Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:01, 13 October 2012

Archives

Previous requests & responses

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by .

Adam Leitman Bailey redux

Stale

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for adding this at the bottom while a prior discussion remains on the page (up here), but the disputes around the article are becoming a bit of a morass. Matters would really benefit from just two or three extra eyes, and I think watchers of this page are more likely to notice something at the bottom.

The gist is this: From inception, the page has been plagued by COI edits by associates of the subject, most of them apparently interns at the subject's law firm. They've added CV-type promotional language, repeatedly removed maintenance templates and tried to keep any unfavorable material out of the article. Nineteen were blocked in July 2011, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Internalb/Archive. Recently an IP editor pared the article way back, only to have the edits reverted by an editor who also turned out also to be an intern. I decided that the IP went too far, and in an effort to find middle ground between the two, made several edits over several days, all documented and explained on the Talk page. I think they are sound. Nevertheless my changes met with some resistance from the intern and from a couple of newly-created SPAs, which I take to be new sock or meat puppets (and have reported them as such).

The wholesale reversions have stopped, for now, and the dispute has narrowed to one or two critical comments about the subject that I included in the article. I was able to obtain a brief block against one of the SPAs who kept removing that material along with the COI template, but it has been suggested to me that it would be a good idea to enlist the views of some third party editors in the (likely) event the dispute continues. I thought about going to WP:DRN or WP:BLPN but elected to cast my line here first. If my assessment of things is wrong, that's fine, I don't have much of a stake in the article one way or the other, beyond a desire not to capitulate to socks and SPAs just because of their persistence. The Talk page has all the background and it's not that long; but for those who want to get right to the meat of it, the most useful portions are here and here through the end of the page. (Please add your views there, rather than here.) Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(While I welcome any input at all, the thorniest bits are the two "critical" sentences that I added - they are reliably sourced (now x2) and not that harsh in my view; I think they're appropriately included, but of course it's a BLP and I want the article to stay on the right side of that line.) JohnInDC (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This one's resolved, or as good as. Some page protection, a few more sock blocks and a BLP discussion have set the baseline and it doesn't require any more attention here. Thanks - JohnInDC (talk) 12:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert-Watson Watt

Stale

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello:

I desperately need someone's help due to being legally blind. I am trying to view the Robert-Watson Watt article on World War 2. He was from Brechin Angus Scotland, this is wear my Grandfather lived also when he was called up in World War 2. This site is amazing however I have difficulty as I have to use a merlinn and enlarge font in order to view. Can someone help me please. My Grandfather was an engineer/mechanic. He is shown as an Instructor under the RAF in an Almanac in his nometown Brechin Library. I believe the RAF utilized his skilled background I have been told he was responsible for the barrage balloon and was stationed in Blackpool. In research I have found there was 2 training camps there. This is site is very interesting however to much for me. Can someone help me please? I am sure his name could be found on this site. Look forward to hearing from someone. I have a good friend typing this for me.

All the best Gail Watson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.237.59.138 (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you just trying to find the article? Follow this link Robert Watson-Watt. The article does not mention barrage balloons. Spinning Spark 23:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

de:Charles Oscar Brink

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is on GERMAN Wikipedia only - can it be translated and put onto ENGLISH Wikipedia?

2.24.34.56 (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To request an article translation you should go to Wikipedia:Translation and follow the instructions there. Spinning Spark 23:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Arnold

Answered

– Foo. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are TWO Ed Arnolds, BOTH in radio. on opposite sides of the country. Needless to say, I am the other and I would like to know how to share this page.

The directions on the page, if looking for a person of the same name, is to check Edward Arnold. That is not my name!

What can we do?

Thanks!71.16.31.66 (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Ed Arnold[reply]

There are a couple of issues. Are you notable enough to have an article here? Is the other guy, the one in California? How does the industry distinguish the two of you from each other? Are you aware of how strongly we discourage people from writing about themselves? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent linkspam to IQSdirectory

Resolved

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Today I noticed a linkspam on my watchlist, at the Linear actuator article. Investigation shows the same conduct over other articles in the field via multiple accounts going back several years. See USER:Ipsomatic9, USER:Rebekahpedia, USER:Industman, USER:Deirdre163, and USER:Industrialinfo. There is prior talk way back in the stoneage here. The link in question is iqsdirectory.com. Could anyone skilled in these matters help determine if something is amiss or if I'm being paranoid? Thanks! Krushia (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the Requests for listing section at WP:BLACKLIST.--ukexpat (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Listed Spinning Spark 22:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Stuart article

