Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 109

Archive 105

←

Archive 107

Archive 108

Archive 109

Archive 110

Archive 111

→

Archive 115

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracy_S._Lewis_House

Answered

 – Danger (talk) 05:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracy_S._Lewis_House article is asking for:

It does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve it by adding citations to reliable sources. Tagged since January 2011. The notability of this article's subject is in question. If notability cannot be established, it may be listed for deletion or removed. Tagged since June 2011.

I'd like to resolve the issues, we also have a problem with this page being vandalized and have begun the warning process however with the ill-intended user using dynamic IPs from ATT it is hard to nail "him" down.

76.23.235.137 (talk) 05:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Ben

I've protected the article for a while, but this means that you will have to create an account to edit it. See WP:Autoconfirmed for more information. What specifically is your question about the message at the top of the article? --Danger (talk) 05:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

OK great, if I knew what statements were flagging the system for citations I'd cite for them. I'd also rewrite the content for a more neutral tone, the facts are what they are though. As for the notability...well I think the House deserves a page (but who am I so...) but what is the definitive test for notability? 76.23.235.137 (talk) 06:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC) Ben

The notability guidelines give the answer to that. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Reference to admins deleting content

Answered

 – Danger (talk) 05:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand the need for administration to remove content that may be sensitive, copyright infringement. I made a post on an OPEN music artists fan site (Alanis morissette) quoting it DIRECTLY from her facebook page (hers, not a fans) about being back in the studios working on new songs for an upcoming album, and NOT ONLY did an admin decide to remove the content, but also blocked editting from a page WITHOUT a reason noted at all. Now my initial reaction to his removal of the content was not the best, but for someone in HIS position to delete OBVIOUSLY friendly and helpful content on a website designed EXACTLY FOR THAT with SOURCING where the information derived, It was HIGHLY inappropriate for them to delete it. Some people need not be in such positions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nydaelia (talk • contribs) 20:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

If you made "a post on an OPEN music artists fan site", rather than on Wikipedia, why are you complaining here? This page is for help with editing Wikipedia - we have no control over other websites. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You added unsourced rumours to Alanis Morisette, called another editor an idiot and edit warred. I suggest that you take some time to learn how things work around here, especially about reliable sources, citing sources and using talk pages to communicate with other editors. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh so the artist saying it is not a source. I understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nydaelia (talk • contribs)

{ec}Can you point us in the right direction of specific edits? The only edits I can see to the page Alanis Morissette today were the inclusion of information without sources (fan site Facebook or otherwise) that was rightly reverted. Followed by this little gem where someone reverted with a personal attack. Was this you? Either way, fan sites are not considered reliable sources and should almost never be used, Facebook posts are primary sources if they are legitimate at all and should be used with extreme care - many users will challenge them and often rightfully so. If you can find some reliable sources independent of the subject that aren't fan sites, then please suggest changes at Talk:Alanis Morissette. And this time? Please, without personally attacking people. Яehevkor ✉ 21:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

http://www.facebook.com/#!/alanismorissette — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nydaelia (talk • contribs)

"Occupy" protests articles

Discussion moved

 – The fun is over at AfD. Danger (talk) 23:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure that this is then right place for this. I just noticed that there's a whole bunch of articles being created on the current "Occupy" movement. See List of "Occupy" protest locations and Occupy Baltimore for examples. These articles not only violate WP:NOTNEWS, but also seem to be used to rally supporters (mentioning times and places for "general assemblies" and such). I think it is way too early to create so many articles (like all these movements, in a year from now, most people will probably barely remember them and if I'm wrong in that, then a year from now is time enough to create those articles) as there is no way to determine whether this has any lasting notability. I don't usually edit articles related to current events, so some more experienced eyes on this would be good. --Crusio (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I think if you want raise this you need to nominate fro deletion at WP:AFD, but I think that you are unlikely to be successful. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Many of the editors of those articles are newbies and display all signs of WP:OWN and are pretty zealous in "protecting" "their" articles. An AfD would certainly be a painful experience and, as you say, unlikely to succeed (unless there's an admin who's willing to close based solely on policy and not on the numbers of "keep" votes that this certainly would generate. As far as I can see, this whole movement, at this stage, merits at best one single article covering it all. --Crusio (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Admins usually filter out the noise from COI/SPA !votes that an AfD on an article such as this might create - one shouldn't be afraid to nominate it if you feel it's necessary. Яehevkor ✉ 22:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at these articles further, good sources are being added and the pages are being improved. I take your point about WP:NOTNEWS, but as this movement grows more information will be available. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Do we report possible future events? Probably we do, most likely trying to delete this will not work. But WP does itself a bad service - as an encyclopaedia - when it lends space top become a webhosting service for campaigning sites. - This list is a clear case of an indiscriminate list, the large majority of entries point to cities, not to related articles. If chopped down to include the few related 'occupy' articles, fine, but this is detrimental to the encyclopaedia. Nabla (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• I agree, but have to admit that this is not really one of my editing interests (I just stumbled upon it during new page patrol) and am loath to spend a lot of energy/time on what certainly is going to be a contentious AfD. And there are already a handful of articles, so that would either mean a bunch of AfDs or a combined one (and, hence, even more contentious)... --Crusio (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed. - Nabla (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I tried an AfD for the main article, got my butt handed to me (complete with WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF violations), and then saw it closed as a WP:SNOW by an arrogant non-admin. It was a nasty experience indeed. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• That shouldn't have been snow closed, there was at least one "delete" !vote. And I'd have voted delete as well... But in previous cases where I got involved in current-event related articles, I found out that it is almost impossible to get something like that deleted. Too many newsjunkies that will yell at you "this is notable, I read about it just now". Then, 2 months later after all the hubbub has died down, hardly anybody participates at an AfD any more as all interest is gone... I guess that will be the same here, unless this "movement" (if one can actually call it that way) soon changes into something more substantial than what it is now. As an aside, I guffawed reading the comment from a newbie editor that "the list is monitored"...This ain't Facebook, people... --Crusio (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Are YOU willing to request a Deletion Review, Crusio? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I do think that the kid (judging from his pic) who closed this deserves a trout. And if you think that it could make a difference, yes, I'll take it to DRV. Jut say the word. --Crusio (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead. I'd be interested to see the reaction of the broader community. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Discussion with closer as per DRV instructions (don't want the DRV tossed out on a technicality). --Crusio (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• The editor who closed says he's ready to re-open the debate. We should post a note somewhere to ensure that many "regular" editors are aware of this debate and can give their opinions (either way, of course, not talking canvassing here). What would be the best place for such a note? --Crusio (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Image uploading naming problem

Answered

 – Danger (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

List_of_inactive_United_States_Navy_aircraft_squadrons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The section about Reconnaissance Squadrons - 2/3 of the way down.

