Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:26, 4 August 2011

Archives

Previous requests & responses

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 24 days may be automatically archived by .

My Cage images

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 02:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was given permission by the owner to post several images from the My Cage comic on the Wiki commons section for use in the My Cage Wiki.

I have an email from the owner to myself detailing that this is a free license (I'm guessing at the term) to post and distribute on your site without permission to alter any further than I have.

Because there are currently 9 images, I was hoping to have them all approved before I look to alter the MyCageWiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Cage) to improve the page.

Can you tell me the best way to do this, as yesterday I was banned (for just cause, and I don't at all mind the events) but reinstated once I explained the situation. I would rather not have to make more work for you all than needed. And deal with all the images at once. I will have another half dozen once these are added and displayed on your site, and would like to know the best, least cumbersome means.

Thank you for any advice, Ryan Icthulu (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icthulu (talk • contribs) 13:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the process set out at WP:IOWN to communicate the permissions to Wikipedia. It may take several days for the volunteer team to process your request. – ukexpat (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. But considering what the owner will give up in terms of rights, I will have to find another way. I would not allow my own work to be used in commercial efforts without my approval, nor would I ask the owner to agree to such a thing. Thank you for the assistance. Ryan :: Icthulu (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot use pictures under a 'conditional' release like that, unfortunately. Wikipedia is designed to be free, for any use, any purpose. Therefore, all images with very few, special exceptions must be free for any use too.

As I'm sure you are aware, lots of other websites re-use Wikipedia articles - and some of those sites carry adverts. That counts as 'commercial use', and that's one reason we insist on the free licence conditions.

The only alternative is "Fair use of a non-free image", but that is complicated, and it is hard to show why a specific cartoon image would meet those requirements (such as, "Respect for commercial opportunities", "Minimal usage", "Minimal extent of use", "Contextual significance" etc) and, 9 images would certainly be problematic. The one existing non-free image, File:My cage logo 200711.png, is probably about as far as we could go.

I'm sorry I can't be more positive. But I do hope you can work on the article in other ways; the lack of footnotes is the more important editorial concern, at present. Chzz ► 03:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 02:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

13 summarized points from this BBC Online link were removed for copyvio here, so does putting the content in a quotation-template solve the issue? Although, the intro said "According to BBC...". Thanks, 174.50.135.86 (talk) 10:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few, short, direct quotations from a copyright source may be acceptable, but nothing more than that. – ukexpat (talk) 13:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Manning

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there,

I hope this is the right avenue for this! It appears that someone keeps reverting Bradley Manning's dual citizenship status in the information box to the right of his Wikipedia page. The body of the article text (Bradley Manning#Complaints about detention, government response) includes references to that dual nationality status, which has been confirmed by a Foreign Office Minister on the floor of the House of Commons - I can certainly supply more if required.

I would appreciate some assistance here; the real-life consequences of having innacurate information on wikipedia are actually quite serious.

Thanks,

Naomi

Auerfeld (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(There was nothing about dual citizenship at the link you provided.) The first step would be to provide suitable sourcing and a citation with your addition. BTW, this can be done in an info box. And there is nothing that says that such a statement needs to be in the info box; it can be in the body of the article. Actually, it probably should be in the body of the article because that statement would probably need other qualifying verbiage to go with it. Then, if there is a difference of opinion, to have a discussion of the particulars and points on the talk page. (It doesn't look like such has yet occurred) If that doesn't resolve it, there are other steps that can be taken. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is under discussion on WP:BLPN#Bradley_Manning and Talk:Bradley Manning; the user Auerfeld (talk · contribs) states xe is runnning an off-wiki campaign regarding this matter [1]. I don't think further help here at EA is appropriate. Chzz ► 10:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been very open about my background here - because I need to be - but the dual citizenship issue is one that has now been reported in numerous reputable secondary sources (for instance: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/britain-to-reassert-worries-about-wikileaks-suspect-bradley-mannings-treatment/2011/04/05/AFXo4GlC_story.html). I'm not seeking to comment on the article other than restoring a point of fact. There is now a debate going on on the talk page, so I hope this can be resolved there - but if it can't I would hope that the way I have approached this issue on WP should not debar me from seeking further advice and guidance. Auerfeld (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't resolve at the talk page, I suggest that you might consider the new WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard, but only after the thread at the BLPN board has run its course. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree.