Unresolved

– Wrong forum Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. Please take it to another forum. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An editor wished to remove a section from a well established article. After discussing the topic with the editor on his talk page, I found I could no longer rely on his good faith postings. An edit war appears in the offing. I would appreciate any help I can find on this and believe the article should be frozen until this dispute is ended. Thanks.Breschard (talk) 20:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An edit war is more than in the offing, you are clearly taking part in one, which is not good. Why is this dispute everywhere except on the talk page of the article to which it relates? That is the first place it should be opened. Looking for outside intervention should only happen if it cannot be resolved there. Spinning Spark 21:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right. Perhaps I should have addressed the initial edit there instead of on the editor's talk page. I'm not sure how to resolve the problem at this point. For myself, I can no longer assume good faith on the part of the other editor. Breschard (talk) 21:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just put up a request for comments regarding removing the Controversy section on the GS talk page. Better late than never I guess.Breschard (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are trying to open a formal WP:Request for comment (as opposed to just starting a discussion thread) you need to follow that link and place the template on the page as instructed. Spinning Spark 22:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the discussion on the Gilbert Stuart talk page has gotten out of control and what I can only describe as "gang" activity appears to be taking place. Editors with previous social relationships with other editors are trying to pass themselves off as independent agents while another editor has "shouted out" to another group page for aid from his friends. There is a COI charge against me, which although reasonable on its face is not supported by any evidence in my edits. It's appears to me to be out of control.Breschard (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am an editor here - 78K edits strong, I'm not passing myself off as anything other than that, in addition I've edited visual arts articles for many years. Breschard's conflict of interest is both obvious and clear, he seems to also have a heavy case of WP:OWNERSHIP...Modernist (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I've begun a discussion here [1], with a link to the Stuart talk page. As for accusations of collusion, WP:BOOMERANG. JNW (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record this editor made this claim I agree with the original editor who created this section. [2] When in fact it was created by him [3], he went on to say Since the “Controversy” section was created, over five years ago, the Stuart article has been edited around 300 times. Many, many editors have given it tacit approval at the very least. I replied: With all due respect you must be kidding - you are the one who actually added the material [4] - the other editor simply sectioned the article with headings [5]...Modernist (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not find the position of Breschard constructive. They seem to be still an unexperienced editor with a clear COI, and may be someone cound advise them how such cases are handled.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough now, folks. WP:Dispute Resolution is thataway - please see the instructions at the top of the page. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kern Valley High

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many students at Kern Valley High have facebook pages which list them in Tioga, Louisiana. I guarantee most people here in Kern County, California, will never go to Louisiana. Thanks in advance for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claireeileen (talk • contribs) 00:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely unclear what you are asking. I can't see any reference in our article to either Louisiana or FaceBook. Or are you under the misapprehension that Wikipedia is in some way connected with FaceBook? We aren't... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We frequently get such posts at Wikipedia:Help desk so I happen to know what it's about. Most of http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kern-Valley-High-School/112964905384219 was copied from the Wikipedia article Kern Valley High School. The Facebook page claims the location is "Tioga, Louisiana" while Wikipedia correctly says Lake Isabella, California. This is Facebook's error and unfortunately not something we are able to help with. It may sound odd that we blame Facebook when their page says: "Description above from the Wikipedia article Kern Valley High School". Note however that this only applies to the part with heading "Description". The alleged location in other parts of the page is inserted by Facebook and not taken from Wikipedia. I don't know how Facebook generates location information but they sometimes get it wrong.

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) 01:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification if an article violates WP:CSD G3 & A7

Resolved

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Status: I had tagged the article under WP:CSD G3 & A7, But an editor seems to have a different POV and has reverted.

I had reverted the changes and posted on the editor's talk page informing about the same

He reverted back the WP:CSD stating it does't fall under A7 or G3.

I have replied on the editor's talk page with my reason and an invite to discuss the conflict of POV as I don't want WP:EW

My question: Am I right in tagging the article WP:CSD or have I made a mistake.

Thanks in advance! Nithin (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article has many problems, but there is no evidence that it is vandalism and "leading manufacturer and supplier of Soda and Potash Feldspar in Bhilwara" is at least a claim of significance or importance. It will probably be deleted in due course as an unsourced BLP so I wouldn't worry to much about it.--ukexpat (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed & Thanks for your input! Nithin (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taiko&diff=prev&oldid=508765304

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tamashii Daiko has been taken off the UK list of Taiko Groups?

