Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Kye Palmer

Answered

 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Please look at page 'Kye Palmer', I have tried to do as much clean up as possible to make sure this is a properly referenced and linked page. I did find quite a bit the original author never did bother to find. The tags could probably be taken off at this point but a recognized editor would have to do this. Jcooper1 (talk) 05:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Notability is asserted but there are still unreferenced claims in the article, so I have changed and updated the tag. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Does this body not conclude there are 'several' Grammy nominated/award winning CDs? Please clarify, I did give reliable sources that back this up from what I see.

He has recorded for major motion picture soundtracks, including Seven Pounds, Man of the Year, Three to Tango, Stuart Little, and Me, Myself & Irene. Palmer appeared on the Brian Setzer Orchestra's Grammy Award winning recording of "Caravan", as well as Vavoom[9] and Boogie Woogie Christmas which were nominated for Grammys, and the certified gold Setzer CD Best of the Big Band. He recorded on the 2005 Grammy nominated, multi-platinum award winning CD It's Time (Michael Bublé album). He has also recorded with trumpeters Ron King, Marc Lewis, and Ron Stout on the CD The Clifford Brown Project in 2003 on the Capri Record label.[10] Jcooper1 (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Generally , major awards should be corroborated by the award board's own website. failing that, reports of awards in very reliable, established independent news media would suffice. Blogs, forums, or obscure websites are not reliable. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Abraham Isaac Kook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Abraham Isaac Kook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I attempted to put a link in the article that would provide neutral source documentaion for quotes written in the article. The link is to raw data, in the form of unedited documents that offers a primary source for the quotations. In spite of my multiple attempts at explaing this, a user certain has insisted on erasing the link, without giving any type of reasonable or applicable rational. As I have no interest in being part of a edit war, I have decided to list the article here, for an editor to assist in placing the link on the site- without allowing a user to erase it without basis. I assume the behaviour of the cited editing user was not malicious but simply mistaken. However, since the user is not willing and/or able to comprehend the neccessity for the link as a primary sorce document, I will leave to the editor's capable hands to do so. Thank you. Ksavyadkodesh (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Material that you have yourself uploaded to the Scribd document-sharing website cannot be used as a source - we have no way of ascertaining its authenticity. There may also be possible copyright issues involved. The editor concerned was entirely correct to remove the link. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

To address your two points:

1) The documents posted on that specific Scribd were quoted in multiple newspapers (citing the link for readers to view). The authenticity has been confirmed by multiple news sources. The question as to who uploaded the 80+ year old documents is not relevant under any stretch of the imagination.

2) There are no copyright issues involved- the documents are 80-100 years old that were posted with permission.

In other words, the only reservation you mentioned are not applicable to this case. Please review the article and documents and present your opinion.

Thank you. Ksavyadkodesh (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Material posted on Scribd is not a reliable source. By all means cite newspaper articles, information on how to do this is at WP:Citing sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

In reply to (1) none of that is any relevance - we don't use documents posted on Scribd as sources, as we have no way to ascertain for ourselves that they are what they purport to be: the link to the website is not 'sourcing' by our definitions, so cannot be used as such. If the documents are available elsewhere, then they should be sourced directly from there.

Regarding (2), that is an issue between you, the Scribd website, and the owners of the document copyrights, should they still be valid. Regarding copyright issues, we have to err on the side of caution, and the Scribd site has been problematic in the past over this issue. Not that this is worth debating anyway, given its non-admissibility as a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how to cite the newspaper articles, but it would be most appreciated if the two senior editors here could assist in adding them to the wikipedia article. The two newspaper articles are found at the following links:

1) http://www.5tjt.com/local-news/11762-remembering-rav-avraham-yitzchak-kook

2) http://issuu.com/jewishvoice/docs/201109 (Page 16)

