Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

help

Answered

 – –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_(TV_series)

Someone other than myself has started a page about the television show "Gravity". There was some misinformation that i corrected, one which I am having a problem with which is the original working title of the show "Suicide for Dummies". The person that started this page keeps editing my change, and is now requesting verification. I have no idea how to do this. I have perused the forms, and I am totally lost. I need help. I know that the information that I am supplying regarding the original title is correct because my sister (Jill Franklyn) is the creator of the show! Whatever is needed to supply verification I am certain that I can get. I just do not know what to do. I would contact the person that started the page, but that is not possible, so I am at a dead end. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Here is the problem information:

Gravity (Originally titled Suicide for Dummies[verification needed]) is an American comedy-drama television series[1] created by Jill Franklyn in 2007 during the writers guild strike —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugmig (talk • contribs) 06:31, 13 April 2010

Hi, we usually consider a fact verified when it is cited by a reliable source. Basically, you need to find a mention of this original title in a document that is known to be accurate (not, for example, a blog posting or a post in an online forum) and then you can write this information into the article and cite the document you found it in as a source. See our pages on verifiability, reliable sources, and citing sources for the fine print. When a fact such as this is verified in a reliable source it shouldn't be contested. I hope this helps. ThemFromSpace 05:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to echo what is said above, that fact that you know that your information is correct is irrelevant to Wikipedia, which requires verifiable, reliable sourcing for articles. As readers can't very well ring up your sister and ask her about this, the information is not verfiable. If, howver, she is interviewed by a magazine and they publish an article containing the information about the working title, then this is a verifiable, reliable source. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not subjective "truth". –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

the only thing that i can obtain right now is a cancelled check that is made out to "client - suicide for dummies, AKA failure to fly". this check is from STARZ, the network that bought the show. does this help? I can delete all of the unnecessary information from the check, i.e, account number, address,... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugmig (talk • contribs)

I am sorry but that just doesn't meet the criteria of the guidelines to which you have been pointed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• I believe that mentioning the working title of the show in the first sentence gives undue importance to that information anyway. This isn't a case where the show title changed after it was already on the air and thus the audience came to know the show under both titles. It's more like All in the Family, which had working titles of Justice for All and Those Were the Days -- which are mentioned in the Wikipedia article, but not until the 42nd paragraph. In any event, though, the source currently cited identifies the working title for Gravity as Failure to Fly, not Suicide for Dummies. If Suicide for Dummies was yet another working title for the show, it needs to have been mentioned in a reliable source before it can be mentioned in the Wikipedia article at all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

you're right. but the information that is not of importance is the "Formally known as Failure to Fly". I believe that was not the only working title, and I can't even imagine where this person is getting their information. I felt that it was more important to have the title that it was originally created under, which was done solely by Jill Franklyn. There is an article referencing that in the New York Times when she originally sold the show which we are trying to track down. Until then, I guess it is under the control of the person that started this page. This is like watching Fox news creating their own facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugmig (talk • contribs) 06:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

No. A source being required is the exact opposite. Regardless, I don't understand how the working title is relevant to the article if no one has ever heard of or written about it? Pirate^Argh!!1! 08:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, no article is under control of the person that started it, or at least they shouldn't be. If editors have rejected the inclusion of "Suicide for Dummies" as a working title, they should have done so only because a source confirming it has not been located yet -- not because the article creator disagreed with including it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

New Link under NMEA 2000

Answered

 – –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add a new link to the NMEA 2000 page that goes to an open source project (http://www.openskipper.com) I am running that allows users to process NMEA 2000 messages. This is the first such project, and thus an important source of information on NMEA 2000 message decoding. (Alternative approaches involve paying money to the NMEA association.) Is adding this link appropriate? Openskipper (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Andy

You should read wp:coi. If your only purpose on Wikipedia is promotional ( even if well-intentioned ) you're likely to be frustrated. WP:EL will tell you if your link is appropriate. Pirate^Argh!!1! 18:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Article on Shia Islam

Answered

 – –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

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

The article link is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_Islam

The beginning of this article has been edited in a way that is extremely hostile to Shia Islam, as well as inaccurate.

This is an example of the inaccurate material:

Similar to other schools of thought in Islam, Shias are not Muslims at all. They work against Quran and Hadith. Basically, Shiaism was formed by Abduallah bin Saba'a, a jew, who just converted to destroy Islam! He created a faction against Usman and his predecessors, that is what Shias do. They curse and abuse four Rightly Guided Caliph.

Perhaps this article should be locked?

64.213.196.4 (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It's vandalism. It happens. We revert it. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact you could have repaired the damage yourself, as I just did! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vandalism gives more information about fighting vandalism. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

New Article review

Answered

 – –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

In the help, when creating a new article it says to put it in your personal special pages and ask an editor for help. Here I am. the article in question is at [1].