Considering that Liz Walters was an original member of Mugenkyo as was Mark Alcock that set up Taiko Meantime. Liz Walters a professional Taiko player and teacher of Taiko set up Tamashii Daiko in March 2000 Before this she toured with Joji Hirota.

Her Bio can be seen at www.tamashiidaiko.com

I believe that her group is a part of the history of UK taiko and I am intrigued as to who and why it has been deleted from the list of 'Notable current groups'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Taikojan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taikojan (talk • contribs) 20:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The edit was done by an anonymous IP without giving a reason. It is the only edit they have ever done so I don't think their is much hope of getting a response from them now. I suggest that you raise the issue on the article talk page. If there are no objections within a reaonable time, a week say, then it can be put back in. Ideally, a reliable source to verify the claims should be added at the same time. I note that the original reference does not say anything about UK groups or mention any of the ones named in the article. It is therefore useless even if it could be considered reliable. Spinning Spark 21:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alphonso Jackson BLP

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I inquired about an anonymous editor who edited the BLP for Alphonso Jackson. The anon added a section entitled Minorities and Government Programs which seems to have a racial overtone. Anon, also included a section on a personnel issue(Richard Mallory) a former HUD employee,without all cites being available for review; question, should such an allegation be listed in a BLP? Furthermore, the anon editor deleted photos from the BLP. Other BLPs for Cabinet members included photos,why anon would delete photos for Jackson-unsure. Anon alo described an organization, the National Black Chamber of Commerce as being conservative, that description is not in the article cited. There was also a misrepresentation by anon regarding Jackson and the government contracting issues. Chicago Sun Times, Citation 7, HUD Says Secretary's Political Contracting Tale Untrue did not state that Jackson said anything about this is " How DC works", a HUD staffer made that comment.

I understand the need to present an unbiased BLP, therefore, I did not edit anon's recent revert edits on the dated controversial issues regarding Jackson. Yet, I included cited information regarding the same issues. Should only negative information be included in BLPs? Who is entitled to use only the facts they deemed essential? Anon in the talk to me, stated, " I should be ashamed of myself and called my edits, promotional crap. I thought personal attacks are not condoned by Wikipedia, nor would I personally attack someone who is insistent on editting from their point of view.

In conclusion, although anon accuses me of bias, in my opinion, that label could be said about them.

Thank-you for your assistance, TtelloucTtellouc (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wrong forum for your complaint - please see our page header. That said, taking WP:UNDUE into consideration, any amount of (non promotional) positive or (non libelous) negative content can be included as long as it is correctly sourced per WP:RS and verifiable per WP:V - we don't express our own opinions in Wikipedia articles. Photos must be correctly licenced or permission to use them has been submitted to Wikipedia, but photos and/or images that are clearly in the USA public domain are permitted. Please resolve your issues by starting a discussion on the article's talk page. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of the word Bolg

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Fir_Bolg#Belg / Bolg Means Lightning or Thunder In this article, I chose not to edit because it seems some people get angry when you alter their topics contradicting their views. Wikipedia is supposed to be a source for learning and sharing information. If you research the name Bolg, you find it links to the Belgae and in turn, it links to their god Bolgios / Belgios, a god of light and lightning as being where the Belgae got their name. Now, if the Belgae got their name from a lightning god named Bolgios and the Fir Bolg got their name from the Belgae as numerous articles claim, if the Celtic ancestors of the Belgae came from peoples who invaded Greece and were eventually repelled proven by historic documents right here on Wikipedia itself Bolgios and we see the name used in almost identical fashion Gáe Bulg where Bolg means something altogether different, then there is reason for disputing the origin given in this article Fir bolg meaning Men of Bags because the Irish word Bolg means bag... but that's what the name came to mean after the Belgae had been there for centuries and came into use as bag only after the Christian conquest. The name Bolg is always in relation to the word "spear" and spear were always used in reference to mythological lightning bolts across most of Europe in antiquity. There are many articles across the internet proving these facts where the reference to the word Bolg meaning Bag is hypothetical in reference to people who were enslaved carrying bags of dirt as there is no proof to back that theory at all and is contradicted by the actual history found right here on Wikipedia in numerous articles about the history of the Belgium and it's ancient peoples.

I did not edit the article myself and the neutrality of what has been posted is definately in question. Why did I not edit the article? Because everyone I know tells me their edits are removed and people who author these articles harass them for daring to edit the article. I respect Wiki and do not wish to deal with possible conflict when I only asked for further research into the matter.