Auerfeld, I certainly didn't mean to criticise that you'd asked here - or to form any opinion of right/wrongness. Just that, matters like this often spread out over many different noticeboards, which doesn't help reach agreement. There's plenty of folks actively discussing it, now, on Talk:Bradley Manning - and that's the best place. It'll probably take time to get anything approaching consensus, but there's no deadline; normal discussion needs to be given a chance, for now. Best of luck, Chzz ► 02:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proper venue to discuss / report disruptive and non-responsive editor?

To set the stage: User DragoLink08 directs a good deal of his editing energy into changing the color schemes of sports articles, navboxes and templates (mostly college sports but not always). The problem is that most of the color display schemes have been laboriously sorted out by other editors for consistency, readability, and proper display across different browsers and according to user preferences. Also his changes are sometime simply wrong - inverting for example, primary and secondary colors. (Honestly. "Blue and Maize" for the University of Michigan?) His Talk page reflects complaints (stretching over two years) about this behavior from a series of editors, without a single response. He was blocked in March and again in July for the same behavior (most recently for a week) and both times when the block expired he picked up pretty much right back where he left off. (One time he created a sock so that he wouldn't have to wait out the full term.)

I'm not asking for action here, but rather suggestions about the best place to take this next. The blocking admin expressed reluctance to block him yet again on this basis and suggested RfC, but I don't know how a voluntary process is going to help in a case where the editor won't engage at all. There was an ANI report in May (in which DragoLink08, unsurprisingly, did not participate) but that seemed to wither on the vine. Maybe that's the right place for another go; I don't know. (The ANI, by the way, lays out these issues pretty well.) I could even see going to AIV, if he persists in this disruptive editing beyond a standard series of warnings. Anyhow, that's my question. What's the best place to go to rein in a disruptive, non-responsive editor whose behavior is unaffected by short blocks? Thanks for any and all advice. JohnInDC (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think ANI is best, with a very detailed report of all warnings left, all damaging edits made by the editor and links to places where consensus was achieved for the existing colour schemes. It ccan be a lot of work preparing such a reoport but if it is well presented at ANI, it will probably get informed discussion and hopefully action. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin here, but I don't understand why we have to waste so much time tiptoeing around what sounds to me like just vandalism and disruption. I don't know if this sample edit from last night is vandalism for sure since I don't know the correct colors for the team, but it sure smells like vandalism to me. (Oops, didn't AGF there). Let's just permablock such persons, and if socks show up apply the DUCK test and permablock them too. --CliffC (talk) 11:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was taken to AIV, problem editor was indef blocked. Thanks for the advice; matter is resolved. JohnInDC (talk) 11:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fake article

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst carrying out category maintenance, I came across this (User:BigEveArc/sandbox) userpage. I disabled the categories on it as per guidelines about userpages not appearing in the main categories and I added the userpage template to the top of it, and left an explanation in the edit summary. The user removed the template and re-enabled the categories. I repeated my edits and left a note on the user's discussion page to explain why. The user has reverted my edits and re-enabled the categories again.

At best it points towards an intransigent user, at worst it points towards being a deliberate attempt to create a fake article. There is no clear indication in WP:FAKEARTICLE of what steps to take or where to report such an article. Can anyone sort it out, or point me in the right direction? - X201 (talk) 07:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted their latest edit and left a message at their talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

I see that another editor has re-done the edits [2], and warned the user again [3]. BigEveArc (talk · contribs) has not edited since then, so for now it's best to just see what happens. Hopefully, no further action will be required.

