![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I am experiencing problems with the editor In ictu oculi concerning Pablo Casals. I noticed that, even though Pablo is typically used on Wikipedia, he was mentioned in some of articles as Pau, his Catalan name. In good faith, I went and changed these to Pablo for consistency and to help the reader. The above editor mentioned that this was problematic and gave a link to Google Books. Upon looking at this link and performing further searches, however, it appears as if Pablo is used overwhelmingly, and the use of Pablo and Pau in texts related directly to Catalonia is mixed, with Pau not appearing to be more common. I have given all of this information on the talk page, but the user has ignored it and asserted that I do not understand the situation. As a compromise, I changed my edits that affected Catalonia related articles to restore Pau alongside Pablo and explained my reasoning for this. Even after doing so, which was intended to suit both opinions, the user insisted that I should not have edited the articles and Pau should be restored alone. I have tried to discuss the situation, but I feel as if my attempts at explanation are being ignored. The main discussion is on Pablo Casals. There exists another conversation on El cant dels ocells that might be of note. I ask you to read this to see the link provided by the user: he performed a search for '"el cant dels ocells" "pau casals" song' to assert that Pau is more common, which is inevitable if the user explicitly searched for Pau Casals. Changing Pau to Pablo in this search gives twice as many hits. I hope other editors might be able to look at this situation to provide advice. After realising that there might be opposition to my original edits, I have provided further information and attempted to come to a compromise, but all of this has been ignored. I have no choice but to seek guidance from those elsewhere and from those who might consider properly what I have written. 131.111.185.66 ( talk) 00:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=R4ZESwAACAAJ&dq=casals+catalan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sqQLU7CzBsWp7AbSzYCQDg&redir_esc=y (uses Pablo) http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ssQhIHb-gx8C&pg=PA97&dq=casals+catalan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sqQLU7CzBsWp7AbSzYCQDg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=casals%20catalan&f=false (uses Pau) http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lwQCywAACAAJ&dq=casals+catalan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sqQLU7CzBsWp7AbSzYCQDg&redir_esc=y (Pablo) http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VNyocuVg5m0C&pg=PA173&dq=casals+catalan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sqQLU7CzBsWp7AbSzYCQDg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=casals%20catalan&f=false (Pau) Many other books exist that discuss Casals whilst mentioning Catalonia, but, because they had a more general scope outside Catalonia, I have not listed them here. This is because the above user appears to be focused on Catalonia-related articles. There are many of these books, such as this: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=m8W2AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA113&dq=casals+catalan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sqQLU7CzBsWp7AbSzYCQDg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=casals%20catalan&f=false (Pablo) I can understand why editors might wish to use Pau in an article about Catalonia. My problem, though, is that this name is unfamiliar to many English speakers. A very quick way of seeing this is to search 'Pablo Casals' and 'Pau Casals' into Amazon with the 'Music' department selected. At least on Amazon.co.uk, there are 400 hits for Pablo and just 38 for Pau. It seems to me beneficial to note Pablo when Pau Casals is mentioned in these articles, but the other user appears to want any trace of Pablo removed. 131.111.185.66 ( talk) 20:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I thought I would provide a couple of pieces of information from the help pages. Firstly, there is WP:SURPRISE. Secondly, we have this from the manual of style: 'Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so. Also use a link, but do not make a reader be forced to use that link to understand the sentence, especially if this requires going into nested links (a link that goes to a page with another technical term needed to be linked, which goes to a page with a link to another technical term, and so on). Don't assume that readers will be able to access a link at all, as, for example, they might have printed an article and be reading the hard copy on paper.' 131.111.185.66 ( talk) 20:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Götaland ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Problem here. SergeWoodzing ( talk) 03:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
{{
cn}}
maliciously in the way you suggest, particularly when only used once or twice. Furthermore, you have continued to blindly revert and restore the improper capitalization to "King" when used as a proper title. I have reverted you. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/
18:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Monarchy of Sweden ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Problem here. SergeWoodzing ( talk) 14:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Geats ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stemming from the above dispute, it would be helpful to get additional eyes on the dispute at Geats. The problem seems to be with what sourcing is needed for the etymology of the term, and has spilled over into other articles such as Götaland mentioned above. I will refrain from summarizing the opposition side as I do not really understand why there is opposition to sourcing the claims. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 16:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Dial H-I-S-T-O-R-Y ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hello,
I would like to get the "his article appears to be written like an advertisement"-tag on my 'dial H-I-S-T-O-R-Y' page removed. I have improved it since I had the tag but I don't know what to do next. So here are my requests: - Can anyone point out where/if there are still problems in my article? If so, I would appreciate it if anyone could show me the any sentence that is a problem. - I can't check in my history who added the tag, so that way I can't ask this person to remove it. Where can I get feedback on when this tag could be removed?
Thanks, Johannesdebruycker
Page: /info/en/?search=Dial_H-I-S-T-O-R-Y Johannesdebruycker ( talk) 09:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
For over a year an editor has been changing the GPS coordinates of random locations. Neither a source nor a rationale has been provided for any of these edits, so it's hard to know whether the edits are OK. Could some geographically-inclined editor please check this out? Thanks. 71.139.148.231 ( talk) 21:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Though there is no express exception to Wikipedia's general rule about sourcing for coordinates, there seems to be something approaching consensus by silence that while sourcing coordinates is the best practice, that coordinates do not have to be sourced. (See this brief discussion.) Part of the problem is that if coords are inserted, as usual, in the title of the article and/or in an infobox as part of the built-in parameters of the box, there's frequently no non-clumsy way of adding a source reference (the source parameter in the coord tag is expressly intended for use by bots per the tag documentation; adding a ref in an infobox — which worked in this case — may well break other infoboxes, especially if the ref is long, complex, or has unusual characters). (See this discussion.) But in my mind, the bigger problem is that that many subjects which lend themselves to being given coordinates simply cannot be located except through original research or reliance on sources which would not be considered to be reliable for other purposes. For example, Wikipedia:Obtaining_geographic_coordinates#Manually says that it is an acceptable practice to provide coords for an article by going to that place yourself and using a GPS unit to obtain the coords. Similarly, on a number of occasions, I've provided or corrected coordinates for articles by simply looking up the street address of a place through Google Maps and then using Google street view (or, in both instances, some other similar service) to confirm that the place on the map that the search has taken me is really the place the article is about. Though I'm a strong believer in proper sourcing for article content, I'm, frankly, okay with this situation. To me, coordinates are a lagniappe or "add-on" to the article, as are images, which are also generally unsourced except for copyright compliance, or are from unreliable sources, and are frequently original research (e.g. my panorama which appears in the Bisbee, Arizona article). The only time that sourcing should be a requirement for such things is when a dispute arises about them.
Hi I edited the page airline airbags by adding the airline Air Astana.However in doing so i messed up the page's layout and i dont know how to correct this. Please help Simon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.82.168.253 ( talk) 13:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Tutorial/Wikipedia links ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
On: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Tutorial/Wikipedia_links&action=edit
-- it says, "...If you want to link to an article, but display some other text for the link, you can do so by adding the pipe "|" divider (SHIFT + BACKSLASH on English-layout and other keyboards) followed by the alternative name. For example:
[[Target page|display text]]
will display as this: display text ..."
Shouldn't "Target page" be something a bit more relevant to the topic at hand? As it is, it's the actual main Wikipedia homepage and not an example "target page" relevant to the lesson. I find that confusing. It seems to me that "Target page" should be a dummy page with an explanation saying that it's the real target of the text link, "display text".
I'm using Firefox with the Interclue add-on, an excellent tool for seeing where a link goes without actually clicking on the link. But Interclue shows the condensed text of "Target page" and it seems confusing unless I actually go to that page -- which is still confusing!
Cheers!
Webbie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webistrator ( talk • contribs) 22:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
List of Midsomer Murders episodes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello Wikipdia. I am just wondering whether you can help me please I can't seem to fix this article on the Midsomer Murders page. As some information from Series 1 is missing. The viewers part of the information seems to be missing and also the filming date information as well. I am hoping that you could fix it for me please thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.142.141 ( talk) 07:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Gustavus Adolphus Pastry ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The merger discussion here is a bit stagnant and needs attention. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 08:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Please note that the merger suggests that the article about the pastry be merged with with the article about the day when it is served, not with the article about the king. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 18:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Black Veil Brides ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - /info/en/?search=Black_Veil_Brides
Let's start with the genre, everyone seems to be throwing genres everywhere without actually paying attention to the characteristics of them or the characteristics of the band in question, "metalheads" are trying to put a void between the band and the label "heavy metal" and Black veil brides fans are trying to push for them being labeled as a metal band.
This has resulted in the editors trying to appease both/all parties involve by labeling them loosely with Blanket terms like "shock rock" and "glam rock".
Their earlier releases as "Black veil brides" (we stitch the wound (2010), set the world on fire (2011), can be easily characterized as POST-HARDCORE (a subgenre of hardcore punk.) They have the screaming/shouting vocals that are often present in post-hardcore, they have the simplistic clean guitar sections and chorus driven song structures that other post-hardcore bands display as well as pop punk styled CLEAN SINGING sections. Their music is almost identical to other post-hardcore acts like FALlING IN REVERSE, ALESANA and PIERCE THE VEIL.
Falling in reverse's song "born to lead" from their release "fashionably late" (2013) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItxJFWITRxk I think this is a perfect example because it's actually a NEWER song and therefore is arguably more relevant to Black veil brides than older post-hardcore releases (especially if you're going back as far as the mid 80s.)
Black veil brides's song "Knives and pens" from "we stitch the wound" (originally on their first ep "sex & hollywood.) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFDCHdKbKBY The songs are both extremely similar, the main difference is that Falling in reverse's song in general is more complex (less focus on the chorus, more complex clean guitar riffs and slightly more complex and plentiful drum patterns.)
As you can see both songs start with a clean singing section and then move to a harsh section (both are attempting screams.)I'd in fact argue that Black veil brides's song Knives and pens fits the characteristics of "post-hardcore" better than falling in reverse's song (which is LABELED as post-hardcore.)
Here's a NEWER Black veil brides song which appears to be even more similar - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuGzJVKtW6g (there's a much higher emphasis on pop punk elements in this, the song structure is less complex than "knives and pens" however the leads are more technical, This still easily fits the label of "post-hardcore" although I think you'd have to note the emphasis on clean singing similar to pop punk and the increasingly simplistic song structure also found in pop punk as well as more simplistic drum patterns which fit in either pop punk, pop rock or glam rock/metal.)
Many people love to label Black veil brides as a metalcore band and there are many similarities (as post-hardcore bands tend to be VERY similar to melodic metalcore bands.) I find that although there are similarities that the heavy metal influence is not particularly present in Black veil brides music. (in metalcore's case this comes from thrash metal/groove metal - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6XCItRgC2w and MELODIC DEATH METAL if you're referring to Melodic metalcore bands - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AepTFljiq04 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO9kGDNyQkw You'll still notice thrash and groove metal influence is still present in these two other songs even with the elements taken from Melodic death metal.)
You'll notice that the metalcore songs (especially the melodic metalcore songs.) are structurally a lot more complex, they usually contain many more riffs and are not so reliant on the chorus, you'll also notice that the drum patterns are more varied and less simplistic (A trait obviously from thrash and even more prominent in melodic metalcore because of the Death metal influence.)
Apart from the song structure, the vocals are quite different as well, Clean vocals are prominent but don't seem to be the main theme in metalcore (not even particularly in melodic metalcore.) although this can vary from band to band, the harsh vocals tend to be quite different as well, many metalcore bands (but not all) tend to utilize both growls (usually weak, high pitched growls.) and somewhat thick mid-high pitched screaming vocals as well as shouting vocals. Black veil bride's harsh vocals are thin, weak and shrill shrieking vocals and although they can be found in melodic metalcore, they're found more often in post-hardcore.
- http://www.last.fm/music/Falling+in+Reverse (post-hardcore) - /info/en/?search=Falling_in_Reverse (post-hardcore) - http://www.sputnikmusic.com/bands/Falling-In-Reverse/24527/ (post-hardcore) - https://itunes.apple.com/au/artist/falling-in-reverse/id439592053 (post-hardcore) - http://www.punknews.org/bands/fallinginreverse (post-hardcore)
If A lot of Online sources are labeling a SIMILAR ARTIST as Post-hardcore would it not suggest that Black veil brides are also a post-hardcore band? (I'm happy to expand the list but it suggests that I should keep the links to a minimum for whatever reason.)
Anyway onto their latest release, listening to it I can still see post-hardcore present in it but I'm finding similarities with alternate rock/pop rock groups like panic at the disco, fall out boy, sum 41 and even Blink 182 (It's like they're taking different things from each band.)
Anyway the whole point of this section was to get Black veil brides label AWAY from the "glam" label, musically they sound NOTHING like this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WAZ60xA9wo or this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDcBKVKQizg - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0EQlIzPowM (This song is more similar to Panic at the disco...) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOgpdp3lP8M (song by panic at the disco that according to the wiki page should sound less like that song than the two glam songs.)
I'm also not fond of the "shock rock" label either, I'd suggest LADY GAGA'S performances/style suit the characteristics far better, Black veil brides are a pretty average modern punk band. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPiZVs2dy-4 (at warped tour.... a predominately PUNK concert held if I'm correct annually.) Does this performance look any different than this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IGDnVTP2Bc or this performance - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBq5fdJaukc really differ that much from this one? - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9LlP-BKVVg
Again I think this whole "shock rock" thing was just a ploy to appease the angry biased people from both sides that have been "fighting" all over the internet.
The only reason I believe the band is grouped with glam is because of a MISCONCEPTION about their appearance and because of them labeling some glam metal bands as influences (funnily enough everyone skips over all the punk, post-hardcore, pop rock, electronic and even metalcore influences they've listed.)
The bands earlier appearance was reminiscent of the mid 2000s SCENE KIDS trend (dyed long swept fringes, skinny jeans, skate shoes, white/black band T's or sometimes a white T with a colourful picture on it, face paint especially Black eye shadow and eyeliner and even sometimes white face paint for that "Anime" look.)
They seemed to have kept the "scene" style hair but have swapped the clothes for a leather approach, bands from Judas priest to Guns'n roses have been seen wearing similar attire (some glam bands did as well.) which is where I think most people are getting this "Glam rock/metal" label from.
Anyway I've got more but I think this is long enough, I'm happy to provide a much greater amount of references and evidence if need be and to go further into detail ESPECIALLY on the musical genre. I'm sorry that this was rushed.
Technicalbrutaldeath ( talk) 14:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Edit: I may post a shorter version but one paragraph is hardly suitable and you also failed to sum up my request, I'm asking them to list Black veil brides as a Post-hardcore band with pop punk, alternate rock, melodic metalcore and pop rock influences, I'm asking them to remove the "glam" AND "shock rock" label and consider leaving the hard rock label (as that's the only blanket term I can see fitting for their music.)
You're going to have to explain that last part to me, as I've mentioned I'm new to requesting/editing wiki pages (which is why I've chose not to edit anything yet, I'd prefer someone with more experience do it but perhaps look at what I've provided.)
Technicalbrutaldeath ( talk) 15:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Talk:BP ( | article | history | links | watch | logs)
Over the last couple of days it seems the Talk:BP fishing section has been overrun with soapboxing about me, my lies, my misinformation, my alleged COIs and generally my evil-doing. This is not something I consider desirable personally or for Wikipedia. Am I handling it right? And what should I do? Geogene ( talk) 23:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
James Caan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
According to your records he started acting in 1961! But I just saw him on Bonanza in 1959 s1/ep13 (vendetta) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.85.98 ( talk) 19:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Underwater locator beacon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Editor is not allowing any edits. Person isn't helpful either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.128.40.138 ( talk) 03:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi and help! I think I once saw something about a way to link to a talk page thread in such a way that no matter how the thread is later archived the link will still find the thread. Can someone please remind me how to do that? Thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 11:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
To my dismay, I learned early on when beginning to contribute to Wikipedia articles about historical people, that a woman who was a queen of a country, for example, normally is not called that in an article's name but she is referred to there by her often obscure maiden name plus maiden title which thus can lead to text entries and image captions like Queen Hedwig Elizabeth Charlotte of Holstein-Gottorp (a German location which has never had any queens) rather than Queen Charlotte of Sweden and Norway which to me would be more logical as well as give due credit (even in her article's name) to the more important of a woman's titles and legacy. I have corrected hundreds of such misleading text errors by now.