Armorbeast (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page for assisting editors in editing. If you don't want to edit we can't help you (although we can give you advice where to find dispute resolution if that is what you need). The talk page of the article is the right place to thrash out this issue and you have already opened a conversation there. Ultimately, content on Wikipedia is determined by the contents of reliable sources and finding suitable ones is the first place to start. Spinning Spark 20:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First article about art deleted

Answered

– Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

My nick is edward_onwiki and my first article on Wikipedia was title "Render art", a disciple inside the Computer Arts realm. Basically it is a term that define those forms of computer arts created by render programs.

Although I found my definition was correct and unbiased, today I've seen my page has been deleted. The reason is described as (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): essay, OR, no sources). I don't know what does it means that "no explanation of the subject's significance". Maybe you could help me.

If there is the lack of something (external sources, external links, etc) I can manage to add it, I just need to know what is missing and how to include it.

Below I'm pasting the content of the article. If you could help me a bit with it (or even modify and paste the article for me) it would be very appreciated.

As you can see, at the bottom of the article I've listed some of the most highlighted artist of Render art. Maybe the deletion came by this reason (listing names of individuals). If you think this were the reason, we can remove the list without any problem (or you can remove it, if you dare).

I think that the best place for the article to be linked were in the Computer art article and on the Digital art article (among the other disciplines listed there).

Below I'm pasting the content of the article. Let me know what do you think.

And thank you for your help.

--Edward onwiki (talk) 08:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Render art

In fine arts, one of the disciplines of digital art in which the render process plays a crucial role or represents the the ultimate output. In 3D computer generated graphics, the render process is the final computational step, during which the computer calculates the materials, lights and shadows from the description of a 3D scene, and transform all that geometric, materials, lighting and environment information into a 2D image. This process determines the final quality and style of the resulting image. See also Rendering (computer graphics) and 3D rendering. Depending on the rendering software, it could be a time consuming process, and in some sense it has certain similarities with the developing process on photography (both being a final step that takes a raw information and transforms it to a single 2D image). Rendering has a lot of applications in many industries: from architectural visualization or product design, to scientific visualization, video games, animation or film making. So, render art defines the artistic discipline that uses this computational process with the aim of creating a piece of art.

The final format of the artwork could be an still image, an animation or an interactive experience, thus it can be printed, displayed on a monitor or projected, as any other form of digital art.

In render art, styles vary from cartoon to photorealism, or even abstraction.

Some highlighted render artists:

- Gero Gries - Eelco Brand - Golan Levin - David Em - William Latham - Gerhard Mantz - Studer / van der Berg

--Edward onwiki (talk) 08:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I see that the deleting administrator used the wrong reason. A7 doesn't apply in these cases. The real reason it was deleted was that it duplicated the subject of an existing article. I imagine that would be Artistic rendering. I suggest you incorporate your material into that article, but make sure that you provide reliable published sources as references for what you've added. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 08:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Voceditenore, Thank you for your swift response. I agree that maybe the deletion reason was because of that page about Artistic rendering, and although they may think it was the same, this is not the same as Render art, just like Software art (a piece of art that is a software) is not the same as Artistic software (that would be i.e. Photoshop). They are completely different concepts. While rendering can be artistic or not (it is just a description of its quality or style), Render art is an art discipline itself (just like Interactive art or Fractal art). What do you recommend me to clarify this issue? Could not exist a different entry for Render art (aside from the Artistic art)?

In addition to that, if my article needs external sources, where do I add them? In a References section?

Thank you very much ; )

--Edward onwiki (talk) 09:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing is very important on Wikipedia and goes a long way to protecting an article from deletion. References, ideally, should be inline with the text that they verify. If you wish, you can group then in a bibliography section at the end, but you should still have short (Harvard style) inline citations in the text. You should read WP:reliable sources to understand what we accept as reliable sources and WP:CITE for how to present them in the article.

It is acceptable to create a new article at the same name as long as it is not substantially the same as the deleted article. But a new well-referenced article would be ok. I note that the list of artists was removed from the article by another editor before it was deleted. This was probably notability concerns. If those artists have Wikipedia articles wikilinking to them would be enough. Otherwise, reliable sources discussing them are required.

