Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Danuta Hubner

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Wiktoryn and User:Leinad are removing information on Hubner background from her article. It's normal to mention similar information, look Madonna_(entertainer)#1958.E2.80.931981:_Early_life_and_beginnings or Julia_Roberts#Early_life. Slijk (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that nobody, including you, has used the article's talk page at all. That is the place to discuss edits where there is controversy. I see you have been using edit summaries, and have presumably seen the edit summary replies from editors who reverted your changes, but that is a poor method of discussion. You may find that when discussion begins, problems get resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Give it a try at Talk:Danuta Hübner. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Look at talk page, they don't want to talk! Slijk (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

And the discussion has shown that the deletions were of trivia and unsourced information. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sourced. And if this is trivia, why its used in any articles? Slijk (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you read WP:RS and understand why those sources are not reliable for Wikipedia articles. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Cexycy adding material against guidelines, despite much discussion

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Living Next Door to Alice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Referred here as per [1]

Rapido (talk) 09:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have posted a long message concerning this at Talk:Living Next Door to Alice. Whether it will help remains to be seen. Also relevant is this edit to Cexycy's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Cexycy has been around [2], but hasn't addressed his edits to this article. Therefore I reverted his edits, except I left in the spelling of "neighbour" (I disputed this on the basis of retaining the existing variety, however I see your point). Cexycy does appear to change other articles to British spelling, even when there is no basis to (e.g. [3] is an American rapper, spelling changed to British; [4] is a Polish radio station, and comes under retaining the existing variety). Rapido (talk) 09:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Editors may sometimes change spelling to/from American without realizing it's one of those words spelled different ways in various countries. In their own country, the spelling used elsewhere is regarded as a "common mistake" and they may just think they are doing a correction. One of the changes you complained about is fall vs. autumn; I'm not aware of either being incorrect in any English speaking country, so I'm not sure this change falls under the same category. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

"Autumn" is more common in British English, and "fall" is more common in American English, but they are both perfectly correct in either variety. Cexycy changes from "fall" to "autumn" on the basis that it's a more internationally understood word, however the original editor that started the article and included the word "fall" is Polish [5]. Rapido (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any Brits (in the UK) would refer to Autumn as "Fall", whereas the two terms do seem to be used in the US, with Fall much more common... – ukexpat (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The use of "fall" is probably restricted to poetic literature in the UK, and use of it in ordinary speech would be old fashioned. Regardless, I would be surprised if any English speakers around the world did not understand the term. Rapido (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I always liked Season of mists and mellow fruitfulness... – ukexpat (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Dead Man's Shoes

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The review of this film gives everything away. It is ridiculous and will ruin the film for any viewer: no surprises are left. Is there a rule you can set for film (and book) reviews that stops people putting in so much detail? I have seen the film but I would NEVER recommend someone reads about a film on this website before going to the cinema as the reviewers would ruin the experience. Jashx (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't do spoiler warnings. – ukexpat (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a reference work, not a compilation of reviews. You are complaining about an article in an encyclopedia, not a "review of this film". Like any critical publication or other reference work, we do not have "spoiler alerts" or anything like it. Indeed, it has been argued that this is one of the important differences between actual criticism and mere reviewing: that the readers are presumed to have already encountered the work for themselves, and need not be "protected" from spoiling the surprises of which they should already be aware. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC) P.S.: it was his childhood sled; the doctor did it himself; "she" is actually a pre-operative TG; her husband actually hated his previous wife and loves the narrator

You forgot to mention: It's People! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Amadeus IT Group

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Amadeus IT Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) An edit war is going on this article. Arguably, this article is not the cutest Wikipedia has, and at one point in time deserved unquestionably the "advert" tag, being the copy paste of some marketing material. I've tried repeatedly to remove any track of bias, and offered to discuss NPOV on the discussion page. Unfortunately, a dispute is ongoing, and I am facing a user not willing to respond to the discussion invitation, initially reinserting the "ad" tag without justification and more recently making drastic changes to the article without accepting to enter a debate. The discussion page and the edit history are quite clear. Sadly, I am afraid assistance is now required. Vincent Lextrait (talk) 06:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well the article does read like an advert and completely lacks any reliable third party references, so I agree with the tag and have added an unreferenced tag. It needs cutting down in size and rewriting in an encyclopaedic style. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Blimey, you got that right! From the very first sentence: specialises in travel technology solutions - that's Marketing 101 language right there. Maybe reducing it to a stub would be the place to start. – ukexpat (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sonia Sotomayor

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

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

I have been having an edit war with some contributors who have been removing a valid external link to the Internet Movie Database that accounts for Judge Sotomayor's media appearances. I have added IMDB links for many politicians for many American and foreign politicians, and no one has ever complained, and actually thanked me for it. I am an editor for both sites and take pride for my work. Many of the editors removing the link have a long history of right wing article edits. As both a Latino and Puerto Rican male, I feel that Judge Sotomayor's media appearances as listed on the IMDB have a valid reason to be included in the article. Archive footage of many politicians are used in films throughout history. They are listed on IMDB. Some have made appearances on talk shows (e.g. Gov. Schwarzenager on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno; President Bill Clinton on the "Arsenio Hall Show"; President George W. Bush on "Oprah"). All of these mentions have IMDb links in their articles. The removal of the link fron Judge Sotomayor's article can be labeled as sexist, racist, and biased (due to her liberal leaning). Why are they targeting Judge Sotomayor? Please respond and assist.--XLR8TION (talk) 08:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes that is a dispute alright. I suggest 3rd opinion or WP:RfC. Good luck. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Donna Marie - disambiguation

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Searching wikipedia on the name "Donna Marie" reveals only a porn star, albeit one who has a couple of awards and has appeared in 106 films.

There is also the British Reggae artist "Donna Marie" - who has been in the business since the 1980s. I don't know very much about her, other than that she was big in "lovers rock" and specialized in reggae cover versions of country and western songs. If you read http://www.reggaerunnins.com/donna_marie.htm she claims to have 13 CDs - which would get her past the notability hurdle. She is/was hugely popular amongst the west indian community in the UK with her main exposure on pirate/community stations in urban areas. Interest in her in the mainstream music media has been next to non-existant... a pity.

I have a suspicion that half of this article is about someone else: -http://www.last.fm/music/Donna+Marie/+wiki?ver=5

http://www.radicalsound.nl/html/donna_marie_-_marvelous.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.6.162 (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that having 13 CDs gets one past the "notability hurdle"; self-publishing (for example) does not make one notable, even self-publishing in quantity. See Wikipedia:Notability (music) for the guideline. Be that as it may, if she was popular in the West Indian community in the UK, I'll bet she has been reviewed in some publications, even if they aren't mainstream. Since you seem to know a few things about her, you may be able to find references to establish notability. They don't need to be accessed online. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 03:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I agree entirely that 13CDs self published doesn't count. But this woman was published by Pama-Jetstar and Londisc, commercial reggae labels - and with the intention that they made money from selling the records. They presumably did so. I think she is notable following the guideline. I'm inclined to start by putting a disambiguation page with a link to the pornstar and to a stub for the reggae singer, then work from there as and if I find more detail. But I'm unsure how I build the disambiguation page. help on doing this would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.5.7 (talk) 10:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I have placed some useful hints and tips on yoru current talk page. You won't be able to create a new page until you register for an account. I recommend that you get an account and build the disambiguation page in your user space and then ask here for someone to look it over. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sexist Post: Comparison to other female rulers should be deleted

