same person as IP editor 98.243.47.45, whose only edits have been disruptive ones, generally adding the name of this user to various Michigan-related articles. Even if I could figure out a suitable template, I'm not sure that this editor really has much interest in editing the encyclopedia. Suggestions welcome. JohnInDC ( talk) 17:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I think this needs an admin to 'really' fix. Popped up on "Check Wikipedia".
2013 in Singaporean football <- needs to be relocated to Template space. Thanks. Revent ( talk) 19:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Its been 30 minutes now since I hit save on an edit to this article and its still thinking about it. All attempts to access the article on a new window don't work either. Obviously, my computer and Wikipedia are in the meantime continuing to work perfectly normally. Help! -- Rskp ( talk) 08:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Ancient Roman architecture ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
this article is in need of serious attention. it is somewhat biased, out of context at some points, and has only one citation. it also has unorganized sections, for example, the section arches and domes ends with an explanation of what an arch is. i strongly suggest a major edit, perhaps even a re-structure. Thetntm ( talk) 01:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Most recent common ancestor ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article mentions a claim that within the last 10 to 5000 years, humanity as a whole has a common ancestor. The citation is a pay site. I strongly doubt the claim and put up a cleanup tag explaining why. Someone else toomk it off saying for me to see the sources; but, it's at a pay site as I said.
BTW:"THANK YOU for complying with these simple instructions" (on this page above) comes off as unpleasantly sarcastic. Richard Peterson 199.33.32.40 ( talk) 00:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Marisa Pavan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dear Wikipedia,
The photograph appended to the entry relating to MARISA PAVAN is not of her, it is of her twin sister PIER ANGELI. I know because I wrote her biography.
J Allen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierangeli ( talk • contribs) 23:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Criticism of Muhammad ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
It is, I believe, not a good work done by the editors to criticise Muhammad. He was a religious leader just as any other religious leader like jesus or moses. Simple biographies of these personalities should be provided by this site. If any harsh comment is done on them, then it can incite the anger of public. I request the management to look in to this issue and take a proper action against these irritating criticisms of westerns or other socities. Thankyou, Manny Abid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.109.40.194 ( talk) 18:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
Location map}}
; resolved by helpful editors at
Template talk:Location map. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/
01:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Sorpe Dam ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi, as I stated a year ago on Talk:Sorpe_Dam, the little red spot on the location mark is off by some 150 km. Nobody seems to have been able to do anything about it. How do these dots get inserted into the maps anyway? The coordinates are correct.-- Cancun771 ( talk) 15:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
px
from a parameter
[1] and have suggested to not depend on this at
Template talk:Location map#Possible error with Germany map?
PrimeHunter (
talk)
23:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Kamyanyec ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi, I was undoing a move of the article Kamyanyets and incidentally misspelled the name and now, for the technical reasons, can't move it back. The same applies to the article Tower of Kamyanyec. Administrators' assistance is very welcome. What you basically need to do is replace "c" with "ts". Cheers. -- glossologist ( talk) 12:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
There's nobody replying to this on the help desk so I thought I'd post it here, does anyone want to give me an idiot's guide to editing the home shirt at Raith Rovers F.C. to reflect the new one shown at http://www.raithrovers.net/9017/201314-kit-revealed.htm or does anyone want to edit it to save the bother? ( Lbarnett-bl ( talk) 23:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC))
Hi
At 13:23 I posted an SPI request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto. It has not yet (14:57 UTC) appeared on WP:SPI. Have I overlooked something?
Martinvl ( talk) 14:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
University of Texas Medical Branch ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello. I have a declared COI but requested some edits on the UTMB talk page. Editor CorporateM declined most of proposed edits. I asked for reconsideration on a couple of points via his/her talk page; CorporateM requested that I ask another editor. Is this the proper venue to do so?
To propose changes throughout the entire article, would a userspace draft be the best means? I'll try to point out errors vs. asking editors to compare versions, but in "being bold" I'm not sure what else to do. Any suggestions are welcome. Thank you. Myra McCollum ( talk) 19:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I would like help. My family from my grandmother down have been kept out of all Wikipedia information. here is a link to a family tree site that will show you the real family tree http://cobboldfht.com I hope you can see that my cousin Emma Kitchener-Fellows is not the only ancestor of Lord Kitchener her father Charles had a a sister Kenya as well as the Knighted brother Henry. Kenya had three Daughter and the have had five sons between them as Emma has had one son. I am now the oldest of these Son's. I am trying to go over to Africa to make efforts to create reconciliation with the African's who are descendants of the people who suffered under the military campaigns led by Kitchener.
I have previously corrected this information on here and it has again been changed, This time it is very professionally done. Please can this be rectified. the integrity of wikipedia is accepted and this only makes it more damaging to my efforts. thank you, Duncan John Saunders — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Saunders77 ( talk • contribs) 12:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I'm butting heads and seeking advice.
[Note: Shortened from long version.]
Guy Macon is being
WP:POINTY, authoritarian, and is blind to his errors. He's been preventing the addition of any info regarding fakes to
Secure Digital. Most recently:
Guy
removed my article talk page comment and he
reverted (diff) my removal from my talk page of his previous comment - thereby for a SECOND AND THIRD TIME violating the very rules he had just reminded me of and warned me not to violate.
I was going to post the following to his page and revert his revert the above two violations but decided to come here instead for advice:
I'm wondering what to do next. -- Elvey ( talk) 19:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Byron Shire Echo ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sorry to ask what is obviously a FAQ but how do I get you to re-examine an article that is flagged as deficient?
The article Byron Shire Echo, contributed a couple of years ago, has been correctly labelled as non-neutral and unreferenced but I have now edited it to remove (hopefully) those problems.
Although the article has still been provided by a member of the Byron Echo staff (me) can it be re-assessed please?
-- Tree Faerie ( talk) 07:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Feminist Sex Wars ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I recently added a 10 second original video (shown on the right):
...to the article Feminist Sex Wars. It shows the division (within liberal, feminist ideology) between pro- and anti-sex work feminists, which is the subject of the article. I put it on in the spirit of improving the article so that it wasn't just text.