If it does continue to be a problem, then I'd suggest one more warning, probably {{uw-disruptive3}}, and if that failed, it'd be worth reporting on WP:ANI. - But, I emphasize, I hope that won't be necessary.

We could add a {{NOINDEX}} to the page, but I think it's best to let it be, and see what the user does next.

So, for now, this appears to be a "wait and see". Chzz ► 09:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images removed & someone else had already nominated them for deletion on commons. Skier Dude (talk) 04:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it notable?

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thumb|200px|right|Yes, it exists. There's a 7,000-seat arena in Chinle, Arizona, called the Wildcat Den. It's the 15th-largest high school gymnasium in the US*. Is it notable enough to write an article? Raymie (t • c) 05:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

16th if you include the Round Valley Ensphere, an American football AND basketball/tennis arena in Eagar, Arizona with basketball capacity for 9,000 that, if listed, would be the second-largest HS gym in the US. But it's not a traditional gymnasium.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymie (talk • contribs) 06:48, 30 July 2011

Probably not unless major professional competition has taken place there. See Wikipedia:Note and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) ::I would say it is not notable unless it has special features that have made it sufficiently outstanding to attract multiple, in-depth coverage from the established press or media. If it has, you will ned to cite references, using reliable sources. Round Valley Ensphere is notable for its unusual architecture and being the only example of such a design in the USA. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Websites with images

When creating a new article there is often an external website with a good photograph of the subject. One option is to include this website in "External links". As an alternative, I have seen a neat little box that can be inserted at the appropriate place in the text. I recall a heading saying something like "Click here for image". An explanatory caption can also be included. Now that I need this neat little box I can't find it! Where should I look to find some information about this feature? Dolphin (t) 13:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking of {{External media}}? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)::Please see the policies on External links, and images, especially the subsection WP:HOTLINK. You may find that policies forbid the kind of linking you have in mind, and that you will need ti upload copyright-free images to Commons. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

{{External media}} contains all the information I had in mind! Many thanks. Dolphin (t) 00:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References & External Links

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have a question concerning my first article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sira-zo%C3%A9/Femous

I put the sources in the external links box, is that ok!? Or should I put them in the References!? I was a bit confused, because I thaught that in the References I should only put footnotes.

It would be great if you could help me out! All the best sira-zoé — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sira-zoé (talk • contribs) 15:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, references or sources for statements in the article go in the references or notes section. Below that there may be external links, which might include official websites associated with the subject or additional information which is not cited. Click on the blue links here to find out more. And please don't forget to sign posts on talk pages with four tildes (~). Jezhotwells (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk moving of scripts relating to WikiProject Writing systems

In response to the unannounced, undiscussed, bulk moving of 48 articles in WikiProject Writing systems by User:Kwamikagami, I started an informal RfC on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Writing systems about this mass move, which turned into a general discussion about article naming consistency, and informed User:Kwamikagami on their talk page about it. User:Kwamikagami has responded to this discussion, but seems to have moved another 20 articles in the mean time. I consider this to be an extreme lack of good faith, especially considering that I refrained from reverting any of the articles I believe to have been erroneously moved before. I'm asking for administrative assistance in preventing User:Kwamikagami from continuing their disruptive practice until the members of WikiProject Writing systems have had an opportunity to achieve consensus, and would like the moved articles reverted, but do not feel it is in good faith to do so myself. The affected articles are:

Original 48:

The 20 moved after the RfC:

VI_WS ^talk 07:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to move them back myself if we decide that non-"true" alphabets should be labeled "scripts". But so far there haven't been any contributors to the discussion. Meanwhile our articles are at least consistent, rather than value judgements on familiar vs. obscure scripts. (I figured this would be a path of less resistance than trying to move Hebrew alphabet and Arabic alphabet to "script".)