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Comparing Hatshepsut to other female rulers has no relevance. If this section was applied to any other group of people it would be revered as very offensive. Why should she be compared to other rulers on the sole reason that she has ovaries?Fizzstorm (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)fizzstorm

Hello there..Not sure what article your talking about ...could you be more specific!! And Opps i see its Hatshepsut... have you talk about this on the articles talk page yet???..Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Carbon hoofprint

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

please help me to bring attention to the methane generated carbon created by the practice of industrail livestock farming, there are many good articals out about this practice that creates more carbon emissions than cars furthering global warming and depleating the earths ozone layer but no one is taking a serious look at this problem. everyone seems to have been exposed to "carbon footprint" while "carbon hoofprint" remains to be somewhat obscure, but in many ways just as relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.148.123 (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. I have placed some links on your talk page about how to get an account and a guide to editing. The best thing is to register an account and work on articles in your user space. Then you can ask other editors to review them and se if they are suitable for the the encyclopaedia. There are already lots of articles that you may be interested in such as Carbon footprint. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Software to teach math group theory offered to Wiki

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please advise. I am an amateur mathematician who has written a computer program, plus comprehensive user notes, by which university-level students and amateurs can teach themselves mathematical group theory. It is currently hosted on my personal web site, but I think it could be made available to a wider audience through Wikipedia. How should I go about this, please? e.g. place reference to my web site on the Group Theory page of WikiP? or upload the programs plus notes to a maths project which WikiP controls? JMC 81.99.43.188 (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

None of the above, I am sorry. Wikipedia is not a promotional tool, it is an encyclopaedia. When your program has become sufficiently notable, through mentions in reliable sources I expect someone will cerate an article about it. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Appropedia assistance

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I was wondering whether any wikipedians are interested in joining Appropedia; we currently need someone with experience in the wiki-software; see http://www.appropedia.org/User_talk:Chriswaterguy#Members More precisely, we need to add some extensions/semantic updates to automate a few things (ie member listing, ...). Let me/us know if you're intrested or if you know someone that might be intrested. User talk:KVDP 10:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you revert logged out edits?

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Would it be possible to revert all the edits made by IP 174.96.140.72, such as [(06:00, 20 February 2010 174.96.140.72 (talk) (4,317 bytes) (→History: aesthetics) (undo)], to my user name Grancafé? Sometimes I forget to log in and sometimes my computer logs me out without I noticing it. Thanks, --Grancafé (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You mean attribute the IP's edits to your username? This is no longer possible. See Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit. If you want, you could mention on your userpage that the IP is yours. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 06:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I did see your prompt response first thing this morning. I apologize for my belated reply. Thank you very much, --Grancafé (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

JFK Assassination article restricted to U.S. government and supporting viewpoints but this is not obvious

Discussion moved

 – to WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#John F. Kennedy assassination - title of article misleading Jezhotwells (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I tried to add referenced material to the John F. Kennedy assassination (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, but it was removed because it challenged the official version of events as determined by some of the other editors. I moved the challenged material to the "Conspiracy" section of the article, because the other editors claimed it was conspiracy material, but it was removed again, and I was told "THE PAGE IS CHIEFLY THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AS PER THE OFFICIAL INVESTIGATIONS". Editors and readers are currently unaware of this restriction, and will assume it is a neutral, wide-ranging article that covers the topic broadly, based on the title of the article. This has been discussed extensively on the discussion page of the article. I suggested renaming the article to reflect this restriction, to "John F. Kennedy assassination U.S. government investigation findings" but that was rejected by the other editors. I just suggested placing a disclaimer at the top of the article so readers and editors will know about the editor-imposed limits, but I see now that disclaimers are against Wikipedia policy. I think the current title of the article is misleading. Please see the last three discussion sections "Carcano / Mauser rifle", "Rename article proposal" and "Proposal to add disclaimer at top of article". Thank you.Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The edits are being discussed adequately on the talk page. As was said many times there, this particular article is one of many highly edited and reverted pages, and virtually all possible controversies have been discussed over and over in the past. Posting here is forum shopping, unless the talk page is getting neglected, or the discussion is taking a strange turn. Nothing along those lines is happening. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the parties involved all feel the discussion is going nowhere and that we are at an impasse. It also appears to me that the editors who oppose renaming the article are not being neutral, because it has been clearly stated that the article is limited in scope in a way that is not reflected by the title of the article. That is why I appealed for help. The message I am getting is that I should just give up, which is what I feel is the desired outcome, so that the article will continue to mislead the public to believe that there is only one, objective, government-approved version of events. This is not NPOV!Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a recent comment by one of the other editors: "Instead of continuing a dispute which has likely gone as far as it can - since we've had adequate discussion and ghost has received no consensus for his proposed changes - perhaps I can reiterate what I and others have suggested here. Ghost, why not focus on the conspiracy page and other relevant pages and help improve those pages?" The intent is to preserve the official story and channel all conflicting evidence into another article. The result is an article that gives the appearance of neutrality, but which is, behind the scenes, limited to the official government version of events.Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to post this dispute on the Neutrality Noticeboard. What do you think? Would I be accused, in an absence of good-faith, of "forum shopping" or do you think that would be the logical next step?Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You can if you want to. But really, everyone has heard of the conpiracy theories, and it's unlikely that an article on the accepted version of events is going to be viewed as an attempt to mislead the public into thinking there are no other theories. The article's lede section says "polls conducted from 1966 on show as many as 80% of the American public have held beliefs contrary to these findiings" and the next sentence links to the conspiracies article, so there is no attempt to hide it. It is clearly presented as a related topic. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

My point is that the article is not NPOV because it excludes not just "conspiracy theories" but anything that challenges the official investigation findings. But the readers and editors don't know that, because the title of the article is "JFK assassination" not "JFK assassination - U.S. government investigation findings". People assume the article includes a wide range of material about the assassination, but some of the editors have chosen to exclude anything that challenges the official story line. They say including different possible versions of events, conflicting witness testimony, conflicting evidence, and so on will make the article unwieldy and too large. I understand their point. But it's misleading to have the article titled the way it is now. I'm NOT saying they are covering up the existence of conspiracy theories, I'm saying they are manipulating the article to give one version of events, under the guise that there is one agreed upon version of events, which there is not. Their position is that anything that doesn't agree with THEIR INTERPRETATION of the government investigations is a conspiracy theory and thus not within the scope of the article. You can either have one article that includes many points of view, or you can have separate articles that give different points of view, but you can't call one article "The Truth" and another "Everything else that isn't the truth". If you call one article "U.S. government investigation findings" and the other "Cover-up and conspiracy theories" there will be less behind-the-scenes censorship going on to protect the "truth" and no implication that the other article is material that is "untruth".Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me put it more simply. Now we have article "A" (the Truth) and article "A - excluded (presumably false) points of view". Under my scheme we'd have article "A - government investigations" and article "A - other points of view".Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, it would all be in one article, but for some reason, presumably due to size, it has been split out into two articles.Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This has all been discussed countless times on the article talk page. If you want to raise it again on that talk page, go ahead, but don't be surprised if you get shot down in flames. There is nothing that assistants here can do about changing the consensus at that page and why should we. If you want to start a wider discussion, try a request for comment. My advice would be to find something a little more productive to do. There are tens of thousands of articles that need improving. There are some good suggestions at the community portal. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the parties involved all feel the discussion is going nowhere and that we are at an impasse. The editors on the page - with the lone exception of the person posting this dispute to this page - are in accord with keeping the page as it is and have failed to see the bias or misleading text which supposedly suggests to the casual reader that only official conclusions are valid, a main deficiency that the poster here sees.