Alternatively, we have a formal process for reviewing deletions. If you wish, you can ask for the article to be undeleted at WP:DRV, but probably producing a better article addressing the objections would be a better way to go. Spinning Spark 09:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One furhter piece of advice. The opening paragraph should clearly define its scope, disambiguate itself from Artistic rendering, and wikilink to that article. This would head off the issue you ran into this time. Spinning Spark 09:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to comment here as deleting admin, I don't mind restoring if by speedy was out of process, although I think it would be better if the article was recreated from scratch following the guidance above. Let me know if you want me to restore, but note that I'll be away for a couple of days Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see what you're getting at, Edward. I'd suggest you work on your article as a draft in user space to get it really polished, with links to other Wikipedia articles were appropriate, a clear statement in the lede section (opening paragraph) as suggested by Spinningspark, and plenty of references. To write drafts in user space, click on "My sandbox" at the top right-hand side of any Wikipedia page, add your text, and click save. You can then use the page to work on the article before moving it into article space. And, you can get opinions and help from other editors with your draft. Also, I tried wikilinking the artists you mentioned above. As you can see, Golan Levin, David Em, and William Latham have Wikipedia articles and there are plenty of sources available for the remaining ones to be mentioned in in the article. See:

Studer/van der Berg:[6], [7]
Gero Gries: [8]
Gerhard Mantz: [9]
Eelco Brand [10]

-Voceditenore (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. I'll do what you suggest: I'll re-write the page in my Sandbox, get more references, and ask for your supervision when it gets ready. Thanks!

--Edward onwiki (talk) 12:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to change my article title

How to change my article title: I would like to change my article title from "List of outdoorsmen and outdoor educators" to "List of outdoor exponents and outdoor educators". How do I do it? --Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 03:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oliver. Pages can be moved to new titles by using the "move" link at the top of the page. In regards to this title, are you sure "outdoor exponents" is the best title? What is the dominant descriptor in the sources you have used? The Interior (Talk) 03:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Sources for Bibliography

There seems to be some disagreement about this - but what are peoples thoughts on whether primary sources can be used for including basic bibliographical information on, say, an author's wikipedia article? Thanks! PermanentVacay (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What specific kinds of information are you thinking about? Someguy1221 (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about simply making a list of things the author wrote, it's a question of relevance and significance. If no one has written about something the author wrote, then editors have a fair point in stating that we shouldn't either. It's really going to be a case-by-case thing. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks. I was thinking particularly for a bibliography section, just to list all of the works (eventually). I've noticed that non-notable albums are often listed on musicians' discographies - you know they're not notable because they don't have their own articles. Is this more of an exception than a standard practice? Also, I could quite figure out what policy pertains to this. The languages at WP:PSTS was not terribly clear to me on this matter. Thanks again! PermanentVacay (talk) 05:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PSTS is about what sources are reliable for what content. Any source is reliable for the fact that it itself exists. But saying a source A is reliable for statement B is not the same as saying statement B should be included in an article. Anyway, you had trouble finding the appropriate guideline because it's buried in the manual of style, which is simply massive. But we do have Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works as well as the unofficial guidelines Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines#Discography section and Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two pages contradicting current information

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_States states USA currently has 5,113 nukes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction states USA currently has 2,468 nukes

its hard to understand which one would be correct... — Preceding unsigned comment added by MSRinCO (talk • contribs) 01:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're not necessarily contradictory - they're simply talking about different things. The smaller number is for "operational" nuclear warheads, as in, ready to launch. The larger number is including non-operational but not-completely-dismantled nuclear warheads. You can also get count discrepancies if you are talking about functional missiles versus functional warheads versus functional nuclear sub-munitions, but I that is not the case here since they are both referring to warheads. But on top of all that, you still get discrepancies even when everyone is talking about the same thing, because one group might count the same warhead as operational that another counts as "in reserve". Maybe the articles could make that a little more clear, but it's all in the sources for whoever wants to take a crack at it. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trojan Horse in link

My avast free anti virus software detected a trojan horse when I click on a link on the page below

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIRCH

Unsure of how to proceed to rectify this, Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.146.232.16 (talk) 05:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which link? Someguy1221 (talk) 09:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the link in question essential to the article? If you can find a reliable source to replace it, feel free to do so. Andrewman327 (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Audience reviews on movie page

I thought it was Wiki policy not to include audience reviews/comments/ratings on a movie page since they can be skewed, change often, and are somewhat trivial, i.e., "Audiences polled by CinemaScope gave it a B+" or "Audience vote on Rotten Tomatoes is at 75%" should be deleted. Can someone clarify and direct me to that policy, if any? Tx.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline you're looking for is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Reception. There is no prohibition against providing such information close to the release. User ratings are always prohibited, however. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tx, that was just what I was looking for.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cookie cutter articles