Chapter 15 on Adding Images, in Wikipedia's Missing Manual suggests ...an article without at least one illustration seems incomplete. I was applying the same logic as that to my film but found that it was deleted on the grounds that the Video makes little sense and does not add to informational value of article. (26th March 2013)
I thought I had made it short, clear and concise, and my intention was to illustrate the existing article rather than add any new information. Do I really have to go through a reverting the edit, justifying why I've reverted it back, discussion on talk pages (possible edit war)? I was really hoping that this might just be a less confrontational technical point, that an experienced editor could revert it with a comment like "Reverting to help user (as requested) - video is merely illustrative."
I would appreciate any help. Thanks -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 08:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I've got to say, I don't see any kind of informational content to that video; and yes, that is the reason for an illustration (2-d or 3-d, still or moving). -- Orange Mike | Talk 16:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering if there's a specific policy against including non-noteworthy trivia about a subject in an article. For instance, it might be possible to reliably source what someone, particularly if they are famous, had for breakfast on a certain day. Such content would meet verification criteria but on its own would not normally be considered relevant, unless a specific reason can be be brought up, for inclusion in an encyclopaedia article. Is there a specific policy to cite against including trivia like this or does it come down to gaining talk page consensus on whether it is too trivial or not for inclusion? Thank you in advance for your comments. Wcp07 ( talk) 09:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
On Canada's page, in the Metropolitan Areas chart can you add pictures? I tried it myself, but I didn't know how to do it. Thanks. My name is Ekjaap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.232.109 ( talk) 17:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Romford F.C. ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello,
Can anyone please tell me why the list of ex players which I painstakingly researched, has been deleted, without my consent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RomfordReject ( talk • contribs) 07:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Charles Durning ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There has been a good deal of controversy regarding the military service of a recently deceased prominent person. I recently filed an FOIA request with the National Archives and received a copy of the individuals military service record. The information in his record is at variance with almost ALL secondary and tertiary sources. However, the military record is a primary source and Wikipedia prohibits primary sources. What to do? Oldbubblehead ( talk) 06:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the assistance. This is all very good advice. Oldbubblehead ( talk) 08:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I moved a template from my sandbox to userspace, and it copied the edit history of the sandbox to this template. The template is Template:Musa (acuminata × balbisiana). I request a history split to this page, and my sandbox, since that seems like the most practical solution. Thank you in advance for the help. - Sidelight 12 Talk 10:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi there,
Coincidentally this has happened to me on two pages recently. Never come across this before (been editing since 2006), never even been involved in an edit war at all.
I've looked up dispute resolution but all the steps there depend on agreement between the editors to ask for assistance. What do you do when the other editor is sure they are right and don't want to engage in any of the official Wikipedia processes for resolution?
The first one is this one:
Talk:Concerns_for_an_early_Mars_sample_return
His version of the page is the main article: Concerns_for_an_early_Mars_sample_return
My version of the page is in my user space here: User:Robertinventor/Concerns_for_an_early_Mars_sample_return_new
It is a civilized enough discussion, but there seems to be no point of contact on how we want the article to appear. Neither of us is able to work with the other's version of the article, and he is not interested in RfC or dispute resolution. He just thinks he is right and that there is no need to ask for outside help.
As you will see from the history of the debate, it started when the other editor Warren Platts replaced my version of the main article page with his with no preliminary discussion just a notice to say he regarded the article as OR and so had changed it. I reverted it, and asked for discussion first but he wasn't interested.
After a couple of reverts I warned that it was an edit war but he continued to edit the main article. I worked on my own version in my own user space to avoid edit warring behaviour.
We engaged in extensive discussion of the issues on the talk page but are not getting any closer to resolution, and seem to have reached a complete impasse.
Warren Platts sees me as trying to edit wikipedia towards my own POV that there are people with concerns about a Mars Sample Return. I think it is basically the issue of an editor who has never before been involved in editing an article on a controversy who is under the impression that to do it with a NPOV means to remove any suggestion of bias or differing POVs. But of course he doesn't see iike that though I tried to explain.
His version of the page omits even most of the concerns raised by mission planers for NASA about a MSR addressed in their policy reviews. You would get the impression from the article that you could return a MSR to Earth today if you had the finance, which none of the published sources say.
He also doesn't seem to understand why anyone might think that his version of the article has editorial comment.
It is a civilized discussion. He just simply doesn't see why it is a matter for debate, or dispute resolution. He is not interested in my suggestions to attempt dispute resolution.
It is a more straightforward matter, to do with how you interpret the published scientific research on the topic.
He doesn't want to discuss the issue with me any more even on the talk page and has not been able to explain his issue to me. His main point seems to be that as a mathematician I shouldn't be editing a section on biology, and can't understand the topic. But though it is not my subject that I trained in, I have a long term interest in the subject, have kept up to date, and read many of the recent research papers on it, and have no trouble at all discussing it with microbiologists friends outside of wikipedia including professors and lecturers in biology.
So I don't think it is really my understanding of biology that is the problem.. But he is not interested in RfC, or dispute resolution, he is just sure that I am wrong.
I tried a RfC as you see, but realise this is probably not appropriate when the other party is not interested in engaging in discussion or in comments on the dispute. It has probably made things worse if anything. I got one reply asking for information, and no opinions either way.
This is the first time in eight years of wikipedia editing that I've ever got involved in an edit war, or any kind of extended dispute over content, the nearest before was an AfD discussion about an article I wrote that was quickly decided in my favour.
The Warren Platts dispute originated in several discussions at nasaspaceflight.com such as this one: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31914.0;all and has spilled over into wikiedia.
I expected opposition on that forum as (I knew already from previous discussions that many of the members are strong advocates of human spaceflight to the surface of Mars. Any need to be careful about contamination issues, or any suggestion of the presence of life on the Mars surface would seriously delay their main objective to land humans on the surface of Mars as soon as possible. As you see it got quite heated.
I don't know of any connection between the batteryincluded dispute and the ones in the nasapaceflight.com forums or anywhere else outside wikipedia.
Robert Walker ( talk) 08:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Now at AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concerns for an early Mars sample return. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 19:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
(1) I am User:Dr Lindsay B Yeates (which is my real name) in relation to the matter at hand, and I also have a long and reliable history (more that 10,000 edits) as User:Lindsay658 -- in relation to my other "non-academic" work.