Ksavyadkodesh (talk) 02:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't say what you want to cite the articles for. The first one seems to be sourced from your own Scribd page - so the question as to its authenticity might possibly still arise - it is in any case a primary source document (written by Kook himself) - such documents need to be used with care in articles, if we are to avoid including original research in our interpretations of them.. The second article is on Issuu - another website for user-uploaded content. I think that this is likely to be unacceptable as a source in the same way that Scribd is,unless it can be ascertained that it was uploaded with permission. I'm by no means an expert on the article subject matter, and suggest that you discuss these articles, and what you wish to cite them for, on Talk:Abraham Isaac Kook. The article itself might well benefit from further input from knowledgeable outsiders - it seems to be lacking in balance, and seems to be attempting to draw conclusions that aren't necessarily derived from external reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The original documents are being used purely for text- they are the sources for quotations found in the Wikipedia article. Why you think there is some sort of "plot" to be biased or "attempting to draw conclusions" is beyond me. There are no opinions involved here, it's simply quoting verbatim from an original document. Regarding the article posted on "ISsuu" it was posted by the newspaper owner (as it is every month). Your question of permission os obviously not relevant.

I respectfully request once more for you to not "shoot from the hit" instead of looking at details before making a conclusion.

Ksavyadkodesh (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You asked why the sources you originally linked to were removed - I explained our policy. As I stated, I'm no expert on the topic matter, and this is better discussed on the article talk page. I think that you may have misunderstood my intentions here - I'm not suggesting that there is a 'plot', but merely that you are perhaps unaware of our requirements regarding sourcing etc - this seemed to me to be indicated by your comments on the article talk page where you referred to a link that " is to raw data, in the form of unedited documents that offers a primary source for the quotations". I suggest that you read Wikipedia:No original research, and in particular the section on Primary, secondary and tertiary sources to understand why we consider the use of such material, unsupported by secondary sources, as best avoided. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

As stated more than once the "raw data" was confirmed by two newspaper sources which I gave you the links to. Please put the links on to the article, as I don't know how to do so.

Ksavyadkodesh (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit Conflict: Jonathan Morris (priest)

Answered

 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Another editor, Alexei72, is repeatedly removing (without using the revert function, presumably to avoid the three revert rule) relevant, sourced content from the article about Jonathan Morris (priest), presumably because the content does not reflect favorably on Father Morris. Alexei72's contribution history suggests an affiliation with Father Morris. Alexei72 has ignored my invitations to discuss the problems on the article discussion page. I would appreciate some help. Thanks. Lahaun (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You've started a discussion on the article talk page - perhaps wait and see how it develops. Alexei72 has been warned about edit warring already. If there's no response to it, try leaving an invite on the talk pages of other contributors. If the edit warring continues on the same piece of content, you are perfectly free to escalate the warning yourself or to raise the issue at WP:AN/I to get the attention of an administrator, who may initiate block proceedings. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Answered

 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi...Before I make changes and additions to a page (bio) that needs additional material, could I first send the references, links and reliable sources that I have put together and intend to use on the page to find out if they are satisfactory/sufficient to prevent the deletion of the page? Thank you. --Mona MG (talk) 08:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You haven't left a link here but I assume you are referring to Star Academy Arab World. The article is tagged as requiring clean up, but I don't see any indication that it is slated for deletion. Check that your sources comply fully with WP:RS, and if you feel confident that the addition(s) you intend to make is/are relevant to the article, feel free to go ahead and make the edits. Normally I would suggest you discuss it on the article talk page but there seems to be little activity there apart from some trolling that I have just removed. You may also wish to check the article history that the IP edits are genuine information. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Malcolm McFee

Answered

 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The current article Malcolm McFee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a redirect to the TV series "Please Sir!", replacing a one line stub. I wish to recreate the article, which relates to a former pupil of my old school, and expand it. McFee was an actor who starred in the TV series Please Sir! for three years, the Please Sir! movie, and the spin off TV series The Fenn Street Gang (apart fromn the first season when his character was played by Leon Vitali). All of this is verifiable. He also appeared in other TV roles. To me, this justifies inclusion. My reason for asking, however, is that McFee died in November 2001. I don't know if wikipedia has a policy regarding articles on deceased actors and I have not been able to find out. I don't want to set about creating an article only to find I have fallen foul of a particular rule. Advice would be welcomed. Thanks. LenF54 (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You can do this yourself: Go to the article Please Sir!, click on the link 'Redirected from Malcolm McFee', When the page loads click on the edit button for Malcolm McFee; in the edit window delete the Redirect link, then start or paste your new article in the normal way., thn preview and save. There are no special different policies to observe between BLP (living persons) and deceased ones, the same rules for WP:NOTABILITY and reliable sources apply, so do be sure that your article is adequately referenced. If you can, add the dates of birth and death to the article and if you know how to add categories, add them too .