I am given an "Upload Warning" on an image of a squadron patch for "VFP-63.jpg" because the name is not descriptive enough.

All the other 40px x 40px patch names on that page are formatted the same. I wanted to be consistent.

Or, can I name the upload with a more descriptive phrase and have it show up on the page as the truncated text version?

Also - The squadron flew RF-8A Crusaders. If I lengthen the wording in that box of the grid, will it auto-expand to include it all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMcMac (talk • contribs)

I see you have uploaded File:VFP-63 Squadron Patch.jpg after posting here. You can write any text to be displayed next to the image when it's used. Tables automatically expand to show all content in cells. Depending on the table, it may expand horizontally or the row may expand vertically. See Wikipedia:Piped link for how you can make a link without displaying the whole name of the article. For example, the code [[Vought F-8 Crusader|RF-8A]] renders as RF-8A which links to an article mentioning the plane. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

a double page found, please help

Answered

 – Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 17:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

hi, i need help removing a page/community there are a double instance this is the right one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert%27s_Arm,_Newfoundland_and_Labrador

and this is the wrong one, it isn't link properly on face book,top link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert%27s_Arm

and if you know how, can you help me get this community added to community/city suggestions on sitesa like facebook n myspace, there seems to be a major issue thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happydravya (talk • contribs) 04:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You are at a help page for Wikipedia and not for Facebook. They are separate websites run by separate organizations. Robert's Arm, Newfoundland and Labrador is a valid redirect to the Wikipedia article Robert's Arm. The way Wikipedia redirects work, they have different url's but the redirecting title Robert's Arm, Newfoundland and Labrador will automatically display the current content of the target article Robert's Arm. The article is written at Wikipedia by Wikipedia editors without influence from Facebook. Somebody at Facebook (I don't know their inner workings) may choose to copy the article at different times and give it different Facebook titles so Facebook ends up with separate content at separate Facebook pages called "Robert's Arm, Newfoundland and Labrador" and "Robert's Arm". This is not Wikipedia's concern. Facebook is one of thousands of sites using Wikipedia content and Wikipedia does not control how they use it. The way Wikipedia decides redirects and page names here at Wikipedia is not influenced by how external sites like Facebook may choose to copy and present the content. Here is a standard reply regarding questions about Facebook community pages copied from Wikipedia:

Facebook community pages may incorporate content from Wikipedia— such use complies with Wikipedia policies on reuse of content. We at Wikipedia have no control over how the content is included nor can we help to remove it. Facebook does have a topic on Community pages and profile connections on their Help Center. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

re Tongue drum

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Wiki Editor, I will try to keep my complaints short and to the point. There is a musical instrument known as a tongue drum. I attempted to edit a page about this instrument, as it had been insufficient in describing the instrument, and had a link to a company which is a start up, and was obviously advertising. After several attempts at editing the 'tongue drum' page, the page now defaults to ' slit drum '. Tongue drums and slit drums are quite different. Tongue drums deserves to have a page of its own. Please allow me to add a ' tongue drum(s) page, and not have it redirected to ' slit drum ' Mercurial101 (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Mercurial101

It doesn't look to me like this should be a separate article. You'd need better references, certainly. There are currently two in the article. One is to a PowerPoint file which I (and many people) can't view, so I can't evaluate it. The other is a pretty sketchy ref -- a guy's website. It's also a commercial website which is discouraged for refs. It's not an acceptable reference perWP:RS.. I'm not finding any other good refs right off. It does look like "tongue drum" is a real word, but probably just a variety of Slit drum. That what this fellow (also a commercial site) says.here they use the terms "tongue drum" and "slit drum" interchangeably. And most other stuff I'm finding seems to support this. And the one ref (that I can read) that the article has says "Tongue drums are known by many different names including Xylodrums, Log Drums, and Slit Drums", and the rest of the ref looks like it describes slit drums, mostly.

So in what way is a tongue drum not a slit drum? You need to find better references if you want this article to stand alone as a separate article. Herostratus (talk) 03:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I will keep Talk:Tongue drum (which is the talk page for the article, even though it's only a redirect as of now) on my watchlist, and if you want to go there and develop a cogent case for this being a separate stand-alone article (obviously good references would help a lot) we can talk about this some more there. Herostratus (talk) 03:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Forces on sails article

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Hi. This article has a number of problems:

• It was translated wholesale from the French wiki, and many of the language idioms are unnatural

• It makes many claims that are either unsupported, the citation is only tangentially related, or is in French

• The structure is haphazard and it's difficult to read unless you are already familiar with the topic. (I'm very familiar, and I still have trouble following it)

• It's too long and goes into detail that is beyond the scope of an encyclopedic article.

• It's possibly redundant - other wiki articles cover the same material

In short, many improvements need to be made to bring it up to wiki standards. Unfortunately, there only appear to be two editors working on it, and we can't seem to agree on much. It's hard to reach consensus when there are only two people who disagree. (c:

So, I'm looking for help or suggestions. The other editor is working in good faith, I just don't think the article is ready for primetime and I'm not seeing much progress towards getting there. Not sure what to do, but further edits on my part that are immediately un-done is a waste of my time. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The first comments on the article talk page for three months were made yesterday by Bcebul and you haven't responded yet. Please develop the discussion there first. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

This email is in regard to page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Young_(singer)

I would prefer we update this page to include Chris' 2011 nomination for New Artist Of The Year on the Country Music Association Awards.

He will also be performing at the CMA Awards on Nov 9th. This is something I would prefer be added to his page.

Also Would prefer a new photograph placed on his page. http://www.countrymusicrocks.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Chris-Young-Neon-CountryMusicRocks.net_.jpeg

A smaller/condensed version can be placed on his page.

Thank you! 63.87.175.62 (talk) 17:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason to believe that photo has been released into the public domain. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

the federalist party...