(2) It appears as if User:Ronz has not understood the clear content of the messages at [2], [3], [4], [5]; and I base this upon what appears to me to be an entirely inappropriate (in the sense of speaking about some sets of entirely different circumstances) message at [6]. My dissertation is freely available to all and sundry at no cost. It is only available through the repository storage at the University of New South Wales. Therefore it is most definitely not "Spam". I was very strongly advised, by one more expert at Wiki than myself, to keep myself "at arms length" (and, by the way, such "keeping at arms length" also involved creating a new user name, such that I was not disguised in any way), and place the link within "Further Reading", rather than place it in the list of sources; and that is precisely what I have done. leaving aside the matter of whether or not the dissertation itself (which is a scholarly work) expresses opinions, a simple viewing of the appendices attached to the dissertation will reveal a whole host of important historical resources for editors that are, otherwise, unavailable (see [7]). How do I respond to this, in my view, mistaken intrusion by "Ronz", without causing offence -- when, to me, it seems that he has neither read, nor understood the content of ( WP:HISTRS).
(3) In relation to [8], is there some way that "Anglicanus" can be warned about his language? (I am sure that I outrank him as a scholar, and I am also certain that I have made many more edits in a far wider range of articles over a far longer period of time, and after eight years study into his life and work, I'm absolutely certain that I know much more about Hugh M‘Neile). His "reasons" for edits are also rather offensive -- especially at a time when the article is clearly marked "Under Construction"
(4) Once more, in relation to [9], is there some way that a senior person can explain to "Anglicanus" that, given his alteration of the article's title, he also becomes responsible for reducing the "redirect" complexity generated by his change of the article's name.
(5) Please advise me about (2), and please ask some senior person to act, behind the scenes in relation to both (3) and (4). Dr Lindsay B Yeates ( talk) 02:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
"Spinning Spark" and "Jonkerz", "Thanks" to both of you for your assistance; however, I feel that I need to explain to each of you that the situation, in relation to my dissertation, is a little different from how you have represented it. Firstly, it is not "a biography of James Braid"; it is an extremely detailed examination of the events of a nine month period that mark the birth of hypnotism (November 1841 to June 1842), and the boundary work that Braid was forced to perform.
There is a direct and very strong connexion with Lafontaine; because not only was it his (Braid's) visit to an "animal magnetism" demonstration given by Lafontaine in Manchester that set in train the events, experiments, etc. that resulted in Braid's discovery of "hypnotism" (BTW, "hypnotism" was the name given by Braid, and Braid, also, gave the name "suggestion" to the directions given to a subject who has been hypnotised), but there were a number of very heated disputes between Lafontaine and Braid that had very direct influence on Braid's practical and theoretical development of the set of practices that eventually (by June 1842) had become "hypnotism".
Both Lafontane and Braid were fiercely attacked by M'Neile; and Braid's published response to M'Neile has been characterized as “a work of the greatest significance in the history of hypnotism, and of utmost rarity”. And, of course, as a consequence of the forgoing, the events examined within the dissertation are of the utmost importance and the highest significance, not only to the articles on Braid, Lafontaine (to which I will perform some editing in the near future) and M'Neile, but also to the articles on Hypnosis and the History of Hypnosis.
Finally, in order to make my point unequivocally clear to you. My purpose is not to promote myself, or any of the ideas, etc. that I might, or might not have developed in body the dissertation itself (approx. 377 pages), it is to make available the extensive bibliography (of more than 1,500 items) and, especially, the otherwise hidden/unavailable/unknown source material that I unearthed/exhumed/discovered in the process of my research, which has been transcribed, corrected and annotated in the appendices to the dissertation (approx. another 450 pages), which amongst other significant source material includes:
All of which are not available separately; and are only available within the document lodged in the UNSW Repository.
The importance of these particular (never-examined-by-scholars) newspaper accounts is that they combine two things: (a) a reporter's account of what exactly took place (they were all public lectures or, in M‘Neile's case, a sermon delivered orally to a large congregation), with the additional text of precisely what was said that had been transcribed, in person, by a stenographer present at the time.
So, here's my question: Just to ensure that I have clearly understood your directions, am I permitted to use the following procedure. (using [10] to explain how I will do things):
I hope that this procedure meets your recommendations, sincerely Dr Lindsay B Yeates ( talk) 02:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, freely available through the National Library of Australia's long thread of links to the UNSW Repository: [11]. Dr Lindsay B Yeates ( talk) 03:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, first of all if this is not the page I should be requesting this then I'm sorry, but I do not know where I should be asking and I'd like to know where I should post things alike in the future. Could this template {{ru|FRG}} →
West Germany link here
Germany to avoid redirectioning in the same fashion templates like these {{fb|FRG}} or {{bk|FRG}} or {{fh|FRG}} (
West Germany,
West Germany,
West Germany respectively) all link me directly to Germany instead of West Germany? Thank you.
Tibullus
(talk)
02:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
User:Zaid231/sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hello Wiki Editors, I'm hoping to get clarification on a few things in regards to content I recently posted on my User Page. Upon suggestions from editors, the content was article revisions and new 3rd party links for my page guardNOW; my understanding was that by first testing out content on my User Page, it would lower the risk of deletion and allow me to receive help and feedback as I proceed - it seems that event this content was deleted. I posted it so I could have more experienced editors have a look at the new references (I have several others, but want to get an idea of which are best to use on my re-created page). This is the link to my Sandbox, if someone could take a minute to offer feedback/suggestions, it is much appreciated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zaid231/sandbox
Thank you for your time, Zaid231 ( talk) 18:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Hopefully it's ok to ask this process question here, since didn't get response at WP:FORUM SHOP talk page (and only got one biased one per below elsewhere). Do find this an important issue to settle since some will go around doing this kind of WP:OR if allowed. (And I'm getting tempted myself!)
I put something that's probably more WP:OR/SYNTH on WP:BLN since it's in a bio. Obviously a mistake since no one answered except an involved editor who merely linked to the relevant talk page discussion. (Later I did add a couple things in a second section more directly BLP related).