Also, most of the latter 20 are "true" alphabets, which Vanisaac agrees should be placed at "alphabet", and others are abjads, which he also believes should be placed at "alphabet". — kwami (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand only on my conduct and request administrative assistance. I believe it is in bad faith to undertake controversial edits while you know them to be under review. VI_WS ^talk 07:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kwamikagami's unilateral site-wide edits regarding linguistics, the use of non-Roman scripts, and the IPA have been the subject of much contentious discussion for at least 18 months. I have always considered site-wide format and/or interface changes to be subject to consensus by the broader community. Perhaps a well publicised RfC at WP:Cent on the value of these and other site-wide linguistic edit should now be considered. That said, in alignment with the refocusing of Wikipedia help desks, this matter should probably be next addressed at WP:DRN, failing which, WP:AN/I, WP:RFC/U, and ultimately WP:ARBCOM could be considered. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is an ongoing problem can we get a ban on Kwamikagami moving pages for a couple weeks? I want to give the semi-RfC some time to get a consensus, but that should give us some time to get some feedback - WikiProject Writing systems doesn't get all that heavy traffic. VI_WS ^talk 11:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if there are others that Kwami has done this to, where can I find their information in order to pursue a DRN? VI_WS ^talk

Also also, if I were to do this as a CD, where should I post it? VI_WS ^talk

I just wanted to inform that I did post a message to User talk:Moyogo#moving Mandombe alphabet, who had commented on one of the article moves on Kwamikagami's talk page. I don't know whether that sort of action qualifies as canvassing, but I wanted to be the first to divulge the possible breach. It was only my intent to bring an interested party in. VI_WS ^talk 12:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response above. The Editor Assistance Requests desk is not a dispute resolution venue, and it is not a desk that is particularly staffed by admins - quite to the contrary. I think issue(s) such as the one(s) you described here are best addressed by community discussion, summarised and executed by admins. If the disputed action is being carried out by users with admin status, there are additional noticeboards. It is always helpful to distinguish as clearly as possible however, between article content policies and user behaviour policies. Even if they overlap on a particularly contentious issue, it is sometimes better to address them separately. WP:RfC/U is generally the place to discuss specific user conduct in the first major instance, while an article talk page with an RfC such as the one you have initiated, is the place to start the discussion on the content of an article. For broader issues such as those concerning the layout, format, and use of linguistic devices, fonts, and writing systems, a proposal for change or conformity is probably best made in the appropriate department of the WP:VP, and listed at WP:Cent to attract a wide participation. For our rules on canvassing see WP:CANVASS. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reported at ANI. After I saw his G6 deletion of a dab page, this was enough to me. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated at AN/I, one example is Sinhala script (a good article) being moved to Sinhala alphabet, despite the fact that the article still says "Sinhala script" throughout the article, despite that Sinhala is an abugida and not an alphabet, and despite the fact that there was clear consensus on the talk page that "Sinhala script" is preferable to "Sinhala alphabet". This was certainly an abuse of administrator tools. Can we move these articles back? – Quadell ^(talk) 18:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ron,s job service

i have been posting an ad for a buisness for three days now and it is not posting on your website ron,s limb/branch removel and hauling so could you please see that this job ad gets posted my number is; <redacted>. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.62.143 (talk • contribs)

You seem to misunderstand what Wikipedia is. This is an encyclopedia, not a classified listings site, if you want to advertise your service, try craigslist--Jac16888 ^Talk 11:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may also like to try placing an advert card in the window of your local corner shop or village store. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous tags, multiple edits backed only by opinion and false claims on Matthew D. Sacks

Overall, the concern is that tags were added as a matter of opinion, and he provides unverifiable, false facts as support for his claims on the tags.

The disagreement is documented here in the following discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MikeWazowski#http:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FTalk:Matthew_D._Sacks

On the notability tag that MikeWazorski added, the Wikipedia guidelines state that the author's notability is a matter of published works, not the community opinion. Thus, this tag should be stricken.

In regard to the editors claim that this should be tagged self published, my understanding of this tag is thus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Self-published. The editor claims that this tag is that the articles cited need to be discussing the author, rather than written by the author, I do not see this requirement, unless there is something I may be missing, and thus request this tag to be stricken from the article.