This maiden name stuff is carried too far, in my opinion, when some editors, who are very busy with articles on royalty, in a manner that borders on WP:own, will not even allow a woman's higher and more important and more famous title to be given in bold type in her article's lede. That must be confusing to many readers. OK, so I've accepted the maiden title stuff as incontestible, but I see no logical reason for this latter development of the principle, and I think it should be curtailed.
Where, please, can I start a constructive discussion on this topic? -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 16:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
No one did that, so perhaps you might want to do so. If you do, you would be well advised to read the closer's entire remarks about how the new RfC should be formulated. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 17:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)There was agreement that the current conventions on the naming of consorts is insufficient, but because of the nuances in participants' positions, no particular solution was wholly agreed to. I recommend starting a new RfC where one or two concrete proposals from this discussion are put forward...
Off-topic complaint about this request. The request is about how to seek policy change on a specific issue. The request was answered. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I can live with seeing you badmouth me on talk pages of other users, SergeWoodzing, but I would very much appreciate being informed and/or pinged when you mention me on project pages. Thank you. Surtsicna ( talk) 16:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
|
One time as I was patrolling Recent Changes, I discovered the article Kinzelyuk Waterfall. It is a short article; the only information in it is its height and relationship to other geographical features. I'm afraid it may not meet WP:NGEO, but I'm not sure whether I should nominate it for deletion, as the Russian Wikipedia does have an article about it. Please help! ChromaNebula (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
:::А. А. Федоров would seem to be Andreĭ Aleksandrovich Fedorov, a botanist notable enough to have an article here. Spinning Spark 00:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I have found 3 wikipedia pages with unreliable, unsourcable material. I have tried to delete the material myself, but other users keep reverting my edit.
Links and the info I find unsourcable / unreliable are as follows..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koi#Health.2C_maintenance_and_longevity
"One famous scarlet koi, named "Hanako," was owned by several individuals, the last of whom was Dr. Komei Koshihara. In July 1974, a study of the growth rings of one of the koi's scales reported that Hanako was 225 years old.[14]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest-living_organisms#Aquatic_animals
"Some koi fish have reportedly lived more than 200 years, the oldest being Hanako, who died at an age of 226 years on July 7, 1977.[53][54]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_life_span#In_other_animals
"Koi (A Japanese species of fish, 200+ years, though generally not exceeding 250) Hanako was reportedly 226 years old upon her death.[15][16]"
Is there any way to have this unsourcable information removed? Supposedly this fish died before anyone was using the internet, so the story / legend has followed on to the internet through word of mouth, not an actual reliable source.
It seems to be very misleading.
I'd like to show the most recent edit on the Koi page
" 17:49, 20 March 2014 CombatWombat42 (talk | contribs) . . (28,449 bytes) (+487) . . (Undid revision 600468346 by McGeddon (talk) Not a particularly exceptional claim, has been in the article for a long time, find a source proving hoax and I will be happy to see it deleted, else BRD) (undo)"
I think having to find a reliable source to debunk already unreliable information, is counter productive. Rather we should have definitive proof about this so called 226 year old fish, and if there are no reliable sources whatsoever, chalk it up to being a hoax / myth / lie, and has no place on wikipedia, just as the loch ness monster is not to be taken as fact either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.248.70 ( talk) 05:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'd like to start off by saying there is no researchable evidence to say Koi live anywhere between 50 years and 226 years.
Based on not seeing evidence of Koi living past 50 years, let alone 100, 150, 200, etc, we can rule out the Hanako story.
But, since it's so widespread on the internet via unverifyable sources, I guess I can show you some links / discussion that disagree completely with Hanakos age.
http://www.koi-bito.com/forum/main-forum/2047-growth-rates-longevity.html
http://www.koiphen.com/forums/showthread.php?13181-Life-Expectancy-Of-quot-Kept-quot-Koi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.248.70 ( talk) 03:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
http://www.koiphen.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-35646.html
http://www.koishack.com/forums/topic/2270-how-long-to-do-koi-live/
I hope this is enough to keep the Hanako legend in the fantasy realm, rather than still being repeated as fact?? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
124.148.248.70 (
talk)
02:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Rollercoaster (song) ( | article | history | links | watch | logs)
I'm having trouble with archiving a talk page. The discussion is old and no longer relevant since the article has been rewritten. I have successfully moved the current talk page to Talk:Rollercoaster (B*Witched song)/Archive 1 but now cannot clear the main talk page as it appears to be vandalism. Can someone please help? I tried posting this in the false positive reports but has been days and no response.
147.69.137.58 ( talk) 10:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi! There is a category in Wikimedia Commons that I would like to use in an article, but no equivalent category in main Wikipedia. Is it possible to use such an imported category? Thanks! -- BenBurch ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Hebrew GAWD- English GOD. Name of the Assyrian deity, and is repudiated by Yahweh in Isaiah 65:11 "But ye are they that forsake Yahweh, that forget My holy mountain, that furnish a table for God, and furnish a drink offering to Meni". Traina, A. (2007 reprinted). Holy Name Bible. Ronceverte, WV 24970: Yahshua Promotions. pp. 869–870. {{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: location (
link) Holy Name Bible translation
DamondLMitchellSr (
talk)
06:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)DamondLMitchellSr
Nam(u) Myōhō Renge Kyō ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Could someone help out on above mentioned article? Beginning edit war with IP user. 1. This article is not about Nipponzan-Myōhōji-Daisanga 2. This is NOT the Russian Wikipedia. When looking at the article's history its been a long way to reach consensus as Nichiren Buddhism relatated issues tend to be controversial by nature. Links to Nichiren Buddhism which leads to articles on respective schools included. Please note that Nam(u) Myōhō Renge Kyō is the fundamental mantra to basically all Nichiren Schools who seem to have nothing better to do than to kick each others head in online – proclaiming peace. Cheers.-- Catflap08 ( talk) 17:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Sheboygan Municipal Auditorium and Armory ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I've already reverted these edits twice, so I can't revert again. But maybe I'm missing something. Are these good edits? [1], [2], [3]. Thanks for some help with this. 70.235.85.36 ( talk) 02:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Sale High School ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello, This is a revised version of a request I posted on Talk:Sale High School a week ago, to which there have been no responses.
I came to that page while searching for information on Sale High School for Boys, attended by playwright Robert Bolt. The current co-educational Sale High School is completely unrelated to the old one, being the successor to Norris Road Secondary Modern School. On closer inspection of the page, I see that John Andrews, named as a Sale High alumnus, would have attended the old Sale High for Boys in the 1940s, unless he was one of the first pupils at the Norris Road Secondary Mod.
However, when I attempted to add a note mentioning the existence of the two earlier schools called "Sale High School" (the Boys' school and the corresponding Girls' school on a separate site) and the risk of confusion with the current establishment, it was removed by an experienced editor. I don't think the older schools merit an article of their own (and my information is purely personal knowledge, the only potential references being somewhat unclear Friends Reunited pages), so can somebody please suggest an acceptably Wikipedian way to stop the confusion of old and new. 90.246.91.194 ( talk) 11:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
{{
about}}
or {{
for}}
disambiguation link at the top of the article if there's only one or two existing articles about places that were once called "Sale High School" would work. But if those schools weren't called "Sale High School", but something similar, it's probably not appropriate to use the disambiguation link or disambiguation page structure to link people to those schools from Sale High School. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/
15:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Can you please help me to create a new entry "A closed form solution for Linear Programming"?
Thanks, Garry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrynewyork ( talk • contribs) 13:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Next-Generation Incident Command System ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can you please provide more specific reasons why you marked my content for deletion? The reasoning is quite vague. Jlrsn ( talk) 18:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Wercengetorix ( talk) 23:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/?search=goingthruvinyl&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go
I started to remove links in Wikipedia which direct to a site that I say is now in copyright violation. As well, the links were initially inserted into Wikipedia for advertising. My removal of the links have been reverted twice over by an editor "Hobbes Goodyear" who states I do not have evidence to back up my position. I have not been able to settle the matter with the editor; they either fail to see my reasoning, or choose to ignore it, and I feel it has come to a battle of will over reason. The editor's approach has always seemed to me as authoritarian and dismissive.
I was the one who inserted the links and requested the article which heavily relied on the site for references because I was directed by the owner of the site to do so. I am locked out of the site, and not in communication with them anymore, so the matter cannot be resolved there, and I think that any more discussion with the editor will be wasted time.
below is the interaction on the editor's talk page:
Extended content copied from
User talk:Hobbes Goodyear
|
---|
copyright claim appears spurious--please explain your rationale on talk page Wercengetorix (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Hello Hobbes Goodyear: I am the original contributor and editor of the site of the link in question and the original editor of the placement of the links in the Wikipedia article in question, and of every edit remaining that lists or references goingthruvinyl. In Canada, copyright exists automatically when a work is created. My work has been taken by the site against my will and requests to remove my work, or to be paid for it have been refused, my name has been removed, and my access to the site has been locked out. Not only is the site in infringement of copyright, but the links were put in at the request of the owner, not to increase knowledge or for respect of the artist, but simply for advertising his site. Other links and cited references have been discovered and removed as being advertising. The ones that remain are the ones that have not been discovered. Below are the sections of the copyright act to which I am referring: From the Canadian Copyright Act: Moral Rights Infringement Infringement generally 28.1 Any act or omission that is contrary to any of the moral rights of the author of a work or of the performer of a performer’s performance is, in the absence of the author’s or performer’s consent, an infringement of those rights. Nature of right of integrity 28.2 (1) The author’s or performer’s right to the integrity of a work or performer’s performance is infringed only if the work or the performance is, to the prejudice of its author’s or performer’s honour or reputation, (a) distorted, mutilated or otherwise modified; or (b) used in association with a product, service, cause or institution. R.S., 1985, c. 10 (4th Supp.), s. 6; 2012, c. 20, s. 19. You have provided no evidence that you are the actual author. You have provided no evidence that the website in question has acted unlawfully or immorally. You have provided no evidence or claim that this website is acting in contradiction of any legal decision in the matter. If you have pursued this matter within your own legal jurisdiction and have obtained some sort of judgment or injunction against this website, please point to evidence of same. If this is a legal matter, please have it decided in your local jurisdiction, not here. In my own opinion, some of the refs to this website are useful, some are pointless--I agree that the pointless ones should be removed. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Wercengetorix (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC) First you reverted my removal of links for not explaining the removal, then you reverted my re-removal of the links with my explanation of violation of the Canadian copyright act. You stated my claim appears spurious and asked for my rational. I provided this, and did so in a way that was concise to not overburden the reader whilst not to attach my name any further to a site I deem to be unethical. I provided most relevant points to which I am referring with enough information for the reader to easily verify the copyright act for themselves, should they wish. Your point 1 states I provide no evidence that I am the original author. True, I do not. I do not wish to associate my name with the site at all nor have any of my work there. I do not have to be the original author to say the site is in violation of copyright. I assert there is work there that is "in the absence of the author’s or performer’s consent", that is "used in association with a product, service, cause or institution", and believed to be "at the prejudice of its author’s or performer’s honour or reputation". Point 2 states that I have provided no evidence that the site has acted unlawfully or immorally. Point 3 again states that I have provided no evidence that the site has acted unlawfully or immorally in the matter then says to have my legal matters decided elsewhere: "If this is a legal matter, please have it decided in your local jurisdiction, not here." Point 4 says that in your opinion some refs are useful, yet you agree that some of the refs to the site are pointless. I admitted that the refs and links to the site were done for advertising and not in the interest of the artist involved, or for the benefit of knowledge in general, and the ones that remain are the ones that successfully circumvented the filters and rules of advertising on Wikipedia. I am considering which legal option to pursue with the site. No determination has been made. As for sufficient evidence for yourself, what evidence would be sufficient aside from the evidence that you, yourself have found that some of the references are pointless and perhaps used as that as evidence enough to back up my claims that the references and links were inserted for advertising, and carried that further as evidence to reason that the site itself may not be ethical? And even if it came to an either/or decision doesn't the negative claim seem to hold much greater weight, proof, and a detriment to people involved rather than to let them remain? And if I am to have my legal matters decided "not here", why then didn't you state that earlier when I used the violation of the copyright act as my explanation? Can the removal of the links be adjudicated by a higher authority in Wikipedia? I feel that I am being met with resistance and a battle of wills and control issues rather than a reasoned condition for reversing my edit. If I sound frustrated, it is because with this issue of copyright, I have recently been at the losing end of someone at the attached to a computer with more control while I was trying to do the right thing. Or perhaps the matter could be settled here; if you could explain which refs and links you feel should be removed and which should stay, perhaps we are in agreement; I'm agreeable to keeping the references and links to articles which refer to theft of material and unethical contracts. I find the irony amusing. There are two issues here. Leaving copyright aside for the moment, if the external links are not useful to a reader of the article, then they should be removed. Please see Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided for guidance, although it might be better that you post requests at individual article talk pages, rather than remove links yourself, as you hardly seem neutral in the matter. I have reverted some of your changes, but left others intact, assuming that you also edit under the name User:Utsid3sP1q3. And as a side note, please edit under a single user name or at least identify on your user pages that accounts are operated by the same person--see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. You should assume that where I reverted, I thought that the links were of use. In at least some of the cases where I did not revert, I thought the removal was valid because the links were more spam than useful. You are making unfounded claims that you previously behaved wrongly at WP (by adding these links in the first place) and, now that you have a business grievance (again, unfounded), that you have seen the light and would like to undo your past wrongs and, incidentally of course, damage the other party. I do not find that this makes you especially credible. You provide sections of copyright law, but no evidence that they apply here at all, other than your anonymous assertion. I am not an expert on what constitutes a good case in theses situations, but it seems to me that you provided no case at all. You might want to briefly summarize the situation here: Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems, and ask for help on how to proceed. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC) Wercengetorix (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC) There are more than two issues here, and more important than the ones you listed. I can see only one of two reasons for your omission; either you fail to understand, or choose to ignore. Additionally, you are making your own determination into my motives and actions. I asked if there were a higher authority to adjudicate the matter. I tried to reduce the issues to simple logic, and I find your logic does not follow and you seem to fail to build upon evidence and reasoning before you, including your own. If not an honest mistake, then I feel you are simply recalcitrant to overturn your action and ego is determining your thought. The links you provided seemed to be more misleading than pertinent. I have provided the information asked of me. I never claimed to be neutral, but stated my position openly when asked and the reasons for my action; to which you, in some circumstances, have found yourself in agreement. Removal of links to a site I claim to be unethical and in violation of copyright requires a determination from court or does not, and if not, either my claim backed up with the evidence I provided is sufficient to remove the links, or if not, then it comes down to your opinion, in which circumstance, you admit you're not an expert. Then let someone else in a better position adjudicate the situation. I stated my position, and backed it up with evidence, including your own agreement. Reasonably, where does the greater harm lie; promoting a site which may be unethical and in violation of copyright and shown to be advertising, or removing a link? I feel that you are abusing your position as an editor to impose your will, blindly. Let me hear from someone else that I am required to get a determination from court, if that's not required, then direct me to someone who can make a reasoned determination; I find your approach a little insulting. If I am misinterpreting you, I am sorry, but I don't wish to deal with you for the reasons stated above. If you have been wronged in your business dealings, then I commiserate, but is it reasonable to expect me or any other Wikipedia editor to support your actions based solely on your anonymous say-so? You refer to "the evidence I provided", but I see none, other than your anonymous claims. If you just want to vent on my talk page, well, okay, that's fine. I have already agreed with you that, in some cases, these links are just spam, in which case they should be removed, regardless of copyright. But, if you want me or other editors to act on your claim that these links are to copyright violations and so to be avoided even if useful, then I think you have failed. If you want advice on how to make a better case, then I again urge you to seek advice at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. Here's what I would post there: "Hi. I wish to remain anonymous, but I used to work with this website where I provided content. We had a falling out, but they continue to publish content where I hold copyright, without permission or compensation. I am considering but have not yet begun legal action to stop them. There are links to some of this material in Wikipedia. One or more other WP editors believe that some of these links are valuable, and so disagree that they should be removed, unless they are in violation of copyright. Unless and until I am successful in my legal proceedings, is there anything I can do to have links to this material removed per WP:COPYVIO?" --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC) Wercengetorix (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC) Ok, I am frustrated (with the issue in general and with some points in specific). Please bear with me. I still feel as if I am being treated dismissively, and I am surprised at the opposition with which I am being met. The matter seems clear enough to me to require quick and decisive action but am meeting a bulwark. But perhaps we can end the matter here. For the matter most important in specific: you (you, not me, but you) are still affirming there is evidence that back up my claims that the site is unethical and spam/advertising then saying that I provide no proof (or just "anonymous say-so") I'm not referring to what I'm saying, but to what you have determined. Your confirmation is my evidence. I tried to make that clear, but we seem to be stuck there. Something more than nothing is not nothing. x > 0 ≠ 0. That is as clear as I can make it. If you are reluctant to remove the links because you have yourself gone to them and enjoyed what you found there, I can appreciate that, but the site started out with good intentions and it has greatly deviated from it's beginnings to where it is now in violation of the law and in violation of Wikipedia's policies. I am now asking not only for the site's links to be removed, but also for the site to be blacklisted from Wikipedia, as from what I've found so far seems to be a sufficient case to do so. If you will confirm that and act on that-good, the matter will rest there. If you still feel it does require further proof, I would like someone else to arbitrate the matter. Please bear in mind that even at the beginning of the site's inclusion into Wikipedia that the intention was to advertise the site, upon that, within Wikipedia's policies, the links should be removed. Upon that the site is now in copyright violation and other repeated violations within Wikipedia, it seems sufficient to have the site blacklisted. If you still feel it does require further proof, I would like someone else to arbitrate the matter. Going through the links you provided more thoroughly has led me to the following to enforce my position in hopes that we come to complete agreement. from: Wikipedia:Copyright violations "Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues." From: Restrictions on linking "For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception: 1. Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted :works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work, or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that :violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement.[2] If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its :copyright, do not link to it. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly :relevant when linking to sites such as Scribd or YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright." Not to be rude, but to illustrate my argument, that seems to take precedence, despite what you find useful. "without exception" Additionally, this would have been helpful when I asked if there were anyone else to arbitrate the matter: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_requests /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution From: Links normally to be avoided. 4. Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions. See external link spamming. 11. Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.) From: Advertising and conflicts of interest "Main pages: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Spam It is obvious that a link from Wikipedia to an external site may drive Web traffic to that site. But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a :site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if Wikipedia guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and :let another editor decide. This suggestion is in line with Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guidelines. Wikipedia uses the same standards for evaluating links to websites owned by for-profit and (real or purported) non-profit organizations. Links to potentially revenue-generating web pages are not prohibited, even though the website owner might earn money through advertisements, sales, or (in the case of non-profit :organizations) donations. Choose which pages to link based on the immediate benefit to Wikipedia readers that click on the link, not based on the organization's tax :status or your guess at whether the website's owner might earn money from the link." I have more evidence to back up my position, but hope this is sufficient to end the matter here. I think it is sufficient evidence not only for the site's links to be removed, but also to be blacklisted from Wikipedia. If you feel it does require further proof, I would like someone else to arbitrate the matter. Is that enough to remove the links and blacklist the site, here, with you, as it stands now, or are we still in disagreement? To /info/en/?search=User:Arbor8 - I am sorry, but I do not know what ANI refers to. Sorry for not indenting properly, etc. Again, if you have been wronged in your business dealings, I commiserate. But if I say, "Some is spam, some is not", this does not mean "all is spam, blacklist them". And it is unhelpful to keep regurgitating yet more policies against copyright violation. These are not in question. What is in question is whether there is a copyright violation in this case. Given that there is only your anonymous claim, and that you continually decline to provide any other evidence whatsoever, why would you expect impartial third parties to take action against this site? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC) |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wercengetorix ( talk • contribs) 23:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi There, someone has filed a deletion for our Company Article in English, this is an error and I kindly request to restore the page online. The article is en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selerant. there is no reason for deletion as the company in on business. Ncolombo ( talk) 03:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Minas Morgul ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I added the "Notability" template to Minas Morgul because it appeared to me that while sources are provided they are all inherently linked to the Lord of the Rings franchise and do not in and of themselves establish notability of the subject. Another editor disagreed and unilaterally removed the tag twice. It is my belief that when the removal of a maintenance tag is contested it should remain in the article until there is a clear consensus favoring removal. There is now a Talk page discussion regarding the sources themselves here, but I would appreciate a ruling on the appropriateness of removing the maintenance template. Thank you! DonIago ( talk) 15:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Given that the article's at AFD now and Gimli and I are discussing the situation a bit at my Talk page (and the article's Talk page? I haven't looked there yet), I'd be content to see this closed or collapsed; in any case I consider it settled and thank all editors for their involvement. DonIago ( talk) 17:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello I have been involved in a dispute over a relatively minor issue. I am trying to get an Infobox and have opened a Rfc. However, one editor is being quite aggressive towards me. He/she has also stated 'Allow me to say it again for your infobox... "it ain't happening". RfC all you want, I have no problem with everyone, Australian or not, having their say. But, it ain't happening'. He/she appears to be unhappy that I am trying to edit an article on Australian politics and I am not 'local'. Is my proposal for an Infobox really that stupid? Should I be allowed to edit articles on Australian politics? I took this to the talk page but this editor has been quite unpleasant. Please give me advice or assistance here or on the page. Thanks. LordFixit ( talk) 00:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Of course you can edit articles. Consensus still applies though. You're flogging a dead horse, there's half a dozen oppose and only you support. It ain't happening. Timeshift ( talk) 01:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Rosenberg shoes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am writing referring to Rosenberg shoes. We are a 111 year old company that has two choices. Do I follow a path of Historical relevance or one orientated towards one with a business bias. Both seem to be viable. Unfortunately business is easy to cite and source, where as historical, from my experience can be hard to provide excellent citations. I have created a balance and admit that I am still learning how to create the page. Another project I would like to start reviewing is the Prahran Club. The Prahran Club again is one of the oldest clubs in Melbourne or be it Australia, with a wonderful rich history but again hard to cite apart from photography. As I would like to participate more within wikiprojects, I would ideally like to start communicating with some more senior members of the Australian Wiki community. I would like to hear from historians or business authors as to how a historical / business page could be improved. Thanks in advance. Blueskiesinthemorning ( talk) 06:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Mendaliv. As discussed I have been looking into the prahran club history also, but unfortunately it looks like developers and politics have engulfed the club. Thank you for your candid response, I could have hidden the fact but chose to be open and up front about my article. I am proud of the business. With many stores closing, our store remains stedfast considering the age, something that is against the norm. We have a wonderful history, a wonderful customer base and a beautiful store front. I appreciate your comments and will review similar listings to continue with improvements on the article. I have found some terrific historical documents from the national archives website relating to my great grandfathers naturalisation and grandfather service with the RAAF during world war II. Despite these documents, I am in agreement with you. To follow both paths makes the article multidirectional and possibly confusing in contrast with other articles. I will work on improving the article and provide a clear direction. I was pleased to see a recent post by the user 'Biatch' with a great write up relating to Windsor. Thanks again, I appreciate your response and understand the position. Blueskiesinthemorning ( talk) 10:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I have translated the following article to sinhala language. /info/en/?search=Arnold_Ross
But in my sinhala article (specially in that infobox) there are still some English words.But don't know how to change it.Please try to help me. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaturaka ( talk • contribs) 01:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Recently the article Clarence Snyder underwent speedy deletion for copyright violation, and 123chess456 posted a notice on my talk page, apparently thinking I had written the article because of my edit history. I didn't create the article, don't remember what my edits were (this was apparently in 2005), and since the article has been deleted, I haven't been able to review the history myself. 123chess456 did say that one edit was "a major edit", but also that my "edits were minor".
I reviewed the Oversight FAQ and it really sounds like Oversight is for more serious things, but 123chess456 suggested that I request Oversight so that my edit history isn't connected with what was apparently a blatant copyright violation. Is this something that I should request Oversight for, and if so, what should I request? That all my edits to that article be suppressed?
(Also, is there any way for me to view them, now, after the article itself is deleted?) DavidConrad ( talk) 20:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Sean Lien ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please forgive me if it turns out that I have come to the wrong place. Sean Lien is now in the midst of a heated campaign for mayor of Taipei. I have tried to change his page from one managed by those promoting his campaign to one that is balanced and properly referenced. Kai010101 and others seem inclined to start a wiki war. I think it best to admit that I am not a supporter of Mr. Lien, but I do believe that he is deserving of a fair and balanced page. I have decided not to revert Kai010101's last edit, but I do find the reasons given inflammatory. I do though acknowledge that I could have chosen some of my words more carefully. I ask that an editor who can view these things impartially take a look at recent edits and handle this in a manner that those more experienced in these matters deem best. Thank you. ShunfaSu ( talk) 12:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into this. As I said, I think that I should stay out of it. ShunfaSu ( talk) 15:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Landskrona BoIS ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
that keeps suggesting that headlines are "option statements", while I think of them more as a summary of the next part of the text. For instance "1994-1996 Financial disorder led to dual relegations" ,there are no problem with its sources. So I find it very strange, and have found similar and related articles whith such headlines. As I see it, the headlines are NPOV, povided that the following text supports the headlines (incuding sources, of course.)
in Landskrona , and then asks for reference !
A strange thing jus occured, as User:Reckless182 has answered at behalf of User:Swedishpenguin (at the talk page of the article). So if I have suspected sock puppety, it isn't strange. But at present , we need help as it turnes out to be an edit warring. User:Swedishpenguin seems to think it's funny to destroy rather than create. Please read his last comments at my talk page. But we do need help to solve this. Boeing720 ( talk) 09:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
The article is nominated for deletion (1 day left). There are a several sources, see the extra listing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick McKeown (2nd nomination). Needs general editing help and verification that those sources are reliable. There are several audios and few large textual interviews. Thanks. sobaka_kachalova 05:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SobakaKachalova ( talk • contribs)
Here are several pages that need for some proper additional translations, as always, no copyright usage there:
I would like to replace all instances of: File:Map_of_Roman_roads_in_Italy.png
With: File:Italy_topographic_map-ancient_Roman_roads.svg
The latter is based on data from the 1926 edition of the "Historical Atlas", by William R. Shepherd, traced by me ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Ancient_Roads_of_Italy_and_Sicily_nopng.svg), with a geographical map made by User:Sting ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Italy_topographic_map-blank.svg) and combined into one by User:Flappiefh.
Do it?
-- Agamemnus ( talk) 03:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
UE Boom ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
So this article about a wireless speaker was kept at AfD on pure WP:GNG grounds earlier this month (I wasn't part of that discussion but probably would have reluctantly !voted to keep barring a good policy argument that it failed WP:NOT). Nonetheless, there have remained some issues that I had tried to address, such as describing the product as "rugged" or the rubber body as "sturdy", including rather substantial quotations from reviews, use of the ® and ™ symbols, including an unsourced "reviews analysis" section, several needless sections, and keeping the infobox image width in line with other articles. Naturally, I was reverted. Discussion is happening (mostly at user talk pages), but I'm concerned that I'm not explaining these things adequately. I'd appreciate additional eyes. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 12:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Chemtrail conspiracy theory ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi, I am having difficulty with a topic in which my good faith edits are repeatedly reverted. [8] [9] [10] The description in the reversion summaries vary pushing a POV, pseudoscience or fringe topic (I am not) and most reversions are summarized with what I feel to be illegitimate reasons. My edits are based upon reliably sourced facts that should not be in dispute. I have discussed these issues nearly to death. [11] I am being accused of various things for which there is no foundation (which continues [12]) and I wound up losing my cool. I do not want this to happen again. I know there is a procedure to handle my concerns but am unfamiliar with starting or completing these processes. I am requesting assistance in properly resolving a content/conduct dispute and how to handle the unfounded accusations. The latest is here [13]. Thank you Johnvr4 ( talk) 17:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I created an article at the request of a group of other editors some time ago. I keep getting notifications every time someone links to that article. Is there a way I can remove my name as creator or ask that I no longer receive just those notifications about new links to that one specific article? Thanks in advance for any assistance. Meclee ( talk) 22:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I might consider a new bug or perhaps a request for a user preferences option. Regards Meclee ( talk) 19:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Siege of Lal Masjid ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A series of anonymous IP editors have been removing considerable sections of the "Siege of Lal Masjid" article. I have been reverting these actions, along with other editors. After one of my last reversions, I got a message stating that the spam detection filter disallowed my reversion. After a while, this became a simple "non-autoconfirmed user making rapid reversions" tag. I just want to make sure that there isn't a valid reason for the mass removal of this content. Is there a political minefield I'm walking into here? I don't want to revert anything if it is contrary to a previous decision. I don't think this is the case, as there hasn't been activity on the talk page in more than 6 months, but as a new editor I wanted to double check to make sure I'm approaching things correctly. I have since autoconfirmed, and the latest reversion went through just fine. WikiSpamIsFun ( talk) 06:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Earlier today I noticed two wiki's that I have been following recently - were combined? These two articles were completely unique of one another - and it confused me. The wiki's in question are a company and the companies CEO. Now the companies wiki was merged into the CEO's wikipedia, and this didn't make sense to me. The company is quite large as well as the CEO - so it doesn't make sense that these two pages be one. Looking for some insight to curb my confusion. Thanks!
Wiki's in questions:
CEO: /info/en/?search=Ronn_Torossian Company: /info/en/?search=5W_Public_Relations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southjimkelly ( talk • contribs) 21:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Is it possible to withdraw my own advanced submission for a new article that has been nominated for deletion? 49.181.236.168 ( talk) 09:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Williams Landing railway station ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An issue has ben raised on the Williams Landing railway station#Cost & criticisms article over whether neutrality policy has been breached by the addition of uncited text. There has been correspondence (3-4 edits each) and it has reached a stalemate. The dispute was nominated for a WP:DRN but knocked back on the basis it hadn't been discussed thoroughly enough. As the original issue was raised by a third editor, doesn't qualify for WP:3O.
In theory the discussion could go on, but I don't think either editor has much more to add. As it stands there is a 2-1 consensus that not to include the added text, but would prefer to get some sought of outside opinion, so that all editors can be comfortable with the decision reached. Is there an appropriate place to seek this? Mo7838 ( talk) 02:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Hallo, I have problem when using this template: template:South America topic. When using suffix, I can choose whether there is space between the main word and the suffix. However, when adding prefix, no matter I use the word "prefix" or not, there is always a space between the prefix and the main word. Are there any methods to delete the space between them? Thanks. Linzaap ( talk) 13:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
2=Geography of
) or "List of South America topics" (2=List of
, 3=_topics
). Note the underscore there; since the template parser presumably ignores leading whitespace (so 3= topics
gets parsed as "topics
"), whoever designed the template noticed that the linked text was underlined anyway, so the underscore is covered up. Thus, you can have headings like "South America-related topics" (3=-related topics
) as well. Linzaap's problem appears to be that prefix
automatically adds a space, so you do something like 2=Anti-
and 3=_Politics
; you'd just get "Anti- South American_Politics".suffix=
parameter, which presumes a space, you could probably also just use
in the 2
parameter. But I'm not about to go mucking about with that family of templates since it'd likely require a bot operation to update all instances of the template. And for the same reason I'm reluctant to touch the template to accommodate Linzaap's request. I'm honestly not sure exactly who to ask about this either since this is quite a large family of templates. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/
10:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
sidesteps the whole need to use an underscore issue. The documentation for these templates should probably all be updated to reflect that. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/
10:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
{{{1|{{{prefix|}}}}}}
" with "{{{1| {{{prefix|}}}}}}
"; that would make the 1
/prefix
parameter pair work in the same way as the 2
/suffix
parameter pair (use 1
when you don't want a space, prefix
when you do). Note of course that this template may depend on other templates that your language Wiki may not have implemented, or may not implement in the same manner. In other words, it might not work. Good luck. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/
12:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
{{North|a|suffix=b}}
, it generates the result: aNorth b
. However, if I type {{North|prefix=a|b}}
, the result is b North
)(the result I expect is a Northb
). Do you know why the result is above and are there any ways to solve it?