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The Big Bang Theory

Answered

 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Please assist

I think The Big Bang Theory article should be called The Big Bang Theory Sitcom to avoid confusion with Big Bang Theory as this is the main and more important article

I don-t have privileges to change that so if you agree please direct the request to somebody who can.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milan studio (talk • contribs) 17:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

"The Big Bang Theory" is the actual title of the sitcom and the page starts with "For the cosmological model, see Big Bang", so people looking for that can quickly find it. "The Big Bang" and "Big Bang theory" both redirect to Big Bang. The latter is more important but a more relevant question for Wikipedia is what users are most likely to be looking for if they enter "The Big Bang Theory" in the search box. Given this is the real sitcom title and would be a long name for an article about the Big Bang, I guess most users will be looking for the sitcom. See also WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and Wikipedia:Requested moves if you want to take this further. If the sitcom is moved then the normal disambiguation title for Wikipedia would be The Big Bang Theory (TV series). PrimeHunter (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I started a move-request discussion on the talkpage of the article in question. I chose to propose a name in keeping with the article naming standards for cases with easy confusion. Putting capitalized "Sitcom" at the end is saying that that word is actually part of the real name, rather than an editorial comment or readers' advice about the name. Feel free to comment further at that talk-page. DMacks (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

We only went through this process 10 months ago and the consensus was to remain at the existing location. I've commented at the article's talk page and provided a link to the previous request for the nominator's benefit. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Image: Broadmoor Trophy

Answered

 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I am the author and copyright holder of a photo of the Broadmoor Trophy http://www.tnphoto.com/images/broadmoor-thumb.jpg. I am willing to attach this image to the article but am frustrated by your policy. Do I understand correctly that I must wait four days and edit ten wikipedia articles before I'm allowed to donate my own picture to wikipedia? Tnp651 (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Please reply to: <redacted>

In order to upload files, your account must be 4 days old and have made at least 10 edits (note: this can be 10 edits to any page, not edits to 10 articles, so your edit to this page counts as one). – ukexpat (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

We do not reply to enquiries by email, and for your privacy, your email address has been redacted. Please check back here for replies, or see your talk page page for new messages. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Resolved

 – Editors warned about 3rr. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello I am a new editor on Wiki. Although I am new here, I am trying to contribute properly. I am having a editing dispute with an editor who has a history of bias on the the Nurburgring lap time page. The other editor has "rollback" rights and is also threatining me with an editing block. Any help is appreciated.(Hostile Rain (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC))

You have both engaged in edit warring and can be immediately blocked for this, and will be if it continues. I'm looking into the other issues and will comment again in a few minutes. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You have both been officially warned about edit warring. Please check out WP:3RR if you have not done so already. A message has been left on the article talk page with a request for civil discussion, a reminder that all information must be properly and reliably sourced, and warning that administrators may see fit to protect the page if the disruption continues. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that both editors have engaged in serious and disruptive edit warring. Hostile Rain needs some counseling in citing reliable sources and general editing. I am willing to do this on a 1:1 basis. Blhsing seems to know the rules. Both appear to be in violation of WP:3RR. The technical matters in contention are beyond the scope of the article, see talk page. I have restored the article to the status quo ante. Also, I see that there is no link to the incident, it is provided here. BsBsBs (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Hostile Rain is a new user so I would ask all concerned to extend him the usual courtesies. As far as I can tell he was unaware of WP:3RR until someone (me) actually bothered to tell him about it. Though I am not an admin I am happy to provide any help I can to him. I personally think that new editors should be treated better than Hostile Rain appears to have been. --Surturz (talk) 08:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Two articles : Stormy Weather and Micky Katz

Answered

 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

:

Dear Sirs,

I believe there are omissions in the above two articles.