Resolved

 – Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 17:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The information is not correct in the first chapter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.78.157.202 (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Wikipedia calls it the lead of the article. It was vandalized earlier today. The vandalism has been reverted. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Need help fixing formatting

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Hello, the Jade Buddha Temple article has what looks like a failed redirect and a quote box that runs out of the bounds of the images and the article itself. Thanks! Richard☺Decal (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed Syrthiss (talk) 13:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Mickie James wikipedia problems

Discussion moved

 – see Talk:Mickie James#Edit request from , 26 October 2011--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 13:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone has posted false imformation about mickie james and brutus magnus on there Wikipedia and they have protected the page so people can't remove it Again and its not real imformation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickiefan2005 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You have been advised in 3 separate locations how to deal with the situation on the article talkpage, and it appears you are finally addressing it there. Placing the same request in multiple fora will not help, it will merely confuse the issue (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Libertarianism content dispute

Answered

 – Danger (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a content dispute over whether references to left wing libertarianism, including direct quotes of Thomas Jefferson, belong in an article on "libertarianism" or whether only right wing libertarianism may be discussed. Accurate, well sources references to left wing libertarianism have repeatedly been deleted by user Toa Nidhiki05.

This user came up with a variety of reasons--No page numbers, direct cite to another wikipedia page, etc. Each one of his concerns were addressed. Each time he deleted all references to left wing libertarianism and threatned to block the IP of the person who disagreed with him.

This user has been involved in many edit disputes. Please intervene to help resolve this dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.212.151 (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Libertarian socialism, and Long's conception of a pro-capitalist "left" libertarianism, are discussed at length in the article, they have content in the Lede. The editorial community acts as an apolitical body through consensus, and the lede has been under structured discussion on the talk page throughout the few hours this IP editor had problems with the D in BRD. The IP editor has had repeated problems with reverting rather than discussing through their edit history; and currently has problems understanding what reliable sources are. The editor doesn't understand the distinction between primary and secondary sources, and synthesises original research from primary sources. The largest problem is the absence of the IP editor talking on the talk page. The IP editor's content appears like it could be useful in certain areas, and I'm sure if they learnt to discuss with others on talk pages, and began exploring the requirements of verification and sourcing, they could make very valuable contributions to the wikipedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Fifelfoo describes the process side and overall situation well. The result was insertion of numerous personal POV constructions. IMHO the initial complaint mis-described the situation. North8000 (talk) 12:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 12:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Prenatal test, Amniocentesis, Down Syndrome

{

Answered

 – Danger (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I have spent considerable time making revisions to three pages: Prenatal_Diagnosis, Amniocentesis, and Down Syndrome

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_diagnosis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_Syndrome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amniocentesis

The major theme of my updates was to provide more information about a test called MaterniT21 that has recently been validated in a major study and, more importantly, been made commercially available so that patients can actually avail themselves of its greater accuracy for Down Syndrome testing.

I then discovered that people with limited domain knowledge undid everything, calling it "speculative" or "spam", seemingly without considering the merits of what I wrote or the sources I cited. I explain at the bottom of the Discussion of Prenatal_Diagnosis why my additions have merit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prenatal_diagnosis#Flash_in_the_pan

It's not clear that there is anything that can be done short of just giving in to them. I've come to Wikipedia thinking that it was actually a place where people with new and verifying information could go to share what they know with the world. But this experience has been discouraging... I do not have any idea how to get an idea past people who simply assume that anything that one has to say about a new technology is hype meant to sell snake oil. Shouldn't information be judged on its merits?

In this case, the consequences of suppressing this information is that women who want accurate prenatal testing may either skip testing or opt for invasive tests that have a risk of miscarriage. Every day, there are pregnancies lost because of invasive testing. The whole reason why scientists, companies, and physicians have been working for years to develop an accurate non-invasive test is to allow parents to test for Down Syndrome (and other chromosomal abnormalities) without unnecessary risk of losing a healthy pregnancy to miscarriage. Now that they have finally brought such a test to market and it is available, shouldn't women be able to find out that it exists when they search the internet?

The information I provided, particularly the math example where I walk through the implications of the old vs new screening paradigm if 400,000 women are tested, are meant to make the complexities of sensitivity and specificity values more understandable to a lay audience. It's a hard topic to grasp - how is it a bad thing to try to educate people about how to understand the benefits of diagnostic accuracy and consequences of false-positives/negatives?

I hope that someone with some domain expertise can help arbitrate this "war".

My apologies for not being facile with the specifics of Wikipedia coding. I hope this message is clear and that the links are adequate to bring you to the relevant pages.

Ne1ofmany (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Ne1ofmany

If I had come across your edits and you repeated insertions of links to www.sequenomcmm.com I'd have come the conclusion that it was spam also (ref spamming to be precise, see WP:REFSPAM). Are you in some way affiliated with this site and or its services? Either way, the best approach would be to continue to discuss on talk pages, several editors have reverted your edits so it would be best to work with them to gain a consensus on the issue (it's unlikely that many editors on this page here will have the specific scientific/medical knowledge to make an informed opinion on the above, but then "domain expertise" is never a requirement for editing here on any subject). If that fails there are avenues at WP:Dispute resolution you can follow. Яehevkor ✉ 18:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Run-on "overlinking?"

Answered

 – Danger (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking for some guidance on a couple of related content trends I've been noticing for some time now. My apologies if there's a better place for this, but I did look for a good place to post, as much as I knew how.

In the first, there will be spurious list of stuff-that-can-be-linked, such as the list of reviewers in the "Content" section of AllRovi's article. I think this entire paragraph should be deleted (as I wrote on the talk page), with links back to AllRovi from the reveiewer's personal page if in fact they are prominent enough to have one.

The second is a form of run-on overlinking, where unfortunately I don't have a specific example right now, but is something like (in Person A's article): "Person A was hired by Person B from Los Angeles, and bought a house in Hollywood designed by the architect Frank Gehry who once worked with Frank Lloyd Wright on many of his buildings in Nebraska, including the All-State Insurance building, next door to You Get The Idea...

Is there a WP:SOMETHING for this I can invoke when trimming these, if in fact I should touch them at all?