Linzaap (
talk)
00:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
{{North|prefix=a|b}}
is equivalent to {{North|prefix=a|1=b}}
(since named parameters aren't included in the "count" for the number of unnamed parameters), and the 1
parameter apparently overrides the prefix
parameter. To get the expected result you'd need to do {{North|prefix=a|2=b}}
. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/
00:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
I am seeking advice on what to do about dealing with one particular editor ( SPECIFICO) who IMHO abuses the WP:BRD process. He frequently reverts my edits and then fails to constructively participate in any meaningful discussion. FYI this editor has recently been permanently topic banned from "Ludwig von Mises Institute". A very recent example was when I placed a few paragraphs giving an argument about making a set of edits on a talk page, ending with "does anyone object", to which his reply (which I'm quoting in its entirety) was "yes I do". Surely this is, at best, unconstructive. I think his subsequent edits are typical of his modus operandi. Reissgo ( talk) 19:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
NewSpring Church ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Newspring church with perry noble as pastor is NOT affiliated in any way shape or form associated with the Southern Baptist convention or any other Baptist. Please change this misinformation as we DO NOT claim this church at all!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.64.96.47 ( talk) 05:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
date=October 2011
parameter. Looks like it was cut-and-pasted from the long-deleted
Newspring church (though I'm not sure I would A7 what's currently there). I wonder if it would survive AfD. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/
06:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, this is about a videogame developer called "Bplus" with a less than stellar track record: Its past games have not been reviewed well, with typical metacritic scores between 44 and 52: [15], [16], [17], [18].
Now this company has released a new game called "Bit Boy!! Arcade", where there aren't yet enough reviews to warrant a metacritic rating, but it's not looking good either: [19].
This videogame creator has its own promotional page on the web where it seem oblivious to its track record, featuring lots of positive reviews from pages that I have never heard of: [20]. Which is fine, of course they can do whatever they wish on their own website.
But please take a look at this article: Bit Boy!! Arcade. In the section "Reception", the same pattern of only featuring overly positive reviews is present. ("received almost only positive reviews", quickly followed by "universal praisal").
Now I've asked several of the big videogame review sites to review this game. All of them declined. So there are only reviews from small review sites. And these small review websites are all conspicuously positive. So this is a question about "not enough good data". There is data, but it might be tainted, or obscure.
My question: Are there inclusion guidelines how notable a review website must be to be included in a reception section?
Or my question In other words: can I create a videogame that is so obscure as not to be reviewed by the big boys, get a few positive nods from unknown review websites, and then write on my wikipedia article that I've "received almost only positive reviews" and "universal praisal"?
Thanks. Srezz ( talk) 00:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
So an argument has come up at an AfD that for a medical research company to be notable, it must be notable for its products or its scientific discoveries, rather than its corporate or financial business. Furthermore, it seems to be being argued that the sources used must not have relied in any way on the company's press releases to be considered "secondary". See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novavax, Inc. More opinions would be appreciated. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 07:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I have two questions regarding what makes a stable title. First, does an article's title become stable if it has remained for several years, even if it was moved to that title by a user who is now banned? Second, if an article was boldly moved to a new title, can it be reverted years later under WP:BRD? I'm asking because User:bobrayner reverted years' old moves of a great many articles recently for these reasons and they don't seem valid to me, so I'm trying to find out if that is the case. Please let me know if this is something I should ask elsewhere. Thank you. -- Local hero talk 15:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Cornelius Gurlitt (art collector) was turned into a redirect to 2012 Munich artworks discovery, referencing WP:BLP1E. Now that Gurlitt has passed away, it would seem that this policy does not apply anymore. Is the subject notable enough for his own article? On German Wikipedia, which does not exactly have a reputation for inclusionism, the same question was essentially answered with "absolutely!", so I'm quite a bit surprised that the typically significantly more inclusionist English-speaking Wikipedians appear to disagree. I also have to say that I find the situation where Cornelius Gurlitt (art collector) and Cornelius Gurlitt (art dealer) are both redirects rather unsatisfying and unfortunate for the reader who seeks information specifically on the man himself, which is now spread throughout the article 2012 Munich artworks discovery, even where it does not really belong. Another possibility would be the creation of a subsection specifically on Gurlitt. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 19:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I am not sure what to do here. Glevum ( talk · contribs) is doing edits with a very substantial amount of copyediting, like this, this and this. As far as I can see, the copyediting is good. The little thing that irks me is that he marks all these edits as minor, while they clearly are not. I tried to raise the issue very politely on his talk page, but he removed my post -it means he's read it, but hmm, doesn't strike me as collaborative. What should be done? It is a minor issue, but I don't know what to do in these cases. Thanks! -- cyclopia speak! 16:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
I would like to expand this section /info/en/?search=The_Harvard_Advocate#Notable_past_members into its own article titled List of Harvard Advocate people. Is there an inline procedure for expanding sections into articles or should I go through the create new article window? 2hayden2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2hayden2 ( talk • contribs) 04:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
New York: A Documentary Film ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello,
I noticed in the entry for "New York a Documentary" by Ric Burns credit for a participating Historian,"Craig Steven Wilder" was omitted in your entry...I believe he his contribution was informative and extensive.
Thank you,
John Richardson (Redacted)
(Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.247.224 ( talk) 03:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm new to wikipedia editing and tried to make a minor edit to the entry "Biopower." It did not seem to be working apparently because someone else was immediately changing it back (took me a while to figure this out). My change put the definition at the front so that if someone googled the term, they would get the definition on the search page without having to open the article. A definition would give the meaning of the term rather than the originator of the term (though of course "Foucault" has a particular meaning for anyone who has read him--not necessarily the audience for the definition). I found the responses of the other editor to be aggressive and made the experience pretty unpleasant. I'm still not entirely clear on how editing wikipedia works. I'm a graduate student with interest in knowledge claims but don't have a lot of time. Is there a simple tutorial to guide people through the process? Again, that my edits were so immediately and summarily dismissed made me think the program wasn't working. Assistance would be much appreciated. Thanks! Eburg Editor ( talk) 13:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
The Ribbon International ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am having a problem with an editor changing a word in a sentence. After the second change, I provided a link to information for the proper use of the word, on his talk page. I then again, changed the word back to the original. The editor then made another change incorporating the information I had posted concerning the word, but it was still wrong. I then changed his word back to the original. The editor has now changed the word again, two times. The sentence would have to be totally rearranged for the word to work right in the sentence. The following are the word changes in the sentence.
Original - The Ribbon International is a world wide art project comprised of 36 x 18" cloth panels, promoting abolition of nuclear weapons, disarmament, peace, care and protection of the earth and its inhabitants.
Frist and second edit - The Ribbon International is a world wide art project composed of 36 x 18" cloth panels, promoting abolition of nuclear weapons, disarmament, peace, care and protection of the earth and its inhabitants.
Third and fourth edit - The Ribbon International is a world wide art project comprising 36 x 18" cloth panels, promoting abolition of nuclear weapons, disarmament, peace, care and protection of the earth and its inhabitants.
The word comprising should reflect to The Ribbon International, as the panels being the basis of The Ribbon International and NOT being the basis of the panels. In order for the sentence to read correctly:
A world wide art project of 36 x 18" cloth panels comprising The Ribbon International, promotes the abolition of nuclear weapons, disarmament, peace, care and protection of the earth and its inhabitants.
Apparently this editor was more concerned with making his 100 edits that I read about on his talk page. Thank you Susan Macafee ( talk) 02:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
-ing
suffix in English is so productive that you can more or less assume it's acceptable. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/
16:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)UE Boom ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(see previous thread at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 120#Minor dispute over product article)
The creator of this article insists on assessing it as mid-importance for one WikiProject, as well as marking it as C-class, despite some ongoing disputes as to the appropriate depth of coverage, neutrality, and other issues. Is this appropriate? —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 08:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
An editor has removed a wikilink to the subject identified in an image because they say there is already a link in the article text (in this case the opening paragraphs). My understanding is that image captions should include wikilinks even if these links duplicate links in the article text (the logic being that readers looking at the image are not reading the article and should not have to search out the link in the text in order to link). I skimmed Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions, but I can't find a clear statement regarding our standards for captions and wikilinks. Any ideas? Candleabracadabra ( talk) 13:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
This is my first time posting here, so forgive and appropriately redirect me for any mistakes. Basically, I've been editing the page K'naan (Somali-Canadian rapper) for language/structure and adding newer information (with references). As is the case with articles sometimes, you come across disputes with other users, who may disagree with your edits and prefer to make their own edits/reverts. Recently, I have come across a certain user who has done so a number of times, I don't feel its time for "dispute resolution" since we have just begun to take it to the Talk Page. I would mainly like consultation to observe some of my concerns and whether they are valid or not. Since I don't feel it would be right for me to press my angle, if it were to be in the wrong.
1) I added a disambiguation header linking to Knaanic language, since "Knaan" redirects to the artist. This was removed by the user.
2) A section titled "Feud with k-os" (another Canadian rapper), was replaced with "Musical disputes". I object to this because, its only one "dispute/feud" so no point added a plural/nondescriptive header. Furthermore, "Musical disputes" implies creative differences a rapper has with a producer/writer/artist he's working with, not a feud with a rival/competing rapper (k-os) as is the case. The concept of " rap feud" is common in the Hip Hop world, and commonly mentioned as such in most Wikipedia articles on rappers.
3) A section entitled "Activism and views" made mention of K'naan's activism work, as well as his "view" a comment he made on Somalian piracy. The user renamed the section "Philanthropy", and removed any mention of the Somali piracy comment, citing it to be irrelevant or unimportant. I beg to differ, since the artist is Somalian closely connected to Somali culture/issues, and Piracy is a big issue related to Somalia. This is where i noticed there seems to be a deliberate attempt at POV or whitewashing the subject article. 'Philanthropy' has positive connotations whereas 'Activism' has neutral/variable connotations; this seems to be against the spirit of NPOV. Outright removal of a controversial section like his view on piracy seemed to fit in with that line of thought. His editing of "feud" to "musical dispute" also seemed to be an indicator of the deliberate toning-down of language in the article.
This is the Talk Page section where I've brought some of these concerns to the user directly: /info/en/?search=Talk:K%27naan#Philanthropy // DA1 ( talk) 05:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm back! An editor has redirected an article on an obviously notable subject. It's part of a pattern of going after me, so I want to avoid the conflict entirely and get a clear community consensus on the subject. I would like a wide hearing of it. I am familiar with the AfD process and I would like to use that, but I have taken some criticism for nominating an article to determine whether it's a legitimate subject when I don't want it deleted. I think that's silly, AfD is where it's decided whether we include an article subject, but if that's a problem.. What are my other options? I am wary of RFC. Will that draw a wide audience to actually look into the subject and determine notability? I don't want drive by "I don't like it" votes. I want the sources and coverage to be assessed fairly. What is best way to deal with this situation? Candleabracadabra ( talk) 19:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Since the article is under discretionary sanctions ( Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Final_decision), and given that "the assumption that a particular change of the climate is taking place" is the consensus view among scientists", and since two administrators have reverted what they deemed to be POV versions of the article, and since the article in its current state still preserves the original spirit of the "more neutral terminology" view, I suggest that extraordinary care be taken here. Drmies ( talk) 12:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Brady Dougan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Early Life of Brady Dougan has been removed and replaced by career. 178.197.227.241 ( talk) 00:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Requesting an editorial review of Council_of_Graduate_Schools ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am a paid editor for the Council of Graduate Schools. We would like to request some help with updating, expanding, and providing external sources for this page. We have drafted content at the article's Talk page that we would like to request a third-party review and post if s/he feels it is within Wikipedia's guidelines for neutrality and documentation. Thank you for any help you provide.
Nwt007 ( talk) 19:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)nwt007
Should articles about French institutions be titled in French or English, such as St. Charles Garnier College? Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names states that the common name should be used, which is Collège Saint-Charles-Garnier. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) states that it should be written in English, which is St. Charles Garnier College. Which one do I go for? Pjposullivan ( talk) 17:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I screwed up and did a copy-paste move to try to purge an image cache from commons - I really should know better, but I wasn't thinking straight. Short story, the file that used to be hosted on en.wiki at File:Editorrib18.png is now hosted on commons at File:Editorrib20.png, but the move to commons left file info on en.wiki, which I moved to en.wiki's File:Editorrib20.png page by copy/paste instead of a proper move. What I need is the edit history at File:Editorrib18.png moved to File:Editorrib20.png, and I hope that deleting the File:Editorrib18.png page (and any redirect left behind) will allow the updated commons image to propogate through en.wiki, but at the very least, the edit history does need to be moved. Thanks for any help. Van Isaac WS cont 05:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Sir, I was just accidentally uploaded the that article.The proper things and equations are ready with me .Can i proceed with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anu.gp ( talk • contribs) 17:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
131.179.232.36 ( talk) 00:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)My assistant tried to add a section to this entry. It was deleted three times with no adequate explanation. The editor mentioned "copyright" and "formatting" issues, but all our sources have copyright release, and our format complies (to the best or our understanding) with all other entries in wikipedia. We tried but failed to ask the editor (Evergreen) to be more specific. Can you help? Respectfully, Professor Judea Pearl UCLA <redacted> 00:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC) 131.179.232.36 ( talk) 00:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
We would like to add our company to Wikipedia but as owners we can not do this. Not sure how to go about having this done but if you require a list of articles and information on the company we would be happy to provide anything. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.25.224 ( talk) 15:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
ReCellular ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dear sirs,
It has come to my attention that a disgruntled employee has posted malicious content to the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReCellular
The information posted is not factual nor correct in many aspects. It should be obvious to the editor that the post is clearly intended to discredit myself (John Petzold) and the company.
I would ask that the recent edits made be reviewed in further detail and the author intents be reconsidered for context and purpose. I would be glad to provide factual details relative to public information, but I am restricted in sharing specific company information which is confidential.
eRC (eRecyclingCorps) is a great company and has an excellent standing in the industry and community. They purchased the assets of Recellular out of receivership, not the company Recellular. In doing so, they saved the jobs of many. The few select individuals who were affected by the restructuring of the new business do not represent the majority of those who are still employed and the edits as posted affect and discredit all. It is unfair and unjust to allow such malicious content on your site.
I hope you understand and make an effort to truly provide an appropriate post.
Thank you in advance for your consideration. Please feel free to reach me directly.
Sincerely,
John Petzold General Manager, Mobile Karma — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.32.34.74 ( talk) 15:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Please refer to the recent discussion that has occurred on my talk page. I've been asked to stop creating redlinks in articles, and been told I'm doing nefarious, prohibited things. I'm not really interested in defending every one word change I make with two or twenty paragraphs of rhetoric, or becoming a Wikipedia lawyer.
Please review the state of affairs on my talk page, and let me know if I should go elsewhere with my time. Thanks. 70.247.162.65 ( talk) 00:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
To me, this signifies that I can be bold so long as I'm doing it in a box. I can't accept that.