Stormy Weather was also sung by Adelaide Hall and was recorded by the BBC and included in the long morning test transmission from Alexandra Palace that was broadcast daily in the 1950s. As a little girl, I used to watch it religiously every day! The television was owned by a lady who lived in our block of flats, televisions were out of our price league in those days.

The Micky Katz entry does not mention "Johnny is the Goy for Me", a skit on the then-popular "Johnny is the Boy for Me" a song based on the tune of a Romanian folk song. It was recorded in the 1950s. <redacted for privacy> email: <redacted for privacy> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.44.134 (talk) 08:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you have information that can be used to expand articles, please do not hesitate to add it yourself. Please note however that all information must be referenced and sourced. Please see Reliable sources. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Lorenzo Magnani

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

The article seems to me in good conditions but the following notes are still present I tried to solve the problem through article's TALK page but without success

This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (June 2010) This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. (Consider using more specific cleanup instructions.) Please help improve this article if you can. The talk page may contain suggestions. (September 2011)

Thanks for the assistance

Lorenzo Magnani

Still needs citations for most of the statements about his career. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

File download instead of Wikipedia entry

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

When I try to open the entry on safety bicycles -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_bicycle -- a dialog box opens up, asking me if I want to download a file of unspecified type. This seems to me a security risk. Why is this happening? Is it dangerous to proceed? 205.203.130.22 (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't be dangerous here at Wikipedia but it would probably not display the page anyway. It sounds like a glitch. Try clearing your entire cache and click normally on the article again. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Princess Alice of Battenburg

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Avicennasis

removes

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

imagee

File:Princess Alice of Battenberg coronation.PNG Princess Alice, leading her family from Westminster Abbey following the coronation of her daughter-in-law, Queen Elizabeth II

needs to re added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deafbud (talk • contribs) 06:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Princess Alice of Battenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The page history shows that the link to the image was first removed by Drilnoth (talk · contribs) because the image had been deleted. With a little more digging, I see that the image was deleted for copyright reasons following this discussion. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

1st signed Declarations of Independence in 13 colonies of United States of America

Your information reports that the 1st signed Declaration of Independence in the original 13 colonies was the Mecklenburg Declaration that was signed May 21, 1775 .....but records on file in the American Archives show that the 1st 2 Declarations of Independence were declared in Camden, SC on November 5, 1774, and Long Bluff (presently Society Hill) SC on November 15, 1774....Both of these Declarations preceded the Mecklenburg Declaration by more that 6 months... References: Cook - "Rambles in the Pee Dee Basin"

           Gregg - "History of the Old Cheraws"
           Mills - "Statistics of Souh Carolina"
           Drayton, John - "A View of South Carolina"
            "Charge of Judge William Henry Drayton to the Grand Juries of 
              to the Districts of Camden and Cheraws (Darlington) on Nov. 5   
               and 15, 1774"

Please review/research this data and make needed corrections in your web page information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.107.0.53 (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the precise title of the Wikipedia article you refer to? Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence says "The authenticity of the Mecklenburg Declaration has been disputed since it was first published in 1819". [1] quotes from Camden's "little Declaration of Independence". It doesn't sound very explicit about declaring independence to me. Such issues can be discussed on the talk page of whichever article you are referring to. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

texas gonzales and northern - update

Shortline is seeing a boom in traffic due to Eagleford Shale oil play. Neville Switch is the name of a major expansion of track south of the County Road 284 grade crossing. On October 2 three power units were parked there along with tracks full of hoppers and crude oil tankers. There is no parking allowed along the road, and crude oil trucks roll into the facility to transload the cargo. A new track at Harwood now completes a wye toward Houston. Aerial views show what is developed and what is still being graded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.252.3 (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Texas, Gonzales and Northern Railway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thank you for your interest in this article. If you can find press coverage of the railway's expansion, you would be very welcome to include it in the Wikipedia article. But an eyewitness account is not enough, because readers need to be able to check what has been written for themselves. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

boxes and no feedback after fixes on Matt Bostrom

I am adding my first new article Matt Bostrom. Boxes appeared with issues. I addressed those issues. I posted explanations on the discussion page. I waited. So finally I deleted the boxes. Now the boxes are back with no explanation and no discussion. Is this an autobot? I have looked at multiple other articles and I think my article is doing great. I need some real feedback not a box. Please help. Thegracekelly (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