The article for Sudbury – White River train is informative, but there are articles with almost identical content for many of the stations along that line. Examples:

Nicholson, Ontario railway station

Musk, Ontario railway station
Chapleau railway station

I was thinking about nominating the station stops for deletion and incorporating the content into a larger article but first I want to get feedback and suggestions from you. Andrewman327 (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to nominate anything for deletion, merge and redirect operations can be carried out by any editor. I would advise starting a discussion at some central location before doing anything (Talk:Sudbury – White River train seems favourite]]) and link to the discussion from all affected articles and wikiprojects. Rail editors can be a little obsessive sometimes so you might meet some opposition, but I believe it is common practice to merge non-notable flag stops and abandoned stops etc into the article about the line. You might find Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Manual of style helpful. Spinning Spark 11:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and the essay Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations). Spinning Spark 11:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion, Should I revert or not!

Hello Editors,

I just came across this article and was astonished!

It seems like a personal opinion board, rather than an article.

Wanted to know I could revert this, for complete lack of tone and style. And add citations and verifiability tags? Article : Jarral

Revisions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jarral&diff=516734603&oldid=508851651

Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by NitRav (talk • contribs) 00:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah. That's a total mess, and I reverted to the stubbiest version. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

House of Worth Copyvio

User:Ryan Vesey has placed notice on my talk page (section Copyvio) that the article House of Worth contains copyrighted material. He asked me to identify the infringing material so he can remove it(!) In the past any over zealous copy/paste on my part has been specifically identified by other editors who either edited it themselves or pointed out the precise infringing text. (I reverted House of Worth to its state before my involvement until this is clarified). I don't understand how an article can contain copyrighted material if the editor pointing that out cannot say exactly what is the infringing text? The CorenBot did not activate. So in a nutshell I've been told my edits introduced copyrighted material into an article but I have to tell the questioning editor what those infringements are. What is going on here? Can anyone help? NightSt✷r (talk) 02:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite simple, part of your text has been found to be a copyvio and you are now being asked to come clean with what you have copied so that other editors do not have to waste vast amounts of time trying to unpick it. A copyvio is still a copyvio even if it cannot immediately be identified as such and it is not acceptable for you to wash your hands of the problem and effectively say "so prove it". If you continue with "over zealous copy/paste" you may end up being blocked. Spinning Spark 13:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that a copyvio is a copyvio whether it was intentional or not and cannot stay without express permission of the copyright holder. My question to another editor was not "prove it" but what is the problem area. (The Met information is now clearly shown as not re-phrased but taken almost verbatim.) If I wanted to "wash my hands" why would I take the action to revert the article to the state prior to my involment (26 January 2012) and ask for help? I had no role in the press releases incorporated into it before then. It appears that bad faith and intentional infringment on my part is assumed. A permanent block may indeed be in order as I waste other editor's time and contribute nothing of value. NightSt✷r (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have not done any copyvios, then why not just clearly say that to the editors asking the question so they can move on and look at other people's edits. Hopefully you will get an apology from them (and from me for being so sharp with you). On the other hand, if you have been copying, you surely know what you copied and can identify it. Spinning Spark 22:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is now identified as material from the Met was one of two sources that were used to re-write the section regarding the historic design house. Evidently I didn't change enough and that was later identified as verbatim copy. (I still don't know how it was identified as such since the CorenBot didn't catch it. Perhaps other editors/administrators have access to administrative tools, or tools that I either have not discovered or have not figured out how to use.) This whole episode started when I found the article written in an overly promotional tone with a total of three references and zero inline citations. "Be bold" it's said - "don't just tag it but make the edits yourself." I take no credit or blame for its state prior to my edits. An attempt to be helpful (in my obviously mistaken opinion) has instead lead to serious copyright violation charges, wasting of other editor's time, and my complete loss of credibility is an editor. If a permanent block has to happen then that's what has to happen. NightSt✷r (talk) 23:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you copy material from another source and change it just a little then there may well be a copyvio issue, whether or not a bot picks it up. The best advice is, don't copy anything. Write it yourself. JohnInDC (talk) 00:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NightStar. I'm a clerk at WP:Copyright problems. When I saw this thread, I went over to take a look at the article which you had reverted to the last version before your additions. I've had to blank it completely while we investigate what the last clean version is. The article was full of copyvio pasted in over the years by multiple editors. While your version had too much close paraphrasing from the Met source (not good), it was nothing compared to the wholesale addition of verbatim pastes from Worth press releases which has obviously been going on since at least 2010 [11]. I don't have any special tools. I'm just good at internet searching techniques :). Also, Corenbot only crawls new articles. It won't pick up long term copyvio. There are more details at Talk:House of Worth. Hope that helps. Voceditenore (talk) 05:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not very relevant how the copyvio was detected, the point is it has to stop. Nightstar, no one is going to block you if you now understand what you did wrong and don't intend to do it again. Blocks are never issued as a punishment, only to protect the encyclopedia from further damage. I raised the possibility of blocking only so that you understood the seriousness with which this issue is taken on Wikipedia. Good luck in your future editing and I hope you continue to be a productive editor here. Spinning Spark 06:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To that end Spinningspark, I have removed links to copyrighted images used in SS Aleutian and USAHS Marigold. There may be other articles which I authored and/or edited which also need to have similar links to copyrighted material removed. NightSt✷r (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voceditenore, once a "clean" version of the article is identified some degree of protection might be in order. A lot of edits seem to be the work of unregistered users, or it may be the same user working from a laptop and various wifi hotspots. Otherwise the same material might be reintroduced into the article. NightSt✷r (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You needn't have done that. It is perfectly ok to link to a copyrighted image, as long as the site you link to is not itself in breach of copyright. And I think we are probably safe in assuming that the Library of Congress is not doing that. We can have the link, but we cannot have the image uploaded here. As for protection, we don't protect articles just because they might be vandalised in the future. Anybody can edit Wikipedia, and articles are only protected if they are subject to heavy ongoing disruption at the time. Spinning Spark 01:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under the circumstances it is necesary to error on the side of caution. The Pugent Sound library owns the copyright on the image of the USAHS Marigold and had specifically declined permission for its use. Although an external link to it may not be in violation it probably should not have been put there in the first place since they had said "no". The editor who first flagged the Worth copyvio problem has asked me to identify other articles where I introduced copyrighted material. Therefore if everything else that I have created and/or edited is under a similiar copyvio cloud this has indeed expanded far beyond one article and will have to head down the path where I think this is heading. NightSt✷r (talk) 11:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I've gone through the articles through March 10, 2012. Most of the edits don't involve copyvio, some do. House of Worth is being looked over, but anything introduced by Mariepr was removed. Any infringing material has already been removed from SS Santa Paula. I tagged Stephen Payne (designer) for review of close paraphrasing, fixed some minor close paraphrasing at Ted Alan Worth and listed Type C6 ship to be reviewed. I don't believe anything else needs to be checked from edits that occurred after March 10. Ryan Vesey 15:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