On the advert tag, this is the editors opinion. All of the claims in the article are verifiable facts. Therefore, this tag should be stricken from the article.

I've addressed this on my talk page, but this new user has ignored my rationale, which is backed by policy. However, the article is now nominated for deletion, so we'll let that handle it. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all the tags placed on the article. Firstly articles must rely on reliable sources independent of the subject, this is so any article can be verifiable and also helps establish notability. The sources currently in the article are all primary sources (and only serve to source the published works section, the "biography" is totally unsourced. As for the advertisement tag - it does basically read like a CV. Яehevkor ✉ 23:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

I can't quite seem to figure them out. I got the information from a course/college catalog. How do I even going about citing something like that. Does there need to be outside research for a college page? I mean, just talking about the facts here. Anyway, this is the first page I ever created, and I don't really have any experience with this kind of thing. [4]Browncoat101 (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A college course catalog would be a WP:Primary source. Information about referencing will be found at Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change Picture

To Whom It May Concern:

I work for Capitol Latin (Latin division of Capitol Records). We are the record label for Belinda Peregrin Schull. She has a wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belinda_(entertainer). How do we change the picture? The picture you have of her is really old and we have an updated picture.

Ramosiemi (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)ramosiemi[reply]

Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials tells you how to go about donating images and other copyright materials. Please remember that the copyright will likely belong to the photographer, not the record label. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to article 'United States' - Foreign Relations and Military (Section)

Hello,

Would like a second opinion on changes made to the article 'United States - Foreign Relations and Military (section)'. (Link posted above as required)

Extract of contributed material reverted without valid reason and reverted to original without references:

"The United States and the Republic of the Philippines (PH) maintain close ties stemming from the U.S. colonial period (1898-1946)[52], a history of extensive military cooperation, and shared economic and strategic interests [53]"

Reference I had added to the above contribution as follows:

^ "The Republic of the Philippines and US interests". Congressional Research Service: Prepared for members and Committees of Congress. January 3, 2011. Retrieved 2011-28-07.

Below is the note I added before clicking on 'Save'.

NOTE: Article well referenced from THE CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH REPORT - PREPARED FOR MEMBERS AND COMMITTEES OF CONGRESS. DATED January 3, 2011.

The questions I would like to ask is the following in relation to the above contribution that was reverted without valid reason.

1) Had someone revert without taking into account fully credible reference I have added and wish to ask if I had added the appropriate referencing.

2) If so, why is it being deleted and reverted?

3) If its possible to shorten the contribution made by me, then what would be best?

Yours

Zabararmon— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabararmon (talk • contribs)

The best place really to sort this out would be the talk page of the article ion question: Talk:United_States. Яehevkor ✉ 17:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks heaps "Rehevkor"... Im only new to Wiki and trying to get the hang of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabararmon (talk • contribs) 17:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Making reflist look shorter

I learned in Finnish wiki this code: <div class="reflist4" style="height: 250px; overflow: auto; padding: 3px; border: 1px solid #ababab;"> {{reflist|col width=30em}} </div> that puts reflist in a window. Example:Anders Behring Breivik. It makes a very long reflist shorter, but as it was discussed in fi-wiki not printable, so they were removed there. Can this code be used at all?--RicHard-59 (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{reflist|col width=30em}} is fine, but I don't think the html is good. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ASL. DMacks (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bio I wrote is on my page/girlfromnarnia

It was thoughtful of you to put it there for me, but I want to delete it and don't know how. Can you help. I copied it and I'll wait till the person has enough notable credits to repost. Though she was named an actress, she is more notable as an urban planner. That is just part of her story. I think it's a good one, because she is a child actress who's grown up to do things to affect the world in greater ways. But anyway, time for delete. girlfromnarnia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girlfromnarnia (talk • contribs) 01:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What article are you talking about? Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Girlfromnarnia/Eliza Harris. I've blanked the page, moved it back to the user page where it came from, and requested that the redirect be speedy deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing erroneous comma from display title