When I asked at the BLP notice if it would be a problem to move the WP:OR section to WP:ORN, the editor of the questionable edit finally bothered to respond, merely linking to WP:FORUMSHOP. So is moving to another noticeboard if there is no response forum shopping? Thanks! CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 14:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I urge you to give a careful look at the two responses you've received here and then to consider the extent to which they apply to the facts concerning your actions at BLP and your next contemplated step. Reviewing the BLP thread just now, its clear to me that you did not present a well-formed policy-based question there. That may have been the reason for the lack of participation by onlookers there. Moreover, given the lack of a question, I think user:Srich, who is hardly a partisan or POV-pushing editor, gave you good advice to return to the talk page to pursue your concerns with the other involved editors. This was hardly a contentious dispute. SPECIFICO talk 03:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
See Talk:Sousveillance for an RFC on the use of a picture which needs outside comment. Any additional comments would be useful to prevent an edit war and help provide resolution. Thanks. -- Jayron 32 23:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Payza ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The "criticism" section and advert template tag are repeatedly removed from Payza. I believe this action is by Payza staff as the article is written like an advertisement and edit comments suggest the criticism section has no evidence, despite citing seven different sources. Xmeltrut ( talk) 07:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that a user uploaded the same image twice to Wikipedia ( File:Photo of Rick L. Weddle.jpg and File:Rick L. Weddle.jpg), as well as once to Commons ( File:Photo of Rick Weddle.jpg). In my attempt to fix this, I requested speedy deletion of the first one here per F8, and the second one per F1 and F8. However, since the filenames here and at Commons are different, I was forced to use both db-f1 and db-f8 on the second one rather than db-multiple, because db-multiple assumes all filename parameters are the same. Was this the best way for me to do what I did? -- 71.199.125.210 ( talk) 00:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Blackboard Inc. ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello, I am looking for help with an issue that resulted from a histmerge a few weeks ago. I had created a draft version of the Blackboard Inc. article in my user space, where I worked on revising and updating the article. After discussing the changes with other editors, the draft was moved live to replace the then-current version of the Blackboard Inc. article. However, when this merge happened the original revision history of the article was replaced with the revision history from my user space.
Does someone here know how to restore the original revision history so that editors can see all the previous version of the article? I should note that my work on this article was as a paid consultant to Blackboard Inc., which was clearly disclosed to the editors who were involved in reviewing the draft.
I've tried following up with the administrator who moved my draft version live, but he says he doesn't know how to fix the issue, either. Can someone here help with this? Cheers, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 13:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm way over my wiki time budget but have two added citations getting red error messages that I haven't been able to figure out what the Css is complaining over (the process/format used to work fine!). Cite#15-16 (?or 17- look for red! <G>)
If someone can fix those up, I'd appreciate it. I can be reached here if there is a time sensative question.
// Fra nkB 20:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
|summary=
and |Substantiation=
) which are not known in that template. Simply remove them. Click on the message's "help" link for more information. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
22:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I have begun my first contribution. As per advice I read in the wiki guidelines, I have created a draft page before submitting. I am on a steep learning curve with policies and format. I am hoping that some more experienced editors will lend me their knowledge and opinions before I go forward.
User:Yogijbrown/draft_article_on_Mark_Whitwell
Any helpful suggestions are appreciated. Thanks in advance. J. Brown 04:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to preclude an intense disagreement, so I'd like to know what is generally preferred across most of Wikipedia.
There are two articles, one on a specific subject and the other on a wider subject that summarizes the specific one. The wider-subject article is mostly nonsummary content. Both articles link to each other.
I'm planning to add new content on a related subject to one of the articles. Either article would be suitable, but I think some editors will object in one case and some editors will object in the other case. Between the following editorial choices, which is generally preferred in Wikipedia?
1. Add the new content to the specific-subject article, because it's within the article's scope, defined by the article's title.
2. Retitle the specific-subject article to make its scope narrower and to preclude or exclude the new content; and add the new content to the wider-subject article only.
3. Create a new, third, article for the new content (if notable) and retitle the old specific-subject article to narrow it to preclude an overlap of scopes. Right now, I don't know if I have enough for notability, although I do have enough for weight.
It's possible that the most frequent editors of the old specific-subject article will object to all of these solutions and won't propose an alternative that grows Wikipedia's content within policies and guidelines. What they're likeliest to accept is adding the content to the wider article and leaving the specific-subject article titled as it is, but that would result in the specific-subject article being titled to cover more than it does after the most frequent editors will have refused proper content for it, resulting in an impression among Wikipedia readers that no such content exists.
I have not identified any of the articles here because before I do that I'd rather explain why editorial work is needed and the present draft of that explanation is extensive; and a dispute before that posting may be harder to resolve.
I'd like what I propose to be closest to Wikipedia-wide consensus. I probably need to select one of the first two options. Consensus may change, but I try to stay within Wikipedia's norms. Does anyone here have any recommendations or thoughts?
Thank you. Nick Levinson ( talk) 16:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, when a person Googles Helen Palmer Geisel, the photo of the blond woman wearing red is not Helen Palmer Geisel. HPG was Theodor "Dr. Seuss" Geisel's first wife. The photo of the blond woman is his second wife, Audrey Stone Dimond Geisel.
This is a terrible mistake as Ted Geisel walked out on first wife when she was ill and he consorted with the much younger, and incidentally married, Audrey Dimond. Helen ended up committing suicide in 1967 over their affair.
Please correct this mistake if you can.
Thank-you,
Shannon Lee Mannion [redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.38.210 ( talk) 01:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Please do not include contact details in your questions. We are unable to provide answers by any off-wiki medium and this page is highly visible across the internet. The details have been removed, but if you want them to be permanently removed from the page history, please email
this address. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/
03:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
First of all let me say that I am bringing this here because I don't know how best to deal with it or even if it's something that needs to be dealt with. I'm not sure if the user I'm about to mention has done anything wrong. Note: I have not alerted the user to this posting because, like I said, I don't know if they've done anything wrong.
I have the article for Quincy Market on my watchlist. User Ingfbruno added an image which I didn't think had much to do with the Market. It's not a shot of the Market but of a couple of items for sale at some shop. Hardly representative of an entire marketplace. But I also noticed that the user had added their own watermark, complete with copyright symbol, to the image. This was the second image that they had added to the article. The first was much more appropriate in composition. Once I saw the copyright in the watermark though, I began looking at the editor's other images. They all have the same copyright. And there are quite a few images which have been added to many articles.
The user's username and the name on the photos are similar, so I believe the editor is the photographer. What I don't know is: Are images with watermarked copyright notices allowed here? Is this even a matter for en.wikipedia given that the images are on Commons? Should the editor be warned about trying to promote themselves? What, if anything, should be done?
Any help with this would be appreciated. Thanks, Dismas| (talk) 03:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I stumbled upon a redirect/disambiguation maze featuring the acronym FIGJAM. A map:
There is one other incoming redirect to the disamb page: FigJam ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The only other link on the disamb page goes to the article of a band that happens to have a non-notable single named Figjam. I'm not sure where to start fixing this mess. There is no actual FIGJAM article, although it's meaning is verifiable due to it being defined in external sources related to Phil Mickelson.