69th Infantry Regiment (United States)

Hi. this article keeps being reverted to 69th Infantry Regiment (New York), by an "outside" user who doesent understand how the linage and honers system works, this user keeps copying the the new york page and pasting it on the federal page. (creating two of the same page) can you lock the federal page? thanks Brian in denver (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done by OrangeMike. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wikiepedia's Somalia map (request to add Armo town)

Firstly I want to thank you for your valueble work in general and specially on Somalia, I am hereby requesting you to include your Somalia maps an important town named Carmo (Armo in english), which is 100KM south of Bosaso city of Puntland, Somalia,on the road between Bosaso and Gardo, the town was nearly founded in 1995, but has been rapidly gorwing and became an official distirct capital in 2003. by now it is well-designed large town,also it is home to UNDP sponsored Armo Somali Police Accademy, which is the largest in Somalia. the town had been on your maps of Somalia since 2009 and 2010, but after that you did not include it on your maps, could please include it again. I can understand that your maps show as much as possible of the towns and the villages of Somalia, but I think that Armo/Carmo town deserves to be shown on yours maps according to its relatively large size and importance.

Hopping you would accord the necessary attention to my request, please accept my heart-felt greetings.

sincerely Yours,

Ahmed Yusuf

Somali Journalist,

Netherland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.169.203.151 (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Map updates may be requested at Wikipedia:GL/MAP. Alternatively, by clicking on an existing map you will be taken to an information page that includes information on the map's author. You are free to contact him directly with your request. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Hall Affair, Gosport

Dear Wikipedia editors,

I wrote an article THE HALL AFFAIR, GOSPORT, which has now gone on-line, but with a request (I think from Matthew Vanitas) for on-line references and a correction over over-capitalisation of initial letters. I have made these corrections to a Word file I created directly by clip-boarding the article, and they are clearly tracked. However, forgive me, at present I am too dumb to make these corrections to the article itself. Is there someone to whom I could email the Word file, and who could thus put these corrections in for me? That would be very helpful.