IOW, the only reason "the discussion is going nowhere" is because he can't accept the unanimous opinion from the editors in question (six disagreed with him, none agreed) that his arguments are invalid and that the consensus from the editors, and indeed the consensus which resulted in the page reaching the form it is in now, does not match the consensus he sought. Canada Jack (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the comment about "discussion is going nowhere" is limited to the one editor who requested assistance here. Consensus at the article talk page is clearly against that editor's wish to open the article up to alternate viewpoints. Binksternet (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Not true! CanadaJack said, and this is quoted just a few lines above, "Instead of continuing a dispute which has likely gone as far as it can - since we've had adequate discussion and ghost has received no consensus for his proposed changes - perhaps I can reiterate what I and others have suggested here." I am going to suggest on the article discussion page that we submit this as a NPOV issue on the Neutrality Noticeboard.Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Posting here is forum shopping, unless the talk page is getting neglected, or the discussion is taking a strange turn. Nothing along those lines is happening. What the multi-headed knight said above applies to your actions here, ghost. Canada Jack (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You said (see above) that the the discussion was at an impasse, and still is. I think this is actually a neutrality issue, and since Editor Assistance has not helped, I've moved this to the NPOV Neutrality Notice board here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#John_F._Kennedy_assassination_-_title_of_article_misleading 114.161.229.100 (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

more eyes (need comments)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if i can put this here..maybe should be on admin page,. but never the less. I would like some more eyes to look at this debate/situation. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes/10th discussion.....Buzzzsherman (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I have commented at the RfC. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

user ALR consistently removes info put on by me

User ALR refuses to allow information on to pages relating to miluitary bases such as my personal area of interst a place known as RAF Rudloe Manor.

I can update perfectly useful information and add further reading resources and links all of which are valid and useful. ALR will remove them again and again.

ALR has a bee in his bonnet about not liking UFO researchers of which I am one, and has called them "Nutters and Idiots" on WIKI pages.

When I am putting information which it factual and cited with references to documents which are available to view at the public records office (government) in Kew. These documents relate to the factual involvement of RAF Rudloe Manor in UFO investigations which even involved officers from said depts going out to interview witnesses at the homes.

When I represent this information ALR reduces it to "Conspiracy Theory". Its not a theory its a historical FACT.

User ALR is unreasonable and just doesnt like UFO researchers and treats the military pages he gloats over as if they his personal property and nobody can write anything without being edited down by him. I think this situation needs to be investigated and addressed as I am fed up of wasting my time trying to put things on WIKI only to have this person ruin the work.

ALR even arranged for me to be banned because I kept on putting the links back up. These were to books available on Amazon which discuss the RAF base in great detail. Why is he removing references to books for sale. They are not my books, they are nothing to do with me. Why redact this information... just because it comes from me. This man has a problem. Can you please sort this out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseekers666 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Well looking at RAF Rudloe Manor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) the latest edit by ALR [6] merely re-worded a paragraph, possibly in a POV manner. As neither of you are adding inline citations to support edits it doesn't really help. Obviously there is a POV clash here, ALR is dismissive of they deem as conspiracy theorists, whilst Truthseekers666 is interested in UFO cover-ups. I recommend that both editors assume good faith, provide references and work together to achieve consensus. The image File:PROVOST.gif is not a good reference, the assertion that it is public domain is incorrect, the National Archives website asserts Crown copyright here. This image does not have a correct attribution. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

NotedALR (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC

I agree the picture is Crown Copyright but is in the public domain of being freed for the 30 year rule and is 48 years old. Are you aware of any reason that it would not be allowed for use on WIKI given the National Records Office allowance for research purposes for non-profit organisations of which Wiki meets both criteria as it is a research tool and is non-profit. If you would prefer me to get clearance from National Archives to clear up this matter I am happy to do so but suggest that you make this known to me. I have never heard of anyone who publishes such materials being informed they were not allowed to do so. I suggest simple change of status of picture to crown Copyright - it is not clear how this is done to me. Can you advise. Truthseekers666 (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read the copyright notice. You will have to apply to the image-library@nationalarchives.gov.uk to get permission to use this image on Wikipedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Image quality is appaling and I'd question whether it would survive a deletion request based on that, it also doesn't actually tell us anything other than in one instance a policeman interviewed the individual who reported a potential criminal incident. fwiw Low flying events are disciplinary offences with the sanction threshold ranging from summary punishment to Court Martial.

The more useful of the two images that Mr Williams has provided is the partial letter to one of his colleagues referring to process. That identifies that low flying complaints that cannot be explained were then passed to MoD. That's now referred to in the article.

ALR (talk) 09:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Presumably this doesn't reflect just prominence or wording but source reliability and merit. Reputation for fact checking relates to a community- if farmer joe is known to always check his facts before spouting off at the local diner in the morning, then if he says he saw a UFO he is probably reliable to at least the people who know him. However, this doesn't impress the person who knows UFO's can't exist and of course the event in question is not testable. You probably have to go more with prominence than merit and try to just state attributed facts rather than conclusions as facts. Having not looked at the specifics here, I'm not sure if that helps but I'm always interested in these issues. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 02:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you put up some diffs of the alledged behaviour please "Truthseeker". Ryan4314 (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ryan and Jezhowells: Although I have stated that the inlcusion of P&SS UFO investigation scan and the letter from MOD to C Fowler relating to P&SS UFO file handling of a more recent date are important as they are direct evidence which shows the working status of P&SS in the UFO debate which up until I gave these ref was classed as "Conspiracy Theory" by user ALR. Now that these scans are in place so user ALR can no longer make the claim that these things are "Theory" but are actually FACT, user ALR keeps removing the link to ref 2 scanned document saying that "This has been referred to enough." Where? We are talking about the media link on the end of the ref 2 being just the following two words "PHOTO HERE"... which ALR keeps removing. He says that the words are "cluttering up" the page. Two words! "Photo here" Cluttering? Yet again I am asking for this ALR and his motives to be looked at. I am very unhappy that I got banned from this page last year for much much less than ALR is up to now. I was banned from wiki by IP because I put the said same information on the page, by ALR. Now I am a user of some standing ALR cannot ban me. Now he is just choosing to keep removing this information. The words censorship and pride come to mind. I am just interested in accurate portrayal of facts which is what citing refs is all about. I am properly citing refs not only by saying them, by providing the actual documents to cite them with. ALR what is your excuse. Remove refs, remove evidence... alter facts! I am wishing this to be looked at again please, its like daily tennis, he removes, I put back up, he removes, i put back up... day after day!