Manys (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The second is maybe into the realm of WP:OVERLINK? However, many of the specifics in the example you have are appropriate in my opinion. Having a link to Gehry helps support the value of mentioning the house at all (designed by someone notable). On the other hand, it's into WP:COATRACK, mentioning things associated with the content associated with the article topic but having no actual direct association to the article topic (content about Gehry unrelated to Person A goes in Gehry's page not Person A's). DMacks (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! Manys (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Data cleansing

Answered

 – Danger (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

The article involved is [[1]]. I have added information about existing tools and these are constantly being deleted by MikeWazowski. I tried to contact him on his user page but he hasn't respond. I need help PLEASE.

--Vullik (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm not going to email you since I'd like my reply to be public, so that others can add to the conversation if they want. I looked at your edit and his revert. The reason that he undid your edit was because you didn't cite any sources for the information. Wikipedia is not a repository of everything that everyone wants to put down; it is an encyclopedia. As such, it contains information that is backed up by a reliable source. Check out many of the top articles we have, such as, say, Virus. You'll notice that all the information stated there is backed up by a citation. This is why he reverted it, and why you're not making progress. Learn how to cite where the information came from, and write in such a way that it really adds well to the data cleansing article. You need to do this or he and others will continue to undo your work. Best of luck. Jessemv (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

incorrect informaton for peter frampton

Answered

 – Danger (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Peter frampton was not in the 1999 blues brothers 2000 film. Eric Clapton was apart of the competing band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.18.103 (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. From the limited information provided I'm going to say that this best belongs on the Talk page of the appropriate article, if you can't make the edit yourself. Thanks. Jessemv (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Gratuitous profanity in edit comments

Answered

 – --Bermicourt (talk) 06:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

What is Wikipedia's line on gratuitous profanity in edit comments such as this one here? If it's against our policy, what is the correct course of action? --Bermicourt (talk) 11:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Help:Edit summary doesn't specifically mention this. You may wish to leave a polite note on the editor's talk page, reminding them of our civility policies. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am aware there are no rules expressly forbidding it. Wikipedia:Civility covers this but isolated acts of perceived incivility are unlikely to have any consequences unless it's a direct personal attack (which this isn't). Best bet would be to do as Jezhotwells suggested and drop a line on their talk page. Яehevkor ✉ 20:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, Kudpung templated me for that edit summary. I apologize to Bermicourt if he was upset by my lack of civility. I just really don't like spammers abusing Wikipedia like that, and would honestly prefer they do as I suggested instead. Kilopi (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys. @Kilopi - no worries. I certainly agree we don't want spam abuse; I just don't think profanity helps our cause as a) it has a tendency to cause offence and escalate issues and b) it doesn't quite square with the impression that we are a serious encyclopedia, if you see what I mean. I didn't know about the edit summary template - that seems a sensible approach. I'll add it to my "aide memoire". I'm happy now that this is cleared up and I've learnt something from it. --Bermicourt (talk) 08:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Rugby Union World Cup Facts

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Just wanted to make mention of additional facts regarding the above.

South Africa is the only nation to have won the World Cup at Home and Away (France). Australia have won it away twice (Wales and England). New Zealand have one it at Home twice. England won it away in Australia

Thanks

Regards Colin Crowther <email redacted>—Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.254.208 (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2011

You may care to introduce this information, with verifiable and reliable sources of course onto the talk pages of appropriate articles. You email has been redacted as we answer queries here, on this page, and in order to prevent you getting lots of spam. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

creating a page on "child waste pickers"

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to create an entry on "child waste pickers." I would really appreciate any feedback from editors on regards to what kind of criteria they would need in order to consider my entry. I've done a substantial amount of empirical research on the subject so I would definitely supply a hefty amount of sources in my entry to convey the lifestyle and implications of children working in landfills. Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nservin89 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Your first article is a good place to start learning about this. Best to start by creating the article in your WP:User space and then requesting WP:Feedback when you have created some content. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure that's best? Requests at WP:FEEDBACK seem to get archived off the page when more than about four days old; and currently none of the requests from 21st October (that is, those about to get archived) have received any replies at all. Likewise, none of the requests from 22nd October, 23rd October, 24th October or today, have received any replies as far as I can see. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean, having read the talk page for feedback. There seems to be a dearth of new page reviewers. I guess the new page patrollers might pick up problems. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Eleonora Nicholaevna Dostal-Oruc

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Eleonora Nikolaievna Dostal-Oruç (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I saw in Wikipedia that there is an interview with the woman above, published in a Turkish newspaper, on January 29th, 2000 and retrieved on June 19th, 2011. How can I read this interview.

Thanks Amelia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.61.122.87 (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Try clicking on the blue link to Interview with Eleonora Dostal-Oruç. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Deaf Cinema

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

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

I feel this currently orphaned Deaf Cinema entry is a promotional piece. Is it? I'm happy to do a write-up of Deaf Cinema, but I want to check here first before I'd go ahead and revise the current Deaf Cinema entry. Thanks. 0zero9nine (talk) 03:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea. Feel free to remove the prod and then rewrite. It will have to be moved to Deaf cinema too. I can take care of that. You might let Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability know, since Wikipedia:WikiProject Deaf is inactive. Danger (talk) 21:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Alan Friedman

Answered

 – Danger ^{High voltage!} 21:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Could one of your editors please look into the white washing attempts by Alan Friedman paid PR to take down all the recent Wiki entries regarding the collapse of his company FBC Media last week. This was following the Independent exposé on BBC World, CNBC which was brought to light by Clare Rewcastle (sister-in-law to Gordon Brown) on Sarawak Report. Much of the darker work he did for Chief Minister Taib of Sarawak, Malaysia has yet to hit the headlines but the recent updated entries have been posted by a large group of news people in the know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flippa j (talk • contribs) 18:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. If you wish to start discussion about dubious edits than you need to leave comments on the discussion or talk pages of the relevant articles. This is how Wikipedia works. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Is single payer health care failed or pending in the US?

Answered

 – Danger ^{High voltage!} 21:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Re Template:Health care reform in the United States (talk)

Is single-payer health care a failed proposal in the US? Dualus (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that a discussion has been initiated on the template talk page so that is the correct approach to resolve this. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sadly this problem has simply moved to Template talk:Healthcare in the United States#Deletion of United States National Health Care Act which I will re-list below. Dualus (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal of my footnotes

Answered

 – Danger ^{High voltage!} 21:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to ask you why in three articles my footnotes were removed? Slavic speakers in Greece, Macedonia (region) and one more on Macedonia. I wanted to check something and I have noticed that the footnotes I added were removed! Why? Ireneusz A. Ślupkov (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

In the history of those articles you can read the reason that the person reverting your edits gave.

Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia History

Demographic history of Macedonia History

It appears that the editor felt you were using Wikipedia to promote your own work. You can ask Laveol on their talk page if you have any specific questions of why they reverted your edits. GB fan 00:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Issue regarding Bianca Jade article and failure to meet notability guidelines

Answered

 – Danger ^{High voltage!} 21:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I've recently edited the Bianca Jade article to include her recent appearance on Great Day St. Louis and an interview of her by HollywoodLife.com. The article already cites prominent print publications - such as TimeOut NY, Fox News, and US Weekly - as well as a television appearance on The Today Show. In addition to these, there are numerous sources listed in which other bloggers cite Jade as an expert in her field. Can the warning at the top of her page, which states that the article "may not meet the notability guideline for biographies," be removed, given these additional sources? If not, what more is needed? Nbon91 (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If you feel that notability is now established you can remove the template from the page. You should explain in your edit summary or on the article's talk page why you are removing the tag. If someone reinstates it you should discuss it on the talk page. GB fan 00:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Image edit request

Answered

 – Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 17:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Proper place for this? I want to make Iraq on File:State positions Iraq war.png a different color to better illustrate where it is. I tried an image editing program paint fill in, at the lowest tolerance and it colored several other countries too. Can someone make Iraq a different color? CTJF83 00:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop may be the place to request a professional fill-in. Goodvac (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks! CTJF83 01:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Biased Editor.

Answered

 – No trouble at all. Danger ^{High voltage!} 19:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This person (User:HuskyHuskie) is editing with bias. Take a look at all of the edits this person made and the language used. I change the language to a neutral tone and this person accuses me of what they are guilty of. Read the edits I made and the edits they made and tell me which one is the neutral edit and which one has a biased slant. The phrase "crept in" among others, are examples of this bias in this particular section of the NIU article in question.

Also, this person accuses me of cherry-picking when, again, that is what they are doing. The "Rankings" section is under the larger section "Academics" making these "Academic Rankings." The Forbes list ("Rankings") are value rankings that take into consideration the tuition cost and total cost of attendance such as cost-of-living in the particular town the university is located in. These are not "academic rankings" in that the formula used to compile these "rankings" do not have a direct correlation to the educational value of the University.

Also, I read some of the articles this person created and it seems that this person is consistently writing with a biased slant. The following is taken from the person's "Downstate Illinois" article: "While no one can say with certainty when the term became part of Illinois' vernacular, that it has become so is undeniable." Not only is this just a statement of opinion, but the last phrase "that it has become so is undeniable" is an attempt to frame this person's opinion as a fact. Reading some of the contributions by this person makes it clear that this is a tactic often employed by this person and it is something this person is often guilty of. In fact, the term "Downstate Illinois" does not refer to every part of Illinois outside of the Chicagoland area, in merely refers to the part of Illinois south of an imaginary line that is usually considered to start at I-80. Nobody in Rockford, IL or Sterling, IL would say that they live in "Downstate Illinois."

Please do not block me from this page, and in fact I request that you block this other user from the Northern Illinois University page. I doubt that this person has real ties to NIU and I believe that their user name/handle is an over-the-top attempt to mask that they are actually from Central Illinois and have ties to U of I, ISU, and the central Illinois area. The connection to Central Illinois and things in that area is clear when looking at the articles they have created as well as the pages they contribute to. Or maybe they are just an extremely poor writer and unaware that they are actually being biased with their choice of language.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerwiki2(talk • contribs) 23:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

All I'm seeing is an edit warrior who is removing sourced material to push sourced material outbecause they don't like what the sources say, who has yet to bother to discuss their edits. Assume good faith, leave sourced material you don't care for alone, and actually discuss the edits with the other editorS in the article or you're going to be facing a block. It doesn't matter what college the other editors went to, or what college you went to, what matters is neutrally summarizing reliable sources.Ian.thomson (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the "for admins only" section added, and offered an explanation on the editor's talk page.Dayewalker (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for not telling me where this should be posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerwiki2 (talk • contribs)

First Wiki Page

Answered

 – Danger ^{High voltage!} 19:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello I am very confused as how to get this article up, I have submitted it 3 times and keep getting the same responses but I have expert reviews, interviews and articles from sources such as Time Magazine and Forbes... I do not know why these are not considered as reliable third party sources? Maybe I am putting them in the wrong place???? Please help, I tried the live chat but I could not figure out where to type my questions and it's really hard not being able to talk to someone. Thank you for your time and I hope we can come to a conclusion, this is my first Wikipedia so there is a lot I do not understand.

-Tamara http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WatchmanR1/Rebecca_Costa — Precedingunsigned comment added by WatchmanR1 (talk •contribs) 00:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WatchmanR1 (talk • contribs)

• A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).

In short, you can't use any sources from Rebecca Costa nor sources that only secondarily mention Rebecca Costa but are not about her specifically to establish notability. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Assistance needed on Spirulina (dietary supplement)

Discussion moved

 – to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Spirulina_.28dietary_supplement.29 Jezhotwells (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to enhance the quality of the Spirulina (dietary supplement) but user:MastCell refuses to let through any content modification, including the addition of content from existing quoted sources and new studies on the subject. Skepticism is a great thing but I feel MastCell goes much further and refuse to compromise on anything and is happy protecting his view on things by simpling reverse editing any contrary statement.

For instance he defends the version «The standard B12 assay, using Lactobacillus leichmannii, shows spirulina to be a minimal source of bioavailable vitamin B12.[8] Spirulina supplements contain predominantly pseudovitamin B12, which is biologically inactive in humans.[9]» although looking into the very same quoted references, it should be read «The standard B12 assay, using Lactobacillus leichmannii, shows spirulina to containing mostly inactive compounds of vitamin B12 though the 17% active compounds theoretically add up to around 30% of adult RDA levels in a typical 3 g portion.[8] Spirulina supplements contain predominantly pseudovitamin B12, which is biologically inactive in humans.[9]»

After he defends «Companies which grow and market spirulina have claimed it to be a significant source of B12 on the basis of alternate, unpublished assays, although their claims are not accepted by independent scientific organizations.» - too bad such a study exists, and somehow MastCell doesn't want that to go through under the very NOPV version of «Companies which grow and market spirulina have claimed it to be a significant source of B12 on the basis of alternate, unpublished assays, a view which is supported by a new 2010 peer-reviewed study which confirms the existence of 35.5~38.7 μg methylcobalamin per 100 g of dry biomass -roughly 15% of RDA for adults per gram of spirulina-, by means of two different assays [10].»