Hello, I cannot seem to write the wiki code to remove the erroneous comma in DeVry Inc. at the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeVry,_Inc. According to the company's true name with SEC filings and its own website, there is not a comma in the name. Yet when I attempt to edit using "DISPLAYTITLE" it does not work. Can you please advise...?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jd devry (talk • contribs) 22:54, 2 August 2011

Actually if you read Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(companies) you will find that the Inc shouldn't be there at all, but as DeVry exists as a redirect, I have moved the page to DeVry Inc.. Please don't forget to sign posts on talk pages with four tildes (~). Jezhotwells (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that your user name appears to indicate a conflict of interest. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Devry does not have a history, so if you take the issue to Talk:DeVry Inc. as a proposed move - {{subst:Requested move|NewName}} - it may get moved to the requested page. Skier Dude (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's more confusing though...there is DeVry a redirect to the company but Devry a redirect to the school. This really needs to be made uniform for readers' sanity, and also a rational basis for picking the target per WP:COMMONNAME/WP:DISAMBIGUATION. Would need actual evidence for choosing whether the school or the parent corporation is the likely expected one. DMacks (talk) 03:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding a dispute on soap articles: What to do when the other editor won't discuss changes

I've been browsing through the guidelines, and I see Wikipedia's recommendation to discuss any dispute—but it doesn't tell us what to do when the other editor won't discuss the changes. I know from experience with another wiki site that it's very common for one side simply to refuse to discuss anything.

I made some fairly bold changes to the pages for Bill Spencer, Sr. and Bill Spencer, Jr.—especially bold was the removal of most references to their honorifics. (In fact, I'd like to be even bolder and remove the honorifics from the article names as well.) I explain why on the discussion pages for each article and in my edits. (1) These honorifics are never seen or heard on the program—not in the credits or the dialogue or anywhere else. In fact, the writers only created the younger Bill Spencer (thus revising the in-universe history) after they killed off the older character. And so it's misleading to give the older Bill this retroactive honorific. (2) Etiquette mavens, such as Judith Martin (aka Miss Manners) say this use of honorifics is improper. First, "Sr." is not a proper honorific. Second, the younger son ceases to be "Jr." when the father dies. If the characters used these honorifics anyway, that would be one thing. But they don't.

My first attempt at removing the honorifics met with resistance from an editor named Big_BLA. No explanation was given. And I've noticed that this editor never explains any changes or appears on any discussion page that I can locate.

I've now removed the honorifics a second time; but I need to know what to do if this becomes a dispute and the editor continues to refuse to even discuss the matter. I'm pretty much a newbie here (despite some scattered editing over the years), and I'd rather avoid a dispute if at all possible. -- JustinSpurlin (talk) 06:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WV Grant

I'm having a bit of a situation at W. V. Grant, which is an article on a televangelist that's had quite a bit of problems before. Returning editor akc9000 (talk · contribs) has come to the page and inserted his own experience about the subject, based on his personal opinions on what he saw [5] [6]. I've tried to explain on his talk page about this, and I'll talk it over with him on the article talk page. I don't want to edit war over this though, and I would prefer to not make an edit war case out of this on him, either. If someone else would drop in there and try and help explain, it might go over better. Thanks in advance for your help. Dayewalker (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What could possibly be said to someone who makes edits like that? Are we really expected to negotiate with people who make such egregiously bad "contributions"? Why isn't that an automatic goodbye? -- JustinSpurlin (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not vandalism. It just seems to be an editor who isn't listening to Wikipedia policy. I'm assuming good faith here, but I don't want to edit war. Dayewalker (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're not edit-warring; indeed, you're being remarkably patient with somebody who is just plain unwilling to accept that we won't allow him to allow his eyewitness testimony. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Learning Wiki but not too well Richard Stetelman 18:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

– user page deleted as spam, user name spamblocked. – ukexpat (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editor,

Several years back I tried to put up a Wiki page about some work I did but I am sure I was way off base and it was deleted. I was okay with that; as I am not too good at reading instructions (dyslexic several other brain-eye coordination issues) but today I thought I might try again.