I must state that to an outsidef the importance of the information in these two scans is not readily apparent. If one is trying to state factually that Rudloe Manor, which is home to P&SS dept, was investigating UFOs - doc one shows P&SS did engage in investigations as this is a investigation report itself. Ref 2 presents the information that P&SS at Rudloe, not P&SS Acton London, was dealing with these matters. Without the two refs the clear picture cannot be proved. He is happy for the first ref to remin which makes the reader think P&SS in Acton, which is incorrect. When user ALR claims this is clutter it is simply refs to what he seems to be happy to allow to stay in terms of P&SS now investigated UFOs as FACT... not theory as ALR previously claimed. I think this is petty jealousy by the user ALR and I request someone to look at this matter to ascertain is these refs are infact not cluttering and therefore user ALR is being petty on this matter. I would note whilst I have attempted to provde refs to back up my research, ALR does not. I do not wish to keep having the modify the page daily against ALRs edits. Truthseekers666 (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you post some diffs please, I haven't been able to find all the stuff you've mentioned. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not out of the question that he may be referring to this and this.

ALR (talk) 09:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The ELs removed in the second edit were very dubious and correctly removed in my opinion. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Links to a compromised site

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there any standard action to do about links to a site which has become compromised so the browser warns you not to visit it? I guess quite a few sites become infected at some stage or other. Dmcq (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Usually the best course of action is to remove the link with your reasoning in your edit summary. WP:ELNO point 3 applies here. ThemFromSpace 19:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay have removed the various external links. They were nice but not a great loss. I think perhaps if it is a site that would be loss to an article I'll leave it in but just as text and with a warning and the date. Dmcq (talk) 13:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

References and citiations

Resolved

 – see artcile talk page Jezhotwells (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

In reference to: Shaheera Asante (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am editing a living persons biography for the named person. A notice has been placed on the person's wikipedia page that some of the information needs to have inline citiations. I have tried several times to do this but the draft article keeps coming up with a citiations error. All reliable sources have been listed in the references and notes at the bottom of the page.

It seems Wikipedia has become more confusing to edit and add information, even if it is referenced in the notes of the page.

Please take a look at the named person site and advise.

Josephine Carter JC & Associates Talent Services Please email: <email redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephine Carter (talk • contribs) 20:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't post your email address here, this is a highly visible page and doing so may result in lots of spam mail. Requests made here will be responded to here. I note that your Wikipedia user name would seem to be against our WP:Username policy#Company/group names. I have placed a note about this on your talk page. With regard to the referencing, please note that other wikipedia pages are not reliable sources. The best way of referencing is using inline citations - following this link will explain how. However as you are the artiste's agent you have a serious conflict of interest and should be very careful about editing this artcile. It would be best to post information and reliable sources on the artcile talk page and let other neutral editiors decide how to use them. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding press photo to my wiki entry

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

Ive just been looking at the wiki page about me (DJ Fresh), is there a way i can replace the rather shoddy old photo with a proper press picture? Not very fluent with Wiki, but ive discovered that ill not be able to upload a photo myself, but i cant work out who has admin privelledges that i could contact to upload something, would be great if someone could please contact me? Thanks

Dan Stein DJ Fresh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshbadco (talk • contribs) 00:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The information you want may be found at WP:Contact us/Photo submission. When you get an OTRS ticket let me or another editor know and the image can be uploaded. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thompson Ramo Woolridge Low-Maintenance Rifle -- don't know how to put in infobox

Resolved

 – Ibox added. – ukexpat (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thompson Ramo Woolridge Low-Maintenance Rifle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hello. I'm sorry to bother you. I have a lot of data and sources on this. I would be happy to provide them in an infobox, but no matter how hard I try, I can't understand how to create the necessary infobox. I understand about citations. I can provide them. I hope that you will not find it annoying, please understand that I have a nonverbal learning disability and my eyes don't track very well at all when I try to understand how to type in these templates, even after I look right at the relevant help page. It would be very kind if someone would start the box for me, then I will finish and fine-tune it. Also, I don't know wether tlines within infoboxes themselves can have bracketed citations on them. By the way, the article title should have said Wooldridge -- the d is missing. I am really sorry. I feel very frustrated.

SithiR (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have added the ibox and made a start filling it in. If you have more details about the weapon, please flesh out the article as well as the ibox. I also moved it to the correct title, with the "d", and added a stub template. Please do not hesitate to ask again here or on my talk page if you need further help. – ukexpat (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Office holders: Complex table with images

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone invested a lot of time and effort into create the following Chilean Ministry articles, including a table of names and images. The lists are very outdated and the image gaps in between some of them disruptive. I was thinking of not only polishing the article content, but recreating these tables, limiting them to names, dates, and presidency; similar to Ministry of Education (Chile). IOW, removing all images. Please give me feedback on this.

• Ministry of the Interior (Chile)
• Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Chile)
• Ministry of National Defense (Chile)
• Ministry of Finance (Chile)
• Ministry General Secretariat of the Presidency (Chile)
• Ministry General Secretariat of Government (Chile)
• Ministry of Public Works (Chile)
• Ministry of Health (Chile)

Thank you, --Soy Rebelde (talk) 02:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the best place to discuss would be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chile. – ukexpat (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Although I can see where you are coming from, my concerns are in regards to formatting and readability. Thus, this section is really the most appropriate. I know there is a section on formatting that discourages using tables or lists that are too complex. I'm hoping someone who is "well-read" in the subject can advise. Not to mention, the activity in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chile is extremely low.

Again, I hope someone here can be encouraged to help with info regarding formatting and style (not the subject itself *sigh). --Soy Rebelde (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you discuss this with User:Melromero who seems to have had most input into the articles? For help with list and tables see Help:Table and Help:List. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Jezhotwells (talk) 09:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

soundtrack info

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

is the version of ennio morricone's "the big gundown" la resa dei conti,used in some episodes of top gear,available to download? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.18.27 (talk) 10:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment is probably the best place to ask. Or you could just do a Google search. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It is available from Amazon. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Einsiders.com

Dear Sir or Madam:

Yesterday it was brought to my attention that Einsiders.com is about to be (or has been) removed from Wikipedia.

Can an editor or administrator contact me and tell me what the heck is going on?

Thanks,

javascript:insertTags('Jonathan W. Hickman (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)',,) Jonathan W. Hickman Editor and President Einsiders.com, Inc.

Hi, I can't find any page named Einsiders or Einsiders.com, but maybe you are referring to external links to your website being removed. There is a discussion about the reliability of Einsiders here, which concludes that, in Wikipedia terms, it is not a reliable source. The standards are set quite high here and no evidence can be found that other reliable sources, e.g. major newspapers, journals, etc. cite Einsders as reliable and there is no information on the website as to editorial process. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

There is another discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, I dislike that bit about being called unreliable. I've interviewed plenty of filmmakers and actors, many on video, over the years, are you saying that simple reporting of what is said by those people is not reliable? The whole Wikipedia thing is pretty intimidating to me. But I think that it is unfortunate that the conclusion was that einsiders was not reliable was reached without anyone ever emailing me about it. I've been writing about movies for over a decade, you know.Jonathan W. Hickman (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Jonathan W. Hickman

Please read our policies on reliable sources. Can you provide references in third party publications that verify that your web site is a reliable source?