We seem to have already discussed this. I'm looking into it again. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we did, and I have checked all those sources again and although the list is impressive, they are not of the kind that assert notability. Nevertheless, I'll let someone else leave a second opinion here - maybe the article should be sent to WP:AfD for community discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

MAKING A MOVIE AND LOOKING TO GET IN TOUCH WITH JASON COPE

DV8 FILMS IS SHOOTING A MOVIE AND WE NEED TO GET INTO CONTACT WITH JASON. PLEASE PHONE (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.174.8.10 (talk) 11:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

First please don't shout. Next, this is a help desk for Wikipedia, we can't help you get in touch with anyone. Also I removed your phone number to help protect you privacy. GB fan 11:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of our material

Recently, I noticed that one individual has taken it upon themself to remove content that I and others had added to various sections. These particular sections were poor in content and asked for content and references. I justfied my content and again within minuites it was removed, I point particularly to the page on Colostomy and the comment by Comment of DCwom:- my question to him is why had he done this? my question and justrification of inclusion is as follows. I would also say I am bedbound due to complications surrounding my ostomy but have years of experience in reporting for US and Uk Governments on anything from economics to health as a report/media consultant employed full time by them from 1980-1990, before this I worked as a copywriter with McGrawhill in Rome and London (1969-1972) and Academic Press (1972-5) Therafter I worked on national press as an independent journalist until 1979 when I was offered the position of media correspondent for the Anglo_Dutch Chamber of Commerce in The Hague, and moved to the US Embassy in the Hague's Department of Commerce and worked on speeches for past US Presidential visits and Ambassadorial speeched among many other duties. I won awards for my distict writing both montary and Gold Seal, I moved to work in the US in 1990, still with the US DOC and continued to work as an independent journalist from 1990-2002 in the US, Canada and The UK. I was forced to retire due to the onset of crohn's an ostomy - hence my knowledge and research. My husband and co-autor worked with medecins sans frontieres and wrote for numerous publications and we decided to combine our abilties to produce a 440 page resource book for all ostomates worldwide, researching in the languages we speak as well as English. The conclusion has proved very successful and we update the book with out website an information only portal wiht links to the Internt=ational Ostomy Association Community, some government controlled. We found the pages on ostomies and related matter to be lacking and tried to update much of the content with our own copyrighted research. This has almost all been removed including the links to our non profit website that takes no advertising, membership or registration. It is non commercial as all profits from the sales of the book are being donated to the Uk ostomy associations for their use in research.

My comment to DCwom, whoever they may be, as they do not explain themselves. is as follows: So nice of you to undo this, may I ask what your own training is in this world of ostomies? Are you an ostomate?

The reason I added the longer explanation to irrigation that was already there is that it did not give the right explanation for and how to irrigate. Many ostomates take it into their heads that once having heard about irrigation, it is a simple procedure, which it is absolutely not. Advice should be taken from medical professionals before beginning down this pathway and people do not do this. One ostomate says to another "I irrigate, it's much esier than wearing a bag" ostomate two blindly orders the equimenr without any contact to the stomal nurse or consultant assigned to their care and then the trouble begins. These thing should be explained properly. What broken reference were you referring to? I gave the full reference. For your detailed information. I am an ostomate of many years standing, members of all 3 Uk ostomy Associations, write the Crohn's and Colitis Newsletter for Wales and was commissioned to write a book in 2007 as a resource for ostomates. It is now listed as 45th out of the top 100 health resource books in the UK and has been glowingly reviewed independently by the UOAA (United Ostomy Association of America)'s journal The Phoenix, September edition by a journalist that is sydicated to the NY, LA and Chicago Times on Health matters. He also happens to be an ostomate. Are YOU? Pur website is a non profit information portal (also in the process of being revamped into a wordpress platform to extend the information we can provide from medical sources and professional contributors only).