Etc. Please could any science-oriented editor assist us with this?

Rdavout (talk) 08:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This might be best resolved at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. You could also ask for help at relevant projects.Jezhotwells (talk) 10:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed now Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Spirulina_.28dietary_supplement.29 so can be closed here I thinkWilliam M. Connolley (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You beat me to it ;) Thanks for stepping in. Rdavout (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Citing refs only in edit summaries

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 09:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

This is admittedly small but also increasingly annoying, like a pebble in a shoe. IP editor 74.64.126.212 periodically updates or changes information on pages relating to the University of Michigan but never updates the associated ref, instead merely listing the new ref in the edit summary. While this is an improvement over several months ago, when they would not cite any ref at all (and, generally the refs do support the changes), this current practice requires in each instance that another editor 1) notice the edit; 2) check the ref; and 3) edit the article to reflect the updated ref. If no one makes the correction then after a while the article's assertions will no longer match its cited refs and cleaning them up is likely to entail a laborious process of reconstruction. I am willing to make the changes on a current basis on the one or two pages I've got watchlisted, but I have no appetite for following this editor around and cleaning up all the incomplete edits. I've asked the editor several times to learn how to cite refs, and have even begun templating them on their Talk page, to no good effect. A block seems extreme for what are, essentially, sound edits but on the other hand every one of these changes requires the diligent attention of at least one other editor to ensure that the page is not slowly degraded. I'm open to suggestions on how to address this. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The hammer approach is that "changing foo<ref>fooref</ref> to bar<ref>fooref</ref>" is a contradiction of the given cite. If it's done repeatedly, no matter how good-faith and where else it may have WP:V possible, it's disruptive to do it this way. What's the feel on the benefit to WP of having slightly out-of-date properly-cited info vs improperly cited that is either going to waste other editors' time or eventually get removed entirely as contradicting the cite? I agree it's so simple to do it right and so silly a detail, which makes it all the more silly and disruptive that the editor doesn't do it. DMacks (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I've struggled with this for a while. It seems churlish to simply revert the edits as "improper" (because, well, they're typically accurate, and verifiable after a fashion) but on the other hand any editor whose edits routinely rely upon the uncertain assistance of "helper" editors to make things right will eventually lead to things being wrong, and a bigger mess than they were if left alone in the first place. It is particularly frustrating - and, yes, increasingly disruptive - that this editor has not responded at all to half a dozen or more attempts to address this on their Talk page. That, not the half-baked edits, may be what warrants an attention-getting block. Uh, IMHO. JohnInDC (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

So - before this query accrues the dreaded "stale" label and falls off the top of the page, are there any suggestions for how to deal with this issue in the event that it persists? WP:AIV doesn't seem like the right tool for someone who is just being lazy (albeit disruptive); and WP:ANI seems like a bit of a big stick. Short of the latter though I'm not sure how to get the editor's attention. Any further thoughts appreciated. JohnInDC (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd go for a block for disruptive editing. Engaging with other editors is a prerequisite to being a constructive editor and if this person fails to do so they are a net negative. Danger ^{High voltage!} 21:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Block threat

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 09:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Adam Carroll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I've been threatened with a block by a non-administrating editor on my talk page under grounds of a 1RR issue I was not aware of. There is no indication in the article concerned or its talk page that such a policy covers this article and the editor concerned has provided no links on this issue. I may have exceeded 3R on this particular issue I do state in clarification. I have asked the editor concerned for further clarification but I was wondering if there is a non-involved editor who might be able to provide some assistance on this issue. --Falcadore (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you explain to User:Domer48 that articles about sports persons do not fall under this 1RR ruling. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

They don't? Then how can this be explained? User talk:EdJohnston#AE case and Adam Carroll. The Adam Carroll article is currently hamstrung over some editors' refusals to accept reliable sources while refusing to supply sources of their own, all under the cloud of threats and blockings. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring over the nationality of someone born in Northern Ireland is covered by the restrictions. Mo ainm~Talk 11:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the assistance Jezhotwells, although I am sorry I have to ask a further question. The user concerned has dismissed this advice and re-inforced the warning and what's more aired this warning publically. I am now wondering what my course of action is. --Falcadore (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If I was you I would follow the advice given by EdJohnston to another editor, in the link provided above by Bretonbanquet, he is an admin who patrols the arbitration enforcement page and no disrespect to Jezhotwells he is just an editor with no AE experience or Troubles experience. Mo ainm~Talk 21:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not asking you. You have plenty of opportunity to make your arguments elsewhere. This is a part of Wikipedia for garnering non-involved advice and you are hardly that person. I am beginning to feel like I am being stalked. Is now the time to put this towards the dispute resolution noticeboard? --Falcadore (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Well ignore my advice if you want to be honest I couldn't give a fiddlers you asked on a notice board for advice you can choose to ignore it but do so at your peril, just ask your self why would an admin that patrols AE and has dealing with "Troubles" cases say it was covered? And have a cup of tea you seem to be getting stressed it is a public noticeboard and any editor can respond. Mo ainm~Talk 21:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This sort of pedanticism is so pathetic, that I wonder why some editors are here at all. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

amylase beta oligomers

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 09:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it is I who am confused. I was trying to find out if the OLIGOMERS of beta Amylase are it functional forms, or its allegedly toxic breakdown products.

Wasn't really sure of the use of the word OLIGOMER so looked at your article on that, and it seemed to imply that they are EITHER breakdown products or combinations of two or more of the moleculte. To me that is ambiguous.

Howard Lieberman, MD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.139.100 (talk) 01:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

(I have removed your email address to protect your privacy) I suggest you ask this question at the Science reference desk; some of the volunteers there will know how to find the answer to your question. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Please Assist Me With Content for Topic: Daniel Amen

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

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

This article is heavily biased towards negatively, and most attempts to add neutral content (for example, Books that he has authored) have been removed.