I really hate this. I never cared whether I was in Wikipedia or not, but being called unreliable smarts. Einsiders has always been an independent voice for film criticism online. I suppose we've been quoted by others, certainly our reviews have appeared on posters and movie boxes. We were mentioned in Hollywood Reporter once about our Sundance coverage. Can't a Wiki editor recognize that the over a decade of covering movies makes us a reliable source for film criticism? I myself have written several thousand reviews and I'm a member of SEFCA, my films are listed on IMDB as well. Thanks for your attention on this.javascript:insertTags('Jonathan W. Hickman (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)',,)

I am not calling you unreliable, I am commenting that it seems from other discussions that the website einsiders.com is not a reliable source. Google News Archive turns up two articles where einsiders reviews are quoted and one passing mention of sending bloggers to a festival. This does give some credence to the site being a source, but it is not a lot for ten years coverage. It is really up to the reliable sources noticeboard to offer guidance on this. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

mitchkoi

Resolved

 – Mitchkoi blocked (spam username) Jezhotwells (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you please review the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mitchkoi/mitchkoi and give me advice on how to get it fit for publishing without retribution Thanks please reply on my talk page as I am a new Wikipedian and will struggle to find this page again! --Mitchkoi (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well your username appears to be against our username policy as a promotional name as per WP:Username policy#Company/group names. None of your references are to reliable sources. There is nothing to support the notability of your company, so as far as surviving in Wikipedia main space, I would expect that it will be deleted very quickly. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia so article subjects need to demonstrate their notability which can be established by verifiable reliable sources. I have placed a talk-back on your user page, along with some useful helps and tips about Wikipedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Need some new eyes

I have had a problem with a section in the article Diploma Mills. The subsection is on Romania, and contains information about the university [Spiru Haret] I just received a message from someone saying I was going to be blocked from editing if I did anything else to the page. The whole issue steams from the question, is the school a mill or not. It is not! and it has full government accreditation to operate. It has had some problems in the past and they are being investigated. But by no means are they a mill. A mill would mean they lack accreditation, the school does not. I think the other editor getting a mod to kick me is a bit of a srong responce. I made my edit after posting in the talk page and waiting. I did not just do it. --Super (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Over several days you have repeatedly deleted that material, and repeatedly been reverted by several editors. That's edit warring. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I know this, my question is why can't anyone talk about this. Should I allow this error to remain, is it fair? Its ok for people to change my edits but I can't change theirs? I have posted all the facts needed to back up my actions. I think you have a conflict of interest in this. I will show good faith. All I wanted to have were some fresh eyes to look it over, I never said your name or brought you up. --Super (talk) 04:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

In what way would I have a COI? That's an odd claim to make. I have no interest in or knowledge of that school. My only concern is your removal of sourced content and then edit warring over the matter. You are the one who seems to have a COI, as you are the one protecting the school. As to mentioning my name, if you do so you will be blocked for outing. That's a very serious matter here. Several editors have been indefinitely banned from Wikipedia for doing so. The notification at the top of my talk page makes that very clear. Don't do it. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The error is in your removal of information referenced by two reliable sources about enquiries by the Romanian authorities into this university. If you carry on edit warring in this manner you will be blocked. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

That’s all well and good, but that’s not the point, me making two edits does not warrant a block, nor is it an edit war. The point is the school still has accreditation and is clearly not a mill. I see the same group of editors pile onto people when they try to correct one of them, not to fair. If people would just look at the facts and then look at what a mill is than we can fix this. Its ok to be wrong.--Super (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"Two edits"? I count five deletions. [7] I also notice that you have previously been blocked twice for this type of behavior and for socking. [8] You need to reconsider why you are here. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I was blocked twice by the same group I am having problems with now. Both times I was unblocked. Both times the un blocker stated we were being treated unfairly. Anyone who worked on the University of Atlanta page was just about blocked and called a sock puppet, we were all unblocked. Anytime anyone makes a good edit on one of the pages their working on they all jump on you. Just look at what you are doing. Not once have you looked at the issue that’s the problem. I came here to get some new eyes on this and the same person who threatened to block me(BullRangifer) follows me over here and try’s to block anyone else from looking into it with negative posts about me. You need to look at why you are here! --Super (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Need help on Grue and Bleen

In Grue and Bleen (talk page) User:Kevanhashemi insists on keeping in a passage which by his own admission, is original research and which references a self-published paper by himself. I have no idea what to do about this short of edit warring. Someone please help me. Ken Arromdee (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello i have posted a message on his talk page...Very friendly told him that we need a better source. I think we should also look make sure theres no Conflict of interest --> [9] However, if it is him he is well known in the community ..he was the Electrical Engineer at Harvard University for some time. Buzzzsherman (talk) 07:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The page is about philosophy, not electrical engineering. 67.218.38.62 (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL i was just pointing out he is a well educated individual and i dont think he can be just brushed off...Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, he's claiming that he's not using a reference at all and that the argument in the paragraph itself justifies its inclusion. Ken Arromdee (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This still needs fixing. He put the paper on his department website. However, putting a paper on his department website doesn't make it published. The paper is not peer reviewed and the subject matter of the paper has nothing to do with the high energy physics department anyway.

He also seems to think that it doesn't even need a reference because "my addition stands upon its own." Come on. He's making his own argument in that paragraph. That's original research and is prohibited on Wikipedia. Here's his justification from the talk page:

So, you accept the fact that the response I have added to the page is correct, and would be of great interest to the reader, but you remove it anyway because you believe that this page should be controlled by self-appointed experts. A "reference" is a basis for backing up a claim that is made without sufficient discussion in the Wikipedia page. In this case, the link to my paper is not a "reference", because there is sufficient argument in the single paragraph I have added to justify its addition. The link I provide is for the interested reader to follow, as a further discussion, but is not used to justify the paragraph. --Kevan Hashemi 14:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That is *very* blatantly violating Wikipedia rules about the need for references and the ban on original research. (Furthermore, he's wrong. I don't consider his paragraph to be correct, but I have no interest in debating the paragraph, and because original research is barred, I shouldn't *need* to debate the paragraph.) Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Much Ado about Removed "See also"

I removed a "See also" from Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission because neither the case nor the relevant issue was mentioned in the text and I figured it would be confusing for most people. An editor continues to object and harass me about it, saying I haven't told him why, when I've made a number of arguments for doing so. See talk discussion here. I have repeatedly suggested that if he thinks it's that important, all that is needed is one sentence with a WP:RS in the article to make the link relevant. But he'd rather keep hassling me. I don't feel like going to 3rd opinion or wiki-etiquette on this. Or should I?? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have responded at the talk page. Basically, I see nothing wrong with that article being linked in the see also. In fact if it was referred to in the main text of the artcile, that would be a reason for removal. I think you are mis-understanding the See Also guidlines. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

User Review...or something

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey all, sorry if this is in the wrong place, but I'm having difficulty finding what I think I'm looking for. I remember reading ages ago about a way to have a more experienced editor go over your contributions in general (rather than to a specific article) and make suggestions. I'd be interested in that if that's a real thing, and not something I thought I read about but actually made up. The Fwanksta (talk) 06:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor review is what you are looking for. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Sorry to have had to post here. The Fwanksta (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem, happy to be of assistance. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin keeps posting libellous statements about Dr. Steven Jones