I may have done it correctly; am not sure...I did try to read as much instruction as I could comprehend, but if not, could you kindly, when you get a chance, tell me how I might rewrite this to make it work and how to re-post it? I would like the title to be Rick London if possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ricklondondesigns

User:Ricklondondesigns From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Born in Hattiesburg, Ms, Rick London Go To Wiki Hattiesburg Page(ref) and now lives in Hot Springs, Ar. He is creator of #1 ranked Londons Times Cartoons and his verified page is on Twitter Go to Rick London's Verified Twitter Page (ref). USA Today has featured him regarding his cartoons and design work Go To USA Feature Story On Rick London (ref). London's first book "Our Favorites...A 13th Anniversary" being sold at Barnes And Noble Go To Rick London's Page At Barnes And Noble Ricklondondesigns (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)(ref_

Thank you for your consideration.

Richard Stetelman 18:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricklondondesigns (talk • contribs)

Please take a look at WP:UP, in particular: User pages mainly are for interpersonal discussion, notices, testing and drafts, and, if desired, limited autobiographical and personal content. User pages are available to Wikipedia users personally for purposes compatible with the Wikipedia project and acceptable to the community; Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site. Wikipedia policies concerning the content of pages can and generally do apply to user pages, and users must observe these policies. In my view, plugging your book, with a link to an online retailer, crosses the line. – ukexpat (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Etiquette for Skeletal Articles

I recently created an account to add my research skills and knowledge to Wikipedia, and have found a few topics that could really use further explication. However, the opening paragraphs, using few or no citations, make ambiguous claims or awkward introductions that I have find hard to build off of. But I don't wish to offend others' efforts. What is the protocol for revamping work with little or no cited sources? For an example, see "Conceptual blending." (Similar problems lurk in the 'Political Science Theories' Section in the Article "War".) Thanks, Christopher69v2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher69v2 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very good question. A dodgy one, too, with some articles that have already been heavily edited, like Conceptual blending. Lots of folks have put their fingerprints on it. For starters, I would pose the same question at Talk:Conceptual_blending, and post also on the Talk pages of some of the contributors who seem to know what they are doing, like User:Ling.Nut2 Let people know what your concerns are: Edit the piece, adding inline citations for everything you have, and see if the others accept your changes or want to revert them. Be polite, as you have been in your message above. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delating

sir how can i delate my article in wiki awaiting your reply --sampath kumar 08:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medavarapu (talk • contribs)

Are you referring to the draft in your sandbox at User:Medavarapu/sandbox? Just add {{db-G7}} to the top of the page and an admin will delete it in due course. – ukexpat (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Don%27t_Like_Mondays

"We need to be able to verify that he said what you say he said, and therefore need a source that can be checked. The source needs to be reliable and what he said needs to be clear and unambiguous"

Whenever I do, the article just gets reverted to a previous version. Why? Read Talk. I have an audio source from two separate events. No subscription is required, it is freely available, it is Geldof speaking. It is clear and unambigious.

@@ Line 377: / Line 377: @@
 :Are you referring to the draft in your sandbox at [[User:Medavarapu/sandbox]]? Just add {{tl|db-G7}} to the top of the page and an admin will delete it in due course.&nbsp;–&nbsp;[[User:Ukexpat|ukexpat]] ([[User talk:Ukexpat|talk]]) 13:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
+== http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Don%27t_Like_Mondays ==
+"We need to be able to verify that he said what you say he said, and therefore need a source that can be checked. The source needs to be reliable and what he said needs to be clear and unambiguous"
+Whenever I do, the article just gets reverted to a previous version.  Why?    Read Talk.  I have an audio source from two separate events.  No subscription is required, it is freely available, it is Geldof speaking. It is clear and unambigious.