If that's not the way it works anymore, then so be it. Was fun while it lasted. 70.247.162.65 ( talk) 01:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, for one, you shouldn't put redlinks in a see also section. But as to other redlinks... I frankly don't know enough about the subject area to say whether, for instance " ray interpretation" should be redlinked. The rest of it... meh. I think Cuzkatzimhut et al. might be being overly picky about these things, but again, I don't know enough about the subject area. You shouldn't let this drive you out of editing, but do try to maintain a cool head, and understand that virtually everything that happens here is open for discussion at any time. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 02:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
This might not be the place to report this but I've had difficulty finding where to report it. I made two replies to comments at /info/en/?search=Talk:Media_Matters_for_America and the User:Scjessey deleted them using Twinkle. I restored them and User:Scjessey deleted them again. If someone wants to archive a subject on a talk page that's fine with me but to selectively delete my replies is a different matter. Isn't this also an abuse of Twinkle? I haven't done anything else about the matter except for sending an email at Special:EmailUser/Oversight. However, I wondered if that link was working because I checked the box requesting that a copy of my request be sent to my email account and a number of hours later, that copy still hasn't been sent. TL36 ( talk) 20:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Guys, I noticed during my wikiing today a lot of edits on Indian National Congress by one editor and also, upon looking at their contributions, further edit of very similar nature centred around the same subject. Some of the edit seem very constructive and neutral, some seem determined to remove any information on controversies surrounding the Indian National Congress party and its officers, even though some of these issues seem to be well sourced and referenced. So, the question, how do I approach this editor to seek confirmation of neutrality i.e. no Conflict of Interest, or does this get escalated and approached from an administration wikipedian? Kind regards. The Original Filfi ( talk) 12:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
This isn't exactly the right place to request the intervention of a Steward. To contact a Steward, you should use one of these methods (a post here isn't likely to be seen by one):
Hope this helps. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 09:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I am experiencing problems with the editor In ictu oculi concerning Pablo Casals. I noticed that, even though Pablo is typically used on Wikipedia, he was mentioned in some of articles as Pau, his Catalan name. In good faith, I went and changed these to Pablo for consistency and to help the reader. The above editor mentioned that this was problematic and gave a link to Google Books. Upon looking at this link and performing further searches, however, it appears as if Pablo is used overwhelmingly, and the use of Pablo and Pau in texts related directly to Catalonia is mixed, with Pau not appearing to be more common. I have given all of this information on the talk page, but the user has ignored it and asserted that I do not understand the situation. As a compromise, I changed my edits that affected Catalonia related articles to restore Pau alongside Pablo and explained my reasoning for this. Even after doing so, which was intended to suit both opinions, the user insisted that I should not have edited the articles and Pau should be restored alone. I have tried to discuss the situation, but I feel as if my attempts at explanation are being ignored. The main discussion is on Pablo Casals. There exists another conversation on El cant dels ocells that might be of note. I ask you to read this to see the link provided by the user: he performed a search for '"el cant dels ocells" "pau casals" song' to assert that Pau is more common, which is inevitable if the user explicitly searched for Pau Casals. Changing Pau to Pablo in this search gives twice as many hits. I hope other editors might be able to look at this situation to provide advice. After realising that there might be opposition to my original edits, I have provided further information and attempted to come to a compromise, but all of this has been ignored. I have no choice but to seek guidance from those elsewhere and from those who might consider properly what I have written. 131.111.185.66 ( talk) 00:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=R4ZESwAACAAJ&dq=casals+catalan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sqQLU7CzBsWp7AbSzYCQDg&redir_esc=y (uses Pablo) http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ssQhIHb-gx8C&pg=PA97&dq=casals+catalan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sqQLU7CzBsWp7AbSzYCQDg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=casals%20catalan&f=false (uses Pau) http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lwQCywAACAAJ&dq=casals+catalan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sqQLU7CzBsWp7AbSzYCQDg&redir_esc=y (Pablo) http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VNyocuVg5m0C&pg=PA173&dq=casals+catalan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sqQLU7CzBsWp7AbSzYCQDg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=casals%20catalan&f=false (Pau) Many other books exist that discuss Casals whilst mentioning Catalonia, but, because they had a more general scope outside Catalonia, I have not listed them here. This is because the above user appears to be focused on Catalonia-related articles. There are many of these books, such as this: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=m8W2AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA113&dq=casals+catalan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sqQLU7CzBsWp7AbSzYCQDg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=casals%20catalan&f=false (Pablo) I can understand why editors might wish to use Pau in an article about Catalonia. My problem, though, is that this name is unfamiliar to many English speakers. A very quick way of seeing this is to search 'Pablo Casals' and 'Pau Casals' into Amazon with the 'Music' department selected. At least on Amazon.co.uk, there are 400 hits for Pablo and just 38 for Pau. It seems to me beneficial to note Pablo when Pau Casals is mentioned in these articles, but the other user appears to want any trace of Pablo removed. 131.111.185.66 ( talk) 20:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I thought I would provide a couple of pieces of information from the help pages. Firstly, there is WP:SURPRISE. Secondly, we have this from the manual of style: 'Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so. Also use a link, but do not make a reader be forced to use that link to understand the sentence, especially if this requires going into nested links (a link that goes to a page with another technical term needed to be linked, which goes to a page with a link to another technical term, and so on). Don't assume that readers will be able to access a link at all, as, for example, they might have printed an article and be reading the hard copy on paper.' 131.111.185.66 ( talk) 20:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Götaland ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Problem here. SergeWoodzing ( talk) 03:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
{{
cn}}
maliciously in the way you suggest, particularly when only used once or twice. Furthermore, you have continued to blindly revert and restore the improper capitalization to "King" when used as a proper title. I have reverted you. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/
18:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Monarchy of Sweden ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Problem here. SergeWoodzing ( talk) 14:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Geats ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stemming from the above dispute, it would be helpful to get additional eyes on the dispute at Geats. The problem seems to be with what sourcing is needed for the etymology of the term, and has spilled over into other articles such as Götaland mentioned above. I will refrain from summarizing the opposition side as I do not really understand why there is opposition to sourcing the claims. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 16:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Dial H-I-S-T-O-R-Y ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hello,
I would like to get the "his article appears to be written like an advertisement"-tag on my 'dial H-I-S-T-O-R-Y' page removed. I have improved it since I had the tag but I don't know what to do next. So here are my requests: - Can anyone point out where/if there are still problems in my article? If so, I would appreciate it if anyone could show me the any sentence that is a problem. - I can't check in my history who added the tag, so that way I can't ask this person to remove it. Where can I get feedback on when this tag could be removed?
Thanks, Johannesdebruycker
Page: /info/en/?search=Dial_H-I-S-T-O-R-Y Johannesdebruycker ( talk) 09:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
For over a year an editor has been changing the GPS coordinates of random locations. Neither a source nor a rationale has been provided for any of these edits, so it's hard to know whether the edits are OK. Could some geographically-inclined editor please check this out? Thanks. 71.139.148.231 ( talk) 21:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Though there is no express exception to Wikipedia's general rule about sourcing for coordinates, there seems to be something approaching consensus by silence that while sourcing coordinates is the best practice, that coordinates do not have to be sourced. (See this brief discussion.) Part of the problem is that if coords are inserted, as usual, in the title of the article and/or in an infobox as part of the built-in parameters of the box, there's frequently no non-clumsy way of adding a source reference (the source parameter in the coord tag is expressly intended for use by bots per the tag documentation; adding a ref in an infobox — which worked in this case — may well break other infoboxes, especially if the ref is long, complex, or has unusual characters). (See this discussion.) But in my mind, the bigger problem is that that many subjects which lend themselves to being given coordinates simply cannot be located except through original research or reliance on sources which would not be considered to be reliable for other purposes. For example, Wikipedia:Obtaining_geographic_coordinates#Manually says that it is an acceptable practice to provide coords for an article by going to that place yourself and using a GPS unit to obtain the coords. Similarly, on a number of occasions, I've provided or corrected coordinates for articles by simply looking up the street address of a place through Google Maps and then using Google street view (or, in both instances, some other similar service) to confirm that the place on the map that the search has taken me is really the place the article is about. Though I'm a strong believer in proper sourcing for article content, I'm, frankly, okay with this situation. To me, coordinates are a lagniappe or "add-on" to the article, as are images, which are also generally unsourced except for copyright compliance, or are from unreliable sources, and are frequently original research (e.g. my panorama which appears in the Bisbee, Arizona article). The only time that sourcing should be a requirement for such things is when a dispute arises about them.
Hi I edited the page airline airbags by adding the airline Air Astana.However in doing so i messed up the page's layout and i dont know how to correct this. Please help Simon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.82.168.253 ( talk) 13:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Tutorial/Wikipedia links ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
On: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Tutorial/Wikipedia_links&action=edit
-- it says, "...If you want to link to an article, but display some other text for the link, you can do so by adding the pipe "|" divider (SHIFT + BACKSLASH on English-layout and other keyboards) followed by the alternative name. For example:
[[Target page|display text]]
will display as this: display text ..."
Shouldn't "Target page" be something a bit more relevant to the topic at hand? As it is, it's the actual main Wikipedia homepage and not an example "target page" relevant to the lesson. I find that confusing. It seems to me that "Target page" should be a dummy page with an explanation saying that it's the real target of the text link, "display text".
I'm using Firefox with the Interclue add-on, an excellent tool for seeing where a link goes without actually clicking on the link. But Interclue shows the condensed text of "Target page" and it seems confusing unless I actually go to that page -- which is still confusing!
Cheers!
Webbie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webistrator ( talk • contribs) 22:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
List of Midsomer Murders episodes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello Wikipdia. I am just wondering whether you can help me please I can't seem to fix this article on the Midsomer Murders page. As some information from Series 1 is missing. The viewers part of the information seems to be missing and also the filming date information as well. I am hoping that you could fix it for me please thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.142.141 ( talk) 07:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Gustavus Adolphus Pastry ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The merger discussion here is a bit stagnant and needs attention. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 08:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Please note that the merger suggests that the article about the pastry be merged with with the article about the day when it is served, not with the article about the king. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 18:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Black Veil Brides ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - /info/en/?search=Black_Veil_Brides
Let's start with the genre, everyone seems to be throwing genres everywhere without actually paying attention to the characteristics of them or the characteristics of the band in question, "metalheads" are trying to put a void between the band and the label "heavy metal" and Black veil brides fans are trying to push for them being labeled as a metal band.
This has resulted in the editors trying to appease both/all parties involve by labeling them loosely with Blanket terms like "shock rock" and "glam rock".
Their earlier releases as "Black veil brides" (we stitch the wound (2010), set the world on fire (2011), can be easily characterized as POST-HARDCORE (a subgenre of hardcore punk.) They have the screaming/shouting vocals that are often present in post-hardcore, they have the simplistic clean guitar sections and chorus driven song structures that other post-hardcore bands display as well as pop punk styled CLEAN SINGING sections. Their music is almost identical to other post-hardcore acts like FALlING IN REVERSE, ALESANA and PIERCE THE VEIL.
Falling in reverse's song "born to lead" from their release "fashionably late" (2013) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItxJFWITRxk I think this is a perfect example because it's actually a NEWER song and therefore is arguably more relevant to Black veil brides than older post-hardcore releases (especially if you're going back as far as the mid 80s.)
Black veil brides's song "Knives and pens" from "we stitch the wound" (originally on their first ep "sex & hollywood.) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFDCHdKbKBY The songs are both extremely similar, the main difference is that Falling in reverse's song in general is more complex (less focus on the chorus, more complex clean guitar riffs and slightly more complex and plentiful drum patterns.)
As you can see both songs start with a clean singing section and then move to a harsh section (both are attempting screams.)I'd in fact argue that Black veil brides's song Knives and pens fits the characteristics of "post-hardcore" better than falling in reverse's song (which is LABELED as post-hardcore.)
Here's a NEWER Black veil brides song which appears to be even more similar - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuGzJVKtW6g (there's a much higher emphasis on pop punk elements in this, the song structure is less complex than "knives and pens" however the leads are more technical, This still easily fits the label of "post-hardcore" although I think you'd have to note the emphasis on clean singing similar to pop punk and the increasingly simplistic song structure also found in pop punk as well as more simplistic drum patterns which fit in either pop punk, pop rock or glam rock/metal.)
Many people love to label Black veil brides as a metalcore band and there are many similarities (as post-hardcore bands tend to be VERY similar to melodic metalcore bands.) I find that although there are similarities that the heavy metal influence is not particularly present in Black veil brides music. (in metalcore's case this comes from thrash metal/groove metal - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6XCItRgC2w and MELODIC DEATH METAL if you're referring to Melodic metalcore bands - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AepTFljiq04 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO9kGDNyQkw You'll still notice thrash and groove metal influence is still present in these two other songs even with the elements taken from Melodic death metal.)
You'll notice that the metalcore songs (especially the melodic metalcore songs.) are structurally a lot more complex, they usually contain many more riffs and are not so reliant on the chorus, you'll also notice that the drum patterns are more varied and less simplistic (A trait obviously from thrash and even more prominent in melodic metalcore because of the Death metal influence.)
Apart from the song structure, the vocals are quite different as well, Clean vocals are prominent but don't seem to be the main theme in metalcore (not even particularly in melodic metalcore.) although this can vary from band to band, the harsh vocals tend to be quite different as well, many metalcore bands (but not all) tend to utilize both growls (usually weak, high pitched growls.) and somewhat thick mid-high pitched screaming vocals as well as shouting vocals. Black veil bride's harsh vocals are thin, weak and shrill shrieking vocals and although they can be found in melodic metalcore, they're found more often in post-hardcore.
- http://www.last.fm/music/Falling+in+Reverse (post-hardcore) - /info/en/?search=Falling_in_Reverse (post-hardcore) - http://www.sputnikmusic.com/bands/Falling-In-Reverse/24527/ (post-hardcore) - https://itunes.apple.com/au/artist/falling-in-reverse/id439592053 (post-hardcore) - http://www.punknews.org/bands/fallinginreverse (post-hardcore)
If A lot of Online sources are labeling a SIMILAR ARTIST as Post-hardcore would it not suggest that Black veil brides are also a post-hardcore band? (I'm happy to expand the list but it suggests that I should keep the links to a minimum for whatever reason.)
Anyway onto their latest release, listening to it I can still see post-hardcore present in it but I'm finding similarities with alternate rock/pop rock groups like panic at the disco, fall out boy, sum 41 and even Blink 182 (It's like they're taking different things from each band.)
Anyway the whole point of this section was to get Black veil brides label AWAY from the "glam" label, musically they sound NOTHING like this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WAZ60xA9wo or this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDcBKVKQizg - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0EQlIzPowM (This song is more similar to Panic at the disco...) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOgpdp3lP8M (song by panic at the disco that according to the wiki page should sound less like that song than the two glam songs.)
I'm also not fond of the "shock rock" label either, I'd suggest LADY GAGA'S performances/style suit the characteristics far better, Black veil brides are a pretty average modern punk band. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPiZVs2dy-4 (at warped tour.... a predominately PUNK concert held if I'm correct annually.) Does this performance look any different than this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IGDnVTP2Bc or this performance - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBq5fdJaukc really differ that much from this one? - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9LlP-BKVVg
Again I think this whole "shock rock" thing was just a ploy to appease the angry biased people from both sides that have been "fighting" all over the internet.
The only reason I believe the band is grouped with glam is because of a MISCONCEPTION about their appearance and because of them labeling some glam metal bands as influences (funnily enough everyone skips over all the punk, post-hardcore, pop rock, electronic and even metalcore influences they've listed.)
The bands earlier appearance was reminiscent of the mid 2000s SCENE KIDS trend (dyed long swept fringes, skinny jeans, skate shoes, white/black band T's or sometimes a white T with a colourful picture on it, face paint especially Black eye shadow and eyeliner and even sometimes white face paint for that "Anime" look.)
They seemed to have kept the "scene" style hair but have swapped the clothes for a leather approach, bands from Judas priest to Guns'n roses have been seen wearing similar attire (some glam bands did as well.) which is where I think most people are getting this "Glam rock/metal" label from.
Anyway I've got more but I think this is long enough, I'm happy to provide a much greater amount of references and evidence if need be and to go further into detail ESPECIALLY on the musical genre. I'm sorry that this was rushed.
Technicalbrutaldeath ( talk) 14:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Edit: I may post a shorter version but one paragraph is hardly suitable and you also failed to sum up my request, I'm asking them to list Black veil brides as a Post-hardcore band with pop punk, alternate rock, melodic metalcore and pop rock influences, I'm asking them to remove the "glam" AND "shock rock" label and consider leaving the hard rock label (as that's the only blanket term I can see fitting for their music.)
You're going to have to explain that last part to me, as I've mentioned I'm new to requesting/editing wiki pages (which is why I've chose not to edit anything yet, I'd prefer someone with more experience do it but perhaps look at what I've provided.)
Technicalbrutaldeath ( talk) 15:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Talk:BP ( | article | history | links | watch | logs)
Over the last couple of days it seems the Talk:BP fishing section has been overrun with soapboxing about me, my lies, my misinformation, my alleged COIs and generally my evil-doing. This is not something I consider desirable personally or for Wikipedia. Am I handling it right? And what should I do? Geogene ( talk) 23:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
James Caan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
According to your records he started acting in 1961! But I just saw him on Bonanza in 1959 s1/ep13 (vendetta) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.85.98 ( talk) 19:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Underwater locator beacon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Editor is not allowing any edits. Person isn't helpful either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.128.40.138 ( talk) 03:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi and help! I think I once saw something about a way to link to a talk page thread in such a way that no matter how the thread is later archived the link will still find the thread. Can someone please remind me how to do that? Thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 11:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
To my dismay, I learned early on when beginning to contribute to Wikipedia articles about historical people, that a woman who was a queen of a country, for example, normally is not called that in an article's name but she is referred to there by her often obscure maiden name plus maiden title which thus can lead to text entries and image captions like Queen Hedwig Elizabeth Charlotte of Holstein-Gottorp (a German location which has never had any queens) rather than Queen Charlotte of Sweden and Norway which to me would be more logical as well as give due credit (even in her article's name) to the more important of a woman's titles and legacy. I have corrected hundreds of such misleading text errors by now.