Steven E. Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For the entry of Dr. Steven Jones, User:Arthur Rubin keeps posting libellous an unsubstantiated comments about Dr. Steven Jones, retired Professor Emeritus of Brigham Young University. Dr. Jones retired in 2006 with full benefits, and continues to be listed on BYU.edu with his latest CV (Sept 2009). This is something BYU has no obligation to do, once a professor retires. There are no hard feelings between Dr. Jones and BYU. Arthur Rubin insists on posting the false statement that Dr. Jones was "relieved of his teaching duties" which makes is sound like he is not on good terms with the University. If that was true, BYU would not update his CV. BYU even cites his research on the dust of the World Trade Center. I have asked Arthur Rubin to cite a source for his belief, and he has not done so. Arthur Rubin has posted on Wikipedia that he thinks Dr. Jones is an "idiot" - which obviously is not true of someone who has a PhD from a major university, with many studies published in refereed scientific journals. I ask you to not permit Arthur Rubin to use Wikipedia for his personal bad feelings he evidently has for an honest and hard working professor. Arthur Rubin needs to provide a source to some statement from BYU, not ad-hominem attacks by a "hear say" third party. Wikipedia is not a forum for his personal opinions of a living person. Arthur Rubin's opinion of Dr. Jones is contrary to Wikipedia's definition of Professor Emeritus as "A full professor who retires in good standing." Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cicorp (talk • contribs) 22:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The lede section of an article in general does not include sources, but there is considerable sourcing in the body of the article which supports the claims. I see nothing wrong here. Woogee (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the artcile sources the information that Jones was relieved of his teaching duties. Your reversions consist of edit warring. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Repeating the same argument over and over again doesn't make your claims any more true. Are you saying that all of the sources on the page are false? Woogee (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Internal links to special pages

Just trying to make an internal link for my tool box to "Recent Changes" page and can't get it to work. I know it will work, it works off the userbox I have, does it take writing a script ? or am I using the wrong template ? Mlpearc (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably best to check out Wikipedia:Tools. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Article Re: "Naveen Jain"

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

There are few people who seem to constantly add incorrect information even after I provided them with the official information from the SEC filings. There are few people insist on writing that Jain paid 105 Million to settle lawsuit by shareholders. As you can see, it was a multi-party dispute between several officers and directors of the company, infospace and insurance companies. I added the following text from the SEC filings reference at http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1068875/000119312504219392/dex991.htm.

There was a multi party dispute between InfoSpace, the officers and directors of InfoSpace and several insurance companies. the dispute was settled with express agreement stating that each defendant in each of the resolved dispute, including the Company, denies liability. The Settlement Agreement was entered into for the sole purpose of resolving contested claims and disputes as well as avoiding the substantial costs, expenses and uncertainties associated with protracted and complex litigation

There are couple of people working in concert to keep undoing this and adding irrelevant and incorrect information. Can this page be completely locked since this person is a living person and too many people trying to vandalize the page.

Information being constantly added may belong to an article about InfoSpace but not about a person who worked at the company.

Please advice.

Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

See discussions at WP:AN3 on Wiki Expert Edit, User talk:Wiki-expert-edit, Talk:Naveen_Jain#Short_swing_lawsuit, and Talk:Naveen_Jain#Inaccuracies.3F --Ronz (talk) 04:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see SEC 8K filing which is most authentic and trusted source of information on this topic at http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1068875/000119312504219392/0001193125-04-219392.txt. In any case, most of this information belongs in the article about infospace and not on this page. Remember, Jain was just one of the many people who were involved in a very complex dispute. Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we please discuss the issues as opposed to bullying everyone in to accepting your version by threatening them to block them. I have provided you with authentic documents to disprove your references but you insist on continuing to spread the inaccurate information. Please stay civil and respect fellow wiki community members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-expert-edit (talk • contribs) 17:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ronz isn't bullying everyone - everyone agrees with him and is reverting your edits (seven editors so far). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-expert-edit, please stop forum shopping and bring some reliable sources to the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Erroneous Information In in a Wikipedia article about Sen. Joseph Lieberman

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

Senator Lieberman is not a registered Democrat. He is an Independent. (foxnews.com, Wednesday August 06, 2006) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.27.82.130 (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, which bit of this paragraph from the Lead,

"During his re-election bid in 2006, he lost the Democratic Party primary election but won re-election in the general election as a third party candidate under the party label "Connecticut for Lieberman." Lieberman has been officially listed in Senate records for the 110th and 111th Congresses as an "Independent Democrat"[2] and sits as part of the Senate Democratic Caucus. But since his speech at the 2008 Republican National Convention in which he endorsed John McCain for president, Lieberman no longer attends Democratic Caucus leadership strategy meetings or policy lunches.[3] On November 5, 2008, Lieberman met with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to discuss his future role with the Democratic Party. Ultimately, the Senate Democratic Caucus voted to allow Lieberman to keep chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Subsequently, Lieberman announced that he will continue to caucus with the Democrats."

do you disagree with? Jezhotwells (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

BOB MARLEY SONG ONE LOVE

Thanks for the wonderfull work you are doing.Really,it has been a great impactation.Please,kindly send to me wordings of Bob Marley one love song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.199.50.77 (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You mean this article, One Love (Bob Marley song)? If you want to find an article in Wikipedia just type in the name in the search box. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

He didn't ask for the article, he wanted to know where to get the lyrics. The link there doesn't work anymore. (I have no interest in the subject - just trying to help.) Mzk1 (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, silly me. lyric server has lyrics for the song. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for advice on Veriability, and what to do about a prolific editor who ignores the rules (or rather invents his own)

Discussion moved

 – to WT:V#Can a cite be in the history Jezhotwells (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I asked a question on the help page, but did not receive an answer. (I hope this does not break the two noticeboard rule.) Here it is:

WP:Help desk#Say Where You Got It - can you put citations that you haven't seen?

Basically, an editor insists on using citations he hasn't seen, claiming they are "wikified" quotes from other sources, which I am supposed to get from the revision history (!), if he has not put them on the page. Among other things, it means that I cannot put "citation needed", because no-one will accept such a notice next to a footnote, even though the citation is virtual. The citations are from primary sources, and the actual sources are certain encyclopedias (I think - this is part of the problem, there is no way to be sure which are which). Part of his excuse is that primary sources should not be used, and encyclopedias are secondary sources, which is a simplification of the rules. Basicially, He Knows the Truth, and will not accept other POV, especially about Wikipedia rules.

I am getting very frustrated, as he is making a joke of Verifiability, and it makes it quite difficult to improve his edits. (It does not help that he does not appear to understand the subject he is editing, resulting in occasional "gibberish".)

I think I need to register some sort of complaint, but I am new to this, and need to know what to do, as well as if my premises are correct.Mzk1 (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, you don't know whether or not another editor has seen sources. But any citations should contain sufficient information for other editors to be able to check them. Usually this is publisher, journal or book title, isbn, author, publication date, etc. What artcile are we talking about? Jezhotwells (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misunderstood me. Perhaps you could check the link here to my original request? I would really appreciate it.Mzk1 (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please let usknow which article you are talking about. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not want to get into that; I would have to refer you to earlier revisions and the user's own comments in someone else's aFd.

Let me ask simply:

Is it legitimate to have the only citation is the revision log?

If the only citations are Biblical and Talmudic quotes that the editor himself states are taken not from the original, but from another source, and the other source is somewhere else in the article or missing altogether (perhaps someone deleted the paragraph contaning it), is the article Verifiable? And it not, what can I do about it - no-one will believe a "citation needed" next to a citation?