As an international journalists of 35 years accredditation, we wrote a book which is now listed as 45th out of Amazon's UK health reference books - Unwanted Baggage. (1st edition Published in Feb. 2011); 2nd edition is being published in December 2011 with a print run of 10,000 initially. This was compiled after 5 years of intensive reseach talking to medical professionals worldwide in 7 languages (which we speak fluently), and reading countless research papers from universities' medical research departments, talking to their authors and reviewing conclusions. This work has been recognised by the United Ostomy Association of the America's Journal "The Phoenix" which gave it enormous acclaim over two pages - the Phoenix reaches 1.2 million ostomates, medical libraries, stomal and colorectal nurses and gastroenterologists in 80 countries. The updating website http://www.thebowelmovement.info/ is an information portal only. No registration is requied. No membership is required, Nothing is asked in return. It contains relevant updated information on every aspect of ostomy life including the latest prescription ostomy products (not at the request of any manufacturer) and ostomy reviews of these products and breaking medical news (we are members of the BMJ journlists contingent and as such receive embargoed ground breaking medical news which we pass on to members. We have no forum or chat rooms, we take no advertising and are a strictly non profit company.

I fail to understand why this person has been trawling the ostomy sites to remove content he or she personally disagrees with. n some cases other valuable content has been removed some justificably as with meetanostomte.com which is purely commercial. Somthing should be done to monitor this person's habits and see what other damage he has done in rmeoving valuable essential content from other sites. Pleas let me know what you think. kind regards Liz Prosser

We do collect donations when possible but these are passed directly to the three main ostomy associations in the UK. but provide links to the 80 International Ostomy Associations some of which are government mandated and provide more specific in-country information. We also provide an educational service by producing ostomy videos for children to show they can live a normal life with and despite and ostomy. These videos are now is use with the Australian Stomal Nurses Association, The UOAA Nurses association and on the Norwegian Ostomy Association Website (sponsored by the Norwegian government).

The information we provide has been vetted by many of the professional bodies and associations worldwide. You seem to discount Associations as social organisatiions. This is not true of the official associations in the UK - i.e. The Colostomy Association, IA Support and The Urostomy Association of the UK, all of whom work with professional medical staff. In Australia, the Ostomy associations are government funded to distribute ostomy supplies to all ostomates who receive government funding. There are many chat rooms and forums which take advertising and exist as profit maming concerns. we do not fall into this category, with even the profits (royalties) from the book being donated to the UK's ostomy charities. These are strictly audited by an indpendent accountantcy firm. Someone seems to delight in removing any reference to us or our content from the wikipedia without any justification or knowledge of our activities. We have not been notified of these removals and had to find out ourselves. Elizabeth & Philip Prosser 14:48 October 4th 2011."""" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhosymynydd (talk • contribs) 14:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not exist to promote your organization. Links which seem calculated to promote or publicise it will continue to be reverted. Please be aware, also, of our rules about conflict of interest, from which non-profit organisations are not exempted. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

7 Deadly sins stated biblically

Malace/wrath Averice Gluttony/greed Lust Pride Sloth Envy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.178.30 (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

What is your question? For that matter, what is your source? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfair deletion

I edited in to Isaac Asimov's page and Arthur C. Clarkes that they turned down offers for cryonics services prior to their deaths and they were unfairly taken down. I attempted it a second time with different wording and it was taken down again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.112.28 (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The wording is not at issue. The fact that you failed to provide a reliable source to verify your addition and then blanked every page you'd tried to edit in an apparent fit of pique is. Danger (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Carlo Tabalujan

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

Editing help or referencing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cartel11 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed the reference/citation links with this edit. For more on this system of referencing, see Template:Harvard citation documentation. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Accusations and irrelevant content on "educational data mining" page

Educational data mining (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The "educational data mining" page is having a conflict, which I am hoping a senior editor can assist with. See that page, plus the related talk page.

Irrelevant/out-of-date content was posted on the page by Chire (he states that it was originally written by another individual for a different page). This text was previously removed from that other page for being low-quality. I removed that same content from this page. Chire restored his text, commented on talk, and separately sent me an insulting personal message that I interpreted as telling me that it is Wikipedia policy that I am not allowed to edit the page, as I am involved in the field (I'm the elected President of a scientific society in this area, the International Educational Data Mining Society, with around 200 members). I commented on the talk page that I would not edit further, and emailed a wide range of colleagues to ask them to get involved in editing this page. At this point, two have posted on the talk page; one removed Chire's text of his own independent decision. Chire restored his text, and added "major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view". He also posted to talk accusing me of using "meat puppets".