Please advise:

The neutral content that was removed was the following:

Dr. Amen is the author or co-author of 28 books, including Change Your Brain, Change Your Life, Magnificant Mind At Any Age, Healing the Hardware of the Soul, Making A Good Brain Great, The Brain In Love, Change Your Brain, Change Your Body, The Amen Solution, Healing ADD, Healing Anxiety and Depression and Preventing Alzheimers. In February 2012, his new book Use Your Brain to Change Your Age will be released by Crown Archetype at Random House.

Dr. Amen is the author of multiple peer reviewed research articles on brain SPECT imaging, including Brain SPECT Imaging in Complex Psychiatric Cases: An Evidence-Based, Underutilized Tool, Reversing brain damage in former NFL players: implications for traumatic brain injury and substance abuse rehabilitation, Impact of playing American professional football on long-term brain function, Elevated BMI is associated with decreased blood flow in the prefrontal cortex using SPECT imaging in healthy adults, High resolution brain SPECT imaging in a clinical substance abuse practice, A comparative analysis of completed suicide using high resolution brain SPECT imaging, Predicting positive and negative treatment responses to stimulants with brain SPECT imaging, An analysis of regional cerebral blood flow in impulsive murderers using single photon emission computed tomography, High-resolution brain SPECT imaging and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing in police officers with PTSD, High-resolution brain SPECT imaging in ADHD, High resolution brain SPECT imaging of marijuana smokers with AD/HD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.132.146 (talk • contribs)

You have been answered on the article talk page. If you are still unhappy then please take this to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Paul Bach

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 05:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I recently "authored" an article on Paul Bach. This was very quickly reduced to a stub by an editor, who advised me that what I had written was too similar to the published obituary and could therefore constitute a copyright violation. That editor was kind enough to encourage me to persevere and a substantially revised draft is now available in my sandbox User:LenF54/sandbox. I do not wish to simply edit the existing article by overwriting it with my revised draft if this too is in any way an inappropriate work. The editor suggested I seek WP Editor assistance, and I would be grateful if someone would look at the revised article in my sandbox and either say that I may go ahead and publish it or let me know why not. I have not been able to find cause of death, place of death, confirmation of the subject's early career (outside of the obituary) or details of the award in 1966 for Bach's coverage of the Aberfan disaster (I am still awaiting replies from the Aberfan sites that I have sent e-mails to, but I am not hopeful) so none of these appear in the article. Many thanks. LenF54 (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks okay to me, but I'd like a second opinion before I give my blessing. The blogspot link is not okay, since it leads to a copyright violation of the Telegraph article. The stuff on Aberfan will probably be in dead tree sources. I imagine if you can't find anything on your own, any librarian could point you in the right direction. --Danger ^{High voltage!} 19:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have deleted the blogspot link from the draft. LenF54 (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

James I of Scotland

Resolved

 – Danger ^{High voltage!} 00:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Lord Byron page states that James I of Scotland committed suicide, but the James I of Scotland site states that he was assassinated. This needs to be resolved. Mwozmak — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.86.154 (talk) 02:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

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

James I of Scotland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think the sentence at Lord Byron is trying to say that George Gordon of Gight committed suicide in 1779. James I died 300 years earlier. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

How to remove numerous ads?

Answered

 – Danger ^{High voltage!} 00:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I noticed on Woman's Weekly (UK magazine) that there is an ad for subscriptions masquerading as an external link. I then did a search for the company named and there are similar ads placed in other articles. Don't know just how many but could be quite a big job to clear them. I haven't done anything about it, because I thought that someone might be able to arrange for a bot to do the task automatically, or maybe there is already something of the sort. If this isn't the right forum to ask this question, I'd appreciate someone pointing me in the right direction. asnac (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

With quotes around the search terms, thus, there are only seven search results. There's also a special search page for external links, this one. I'll work through them. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Aah - didn't know you could search like that. Your help is much appreciated. asnac (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

How Can I Add Personal Information to an Existing Article?

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 05:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

An article exists entitled "Guam Jews."

I am a Jew and I lived on Guam for a number of years. In fact, I had my Bar-Mitzvah on island in 1974, being only the first or second civilian to have that honor, so I was told at the time.

As I am unable to create an article about myself, how can I get this information added to the existing article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guamboy76 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

First, find a reliable, independent source, that discusses that information. Are you able to do that? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about Category:Guam Jews? If you are the only way to add anyone to that category is to create an article first. GB fan 02:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. We need a verifiable source for this. Maybe it was reported in a local newspaper or something? It might be extremely difficult to prove though - even if the Bar-Mitzvah is reported, that won't be evidence for there not being earlier ones. I suspect that you'll probably have to content yourself with knowing this (or believing it - though I can think of no obvious reason why you shouldn't). I can't find an article on Jews in Guam, though we have Category:Guam Jews, which lists Evan Montvel Cohen as it's sole member. Note that to be added to a category, you'd have to merit a Wikipedia article - and though being Jewish and from Guam may be unusual, it wouldn't be enough to do this, I'm afraid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Article not suitable, why?

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 05:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering why my article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Pailton_Engineering was not suitable for Wikipedia according to your reviewer, when this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Holland_Agriculture, apparently is, when I based the format of my article around this one. they look very similar in terms of content to me and I don;t understand why my article is not suitable but this one is?

Please can you explain?

Pthomp52 (talk) 11:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Try reading WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The other article, New Holland Agriculture, has the makings of an encyclopaedia article. Your draft is basically just a list. Consider rewriting in prose and a more neutral tone. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

And cite sources that demonstrate that the company meets the notability criteria at WP:CORP. – ukexpat (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Mass revert of incorrect info

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 05:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm looking for advice about several edits that were made over the last 2 days by User:Agelshan. Basically, he added incorrect statistical information to the infoboxes of several Major League Soccer players' articles. They were possibly made in good faith but they need to be reverted en masse. The statistics in the infobox for association football players are for regular season league games only, as spelled out in Template:Infobox football biography. However, the aforementioned user has added playoff game statistics for all MLS players involved in this year's playoffs. A few have been reverted individually already but how do I start the process to get all of his recent edits reverted? Thanks. DemonJuice (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I see that you have started a discussion on the user's talk page. Best to see if they respond first and ask them to revert themselves. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry {Fiscal Policies}

Resolved

 – user blocked Jezhotwells (talk) 05:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Texas began borrowing money in 2003 to pay for roads and will owe $17.3 billion by the end of 2012, increasing total state debt, from $13.4 billion in 2001 to $37.8 billion in 2011.[51]

Revelant fact keeps being deleted which ties in to the above! [For the first time in State history more funds were appropriated during 2011 to service state debt than for building new roads: $850 million per year versus $575 million.][52

Britmax (talk | contribs)‎ (62,849 bytes) (Undid revision 459493159 by Wpiki (talk) The "censored facts" are about Texas not Perry, who is not the only person involved in state governance. These facts do not belong in his biography.)