This maiden name stuff is carried too far, in my opinion, when some editors, who are very busy with articles on royalty, in a manner that borders on WP:own, will not even allow a woman's higher and more important and more famous title to be given in bold type in her article's lede. That must be confusing to many readers. OK, so I've accepted the maiden title stuff as incontestible, but I see no logical reason for this latter development of the principle, and I think it should be curtailed.
Where, please, can I start a constructive discussion on this topic? -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 16:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
No one did that, so perhaps you might want to do so. If you do, you would be well advised to read the closer's entire remarks about how the new RfC should be formulated. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 17:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)There was agreement that the current conventions on the naming of consorts is insufficient, but because of the nuances in participants' positions, no particular solution was wholly agreed to. I recommend starting a new RfC where one or two concrete proposals from this discussion are put forward...
Off-topic complaint about this request. The request is about how to seek policy change on a specific issue. The request was answered. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I can live with seeing you badmouth me on talk pages of other users, SergeWoodzing, but I would very much appreciate being informed and/or pinged when you mention me on project pages. Thank you. Surtsicna ( talk) 16:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
|
One time as I was patrolling Recent Changes, I discovered the article Kinzelyuk Waterfall. It is a short article; the only information in it is its height and relationship to other geographical features. I'm afraid it may not meet WP:NGEO, but I'm not sure whether I should nominate it for deletion, as the Russian Wikipedia does have an article about it. Please help! ChromaNebula (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
:::А. А. Федоров would seem to be Andreĭ Aleksandrovich Fedorov, a botanist notable enough to have an article here. Spinning Spark 00:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I have found 3 wikipedia pages with unreliable, unsourcable material. I have tried to delete the material myself, but other users keep reverting my edit.
Links and the info I find unsourcable / unreliable are as follows..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koi#Health.2C_maintenance_and_longevity
"One famous scarlet koi, named "Hanako," was owned by several individuals, the last of whom was Dr. Komei Koshihara. In July 1974, a study of the growth rings of one of the koi's scales reported that Hanako was 225 years old.[14]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest-living_organisms#Aquatic_animals
"Some koi fish have reportedly lived more than 200 years, the oldest being Hanako, who died at an age of 226 years on July 7, 1977.[53][54]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_life_span#In_other_animals
"Koi (A Japanese species of fish, 200+ years, though generally not exceeding 250) Hanako was reportedly 226 years old upon her death.[15][16]"
Is there any way to have this unsourcable information removed? Supposedly this fish died before anyone was using the internet, so the story / legend has followed on to the internet through word of mouth, not an actual reliable source.
It seems to be very misleading.
I'd like to show the most recent edit on the Koi page
" 17:49, 20 March 2014 CombatWombat42 (talk | contribs) . . (28,449 bytes) (+487) . . (Undid revision 600468346 by McGeddon (talk) Not a particularly exceptional claim, has been in the article for a long time, find a source proving hoax and I will be happy to see it deleted, else BRD) (undo)"
I think having to find a reliable source to debunk already unreliable information, is counter productive. Rather we should have definitive proof about this so called 226 year old fish, and if there are no reliable sources whatsoever, chalk it up to being a hoax / myth / lie, and has no place on wikipedia, just as the loch ness monster is not to be taken as fact either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.248.70 ( talk) 05:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'd like to start off by saying there is no researchable evidence to say Koi live anywhere between 50 years and 226 years.
Based on not seeing evidence of Koi living past 50 years, let alone 100, 150, 200, etc, we can rule out the Hanako story.
But, since it's so widespread on the internet via unverifyable sources, I guess I can show you some links / discussion that disagree completely with Hanakos age.
http://www.koi-bito.com/forum/main-forum/2047-growth-rates-longevity.html
http://www.koiphen.com/forums/showthread.php?13181-Life-Expectancy-Of-quot-Kept-quot-Koi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.248.70 ( talk) 03:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
http://www.koiphen.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-35646.html
http://www.koishack.com/forums/topic/2270-how-long-to-do-koi-live/
I hope this is enough to keep the Hanako legend in the fantasy realm, rather than still being repeated as fact?? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
124.148.248.70 (
talk)
02:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Rollercoaster (song) ( | article | history | links | watch | logs)
I'm having trouble with archiving a talk page. The discussion is old and no longer relevant since the article has been rewritten. I have successfully moved the current talk page to Talk:Rollercoaster (B*Witched song)/Archive 1 but now cannot clear the main talk page as it appears to be vandalism. Can someone please help? I tried posting this in the false positive reports but has been days and no response.
147.69.137.58 ( talk) 10:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi! There is a category in Wikimedia Commons that I would like to use in an article, but no equivalent category in main Wikipedia. Is it possible to use such an imported category? Thanks! -- BenBurch ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Hebrew GAWD- English GOD. Name of the Assyrian deity, and is repudiated by Yahweh in Isaiah 65:11 "But ye are they that forsake Yahweh, that forget My holy mountain, that furnish a table for God, and furnish a drink offering to Meni". Traina, A. (2007 reprinted). Holy Name Bible. Ronceverte, WV 24970: Yahshua Promotions. pp. 869–870. {{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: location (
link) Holy Name Bible translation
DamondLMitchellSr (
talk)
06:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)DamondLMitchellSr
Nam(u) Myōhō Renge Kyō ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Could someone help out on above mentioned article? Beginning edit war with IP user. 1. This article is not about Nipponzan-Myōhōji-Daisanga 2. This is NOT the Russian Wikipedia. When looking at the article's history its been a long way to reach consensus as Nichiren Buddhism relatated issues tend to be controversial by nature. Links to Nichiren Buddhism which leads to articles on respective schools included. Please note that Nam(u) Myōhō Renge Kyō is the fundamental mantra to basically all Nichiren Schools who seem to have nothing better to do than to kick each others head in online – proclaiming peace. Cheers.-- Catflap08 ( talk) 17:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Sheboygan Municipal Auditorium and Armory ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I've already reverted these edits twice, so I can't revert again. But maybe I'm missing something. Are these good edits? [1], [2], [3]. Thanks for some help with this. 70.235.85.36 ( talk) 02:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Sale High School ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello, This is a revised version of a request I posted on Talk:Sale High School a week ago, to which there have been no responses.
I came to that page while searching for information on Sale High School for Boys, attended by playwright Robert Bolt. The current co-educational Sale High School is completely unrelated to the old one, being the successor to Norris Road Secondary Modern School. On closer inspection of the page, I see that John Andrews, named as a Sale High alumnus, would have attended the old Sale High for Boys in the 1940s, unless he was one of the first pupils at the Norris Road Secondary Mod.
However, when I attempted to add a note mentioning the existence of the two earlier schools called "Sale High School" (the Boys' school and the corresponding Girls' school on a separate site) and the risk of confusion with the current establishment, it was removed by an experienced editor. I don't think the older schools merit an article of their own (and my information is purely personal knowledge, the only potential references being somewhat unclear Friends Reunited pages), so can somebody please suggest an acceptably Wikipedian way to stop the confusion of old and new. 90.246.91.194 ( talk) 11:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
{{
about}}
or {{
for}}
disambiguation link at the top of the article if there's only one or two existing articles about places that were once called "Sale High School" would work. But if those schools weren't called "Sale High School", but something similar, it's probably not appropriate to use the disambiguation link or disambiguation page structure to link people to those schools from Sale High School. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/
15:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Can you please help me to create a new entry "A closed form solution for Linear Programming"?
Thanks, Garry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrynewyork ( talk • contribs) 13:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Next-Generation Incident Command System ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can you please provide more specific reasons why you marked my content for deletion? The reasoning is quite vague. Jlrsn ( talk) 18:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Wercengetorix ( talk) 23:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/?search=goingthruvinyl&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go
I started to remove links in Wikipedia which direct to a site that I say is now in copyright violation. As well, the links were initially inserted into Wikipedia for advertising. My removal of the links have been reverted twice over by an editor "Hobbes Goodyear" who states I do not have evidence to back up my position. I have not been able to settle the matter with the editor; they either fail to see my reasoning, or choose to ignore it, and I feel it has come to a battle of will over reason. The editor's approach has always seemed to me as authoritarian and dismissive.
I was the one who inserted the links and requested the article which heavily relied on the site for references because I was directed by the owner of the site to do so. I am locked out of the site, and not in communication with them anymore, so the matter cannot be resolved there, and I think that any more discussion with the editor will be wasted time.
below is the interaction on the editor's talk page:
Extended content copied from
User talk:Hobbes Goodyear
|
---|
copyright claim appears spurious--please explain your rationale on talk page Wercengetorix (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Hello Hobbes Goodyear: I am the original contributor and editor of the site of the link in question and the original editor of the placement of the links in the Wikipedia article in question, and of every edit remaining that lists or references goingthruvinyl. In Canada, copyright exists automatically when a work is created. My work has been taken by the site against my will and requests to remove my work, or to be paid for it have been refused, my name has been removed, and my access to the site has been locked out. Not only is the site in infringement of copyright, but the links were put in at the request of the owner, not to increase knowledge or for respect of the artist, but simply for advertising his site. Other links and cited references have been discovered and removed as being advertising. The ones that remain are the ones that have not been discovered. Below are the sections of the copyright act to which I am referring: From the Canadian Copyright Act: Moral Rights Infringement Infringement generally 28.1 Any act or omission that is contrary to any of the moral rights of the author of a work or of the performer of a performer’s performance is, in the absence of the author’s or performer’s consent, an infringement of those rights. Nature of right of integrity 28.2 (1) The author’s or performer’s right to the integrity of a work or performer’s performance is infringed only if the work or the performance is, to the prejudice of its author’s or performer’s honour or reputation, (a) distorted, mutilated or otherwise modified; or (b) used in association with a product, service, cause or institution. R.S., 1985, c. 10 (4th Supp.), s. 6; 2012, c. 20, s. 19. You have provided no evidence that you are the actual author. You have provided no evidence that the website in question has acted unlawfully or immorally. You have provided no evidence or claim that this website is acting in contradiction of any legal decision in the matter. If you have pursued this matter within your own legal jurisdiction and have obtained some sort of judgment or injunction against this website, please point to evidence of same. If this is a legal matter, please have it decided in your local jurisdiction, not here. In my own opinion, some of the refs to this website are useful, some are pointless--I agree that the pointless ones should be removed. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Wercengetorix (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC) First you reverted my removal of links for not explaining the removal, then you reverted my re-removal of the links with my explanation of violation of the Canadian copyright act. You stated my claim appears spurious and asked for my rational. I provided this, and did so in a way that was concise to not overburden the reader whilst not to attach my name any further to a site I deem to be unethical. I provided most relevant points to which I am referring with enough information for the reader to easily verify the copyright act for themselves, should they wish. Your point 1 states I provide no evidence that I am the original author. True, I do not. I do not wish to associate my name with the site at all nor have any of my work there. I do not have to be the original author to say the site is in violation of copyright. I assert there is work there that is "in the absence of the author’s or performer’s consent", that is "used in association with a product, service, cause or institution", and believed to be "at the prejudice of its author’s or performer’s honour or reputation". Point 2 states that I have provided no evidence that the site has acted unlawfully or immorally. Point 3 again states that I have provided no evidence that the site has acted unlawfully or immorally in the matter then says to have my legal matters decided elsewhere: "If this is a legal matter, please have it decided in your local jurisdiction, not here." Point 4 says that in your opinion some refs are useful, yet you agree that some of the refs to the site are pointless. I admitted that the refs and links to the site were done for advertising and not in the interest of the artist involved, or for the benefit of knowledge in general, and the ones that remain are the ones that successfully circumvented the filters and rules of advertising on Wikipedia. I am considering which legal option to pursue with the site. No determination has been made. As for sufficient evidence for yourself, what evidence would be sufficient aside from the evidence that you, yourself have found that some of the references are pointless and perhaps used as that as evidence enough to back up my claims that the references and links were inserted for advertising, and carried that further as evidence to reason that the site itself may not be ethical? And even if it came to an either/or decision doesn't the negative claim seem to hold much greater weight, proof, and a detriment to people involved rather than to let them remain? And if I am to have my legal matters decided "not here", why then didn't you state that earlier when I used the violation of the copyright act as my explanation? Can the removal of the links be adjudicated by a higher authority in Wikipedia? I feel that I am being met with resistance and a battle of wills and control issues rather than a reasoned condition for reversing my edit. If I sound frustrated, it is because with this issue of copyright, I have recently been at the losing end of someone at the attached to a computer with more control while I was trying to do the right thing. Or perhaps the matter could be settled here; if you could explain which refs and links you feel should be removed and which should stay, perhaps we are in agreement; I'm agreeable to keeping the references and links to articles which refer to theft of material and unethical contracts. I find the irony amusing. There are two issues here. Leaving copyright aside for the moment, if the external links are not useful to a reader of the article, then they should be removed. Please see Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided for guidance, although it might be better that you post requests at individual article talk pages, rather than remove links yourself, as you hardly seem neutral in the matter. I have reverted some of your changes, but left others intact, assuming that you also edit under the name User:Utsid3sP1q3. And as a side note, please edit under a single user name or at least identify on your user pages that accounts are operated by the same person--see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. You should assume that where I reverted, I thought that the links were of use. In at least some of the cases where I did not revert, I thought the removal was valid because the links were more spam than useful. You are making unfounded claims that you previously behaved wrongly at WP (by adding these links in the first place) and, now that you have a business grievance (again, unfounded), that you have seen the light and would like to undo your past wrongs and, incidentally of course, damage the other party. I do not find that this makes you especially credible. You provide sections of copyright law, but no evidence that they apply here at all, other than your anonymous assertion. I am not an expert on what constitutes a good case in theses situations, but it seems to me that you provided no case at all. You might want to briefly summarize the situation here: Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems, and ask for help on how to proceed. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC) Wercengetorix (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC) There are more than two issues here, and more important than the ones you listed. I can see only one of two reasons for your omission; either you fail to understand, or choose to ignore. Additionally, you are making your own determination into my motives and actions. I asked if there were a higher authority to adjudicate the matter. I tried to reduce the issues to simple logic, and I find your logic does not follow and you seem to fail to build upon evidence and reasoning before you, including your own. If not an honest mistake, then I feel you are simply recalcitrant to overturn your action and ego is determining your thought. The links you provided seemed to be more misleading than pertinent. I have provided the information asked of me. I never claimed to be neutral, but stated my position openly when asked and the reasons for my action; to which you, in some circumstances, have found yourself in agreement. Removal of links to a site I claim to be unethical and in violation of copyright requires a determination from court or does not, and if not, either my claim backed up with the evidence I provided is sufficient to remove the links, or if not, then it comes down to your opinion, in which circumstance, you admit you're not an expert. Then let someone else in a better position adjudicate the situation. I stated my position, and backed it up with evidence, including your own agreement. Reasonably, where does the greater harm lie; promoting a site which may be unethical and in violation of copyright and shown to be advertising, or removing a link? I feel that you are abusing your position as an editor to impose your will, blindly. Let me hear from someone else that I am required to get a determination from court, if that's not required, then direct me to someone who can make a reasoned determination; I find your approach a little insulting. If I am misinterpreting you, I am sorry, but I don't wish to deal with you for the reasons stated above. If you have been wronged in your business dealings, then I commiserate, but is it reasonable to expect me or any other Wikipedia editor to support your actions based solely on your anonymous say-so? You refer to "the evidence I provided", but I see none, other than your anonymous claims. If you just want to vent on my talk page, well, okay, that's fine. I have already agreed with you that, in some cases, these links are just spam, in which case they should be removed, regardless of copyright. But, if you want me or other editors to act on your claim that these links are to copyright violations and so to be avoided even if useful, then I think you have failed. If you want advice on how to make a better case, then I again urge you to seek advice at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. Here's what I would post there: "Hi. I wish to remain anonymous, but I used to work with this website where I provided content. We had a falling out, but they continue to publish content where I hold copyright, without permission or compensation. I am considering but have not yet begun legal action to stop them. There are links to some of this material in Wikipedia. One or more other WP editors believe that some of these links are valuable, and so disagree that they should be removed, unless they are in violation of copyright. Unless and until I am successful in my legal proceedings, is there anything I can do to have links to this material removed per WP:COPYVIO?" --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC) Wercengetorix (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC) Ok, I am frustrated (with the issue in general and with some points in specific). Please bear with me. I still feel as if I am being treated dismissively, and I am surprised at the opposition with which I am being met. The matter seems clear enough to me to require quick and decisive action but am meeting a bulwark. But perhaps we can end the matter here. For the matter most important in specific: you (you, not me, but you) are still affirming there is evidence that back up my claims that the site is unethical and spam/advertising then saying that I provide no proof (or just "anonymous say-so") I'm not referring to what I'm saying, but to what you have determined. Your confirmation is my evidence. I tried to make that clear, but we seem to be stuck there. Something more than nothing is not nothing. x > 0 ≠ 0. That is as clear as I can make it. If you are reluctant to remove the links because you have yourself gone to them and enjoyed what you found there, I can appreciate that, but the site started out with good intentions and it has greatly deviated from it's beginnings to where it is now in violation of the law and in violation of Wikipedia's policies. I am now asking not only for the site's links to be removed, but also for the site to be blacklisted from Wikipedia, as from what I've found so far seems to be a sufficient case to do so. If you will confirm that and act on that-good, the matter will rest there. If you still feel it does require further proof, I would like someone else to arbitrate the matter. Please bear in mind that even at the beginning of the site's inclusion into Wikipedia that the intention was to advertise the site, upon that, within Wikipedia's policies, the links should be removed. Upon that the site is now in copyright violation and other repeated violations within Wikipedia, it seems sufficient to have the site blacklisted. If you still feel it does require further proof, I would like someone else to arbitrate the matter. Going through the links you provided more thoroughly has led me to the following to enforce my position in hopes that we come to complete agreement. from: Wikipedia:Copyright violations "Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues." From: Restrictions on linking "For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception: 1. Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted :works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work, or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that :violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement.[2] If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its :copyright, do not link to it. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly :relevant when linking to sites such as Scribd or YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright." Not to be rude, but to illustrate my argument, that seems to take precedence, despite what you find useful. "without exception" Additionally, this would have been helpful when I asked if there were anyone else to arbitrate the matter: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_requests /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution From: Links normally to be avoided. 4. Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions. See external link spamming. 11. Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.) From: Advertising and conflicts of interest "Main pages: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Spam It is obvious that a link from Wikipedia to an external site may drive Web traffic to that site. But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a :site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if Wikipedia guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and :let another editor decide. This suggestion is in line with Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guidelines. Wikipedia uses the same standards for evaluating links to websites owned by for-profit and (real or purported) non-profit organizations. Links to potentially revenue-generating web pages are not prohibited, even though the website owner might earn money through advertisements, sales, or (in the case of non-profit :organizations) donations. Choose which pages to link based on the immediate benefit to Wikipedia readers that click on the link, not based on the organization's tax :status or your guess at whether the website's owner might earn money from the link." I have more evidence to back up my position, but hope this is sufficient to end the matter here. I think it is sufficient evidence not only for the site's links to be removed, but also to be blacklisted from Wikipedia. If you feel it does require further proof, I would like someone else to arbitrate the matter. Is that enough to remove the links and blacklist the site, here, with you, as it stands now, or are we still in disagreement? To /info/en/?search=User:Arbor8 - I am sorry, but I do not know what ANI refers to. Sorry for not indenting properly, etc. Again, if you have been wronged in your business dealings, I commiserate. But if I say, "Some is spam, some is not", this does not mean "all is spam, blacklist them". And it is unhelpful to keep regurgitating yet more policies against copyright violation. These are not in question. What is in question is whether there is a copyright violation in this case. Given that there is only your anonymous claim, and that you continually decline to provide any other evidence whatsoever, why would you expect impartial third parties to take action against this site? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC) |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wercengetorix ( talk • contribs) 23:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi There, someone has filed a deletion for our Company Article in English, this is an error and I kindly request to restore the page online. The article is en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selerant. there is no reason for deletion as the company in on business. Ncolombo ( talk) 03:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Minas Morgul ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I added the "Notability" template to Minas Morgul because it appeared to me that while sources are provided they are all inherently linked to the Lord of the Rings franchise and do not in and of themselves establish notability of the subject. Another editor disagreed and unilaterally removed the tag twice. It is my belief that when the removal of a maintenance tag is contested it should remain in the article until there is a clear consensus favoring removal. There is now a Talk page discussion regarding the sources themselves here, but I would appreciate a ruling on the appropriateness of removing the maintenance template. Thank you! DonIago ( talk) 15:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Given that the article's at AFD now and Gimli and I are discussing the situation a bit at my Talk page (and the article's Talk page? I haven't looked there yet), I'd be content to see this closed or collapsed; in any case I consider it settled and thank all editors for their involvement. DonIago ( talk) 17:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello I have been involved in a dispute over a relatively minor issue. I am trying to get an Infobox and have opened a Rfc. However, one editor is being quite aggressive towards me. He/she has also stated 'Allow me to say it again for your infobox... "it ain't happening". RfC all you want, I have no problem with everyone, Australian or not, having their say. But, it ain't happening'. He/she appears to be unhappy that I am trying to edit an article on Australian politics and I am not 'local'. Is my proposal for an Infobox really that stupid? Should I be allowed to edit articles on Australian politics? I took this to the talk page but this editor has been quite unpleasant. Please give me advice or assistance here or on the page. Thanks. LordFixit ( talk) 00:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Of course you can edit articles. Consensus still applies though. You're flogging a dead horse, there's half a dozen oppose and only you support. It ain't happening. Timeshift ( talk) 01:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Rosenberg shoes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am writing referring to Rosenberg shoes. We are a 111 year old company that has two choices. Do I follow a path of Historical relevance or one orientated towards one with a business bias. Both seem to be viable. Unfortunately business is easy to cite and source, where as historical, from my experience can be hard to provide excellent citations. I have created a balance and admit that I am still learning how to create the page. Another project I would like to start reviewing is the Prahran Club. The Prahran Club again is one of the oldest clubs in Melbourne or be it Australia, with a wonderful rich history but again hard to cite apart from photography. As I would like to participate more within wikiprojects, I would ideally like to start communicating with some more senior members of the Australian Wiki community. I would like to hear from historians or business authors as to how a historical / business page could be improved. Thanks in advance. Blueskiesinthemorning ( talk) 06:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Mendaliv. As discussed I have been looking into the prahran club history also, but unfortunately it looks like developers and politics have engulfed the club. Thank you for your candid response, I could have hidden the fact but chose to be open and up front about my article. I am proud of the business. With many stores closing, our store remains stedfast considering the age, something that is against the norm. We have a wonderful history, a wonderful customer base and a beautiful store front. I appreciate your comments and will review similar listings to continue with improvements on the article. I have found some terrific historical documents from the national archives website relating to my great grandfathers naturalisation and grandfather service with the RAAF during world war II. Despite these documents, I am in agreement with you. To follow both paths makes the article multidirectional and possibly confusing in contrast with other articles. I will work on improving the article and provide a clear direction. I was pleased to see a recent post by the user 'Biatch' with a great write up relating to Windsor. Thanks again, I appreciate your response and understand the position. Blueskiesinthemorning ( talk) 10:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I have translated the following article to sinhala language. /info/en/?search=Arnold_Ross
But in my sinhala article (specially in that infobox) there are still some English words.But don't know how to change it.Please try to help me. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaturaka ( talk • contribs) 01:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Recently the article Clarence Snyder underwent speedy deletion for copyright violation, and 123chess456 posted a notice on my talk page, apparently thinking I had written the article because of my edit history. I didn't create the article, don't remember what my edits were (this was apparently in 2005), and since the article has been deleted, I haven't been able to review the history myself. 123chess456 did say that one edit was "a major edit", but also that my "edits were minor".
I reviewed the Oversight FAQ and it really sounds like Oversight is for more serious things, but 123chess456 suggested that I request Oversight so that my edit history isn't connected with what was apparently a blatant copyright violation. Is this something that I should request Oversight for, and if so, what should I request? That all my edits to that article be suppressed?
(Also, is there any way for me to view them, now, after the article itself is deleted?) DavidConrad ( talk) 20:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Sean Lien ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please forgive me if it turns out that I have come to the wrong place. Sean Lien is now in the midst of a heated campaign for mayor of Taipei. I have tried to change his page from one managed by those promoting his campaign to one that is balanced and properly referenced. Kai010101 and others seem inclined to start a wiki war. I think it best to admit that I am not a supporter of Mr. Lien, but I do believe that he is deserving of a fair and balanced page. I have decided not to revert Kai010101's last edit, but I do find the reasons given inflammatory. I do though acknowledge that I could have chosen some of my words more carefully. I ask that an editor who can view these things impartially take a look at recent edits and handle this in a manner that those more experienced in these matters deem best. Thank you. ShunfaSu ( talk) 12:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into this. As I said, I think that I should stay out of it. ShunfaSu ( talk) 15:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Landskrona BoIS ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
that keeps suggesting that headlines are "option statements", while I think of them more as a summary of the next part of the text. For instance "1994-1996 Financial disorder led to dual relegations" ,there are no problem with its sources. So I find it very strange, and have found similar and related articles whith such headlines. As I see it, the headlines are NPOV, povided that the following text supports the headlines (incuding sources, of course.)
in Landskrona , and then asks for reference !
A strange thing jus occured, as User:Reckless182 has answered at behalf of User:Swedishpenguin (at the talk page of the article). So if I have suspected sock puppety, it isn't strange. But at present , we need help as it turnes out to be an edit warring. User:Swedishpenguin seems to think it's funny to destroy rather than create. Please read his last comments at my talk page. But we do need help to solve this. Boeing720 ( talk) 09:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
The article is nominated for deletion (1 day left). There are a several sources, see the extra listing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick McKeown (2nd nomination). Needs general editing help and verification that those sources are reliable. There are several audios and few large textual interviews. Thanks. sobaka_kachalova 05:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SobakaKachalova ( talk • contribs)
Here are several pages that need for some proper additional translations, as always, no copyright usage there:
I would like to replace all instances of: File:Map_of_Roman_roads_in_Italy.png
With: File:Italy_topographic_map-ancient_Roman_roads.svg
The latter is based on data from the 1926 edition of the "Historical Atlas", by William R. Shepherd, traced by me ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Ancient_Roads_of_Italy_and_Sicily_nopng.svg), with a geographical map made by User:Sting ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Italy_topographic_map-blank.svg) and combined into one by User:Flappiefh.
Do it?
-- Agamemnus ( talk) 03:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
UE Boom ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
So this article about a wireless speaker was kept at AfD on pure WP:GNG grounds earlier this month (I wasn't part of that discussion but probably would have reluctantly !voted to keep barring a good policy argument that it failed WP:NOT). Nonetheless, there have remained some issues that I had tried to address, such as describing the product as "rugged" or the rubber body as "sturdy", including rather substantial quotations from reviews, use of the ® and ™ symbols, including an unsourced "reviews analysis" section, several needless sections, and keeping the infobox image width in line with other articles. Naturally, I was reverted. Discussion is happening (mostly at user talk pages), but I'm concerned that I'm not explaining these things adequately. I'd appreciate additional eyes. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 12:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Chemtrail conspiracy theory ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi, I am having difficulty with a topic in which my good faith edits are repeatedly reverted. [8] [9] [10] The description in the reversion summaries vary pushing a POV, pseudoscience or fringe topic (I am not) and most reversions are summarized with what I feel to be illegitimate reasons. My edits are based upon reliably sourced facts that should not be in dispute. I have discussed these issues nearly to death. [11] I am being accused of various things for which there is no foundation (which continues [12]) and I wound up losing my cool. I do not want this to happen again. I know there is a procedure to handle my concerns but am unfamiliar with starting or completing these processes. I am requesting assistance in properly resolving a content/conduct dispute and how to handle the unfounded accusations. The latest is here [13]. Thank you Johnvr4 ( talk) 17:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I created an article at the request of a group of other editors some time ago. I keep getting notifications every time someone links to that article. Is there a way I can remove my name as creator or ask that I no longer receive just those notifications about new links to that one specific article? Thanks in advance for any assistance. Meclee ( talk) 22:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I might consider a new bug or perhaps a request for a user preferences option. Regards Meclee ( talk) 19:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Siege of Lal Masjid ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A series of anonymous IP editors have been removing considerable sections of the "Siege of Lal Masjid" article. I have been reverting these actions, along with other editors. After one of my last reversions, I got a message stating that the spam detection filter disallowed my reversion. After a while, this became a simple "non-autoconfirmed user making rapid reversions" tag. I just want to make sure that there isn't a valid reason for the mass removal of this content. Is there a political minefield I'm walking into here? I don't want to revert anything if it is contrary to a previous decision. I don't think this is the case, as there hasn't been activity on the talk page in more than 6 months, but as a new editor I wanted to double check to make sure I'm approaching things correctly. I have since autoconfirmed, and the latest reversion went through just fine. WikiSpamIsFun ( talk) 06:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Earlier today I noticed two wiki's that I have been following recently - were combined? These two articles were completely unique of one another - and it confused me. The wiki's in question are a company and the companies CEO. Now the companies wiki was merged into the CEO's wikipedia, and this didn't make sense to me. The company is quite large as well as the CEO - so it doesn't make sense that these two pages be one. Looking for some insight to curb my confusion. Thanks!
Wiki's in questions:
CEO: /info/en/?search=Ronn_Torossian Company: /info/en/?search=5W_Public_Relations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southjimkelly ( talk • contribs) 21:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Is it possible to withdraw my own advanced submission for a new article that has been nominated for deletion? 49.181.236.168 ( talk) 09:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Williams Landing railway station ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An issue has ben raised on the Williams Landing railway station#Cost & criticisms article over whether neutrality policy has been breached by the addition of uncited text. There has been correspondence (3-4 edits each) and it has reached a stalemate. The dispute was nominated for a WP:DRN but knocked back on the basis it hadn't been discussed thoroughly enough. As the original issue was raised by a third editor, doesn't qualify for WP:3O.
In theory the discussion could go on, but I don't think either editor has much more to add. As it stands there is a 2-1 consensus that not to include the added text, but would prefer to get some sought of outside opinion, so that all editors can be comfortable with the decision reached. Is there an appropriate place to seek this? Mo7838 ( talk) 02:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Hallo, I have problem when using this template: template:South America topic. When using suffix, I can choose whether there is space between the main word and the suffix. However, when adding prefix, no matter I use the word "prefix" or not, there is always a space between the prefix and the main word. Are there any methods to delete the space between them? Thanks. Linzaap ( talk) 13:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
2=Geography of
) or "List of South America topics" (2=List of
, 3=_topics
). Note the underscore there; since the template parser presumably ignores leading whitespace (so 3= topics
gets parsed as "topics
"), whoever designed the template noticed that the linked text was underlined anyway, so the underscore is covered up. Thus, you can have headings like "South America-related topics" (3=-related topics
) as well. Linzaap's problem appears to be that prefix
automatically adds a space, so you do something like 2=Anti-
and 3=_Politics
; you'd just get "Anti- South American_Politics".suffix=
parameter, which presumes a space, you could probably also just use
in the 2
parameter. But I'm not about to go mucking about with that family of templates since it'd likely require a bot operation to update all instances of the template. And for the same reason I'm reluctant to touch the template to accommodate Linzaap's request. I'm honestly not sure exactly who to ask about this either since this is quite a large family of templates. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/
10:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
sidesteps the whole need to use an underscore issue. The documentation for these templates should probably all be updated to reflect that. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/
10:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
{{{1|{{{prefix|}}}}}}
" with "{{{1| {{{prefix|}}}}}}
"; that would make the 1
/prefix
parameter pair work in the same way as the 2
/suffix
parameter pair (use 1
when you don't want a space, prefix
when you do). Note of course that this template may depend on other templates that your language Wiki may not have implemented, or may not implement in the same manner. In other words, it might not work. Good luck. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/
12:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
{{North|a|suffix=b}}
, it generates the result: aNorth b
. However, if I type {{North|prefix=a|b}}
, the result is b North
)(the result I expect is a Northb
). Do you know why the result is above and are there any ways to solve it?