Am I obligated to check sources that the author himself does not claim to be quoting directly? Mzk1 (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but I can't really help if I don't know which article you are talking about. If you wish to query a source or mark it unreliable then suitable tags may be found at WP:Template messages/Cleanup. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

O.K. Can I ask a really simple question, then? If the citation is not found near the text, but is instead in the revision notes on the history page, is Verifiability kept? And if the article has since been moved to another page and the original cite is somewhere in the edit history notes of the original page, must the next editor hunt it down, or can it be removed as unverifiable?Mzk1 (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand the problem. As far as I can see, either there is a verifiable source cited or there isn't. If it is verifiable then how the original editor found it is irrelevant. If it is not verifiable then how the original editor found it is irrelevant. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying that if the author has not seen the source, he can still use it, because he found it in another source that he did not cite there? I am obligated to look up an obscure book that the author has never seen? Or to put it another way, Say Where You Found It is not important? Mzk1 (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: I have asked this question again at Talk: Verifiability, and I have received some response. I include this note to alleviate forum shopping issues. You have to admit, it is kind of hard to find the right place to ask a given question.Mzk1 (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

A question regarding contacting the deleting administrator

Hello,

RE: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Flogos&action=edit&redlink=1

The page states: "A page with this title has previously been deleted.

If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below."

Who is the deleting administrator? And how does one contact?

In case someone wishes to pass this along to whom it may concern, here is what I would send to the deleting administrator or appropriate whomever:

I noticed this was deleted and I don't understand why it was deleted... Something about advertising? Since my total knowledge about the company was two news articles on TV and less than 15 minutes of web searching I can assure the Wiki Powers that it was not for profit on my part. But I suppose no one will be harmed if they don't find a wiki article on Flogos. On other things the Wiki Elders just rewrote them until it met their criteria. Rather than just axing it.

Here is a third party source on the item: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24162063/

No idea if MSNBC meets "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market."

I will never do Wiki-ing enough to reach the level of proficiency that I should. But I rather thought (if I recall correctly) my article covered the basics of the subject. And now there is no information on it at all on Wikipedia, which seems rather pointless.Wiki-790 (talk) 08:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, imemediately below the text about contacting the deleting administrator is the tex:

03:17, 9 May 2008 Discospinster (talk)) | contribs) deleted "Flogos" ‎ (G11: Blatant advertising) 10:17, 10 April 2008 Longhair (talk) | contribs) deleted "Flogos" ‎ (G11: Blatant advertising)

which tells us that on 10 April 2008 Flogos was deleted as blatant advertising by Longhair and on 9 May 2008 by Discospinster. So those are the deleteing admins to talk to. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Referencing expired website

Answered

 – TimothyJacobson (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

:

If a website (which is cited in a reference on a wikipedia page) is found to no longer exist, is the reference no longer valid? Or does it not matter, as the citation is dated--TimothyJacobson (talk) 11:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Not neccesarily if someone checked it at the time it should be assumed to be OK. The reference can be tagged with the {{dead link}} tag. Sometimes an archived version may be available at the Internet Archive. Good practice would be to try and find a replacment. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Very helpful. Quick additional (irrelevent) question. What do I do (and please don't do it for me, so I can learn and know for future use) to get an "answered" box next to my question? --TimothyJacobson (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Generally one of the assistants here puts answered, resolved, stale, stuck, moved, etc. after five days of inactivity on the thread here.Thene after another five days or so, it gets archived. The symbols are cerated by templates. Ours are at User:Mendaliv/ear. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

adding information

How do you add information about your town, that already has a reference in Wikipedia? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diccadoo (talk • contribs) 16:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Go to the relevant page (such as Harlow) and click along the top where it says "edit this page"--TimothyJacobson (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Help with enthusiast admin

Resolved

 – -SusanLesch (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I nominated Jeannette Piccard for FA, and am now in the middle of FAC. An adminstrator has taken a liking to this article. He contributed an improved graphic which I appreciate. But constant editing is driving me nuts. In particular, he is adding a nb about the Concorde with less than acceptable sources (see talk page). I don't own this article but is there any way to ask him to please lay off? -SusanLesch (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Mmmm, difficult one. You refer to a nasty exchange on your talk page, would WP:WQA be a venue for that. But I am sorry, I can't really think of a way of stopping this sort of over-enthusiastic participation. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I have left a note at the the admin's talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You guys are great. Thank you, Jezhotwells. I found a book source that replaced about four websites for the nb. So marking this resolved. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

profanity found in weatherization - US Weatherization Program

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 09:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Please be advised that the sentence under "weatherization" "US Weatherization Program" appears to have been tampered with: It starts off "Weatherization fxxx nxxxxxx ............

someone might want to correct it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.138.254.21 (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, the vandalism has been reverted. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Requesting content from deleted page

Hello, the article List of Messianic and Hebrew Christian congregations was deleted for CSD in 2008. I would like to get a copy of its contents at deletion time, and any recoverable snapshot ca. April 2008. I'm not asking that it actually be restored to Wikipedia after all this time. I understand only those with administrator rights to Wikipedia can do this. Anyone who can recover this is welcome to just email a text-dump to me. Can you assist? Thanks. —Wikijeff (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If you click on the link to the deleted article you will see a message stating the admins who have deleted the page. If you ask them nicely, they may restore it to yoru user-space. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC closure needed on Steve Shnider

Resolved

 – RfC has apparently been closed. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Could someone lend a hand and summarize the result of Talk:Steve Shnider#RfC Using citation totals in articles on academics? I was involved in the discussion and the result may require changes to the current article. Ash (talk) 10:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Objective assessment requested

Discussion moved

 – discussiona at WP:RSN#Is James Miller reliable on Michel Foucault? Jezhotwells (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Michel Foucault (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hello. I am seeking advice on whether I am handling a dispute appropriately. The dispute is here. I have now made a notice on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I am just trying to get a sense of whether I am being unreasonable or reasonable, because I do not yet fully grasp the norms and expectations of Wikipedia (though overall it seems rational and straightforward). Thank you. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep talking on the article talk page, see what they say at WP:RSN. If you wish to pursue further you might want to consider asking for a third opinion or opening a request for comment. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit war at Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP editor has been inserting the same cumbersome and inappropriately voluminous statutory material, accompanied by questionable and unsourced conclusions, into the foregoing page. I can't make any more reversions without crossing the 3RR line as well, and we seem to be talking past each other in any case. Additional eyes, edits and observations welcome. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 13:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll amend this slightly. Some of the assertions are sourced but they are the assertions of the agency itself and don't establish the broader propositions asserted (to wit, that Congress has backed the FDIC insurance guarantee with its full faith & credit). I'll quit here, to avoid dragging the substantive dispute into this forum; I just wanted to clarify so that it didn't appear I was overstating my case. Thanks again. JohnInDC (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Update. A passing editor undid the subject changes and made some suggestions on the Talk page. We'll see if the assistance (thank you) leads to productive engagement in the next day or so. If so, this can be marked resolved. JohnInDC (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

JOhnindc your statements above about my data being unsourced is false. YOUR statements to the contrary are unsourced because you are relying solely on an "OPINION" to buttress your regurgitated argument that there is no binding effect of FF&C. And apparently you do not have a clear understanding of the "opinion" you are sourcing.

I will prove to you that your opinion is factually flawed. Please see the FDIC talk page on the subject for further details. Maybe an unbiased editor eye would help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.219.142.97 (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This dispute is far from over (please see talk page). Johnindc is simply not budging from his unsubstantiated claim that FF&C is non-binding and the current entry with its innuendo is simply false (it refers to a "non-binding" sense of congress passed in 1987 which is false because there was no court ruling stating that it was non-binding in 1987. Furthermore, it leaves out the laws that followed the passage of CEBA and it fails to correctly reference the statutory basis for Full faith and Credit which appears in at least 2 places in the USC.