I'm no expert in the psychology field and "VIP Passenger Syndrome" probably really is a well know psychological phenomenon with a hard to identify name. The term is all over and the term appears to be relatively new.

But as my first real new article I'd like some direction even if it's headed for a speedy deletion.

Thanks!

--Gbonk (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:Requests for feedback is the best place to ask, but as I am a regular there too, I took a quick look at the draft. As with most "new" things, it will need a lot more citations to reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of the subject per the general notability guideline. It may have enough to survive as a stub, but if you want to be sure, you will need more sources and more detail. Is it possible that it has another name and that there is already an article under that other name, or maybe it's a subset of another syndrome with an article and could be merged into that? In any event the lead should be more of a definition if possibe - "VIP syndrome is..." If it is moved to mainspace it should be call VIP passenger syndrome. I also made a few style edits to your draft. – ukexpat (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Assistance on All Day Music

Answered

 – –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This is concerning the spelling on the song "Slippin' Into Darkness". I have changed the spelling from "Slipping Into Darkness" to "Slippin'" backed-up by two sources which are considered reliable: Allmusic, and Amazon. A second user, A Knight Who Says Ni , first reverting my sourced edits, but now he has claimed to cite the sources saying it is "Slipping", but there are no links to these sources, and for all I know, this could still be original information. Can I get some feedback on how this should be concluded, or either an assistant experienced on music articles for a third opinion on the page?--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 02:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment from the other party: A detailed explanation can be found in the discussion on F-22 Raptored's talk page. (Yes I know it should really be on the article's talk page, but the discussion started off with some personal stuff that would not be appropriate there; and by the way, as far as I know, the "personal stuff" is history, so please ignore it!) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I checked this all out yesterday and I feel you are both right. If the Knight has the original liner notes that could be construed as the original title. BUT the title by which the song is now known best is Raptor's version. Google both versions and you will see what I mean. Or check Amazon etc. The article at present is awkwardly worded and I think we have plenty of sources for "Slippin' Into Darkness" and only one source for the other version (the original liner notes, which most of us cannot access). For simplicity's sake, I would suggest using "Slippin' Into Darkness". In fact I am going to make the edit myself. Diannaa ^TALK 21:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with this resolution. It contradicts the standards of album articles, which are supposed to deal primarily with the original edition of an album, and then mention changes which took place in later editions if applicable. As for the awkwardness of wording, you're right. I thought the alternate spelling should be mentioned to avoid the situation where someone comes in and says "that's not right" and changes it without realizing the situation. I didn't expect it to cause a blow-up! I still think this is important to mention in the article, because now it's likely another editor will come along in future, say "that's not right", and change it back. Besides, in my view, the article is incorrect as it stands. Your decision is sort of like saying when a famous quote is popularly misquoted, we should use the misquote, because it's more common. I will try to word it better. Let me know what you think of the results. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

That's much better; when it appeared in the opening sentence of the paragraph it looked like it had been placed there to make a WP:point. Thanks Knight for your words on my talk page; I did not assume you were a new editor, I know for instance that your name appears on the list at the Music wikiproject. I looked at pretty much everything before I replied Diannaa ^TALK 03:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

user ghmyrtle has violated policy by removing verifiable data from a page

Answered

 – –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia User Ghmyrtle [2] has repeatedly deleted biographical information for artist/musician Sarabeth Tucek, namely her public record date of birth. Artist's date of birth is January 6, 1967. This is verified here and was cited on the page twice:

U.S. Public Records Index, Volume 2 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Original data: Merlin Data Publishing Corporation, comp. [3] Voter Registration Lists, Public Record Filings, Historical Residential Records, and Other Household Database Listings. Merlin Data Publishing Corporation, 215 South Complex Drive, Kalispell, MT 59901. About U.S. Public Records Index, Volume 2 The U.S. Public Records Index is a compilation of various public records spanning all 50 states in the United States from 1950 to 1993. These records are all accessible to the general public by contacting the appropriate agency.

User ghmyrtle cites no reason for her deletion of verifiable data on the page. User may have personal reasons for editing this information. Please investigate this user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjo5650 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you read Talk:Sarabeth Tucek? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

More eyes on Draža Mihailović

Answered

 – –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

There as been a fairly long series of disputes centering on the role of Draža Mihailović during world war II, with two small groups of editors basically deadlocked. A request was filed for mediation on 6 april 2010, but as of today, two parties have not accepted and thus I believe it will be rejected shortly, or it's being ignored as incomplete. There have also been a couple of notices posted to WP:ANI. I think is it safe to say there has been a substantial flow of uncivil bits and snarkiness, as well as some serious discussions of the appropriateness and weight of various sources. In any case, I am wondering whether we could get some help or advice in terms of how to improve the quality of the discussion and advance the article.