Linzaap (
talk)
00:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
{{North|prefix=a|b}}
is equivalent to {{North|prefix=a|1=b}}
(since named parameters aren't included in the "count" for the number of unnamed parameters), and the 1
parameter apparently overrides the prefix
parameter. To get the expected result you'd need to do {{North|prefix=a|2=b}}
. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/
00:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
I am seeking advice on what to do about dealing with one particular editor ( SPECIFICO) who IMHO abuses the WP:BRD process. He frequently reverts my edits and then fails to constructively participate in any meaningful discussion. FYI this editor has recently been permanently topic banned from "Ludwig von Mises Institute". A very recent example was when I placed a few paragraphs giving an argument about making a set of edits on a talk page, ending with "does anyone object", to which his reply (which I'm quoting in its entirety) was "yes I do". Surely this is, at best, unconstructive. I think his subsequent edits are typical of his modus operandi. Reissgo ( talk) 19:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
NewSpring Church ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Newspring church with perry noble as pastor is NOT affiliated in any way shape or form associated with the Southern Baptist convention or any other Baptist. Please change this misinformation as we DO NOT claim this church at all!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.64.96.47 ( talk) 05:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
date=October 2011
parameter. Looks like it was cut-and-pasted from the long-deleted
Newspring church (though I'm not sure I would A7 what's currently there). I wonder if it would survive AfD. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/
06:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, this is about a videogame developer called "Bplus" with a less than stellar track record: Its past games have not been reviewed well, with typical metacritic scores between 44 and 52: [15], [16], [17], [18].
Now this company has released a new game called "Bit Boy!! Arcade", where there aren't yet enough reviews to warrant a metacritic rating, but it's not looking good either: [19].
This videogame creator has its own promotional page on the web where it seem oblivious to its track record, featuring lots of positive reviews from pages that I have never heard of: [20]. Which is fine, of course they can do whatever they wish on their own website.
But please take a look at this article: Bit Boy!! Arcade. In the section "Reception", the same pattern of only featuring overly positive reviews is present. ("received almost only positive reviews", quickly followed by "universal praisal").
Now I've asked several of the big videogame review sites to review this game. All of them declined. So there are only reviews from small review sites. And these small review websites are all conspicuously positive. So this is a question about "not enough good data". There is data, but it might be tainted, or obscure.
My question: Are there inclusion guidelines how notable a review website must be to be included in a reception section?
Or my question In other words: can I create a videogame that is so obscure as not to be reviewed by the big boys, get a few positive nods from unknown review websites, and then write on my wikipedia article that I've "received almost only positive reviews" and "universal praisal"?
Thanks. Srezz ( talk) 00:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
So an argument has come up at an AfD that for a medical research company to be notable, it must be notable for its products or its scientific discoveries, rather than its corporate or financial business. Furthermore, it seems to be being argued that the sources used must not have relied in any way on the company's press releases to be considered "secondary". See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novavax, Inc. More opinions would be appreciated. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 07:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I have two questions regarding what makes a stable title. First, does an article's title become stable if it has remained for several years, even if it was moved to that title by a user who is now banned? Second, if an article was boldly moved to a new title, can it be reverted years later under WP:BRD? I'm asking because User:bobrayner reverted years' old moves of a great many articles recently for these reasons and they don't seem valid to me, so I'm trying to find out if that is the case. Please let me know if this is something I should ask elsewhere. Thank you. -- Local hero talk 15:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Cornelius Gurlitt (art collector) was turned into a redirect to 2012 Munich artworks discovery, referencing WP:BLP1E. Now that Gurlitt has passed away, it would seem that this policy does not apply anymore. Is the subject notable enough for his own article? On German Wikipedia, which does not exactly have a reputation for inclusionism, the same question was essentially answered with "absolutely!", so I'm quite a bit surprised that the typically significantly more inclusionist English-speaking Wikipedians appear to disagree. I also have to say that I find the situation where Cornelius Gurlitt (art collector) and Cornelius Gurlitt (art dealer) are both redirects rather unsatisfying and unfortunate for the reader who seeks information specifically on the man himself, which is now spread throughout the article 2012 Munich artworks discovery, even where it does not really belong. Another possibility would be the creation of a subsection specifically on Gurlitt. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 19:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I am not sure what to do here. Glevum ( talk · contribs) is doing edits with a very substantial amount of copyediting, like this, this and this. As far as I can see, the copyediting is good. The little thing that irks me is that he marks all these edits as minor, while they clearly are not. I tried to raise the issue very politely on his talk page, but he removed my post -it means he's read it, but hmm, doesn't strike me as collaborative. What should be done? It is a minor issue, but I don't know what to do in these cases. Thanks! -- cyclopia speak! 16:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
I would like to expand this section /info/en/?search=The_Harvard_Advocate#Notable_past_members into its own article titled List of Harvard Advocate people. Is there an inline procedure for expanding sections into articles or should I go through the create new article window? 2hayden2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2hayden2 ( talk • contribs) 04:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
New York: A Documentary Film ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello,
I noticed in the entry for "New York a Documentary" by Ric Burns credit for a participating Historian,"Craig Steven Wilder" was omitted in your entry...I believe he his contribution was informative and extensive.
Thank you,
John Richardson (Redacted)
(Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.247.224 ( talk) 03:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm new to wikipedia editing and tried to make a minor edit to the entry "Biopower." It did not seem to be working apparently because someone else was immediately changing it back (took me a while to figure this out). My change put the definition at the front so that if someone googled the term, they would get the definition on the search page without having to open the article. A definition would give the meaning of the term rather than the originator of the term (though of course "Foucault" has a particular meaning for anyone who has read him--not necessarily the audience for the definition). I found the responses of the other editor to be aggressive and made the experience pretty unpleasant. I'm still not entirely clear on how editing wikipedia works. I'm a graduate student with interest in knowledge claims but don't have a lot of time. Is there a simple tutorial to guide people through the process? Again, that my edits were so immediately and summarily dismissed made me think the program wasn't working. Assistance would be much appreciated. Thanks! Eburg Editor ( talk) 13:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
The Ribbon International ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am having a problem with an editor changing a word in a sentence. After the second change, I provided a link to information for the proper use of the word, on his talk page. I then again, changed the word back to the original. The editor then made another change incorporating the information I had posted concerning the word, but it was still wrong. I then changed his word back to the original. The editor has now changed the word again, two times. The sentence would have to be totally rearranged for the word to work right in the sentence. The following are the word changes in the sentence.
Original - The Ribbon International is a world wide art project comprised of 36 x 18" cloth panels, promoting abolition of nuclear weapons, disarmament, peace, care and protection of the earth and its inhabitants.
Frist and second edit - The Ribbon International is a world wide art project composed of 36 x 18" cloth panels, promoting abolition of nuclear weapons, disarmament, peace, care and protection of the earth and its inhabitants.
Third and fourth edit - The Ribbon International is a world wide art project comprising 36 x 18" cloth panels, promoting abolition of nuclear weapons, disarmament, peace, care and protection of the earth and its inhabitants.
The word comprising should reflect to The Ribbon International, as the panels being the basis of The Ribbon International and NOT being the basis of the panels. In order for the sentence to read correctly:
A world wide art project of 36 x 18" cloth panels comprising The Ribbon International, promotes the abolition of nuclear weapons, disarmament, peace, care and protection of the earth and its inhabitants.
Apparently this editor was more concerned with making his 100 edits that I read about on his talk page. Thank you Susan Macafee ( talk) 02:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
-ing
suffix in English is so productive that you can more or less assume it's acceptable. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/
16:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)UE Boom ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(see previous thread at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 120#Minor dispute over product article)
The creator of this article insists on assessing it as mid-importance for one WikiProject, as well as marking it as C-class, despite some ongoing disputes as to the appropriate depth of coverage, neutrality, and other issues. Is this appropriate? —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 08:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
An editor has removed a wikilink to the subject identified in an image because they say there is already a link in the article text (in this case the opening paragraphs). My understanding is that image captions should include wikilinks even if these links duplicate links in the article text (the logic being that readers looking at the image are not reading the article and should not have to search out the link in the text in order to link). I skimmed Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions, but I can't find a clear statement regarding our standards for captions and wikilinks. Any ideas? Candleabracadabra ( talk) 13:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
This is my first time posting here, so forgive and appropriately redirect me for any mistakes. Basically, I've been editing the page K'naan (Somali-Canadian rapper) for language/structure and adding newer information (with references). As is the case with articles sometimes, you come across disputes with other users, who may disagree with your edits and prefer to make their own edits/reverts. Recently, I have come across a certain user who has done so a number of times, I don't feel its time for "dispute resolution" since we have just begun to take it to the Talk Page. I would mainly like consultation to observe some of my concerns and whether they are valid or not. Since I don't feel it would be right for me to press my angle, if it were to be in the wrong.
1) I added a disambiguation header linking to Knaanic language, since "Knaan" redirects to the artist. This was removed by the user.
2) A section titled "Feud with k-os" (another Canadian rapper), was replaced with "Musical disputes". I object to this because, its only one "dispute/feud" so no point added a plural/nondescriptive header. Furthermore, "Musical disputes" implies creative differences a rapper has with a producer/writer/artist he's working with, not a feud with a rival/competing rapper (k-os) as is the case. The concept of " rap feud" is common in the Hip Hop world, and commonly mentioned as such in most Wikipedia articles on rappers.
3) A section entitled "Activism and views" made mention of K'naan's activism work, as well as his "view" a comment he made on Somalian piracy. The user renamed the section "Philanthropy", and removed any mention of the Somali piracy comment, citing it to be irrelevant or unimportant. I beg to differ, since the artist is Somalian closely connected to Somali culture/issues, and Piracy is a big issue related to Somalia. This is where i noticed there seems to be a deliberate attempt at POV or whitewashing the subject article. 'Philanthropy' has positive connotations whereas 'Activism' has neutral/variable connotations; this seems to be against the spirit of NPOV. Outright removal of a controversial section like his view on piracy seemed to fit in with that line of thought. His editing of "feud" to "musical dispute" also seemed to be an indicator of the deliberate toning-down of language in the article.
This is the Talk Page section where I've brought some of these concerns to the user directly: /info/en/?search=Talk:K%27naan#Philanthropy // DA1 ( talk) 05:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm back! An editor has redirected an article on an obviously notable subject. It's part of a pattern of going after me, so I want to avoid the conflict entirely and get a clear community consensus on the subject. I would like a wide hearing of it. I am familiar with the AfD process and I would like to use that, but I have taken some criticism for nominating an article to determine whether it's a legitimate subject when I don't want it deleted. I think that's silly, AfD is where it's decided whether we include an article subject, but if that's a problem.. What are my other options? I am wary of RFC. Will that draw a wide audience to actually look into the subject and determine notability? I don't want drive by "I don't like it" votes. I want the sources and coverage to be assessed fairly. What is best way to deal with this situation? Candleabracadabra ( talk) 19:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Since the article is under discretionary sanctions ( Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Final_decision), and given that "the assumption that a particular change of the climate is taking place" is the consensus view among scientists", and since two administrators have reverted what they deemed to be POV versions of the article, and since the article in its current state still preserves the original spirit of the "more neutral terminology" view, I suggest that extraordinary care be taken here. Drmies ( talk) 12:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Brady Dougan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Early Life of Brady Dougan has been removed and replaced by career. 178.197.227.241 ( talk) 00:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Requesting an editorial review of Council_of_Graduate_Schools ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am a paid editor for the Council of Graduate Schools. We would like to request some help with updating, expanding, and providing external sources for this page. We have drafted content at the article's Talk page that we would like to request a third-party review and post if s/he feels it is within Wikipedia's guidelines for neutrality and documentation. Thank you for any help you provide.
Nwt007 ( talk) 19:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)nwt007
Should articles about French institutions be titled in French or English, such as St. Charles Garnier College? Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names states that the common name should be used, which is Collège Saint-Charles-Garnier. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) states that it should be written in English, which is St. Charles Garnier College. Which one do I go for? Pjposullivan ( talk) 17:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I screwed up and did a copy-paste move to try to purge an image cache from commons - I really should know better, but I wasn't thinking straight. Short story, the file that used to be hosted on en.wiki at File:Editorrib18.png is now hosted on commons at File:Editorrib20.png, but the move to commons left file info on en.wiki, which I moved to en.wiki's File:Editorrib20.png page by copy/paste instead of a proper move. What I need is the edit history at File:Editorrib18.png moved to File:Editorrib20.png, and I hope that deleting the File:Editorrib18.png page (and any redirect left behind) will allow the updated commons image to propogate through en.wiki, but at the very least, the edit history does need to be moved. Thanks for any help. Van Isaac WS cont 05:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Sir, I was just accidentally uploaded the that article.The proper things and equations are ready with me .Can i proceed with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anu.gp ( talk • contribs) 17:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
131.179.232.36 ( talk) 00:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)My assistant tried to add a section to this entry. It was deleted three times with no adequate explanation. The editor mentioned "copyright" and "formatting" issues, but all our sources have copyright release, and our format complies (to the best or our understanding) with all other entries in wikipedia. We tried but failed to ask the editor (Evergreen) to be more specific. Can you help? Respectfully, Professor Judea Pearl UCLA <redacted> 00:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC) 131.179.232.36 ( talk) 00:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
We would like to add our company to Wikipedia but as owners we can not do this. Not sure how to go about having this done but if you require a list of articles and information on the company we would be happy to provide anything. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.25.224 ( talk) 15:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
ReCellular ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dear sirs,
It has come to my attention that a disgruntled employee has posted malicious content to the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReCellular
The information posted is not factual nor correct in many aspects. It should be obvious to the editor that the post is clearly intended to discredit myself (John Petzold) and the company.
I would ask that the recent edits made be reviewed in further detail and the author intents be reconsidered for context and purpose. I would be glad to provide factual details relative to public information, but I am restricted in sharing specific company information which is confidential.
eRC (eRecyclingCorps) is a great company and has an excellent standing in the industry and community. They purchased the assets of Recellular out of receivership, not the company Recellular. In doing so, they saved the jobs of many. The few select individuals who were affected by the restructuring of the new business do not represent the majority of those who are still employed and the edits as posted affect and discredit all. It is unfair and unjust to allow such malicious content on your site.
I hope you understand and make an effort to truly provide an appropriate post.
Thank you in advance for your consideration. Please feel free to reach me directly.
Sincerely,
John Petzold General Manager, Mobile Karma — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.32.34.74 ( talk) 15:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Please refer to the recent discussion that has occurred on my talk page. I've been asked to stop creating redlinks in articles, and been told I'm doing nefarious, prohibited things. I'm not really interested in defending every one word change I make with two or twenty paragraphs of rhetoric, or becoming a Wikipedia lawyer.
Please review the state of affairs on my talk page, and let me know if I should go elsewhere with my time. Thanks. 70.247.162.65 ( talk) 00:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
To me, this signifies that I can be bold so long as I'm doing it in a box. I can't accept that.
If that's not the way it works anymore, then so be it. Was fun while it lasted. 70.247.162.65 ( talk) 01:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, for one, you shouldn't put redlinks in a see also section. But as to other redlinks... I frankly don't know enough about the subject area to say whether, for instance " ray interpretation" should be redlinked. The rest of it... meh. I think Cuzkatzimhut et al. might be being overly picky about these things, but again, I don't know enough about the subject area. You shouldn't let this drive you out of editing, but do try to maintain a cool head, and understand that virtually everything that happens here is open for discussion at any time. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 02:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
This might not be the place to report this but I've had difficulty finding where to report it. I made two replies to comments at /info/en/?search=Talk:Media_Matters_for_America and the User:Scjessey deleted them using Twinkle. I restored them and User:Scjessey deleted them again. If someone wants to archive a subject on a talk page that's fine with me but to selectively delete my replies is a different matter. Isn't this also an abuse of Twinkle? I haven't done anything else about the matter except for sending an email at Special:EmailUser/Oversight. However, I wondered if that link was working because I checked the box requesting that a copy of my request be sent to my email account and a number of hours later, that copy still hasn't been sent. TL36 ( talk) 20:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Guys, I noticed during my wikiing today a lot of edits on Indian National Congress by one editor and also, upon looking at their contributions, further edit of very similar nature centred around the same subject. Some of the edit seem very constructive and neutral, some seem determined to remove any information on controversies surrounding the Indian National Congress party and its officers, even though some of these issues seem to be well sourced and referenced. So, the question, how do I approach this editor to seek confirmation of neutrality i.e. no Conflict of Interest, or does this get escalated and approached from an administration wikipedian? Kind regards. The Original Filfi ( talk) 12:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
This isn't exactly the right place to request the intervention of a Steward. To contact a Steward, you should use one of these methods (a post here isn't likely to be seen by one):
Hope this helps. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 09:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)