I'd like to ask a senior editor to intervene and help in this situation. Chire is adding irrelevant content that was removed from another page for being low quality, and making personal insults and attacks. It would also be beneficial to get an "official" adjudication as to whether this page deviates from neutral POV, and what steps could be taken to address this. I would certainly be pleased to see additional scientific content and perspectives added. Prior to Chire, the article mentioned two of the leading competing perspectives on the field (Baker & Yacef, Romero & Ventura), and linked to a third competing perspective (Learning Analytics). There are certainly other perspectives, but I'm not sure what additional perspective Chire believes he represents. He doesn't seem to be making any arguments in favor of the content.Ryan22222 (talk) 03:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

To start with, I'll just mention that blanking your talk page does not help us investigate this kind of enquiry. What was posted can still be reviewed from the talk page history, but it is not really very convenient. Also, if you or your colleagues are involved in editing this articled, please be sure to have read and clearly understood our Conflict of interest policy. I'm now looking further into this.for you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have left a suitable message on the article talk page. If there are further clashes of opinion that cannot be resolved there, please take the matter to the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry -- I've unblanked it. I figured anyone could just look at the history, and didn't know it was against policy. Thanks for your help. Ryan22222 (talk) 04:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not against policy, just a generally recognised preference so that discussions are easier to follow. One common approach is to set up talk page archiving. This then gives you the option of either archiving discussions after a week or two, as I do, so that other editors can easily review discussions that are completed or on hold; or archiving after a few days, so that the amount of obsolete information on the page is kept to a minimum. It also means that if someone does want to view the older material, looking at the archives puts it a bit more in context. If you'd like to set up talk page archiving and need any help, just let us know. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to make it clear that I don't have any objections to major changes to that section, but that I consider it inappropriate to blank the entire section (you can find statements I did like: "If 90% of the section are off-topic and out of date, remove just these 90%"). Unfortunately, Ryan seems to have given up completely now: [[2]]. A pity, because it seems as if he was well qualified to help with this topic. I don't have a personal interest in that article, so definitely did not want anybody to leave. --Chire (talk) 06:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Section blanking by meatpuppets^W new/rare wikipedia users is still going on: Special:Contributions/In1romoc. But I'm giving up on this article. The article is clearly outside of my interests; I just wanted to stop the content I merged there (from cluster analysis, which I care about and spend some time cleaning up recently) from being deleted without being given a chance. --Chire (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

We've done what we can here at EAR, I've semi-protected the page. Please now take the issue to Dispute resolution noticeboard as I suggested before. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

SAS programming language

article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAS_programming_language

keeps geteing redirected to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAS_(software)

even though there is a valid article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAS_language

this is because-

this matter is sub judice and referred by software patent judgement in http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2010/1829.html#para56 .

the attempts to modify redirect to SAS system are malafide and make it an advertisement

A note from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAS_Institute_lawsuit_with_World_Programming can help warn readers or editors or redirectors of this issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datagandhi (talk • contribs) 21:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the redirect has now beenn fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

images

Greetings to you from sunny Port Elizabeth, South Africa I am just enquiring as to if you can help me with the following:

My grandfather in law, Mr Graeme Vivian Donald born 1919, Masterton New Zealand recently attended the 24 Squadron reunion held in London last week, the 2nd of October 2011. I’m desperately searching to try locating some historical photos of him either at the reunion itself or general historical pictures of him. He is a WW2 war veteran and was a top pilot for the RAF.

Can you help me at all?

Kindest regards

Jon Cohen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.216.206.39 (talk) 08:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you try posting at the Humanities reference desk, as some of the volunteers there tackle history questions and may be able to help. I have removed your contact details to protect your privacy; any answers will be provided either here or at the reference desk. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Report of vandalism.

In the article on Paracelsus, the first line of the section headed "Biography" has been vandalized. It should be corrected. Thank you.