It appears he has taken a personal interest in asserting that he is right without providing any objective source for his conclusion. The talk page lays in clear detail the laws that support this including contract law. johnindc calls this research, I call it common sense. If there is a debate as to whether or not the moon is made of cheese, we simply go to the source (i.e. moon rock) and examine it. We don't need someone's opinion on the matter (written or otherwise stated) to debate the facts in the case. If the US Government, Congress, the law, the President and the FDIC (the US Government's agent) all say there is full faith and credit, then I will take it for what it is worth and agree that the FDIC deposit fund is CLEARLY and unequivocally supported by the full faith and credit of the United States. To say anything else (or suggest anything else using outdated an advisory opinion) in spite of having proof to the contrary is just incomprehensible.68.219.142.97 (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I invite other editors to have a look. I've pretty much said my piece on the Talk page already, but the sake of convenience here's a summary: The text of the article as it now stands is essentially correct (paraphrasing, "FDIC represents that its deposit guarantees are backed by the full faith & credit of the US but the statutory basis for the assertion is unclear"); second, the other editor's lengthy statutory analysis does not compel the conclusion that he asserts that it does, and indeed even underscores the lack of clarity; and third, even if the analysis does eventually lead to that conclusion, it's all WP:original research. JohnInDC (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I would be inclined to report the IP at WP:3RR. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, in his defense, he quit inserting the problem text after a 3RR warning or another editor's reversion of the same text, I'm not sure which. For the time being, there is no edit war. JohnInDC (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Intelligentsium#Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#I Need Help So That The Templates Work

To input the cells, one would naturally use parameters, or arguments (such as <code>| name = value</code>). However, the difficulties lie in how one would name the cells (i.e., 1x1, or cell1) and how one would tell which are which. As each cell may have different CSS, this may make coding them more confusing than simply coding the table manually. In a manually coded table, it is fairly easy to tell what section of code would affect what cell, but in a template, this become confusing. There are also many options for table CSS, and how specific or unspecific to be with these with regards to template parameters might also be a hindrance.

— [10]

What difficulties would these be?174.3.99.176 (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, did you mean to post this here. Perhaps at User talk:Intelligentsium ? Jezhotwells (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

He didn't answer me.174.3.99.176 (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, you could check out Help:Table. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

kk.174.3.99.176 (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

???? YOu could also consider allowing time for the other editor to respond. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible Privacy issue.

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

I posted about this issue before [[11]] and it still is not resolved despite following your advice. I have been writing on each user's talk page after I undo their edits, but I don't think they even look there and continue adding incorrect information. Gekkakou (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

As the edits appear to be from IP editors you could request semi-protection. A guide to this procedure can be found at WP:ROUGH. Requests for protection are made at WP:RFP. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment, though it may not apply directly to this case, since you are really objecting to the insertion of unsourced information. There have been several examples of artists shielding their true identities to create a mystique (call it a promotional gimick). Examples include The Residents and Nash the Slash, both of whom kept their identities secret for decades, until the internet (and Wikipedia) came along. (In the Residents' case, they dropped hints that they might really be The Beatles in disguise!) Their identities are no longer secret, and have been verified by checking publishing and royalty collecting records which show the artists' true names, and are viewable to the public. Questions have been raised about whether their true names should be removed from their Wikipedia articles, because that's presumably how the artists themselves would want it, and the conclusion is no, because "Wikipedia is not censored" and if these people are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, then they do not have a right to this level of privacy. (See the talk pages, including archives, for these two artists for past discussions, and details on how the info was verified.) It's entirely likely that the true identity of the person you are asking about, can be verified using the same method used for others, so I don't see this as a privacy issue, but one of sourcing. Though you may not like the idea, the best solution is probably to look up the publishing info and accurately cite the artist's true identity in the article. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Being stalked by Helsinki based IPs

User talk:Paralympiakos (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Paralympiakos|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Have been stalked by various Helsinki based IPs. User has been sockpuppeting to gain "support" for his/her own edits. Has reverted many of my edits despite talk page attempted resolution by myself and has also been instrumental in attempting to stop my attempts at gaining rollback rights. Has today posted on NJAs talk page causing trouble in order to try to prevent me to gain these rights.

The IP has been asked to register for an account to stop sockpuppeting and harassment from taking place, but has not done so.

Has also threatened me with "termination" many times and has threatened to report me to a (fake) admin because of my reports (available below)

A mini-report of this IP set is available here. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

i see that you have already asked for admin help at User:NJA's talk page and that they have responded, with some useful suggestions. What else do you need from here? Jezhotwells (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This reply has nothing on what to do

This suggests the IP signs up, though I've yet to see evidence of that. Also says dispute resolution, but that's difficult when I've already taken that my talking to the person's various talk pages. The fact that harassment is still taking place and sockpuppetry was never punished. I really need these IPs banned because they're stalking me and causing trouble. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think that User:NJA indicated that this is not sockpuppetry. If the IPs keep edit warring then report at WP:3RR, if you feel you are being harassed then report it at WP:AN/I. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

To quote from the sockpuppetry page:

Strawman socks: Creating a separate account to argue one side of an issue in a deliberately irrational or offensive fashion, to sway opinion to another side.

This not an example of that (just substituting the word "account" with "IP")? Paralympiakos (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, if you think it is sockpuppetry the report it at WP:SPI. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem though. I don't know how to. That page confuses me. After clicking on the button to make a report, it says how I would be recreating a page that was already deleted. I've asked for admin assistance before (I think at one of the links I've left above) but have yet to receive any. Paralympiakos (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Dog Whisperer

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

User:842U continues to delete this material from the section "Criticism and responses" as 'not being neutral' I began a discussion, Talk:Dog Whisperer, and I referred the matter to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard but the user just keeps deleting without regard to other opinions.

In 2009, Lisa Jackson Schebetta, a Ph.D. candidate in Theatre History, Theory and Criticism at the University of Washington[31] published an article in the journal of the Institute for Critical Animal Studies (ICAS), established for the purpose of fostering academic study of critical animal issues in contemporary society and promoting animal liberation. Analysing the first season of Dog Whisperer on DVD, Jackson concluded that the goal of the program is always a product, a dog that behaves according to its owners' desires, however illogical [32] She describes the program format as following a formula. Millan meets the dog, the dog submits to him, and the owners celebrate, often voicing their amazement in referring to the miracle they have witnessed. This formula — problem dog meets Millan, dog submits, and owners are overjoyed — was followed in every episode of the season analysed. Jackson Schebetta also commented that, while the footage is clearly edited to construct the predictable story, each episode presents itself as natural and spontaneous.[32]

Jackson-Schebetta, Lisa (2009). "Mythologies and Commodifications of Dominion in The Dog Whisperer with Cesar Millan". Journal for Critical Animal Studies (Institute for Critical Animal Studies) 7 (1): 137—161. http://www.criticalanimalstudies.org/JCAS/Journal_Articles_download/issue_9/JCAS%20VII%20Issue%201%20MAY%20ISSUE%20Mythologies%20and%20Commodifications%20pgs%20137-161.pdf. Marj (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You could try opening a request for comment on the editor's behaviour. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)