I considered the following actions, but wanted to discuss them first:
Thanks in advance. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 23:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I am requesting that my own editing and discussion behavior be reviewed at Steven Crowder and its talk page in regards to JohnKAnderson. I am not requesting dispute resolution - I'm attempting to use some third party reviewers for that purpose in order to avoid putting this on the dispute resolution noticeboard. I'm simply trying to review my own conversational and editing behavior to see A) if I'm following guidelines correctly; and B) how I could handle the dispute better on my part. Thanks! 5minutes ( talk) 00:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to merge and edit the Port Gamble, Washington and Port Gamble, Mill Town pages because I work as the marketing coordinator for the company that owns the town and they want the pages to reflect accurate information. I read the articles and thought I was following what I was suppose to be doing but I'm being told that I'm not and I'm going to get blocked. I'm not trying to piss everyone off, I don't know website coding and I'm trying to read the articles and follow what's there but the edits are getting deleted. What do I need to do to merge and change the pages? Portgamble ( talk) 21:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)portgamble
I have noticed in the first paragraph of the page that it mentions this as Truffaut's only English language film. This is not true he has made at least one other one that i know of called The Story of Adele H.
" This was Truffaut's first color film[4] as well as his only English-language film."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451_(1966_film)
--
Jckinnck (
talk)
06:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I've already done some copy editing and cleaning up here, but am requesting assistance for several good reasons. I've been mopping up articles relating to California Impressionism, mostly in the wake of expansive edits by one contributor, and while a person could probably spend the summer on this, it's dispiriting, and could look like there's a personal agenda. Secondly, the indiscriminate laundry lists of exhibitions, references, etc, is indicative of the editor's style, but is especially inspiring in this article. I'm tempted to really carve, but believe it would be better to let others take the wheel. I've already done a lot, but suspect that beyond this article there's a lot more of this kind of thing that I haven't even looked at yet. JNW ( talk) 02:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I would ask for two things from an uninvolved editor. First, review Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 to see if the article has any problems with basic wikipedia policies (i.e. WP:NPOV). Second, review the talk page for the current disputes. Provide some thoughts on those dispute and proposal thoughts to move forward. Thank you for your time. Casprings ( talk) 03:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
In an RfC a few weeks back 9 editors (brought in from some irrelevant wikiprojects) were for changing the main description of an economist to theorist, even though there was only one reference that he was a theorist (later deleted!) and seven that he was an economist. Six editors were against it. (He was a professor, author of economics books, but his biography did not have a lot on the academic credentials because no one had yet done the work. The RfC was started by an editor who intensely dislikes the bio subject the day after I promised to beef up the economics section!)
Where is the best place to go to appeal this reliable source policy violation? Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 19:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Am I acting within policy to give a 4im warning for vandalism that is not exceptionally severe, but nevertheless is clearly bad faith, if the account is apparently a vandalism-only account? Jackmcbarn ( talk) 21:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I would like to create an article about Ernest J. Fawbush. As explained in Wikipedia's article on "Tornado Alley", Mr. Fawbush -- with his colleague Robert Miller -- was the first person to predict a tornado. Mr. Fawbush is dead, but his children (daughters) are still alive and I am in communication with them. Can I cite information provided by them?
I know that Wikipedia prefers printed documents as sources, but in this case, the best source of some information about Mr. Fawbush is his own family. If it is acceptable to use the statements of living witnesses, relatives, etc., how would Wikipedia prefer the information to be cited?
Cwkmail ( talk) 05:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
AHRQ Health Care Innovations Exchange ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I tried to update the information on the AHRQ Health Care Innovations Exchange article but my edits were reverted. Full disclosure--I am the Web Content Manager who works on this project. All the content on the actual site is public domain material. The goal of the site is share innovative practices that improve quality of health care, increase patient safety, etc. I believe my edits improved this article by reducing some of the promotional language and providing categories of topics that users will find on the actual site. Is it possible to have my edits restored and/or provide guidance about how I can improve the article. I want to describe the government project without using marketing language that violates Wikipedia standards. I believe my last set of edits were a step in this direction. Should I be using the dispute resolution noticeboard. I am not trying to be confrontational but would like the ability to make edits to this page to make it more informative and current. FieldsTom ( talk) 14:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Revised Article for SUN Area Technical Institute I submitted an article for SUN Area Technical Institute which was "speedy deleted" on the grounds that it was promotional. User:Seraphimblade provided me with feedback and I have revised my article avoiding promotional wording and eliminating the descriptions of our program offerings and the so-called "laundry list" of credits and certifications. All of facts under "History" come from binders of old school board meeting minutes and district agreements. I understand there is a proper way to cite newspaper articles, but the other sources I'm not so sure about. I had originally scanned them and provided PDF's on our website however the school's director explicitly told me not to provide those documents online. Thanks so much for any help and criticism you can provide me. -- Coffee ninja12 ( talk) 17:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Howdy, I'm looking to create an article about a mobile application that uses a common noun or verb for it's name. How should I title it so as to deal with disambiguation?
Looking around I could not find a naming convention that fit. Joe407 ( talk) 09:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I really could use some feedback on this Wikipedia_talk:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification_of_editors_on_clear_policy_issues so can figure out how many editors I can contact who in the past have explained policy to an editor on one article, when the editor goes on to yet another article and engages in the same policy violations. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 18:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Check the user's talk page to see how many warning templates have been placed there (some may be in the archives or have been deleted, but can still be located in the talk page history). generally, each warned issue has four increments, after which, as Mendaliv states, ANI would be the next step. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
There is mention in an article of an individual whose English WP article has been deleted because the individual was not considered notable in his field. If that individual is mentioned in the text of a different English WP article, is it permitted, encouraged, or discouraged to wikilink to an article about that individual in a foreign language WP? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Not sure this is the right venue, but I am having difficulties deciding what WP:HYPHEN means for open access journal versus open-access journal. These pages have been moved several times in the last few years and some stability would be good. Note that many organizations and initiatives outside WP use the form without a hyphen (e.g., Directory of Open Access Journals, Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities, Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing, Budapest Open Access Initiative, Global Open Access Forum, Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, Registry of Open Access Repositories, Social Science Open Access Repository). Any advice here or (perhaps preferably) on Talk:open-access journal would be welcome. Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 17:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
After the never-ending back-and-forth about K. Michelle's age, I was able to find two sources verifying her age that I believe are pretty legit - a school yearbook archived by the University of Florida and a reprint of the university newspaper. Not only do people keep rolling her age back, now they're deleting the links as well. Assistance would be nice. LoomisSimmons ( talk) 20:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I discussed with someone on this request — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.190.16.37 ( talk) 13:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
To whom it may concern,
I have been trying to correct a link on Steven Snyder's Wikipedia page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Snyder) within a patent template for some time now but have failed to do so.