Hcobb (talk | contribs)‎ (62,849 bytes) (Undid revision 459473177 by Wpiki (talk) What exactly did Perry have to do with this? (Perhaps try under Gov Perry art.))

Collect (talk | contribs)‎ (62,602 bytes) (Undid revision 459457366 by Wpiki (talk)rm per WP:BLP as irrelevant and edit war by one editor)

Ratemonth (talk | contribs)‎ (62,602 bytes) (undoing terrible writing) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpiki (talk • contribs) 18:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you have a question? Danger ^{High voltage!} 19:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Wpiki has been blocked for edit warring on Rick Perry. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Wpiki was unable or unwilling to hear that the sources did not discuss Perry. The block was the result of Wpiki not hearing numerous warnings re the unsourced nature of claims that this had to do with Perry and hir edit warring. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

"new" users and semi-protected pages

Discussion moved

 – to Wikipedia:New_contributors'_help_page/questions#editing_semi-protected_pages Jezhotwells (talk) 05:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I cannot find a definition of "new user" I've edited a dozen articles - is that enough? Perhaps not, because I can't seem to fix a few typos on the article "Crusades" which is "semi-protected" nor add a new reference. Thanks for your help -- if you wish you can reply to my talk page. RobLandau RobLandau (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see the original thread at Wikipedia:New_contributors'_help_page/questions#editing_semi-protected_pages. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

getting a new user to discuss issues on-wiki

Resolved

 – User blocked by Orangemike for COI. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Catlin Gabel School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Catlin Gabel (talk · contribs)

I've tried to get this user to engage in an onwiki discussion- they want to do it over email, which I'm loathe to do for several reasons. I'm hoping someone else can help this newish user learn how to edit talk pages? tedder (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The user name is against policy as well, looks like a SPA. I put the standard note about this on their talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That was not a newish user. That was a COI account which has been used to edit the article on the school of that name since 2007. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Need help with Weston Price article

Discussion moved

 – WP:RSN#Direct quote by subject of biography (Weston Price)--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 13:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I have been trying to put in a quote by Weston Price himself that is from a book published by Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers. Under the guise of primary source one editor (Yobol) keeps reverting this and ignoring this fact.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Dare I say forum shopping? Per the instructions at the top of this page: Do not post issues here that are posted on another noticeboard.... See BruceGrubb's contribution history. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Article Precision Steel Warehouse, Inc.

Help, how can find my article I created several weeks ago. I moved it from my sandbox and sent it to be edited before it went live. Could someone advise why it is still in limbo? I have checked the deleted articles and it's not there. What can I do?

User Stephen Kraft Stephen Kraft (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

No you didn't; it's still at User:Stephen Kraft/sandbox. If you did submit it, frankly, it would have been deleted as being both an advertisement, and about a non-notable company. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok Orangemike thanks for your advice, however Precision Steel Warehouse is owned by Berkshire Hathaway Inc.We were purchased buy Warren Buffett in 1979 the 5th company purchased which is now part one of the largest organization in the world. We are not advertising or promoting our products, the article is simply our company history.There are many other companies that are part of Berkshire Hathaway with articles about their history.

Should I attempt to move it out of mysandbox and forward to an editor again?

User Stephen KraftStephen Kraft (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you try using the Wikipedia:Article wizard, not skipping any steps. You are going to have to remove any non-neutral language or hyperbole, organize the article into sections, find some verifiable references in reliable sources and establish the notability of your company. You also have to consider your own obvious conflict of interest. I have placed some useful links on your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect to the Sage of Omaha, not everything he touches becomes notable, since notability is not contagious. (I sold Charlton Heston some books once, but that didn't give me any of his fame.) The firm's notability would have to be established independent of its eventual purchase by BRK. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Orangemike I'll give it a try

user Stephen KraftStephen Kraft (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Notability help

Discussion moved

 – to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Notability help Jezhotwells (talk) 05:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone! I recently came upon the page for Noah23. Noticing it was unreferenced and of dubious notability, I started to look into it. I noticed, however, that this page contains massive amounts of links to albums, artists, mixtapes, and singles all of dubious unlikely notability. Would anyone be able to help sort through all this? I also posted this to the music wikiproject hoping to get more eyes on it. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I have redirected all of the albums, mixtapes and singles to Noah23, as none appear to meet WP:NMUSIC. I placed a PROD on Noah23, which was declined with some evidence of notability. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

There was discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Notability help. Best to continue the discussion there. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Fansites

Answered

 – Danger ^{High voltage!} 03:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering if there is a guideline regarding the use of fan sites to source information in articles. I am currently reviewing an article [([Talk:Cripples, Bastards, and Broken Things/GA1‎]]) for good status that uses information from fan sites. One source is an interview conducted by the fan site of the writer of a TV series, while another is a FAQ detailing locations. Have had very little response asking at the WP:GACR talk page. My gut says that the interview may be alright the location not, but it would be good to be able to back that up with a policy or guideline. Thanks AIRcorn (talk) 08:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi . This forum is for editing help. Please repost your enquiry at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thanks, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. AIRcorn (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Zuccotti

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

When Zuccotti is entered it redirects to Zuccotti Park (as it should). There is no disambiguation however. In the page about Zuccotti Park there is a link to John Zuccotti (the Park's namesake - real estate developer and politician). In the John Zuccotti page, it says he is married to Susan Zuccotti (who has a Wikipedia page of her own). However, there is no direct way to find entry on Susan Zuccotti (a writer) by looking up her last name or way to find her page without this convoluted path. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.171.154 (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know about this. I have created the disambiguation page as you suggested, at Zuccotti. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)