Thanks, Bastions (writing from Prague, Czech Republic) Bastions (talk) 11:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pasting the article into Word is not really a practical way of going about editing it. Frankly, it would be easier to start again. If you want to use an external editor you need to copy the marked up text from the edit window. After working on it, paste it back into the same place. I would also recommend using a plain text editor rather than Word to avoid confusions arising from Words own formatting.

If you are struggling, it might be better just to leave the formatting issues to other editors to fix. A much more important issue that only you are in a good position to put right is the lack of inline citations. Again, don't worry too much about getting the formatting right - there are plently of other people here who can fix that - the important thing is to get the information into the article of what bits came from what sources on what page numbers. Spinning Spark 12:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Dr Nadejda Hadjiivanova, top female table tennis palyer in Bulgaria

Hi, someone at your end has declined publication because the article lacks "notability". Please carry out the due diligence, ignorance on the part of Wikipedia editors is unacceptable. Please broaden your reference resources, the individual in question is a national celebrity of the 1950s and 1960s with international reputation. Please name and shame the individual who falsely advised on this matter. Such lame decisions along with poor editorial control underpin the reasons for the wider public refusal to accept seriously any information found in Wikipedia. It is the editors' responsibility to ensure accuracy of information and siple rejection through editorial incompetence is unacceptable.

Yours truly,

Dr Bonev, MRSC, PPhys — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonev (talk • contribs) 13:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before you start accusing others of incompetence, you should perhaps familiarize yourself with some of the policies and guidelines of this site. In particular WP:V and WP:Notability (sports) are going to be helpful to you. It is not for anyone else to research the notability of your article, all editors here are volunteers. It is entirely down to you to provide sufficient sources so other editors can immediately see that. Translations of the relevant passages of foreign language sources also helps.

If you have such a low opinion of Wikipedia why are you writing here? In any case this is not the right venue to give vent to your criticisms. Please also see WP:AGF and WP:TALK for the behaviour we expect of contributers towards each other (and how to properly sign your posts). Spinning Spark 14:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 341: / Line 341: @@
 You needn't have done that.  It is perfectly ok to ''link'' to a copyrighted image, as long as the site you link to is not itself in breach of copyright.  And I think we are probably safe in assuming that the Library of Congress is not doing that.  We can have the link, but we cannot have the image uploaded here.  As for protection, we don't protect articles just because they ''might'' be vandalised in the future.  Anybody can edit Wikipedia, and articles are only protected if they are subject to heavy ongoing disruption at the time. '''[[User:Spinningspark|<font style="background:#fafad2;color:#C08000">Spinning</font>]][[User talk:Spinningspark|<font style="color:#4840a0">Spark'''</font>]]''' 01:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 :Under the circumstances it is necesary to error on the side of caution. The Pugent Sound library owns the copyright on the image of the USAHS ''Marigold'' and had specifically declined permission for its use.  Although an external link to it may not be in violation it probably should not have been put there in the first place since they had said "no".  The editor who first flagged the Worth copyvio problem has asked me to identify other articles where I introduced copyrighted material.  Therefore if everything else that I have created and/or edited is under a similiar copyvio cloud this has indeed expanded far beyond one article and will have to head down the path where I think this is heading. [[User:Mariepr|<font color="000080">NightSt✷r</font>]] [[User talk:Mariepr|(talk)]]  11:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
+*For what it's worth, I've gone through the articles through March 10, 2012.  Most of the edits don't involve copyvio, some do.  [[House of Worth]] is being looked over, but anything introduced by Mariepr was removed.  Any infringing material has already been removed from SS Santa Paula.  I tagged [[Stephen Payne (designer)]] for review of close paraphrasing, fixed some minor close paraphrasing at [[Ted Alan Worth]] and listed [[Type C6 ship]] to be reviewed.  I don't believe anything else needs to be checked from edits that occurred after March 10.&nbsp;[[User:Ryan Vesey|'''''Ryan''''']]&nbsp;[[User talk:Ryan Vesey|'''''Vesey''''']] 15:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 == [[69th Infantry Regiment (United States)]] ==