If you look at the References section, the correct patent citation for this format doesn't allow you to insert an appropriate hyperlink for the patent in question. Instead, it generates a link from the Espacenet Database based on the information inputted. Unfortunately, I can't find the correct patent on this database, even though I can find it on the USPTO and PTO Direct ( http://www.ptodirect.com/Results/Patents?query=PN/D392266). No matter what changes I made to the citation, the link still remains broken.
If you could please help me resolve the situation, I'd greatly appreciate it.
Richard
RMRicondo ( talk) 14:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I've entered in my page a <ref>{{Harvnb}}</ref>. When I click on it, it correctly returns the reference. But when I click on the reference, it does not refer to the bibliography. Would you help me please. Thank's. Christian COGNEAUX ( talk) 09:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Please warn and block user 83.109.148.70 for several disruptive edits. See the users talk page for a list. User talk:83.109.148.70 -- BIL ( talk) 20:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Quick question: are there any policies or guidelines relating to editors who have English as a second language? Vashti ( talk) 01:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
MY NAME IS MICHAEL ALFORD I CREATED THE NAMESAKE DESTINY'S CHILD. TRADE MARK OFFICE HAS A FILE ONLINE WHERE I FILED A PETITION TO CANCEL. MATHEW KNOWLES VS. MICHAEL ALFORD. THE SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN WIKI-PEDIA POST WHEN YOU SEARCH DESTINY'S CHILD. THANK YOU SPIDERMANCOMTELBEY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spidermancomtelbey ( talk • contribs) 14:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Occupational health psychology ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello. Could you please tell me what is Wikipedia's policy on editors who constantly assert/claim they are professors etc so as to try and assert authority/control over other editors? I mean 'anyone,' can claim to be a professor, of 'anything' on Wikipedia. If all editors did that where would things be at?
Two editors, iss246 and psyc12, continuously make these claims (false or true) on the occupational health psychology talk page. And I have had enough. The opinions/comments/suggestions of more experienced editors would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Mrm7171 ( talk) 05:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, since I am new to wikipedia,I don't know much about it. Previous day, i was reading an article named "sethi" which is basically a caste of our region. There was some information that violated the religion's caste. When i tried to edit it, some use "Vigyani" and l "tsigma bo" put a lock. So i request you to please make that article available for editing and reviewing. It will be your gesture towards the new users joining to wikipedia. ATHANKS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devil badshah ( talk • contribs) 05:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Moro National Liberation Front ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article on Moro National Liberation Front appears to me to be heavily biased, and the most frequent editor identifies as MNLF Director for Advocacy and Special Projects.
I submit that there is a conflict of interest when any organization is allowed to maintain a wikipedia article about itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.187.153 ( talk) 21:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
have ayone considered that stonehenge might once have had a roof and is there any computer simulations or graphics of it regards deon cloete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.23.21.242 ( talk) 18:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Central Bank of Chile. ChickenFalls ( talk) 14:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I was reading something about For Mustang and this is how the page starts:
Ford Mustang
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No one like you. You have no friends. Go back the the faggot land ans suck your dads didck
The Ford mustang has the biggest ball u can ever find but they are not bigger than mine. is the worst car neither does darnell you could ever drive. garret has no dick is an automobile manufactured by the Ford Motor Company. It was initially based on............
When i enter the edit page, all the inappropriate stuff disappear! can you help fixing this page and let me know why the stuff was disappearing from the edit page? thanks
ETT of life
Paddle board yoga ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Would someone mind taking a look at this article? I'd reverted when some particularly questionable material got introduced, which was subsequently reverted again without comment, and had a third (and more established) editor step in and expand somewhat. I'm not going to revert again without getting outside input. Thanks in advance! —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 20:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
I have been working on an article for over a month now, and I finally feel semi-comfortable submitting it.
However I am looking for an editor who is willing to look over the article & it's references before I submit it.
If you can be of assistance I greatly appreciate it.
71.166.175.90 ( talk) 13:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I tried to fix the link (removed it and added again) from the English article to go to the Turkish "Canik Başarı Üniversitesi" but cannot work out why it is still pointing to the wrong page. The Turkish article links correctly to the English one at Canik Başarı University.
Any idea how I can fix it? How can we see what went wrong e.g. there a log somewhere to see how it got pointed wrongly to "Vakıf" in the first place? Jzlcdh ( talk) 19:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Bolding subtitles about the question whether subtitles of academic journals that are not part of the article title should be bolded in the lead. Not many people have participated in this discussion yet, so more input from editors here is welcome. Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 10:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Rajesh Touchriver ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please go through the article on "Rajesh Touchriver", now re-written using the format of a contemporary of his, Shaji N Karun on the wiki page. Please advise if the tags can be removed. Thank you. Shepherdson7 ( talk) 11:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC) Shepherdson7
Thank you Spinningspark. Will be a lot more careful about these the next time as these weren't intentional. Have revised it to make it comply better. Shepherdson7 ( talk) 18:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)Shepherdson7
Actor/Reality Tv actor/Internet Celebrity, please create this article. IMDb article - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5647420/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.52.173 ( talk) 05:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
Can so one put the logo up of Williams Chicken on the page for me http://www.logosdatabase.com/logoimages/77290400.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indoorsoccer ( talk • contribs) 21:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Benjamin Franklin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Benjamin Franklin was not the 6th president of the United States. He was never a president, someone is screwing around in his page. Can you remove this false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.244.36.228 ( talk) 23:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I created an article ( Pierce Penniless) using my Sandbox, but now I want to clear my Sandbox to create another article, but the sandbox seems to contain the first article and I don't want to erase the article itself, just the sandbox. If anyone could help me with this or advise, I'd appreciate it very much. Thanks. DocFido ( talk) 14:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much, everyone -- now I know. DocFido ( talk) 15:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Burzynski Clinic ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I just finished reading the Wikipedia exposé on Dr. Burzynski's ANP treatment.
I have several questions:
Your article cites the Cancer Is Serious Business movie as “one sided and biased”...I failed to see any argument in favor of ANP and/or Dr. Burzynski's successes....has he had any? How has he been able to withstand years of being indicted by the FDA and still be in business? Why am I in touch with several people who have had success with ANP, and why are there patients who particpated in Phase III Clinical Trials prior to 2012 still allowed (by the FDA) to have access to ANP therapy. Most importantly, if these patients (Bay Area's Noah Stout for one) are still alive because they were allowed access to ANP therapy, why hasn't that been reported?
I'm not interested in politics or conspiracy theories....just appreciate a "level playing field!"
Thank you,
David Lauser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlauser ( talk • contribs) 06:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Template:Infobox company ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I noticed that in the company infobox, image and image caption parameters had been added. Should this be reverted? Please advise. Aeroplanepics0112 ( talk) 00:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
An editor has created two articles ( List of Wisconsin Historical Markers in Kewaunee County and List of Wisconsin Historical Markers in Brown County) that are misnamed. Wisconsin Historical Markers are official markers placed by the Wisconsin Historical Society. Only one of the seven markers listed in the two articles is a Wisconsin Historical Marker. (See [12] for an official list.) Therefore, the articles should be renamed "List of historical markers in Kewaunee/Brown County, Wisconsin". How can this be accomplished? 70.235.84.220 ( talk) 16:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Juan Dominguez (lawyer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Various anonymous editors from 198.185.18.207 and 38.98.37.10 have contested that the information on Juan Dominguez (lawyer), a BLP article, is not NPOV and against wikipedia policy. They have continually deleted content on the article stating that J. Dominguez was accused of attorney fraud and resulting in the legal case being dismissed. The anonymous editor continue to insist upon deleting the section. In fact, they previously replaced it with a blurb stating ONLY that they have awarded millons of dollars on his behalf, which does not appear possible since the verdicts were terminated. For me this borders on an attempt to whitewash a BLP article that is completely in-line with Wikipedia:Core content policies. I would really appreciate help on this. Jeanpetr ( talk) 14:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Question before we continue more: Is this fellow even notable? —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 15:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
So we probably shouldn't even be using the language "He has been named a “Super Lawyer” for four years". Given the difficult nature of addressing this factoid in a NPOV fashion, I argue we shouldn't mention it at all, nor consider it an indicator of notability. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 13:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)A lawyer on our list is not a “Super Lawyer,” or, for that matter, a “Rising Star.” Rather, proper usage would be he or she “has been selected for inclusion in Super Lawyers–Rising Stars Edition 2008.” Used properly, the term is not descriptive, comparative or self-aggrandizing (which in some jurisdictions could raise ethical concerns).
I believe this issue is still ongoing; the possibly COI-afflicted editor has blanked the section on Tellez v. Dole claiming a consensus existed for it on the talk page. I don't believe this is correct, and furthermore, the Tellez v. Dole case would seem to be the only matter that makes this subject notable. Further input would be welcomed. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 15:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Peter Watts (road manager) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Good Afternoon,
My name is Puddie Watts, I am the widow of Peter Anthony Watts. I would like to speak with you regarding misinformation on our page. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by PuddieWatts ( talk • contribs) 22:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
This Is Not A Personal Attack
His name is "TheRedPenOfDoom". This is a link to his talk page - /info/en/?search=User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom. There are a number of warnings on his talk page, including a few serious warnings too . He does not reply to most of them and continues his disruptive editing. If he replies, he does that in an objectionable language.
See this - Finished reading Wiki Guidelines[edit]
I have finished reading the Wiki guidelines and I will be keeping a close watch on all your edits to make sure you are not involved in any war edits as a subject you might even be blocked. I saw someone pointing out that you were involved in an edit war. I am assuming good faith in you and hope you do not take part in any edit wars. Thanks Marcelrios (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC) I discovered that you made some recent changes on prankvsprank, making a few changes. I am still waiting to hear from the website about the reliability of the article so that there is no biased POV here. I suggest that you look into Wikipedia:Systemic bias before you continue with your edits on Wikipedia. Marcelrios (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
-huh wah the fuck does Systemic Bias have to do with PvP? Have YOU actually read that? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
If you go to his talk page, you will find a lot more . Thank You . Please leave a reply.Save Wikipedia!-- 1.38.22.125 ( talk) 12:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:ANI is the board to discuss user behaviour. However, you should ensure your own behaviour is also acceptable before filing a report, as it may also be scrutinised during the discussion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
---Sir ,RedPen has been involved in edit wars , even after several warnings from different editors/admins. The proof for the same can be obtained from the complaints on his talk page and from the comments of a fellow editor above. Redpen has been involved in disruptive editing, deleting useful pages, removing well referenced information and use of bad,abusive language (like the example shown above)when he fails to defend his point. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment. All the editors/admins should join hands together and work in order to contribute to this cause .Wikipedia is no not a personal property of any of us. No one can and no one should try to misbehave. Sir, in this respect, i demand strict actions against RedPenOfDoom . Please take some action because all warnings have failed to yield results. This matter is far beyond a scope of "Just Warning" !--( 1.38.20.88 ( talk) 20:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Wrong venue. Nothing to do here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 23:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Delhi state assembly elections, 2013 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Needs an experienced editor's opinion on possible misinterpretation or misuse of Wikipedia policies in a dispute.
Dispute is regarding 'whether to include the candidate list per constituency' of all the political parties in this article. Those who oppose the inlusion state that 1) It violates WP:POLITICIAN 2) It violates WP:UNDUE 3) Similarity/Analogoues nature of the issue to 'Wikipedia's featured article list' can not be used as the criteria for inclusion
Those who support the view say that
1) Creating biography of candidate is not a purpose of inclusion. So even though many of the candidates do not have Wikipedia article on them, their inclusion in the candidate list does not violate WP:POLITICIAN 2) As all the major party's candidate list will eventually be in the table, neutrality is maintained so again it does not violate WP:UNDUE. 3) Wikipedia's featured article /info/en/?search=List_of_current_members_of_the_Maryland_House_of_Delegates also includes name of the candidates who do not have any Wikipedia article on them thus making it all Wikipedia policy compliant.-- ratastro ( talk) 14:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Reconquista (Mexico) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Boogerpatrol has removed specific content from the text of "Reconquista (Mexico) (more than once) and posted some nonsense on my talk about "opinion", when the entire premise of the subject "Reconquista (Mexico)" is opinion, not factual. The text under this subject (Reconquista {Mexico}) needs to include facts, at the present time it does not. The sources used in the article in question are opinions, the persons quoted in the article are expressing opinions (and wishful thinking), not facts, therefore the "sources" in the existing article are not factual. It is, in fact, Boogerpatrol's "opinion", apparently, that the so-called "sources" in the article, which he has not removed, are "facts", because they are "sourced", but the sources are to opinions, not to actual historical fact, therefore those sources are not valid. Boogerpatrol's opinion should not be the motivating factor in the removal of facts from an article which is rife with fiction at present, and is in dire need of correction, which Boogerpatrol does not seem able to discern, or act on. His education on the subject he is editing is either too poor, or non-existent, for him to be editing,... and he does not respond well to getting an education on historical facts on the subject at hand, because when I posted facts on his talk page in response to his editing, his reply was to tell me not to post to him in reply again. Boogerpatrol needs to either stick to a subject which he knows something about to edit, or base his edits on something other than his own opinion, because the opinion of others, used as "sources" does not make those opinions "facts". CheyenneZ ( talk) 15:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Boogerpatrol violated the three-revert rule on this page. I did engage them on the talk discussion, and Boogertown, as I wrote in the above text, proceeded to tell me not to post any response to him in the talk. So deal with him, and block him for violating the three-revert rule. The subject of the article is obviously one that Boogerpatrol, and at least one other editor are lacking in education on, therefore, neither of them should be editing that page. CheyenneZ ( talk) 16:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events —
Using the first table's final entry (2012 Dec 31, Warren Jeffs) in the first table as my template, I added an entry regarded Michele Bachmann. Text does appear on the preview page, but it falls outside the table. The footnote citations are likewise inconsistent. Clearly I'm missing some table formatting element. I did read the specific tutorial pages but saw nothing on this; even going character by character, I can't find it. What have I neglected? (see my links for screenshots).
Thank you.
http://www.chuckbryant.com/images/wikitext.jpg http://www.chuckbryant.com/images/wikiresult.jpg
Is importance inherited? I tagged The R Music Group for WP:CSD A7. I hadn't found anything in the article asserting importance, and in addition I had run a Google check and found no substantial coverage to support notability.
In response, the author posted this on the talk page:
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (this is a record label and management company. that recently signed a deal with Ingrooves Fontana. Page was not finished being setup within all of the guidlines of wikipedia. I would like to finish the page.)
I know notability is usually deemed not to be inherited, but is importance for purposes of determining whether an author has implicitly asserted it? In this case, even if the article had mentioned INgrooves Fontana from the beginning, and even if I had already known the significance of INgrooves, would it follow that a statement that a record company has signed Ingrooves should be interpreted as an assertion of the record company's importance? (By the way: At the time I tagged the article, there had been no mention of INgrooves. It was added afterwards. I don't know if that makes any difference.) —Largo Plazo ( talk) 11:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Please decide something for this article. If there is still an issue, please notify me to eliminate the errors. Mohegh ( talk) 15:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC) Mohegh
Hinduism and other religions ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article is isolated but viewed, included a large amount of WP:Fringed material and hardly any religions compared to pages like Christianity and other religions until I added a lot of content to it, and some user named "Blackguard_SF" randomly started reverting the edits. Other editor joined this, and presented the views that he/she opposed, the issue went to DR [13], the editor seems to have refrained from this subject, but the user "Blackguard_SF" still seems to be disagreeing with the edits, and still reverting back to the Fringed version, after claiming "written like essay, major issues", while he never discussed this topic in talk page or anywhere else, but sure made personal attack, which is obviously not helpful or good faith. Point is, that this page needs to be reviewed once again, as it's fully changed now, and if you see any mistake, kindly let me know. Thanks Justicejayant ( talk) 10:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Good afternoon,
Yesterday my colleague and I tried to create a wiki page for a candidate running for office in New York City in the upcoming election. We had loaded in biographical text and links/references to a variety of news articles that have run in reliable publications. Late yesterday evening when I went back to check on the page I was directed to this /info/en/?search=John_Burnett_(New_York_politician) and all our text was gone. I am unsure how to meet this notability criteria to have the page show for public viewing. Advice most appreciated.
Thank you, smosher2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smosher2013 ( talk • contribs) 16:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
John Burnett (New York politician) was deleted, since it made no plausible assertion of notability ( mere candidates for office are not notable, if all the press coverage is of their run for office). If you work with the sleazeball who added smarmy language like, "Burnett comes from humble beginnings and worked his way up in the financial services industry. Along the way, he never forgot where he came from and is actively involved in the community and various New York based charitable organizations" to the article, you should both be ashamed of yourselves. -- Orange Mike | Talk 17:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
To expand on the previous answer, we have several criteria under which an article may be immediately deleted. One of those is that the article makes no assertion of significance, which OrangeMike explained well above. Another is if the article is clearly promotional (for anyone or anything, not just a corporation). In this case, the article's language is blatantly and obviously promotional, and reads like a campaign brochure. The article could have been appropriately deleted under that criterion as well. Since it seems likely that you are closely affiliated with the subject of the article, you should review the guidelines for editors who are in such a situation. A review from neutral editors may help determine whether this person is an appropriate subject for an article, and if it is so, make sure it gets written in an appropriate manner. If the sources to demonstrate notability don't exist, I'm afraid we can't allow the article at all. You may want to review the general and biographical guidelines for notability, and see if those are met here. Also, would be a good idea to review the requirements on neutrality, as that article certainly was not neutral. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Zinia Pinto ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please review my draft /info/en/?search=User:Dsouzaron/draft_Zinia_Pinto and advise if she meets the notability criteria. Thanks. Tissueboy ( talk) 09:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
A user has been redirecting the article to its Production Studio page when the page easily passes the Notability guidelines. Please someone dive in as the editor is getting very aggressive by rampantly doing the same over and over again. Marcelrios ( talk) 19:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Now the same editor is involved in an edit war with me over Stealing Mary. Pleasel ook into his edits. He keeps placing tags even though the article has all the necessary references attached to it. Marcelrios ( talk) 20:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)