If this is the wrong place or time to make such a request, please accept my apologies in advance, and any help is welcome. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

All five parties have now agreed to mediation but a mediator has not so far taken up the case. Meanwhile more posts have been made at WP:ANI. Diannaa ^TALK 05:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

blocked page

Answered

 – –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to post an article about a 25 year old not for profit organisation in the City of melbourne, Australia. However the page is blocked.

the page was to read... (moved to User:Alpmcewen/Melbourne Committee)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpmcewen (talk • contribs) 12:17, 16 April 2010

Yes, the page was deleted as unambiguous advertising, a decision with which I agree. I have moved your draft to User:Alpmcewen/Melbourne Committee. Please read the pointers which have been placed on your talk page and draft an article adhering to the the neutral point of view in your WP:user space, with refernces supporting its noatbility then come back here for an opinion, when you think it is ready. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Written Like An Advertisement

Answered

 – –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The above phrase was in a box about the village of Stoupa, Greece. This is a page I initially wrote and which others have edited. Someone put in a plug for their little tour boat which is what, I believe, prompted this box after it had been in for a long time. So yesterday, I removed the commercial plug. But the warning is still there. Please see that it is removed since the offending language is gone. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judytinelli (talk • contribs) 14:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The article still has many phrases that sound more like a travel brochure than an encyclopedia article. I strongly suggest rewriting sections with these problematic phrases:

• "Once a sleepy little town..." (doesn't seem to refer to anything factual about it)
• "Stoupa is in a fascinating area called Mani..." (see WP:PEACOCK which advises against "peacock" words and phrases)
• "There are approximately four buses a day..." (sounds like tourist guide information)
• "Although virtually unknown to tourists ... possibly the 'gem of Greece'... laid-back atmosphere ... true Greek feel ... Just a coach ride ... If you rent a car..." (multiple tourism guide phrases and peacock terms in one short paragraph; these don't really tell us anything encyclopedic about the place, most of them are meaningless and could apply to any town anywhere in the world)

Finally, the article is completely lacking references and citations. It does have an external link (which should be under an "External links" heading), but what it needs is references from reliable sources that connect directly to sentences in the article, to say where this information comes from.

I will leave some links on your talk page, with advice on writing Wikipedia articles. Best of luck! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Jezhotwells beat me to it! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

You'll will have to remove quite a bit more promotional laguage before that banner gets taken off. The style employed there is more suited to WikiTravel than Wikipedia. Glossa, Skopelos ias more like what should be aimed at. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Please restore deleted article Nukeateen

Answered

 – –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The article Nukeateen was deleted for ‎ "(A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content))". As a contributor to this article, I disagree with the summary judgment of the deleter. This article has been on Wikipedia for over 5 years without issue, the band are an early 90s UK Grunge band, who were extremely popular in the UK, unless Wikipedia is only for groups popular in the US only I have to disagree with the reasoning. It had previously been queried by NawlinWiki under (A7: Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) however with the new sitations that was added he retracted the deletion.

So I guess I am confussed as to how the article could pass "(A7: Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)" but not pass "(A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content))"?

As the group have regular airplay on various radio stations and on the BBC (as cited in the article) and had more regular airplay back in the 90s prior to the existence of the popular web media they are also of hisorical value to the Town of Wellingborough.

Jonnyroyster (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, so I can't see deleted content or comment on the article. If the article had cited information to reliable sources that the band has had regular airplay on notable radio stations, then it wouldn't meet the criteria for A7. The best thing to do would be to contact User:Laser brain directly at User talk:Laser brain to ask them why it was deleted. if you are sure that there was an assertion of improtance or significance, then you could request that the article be restored, or at least moved to your userspace where you could work on it.--BelovedFreak 15:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The article did seem to have a claim of notability for this band. I'm not saying that the band definitely is notable, but it would have been more appropriate for anyone seeking deletion to have taken the article to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion where the band's notability could have been discussed over a week rather than speedily deleting it. On the other hand, the article seems to have existed under this name for less than one year (created 22 April 2009). If it had existed for five years on Wikipedia it must have been under a different title that I don't know how to find now; for example, if it were Nuke-a-teen that would be considered a different title from Nukeateen. I would also recommend contacting User:Laser brain and asking them to reconsider. If they don't respond at all, use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion to request the article be restored. If they respond but are not willing to reconsider, use Wikipedia:Deletion review to request the article be restored. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Sam Schmidt Paralysis Foundation

Answered

 – –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Permission to include the SSPF logo on the draft Wikipedia page about the Sam Schmidt Paralysis Foundation has been granted, by return email from copyright holder Ida Cahill/CEO to Wikipedia, (Ticket#2010040810058602) on 4/8/10. What is the procedure now? Should I re-insert the logo and assume Wikipedia will not delete it again? Thank you, Kay Kohlman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaykohlman (talk • contribs) 19:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes you can add it back to your draft article. I am not sure why you went through the whole rigmarole of getting permission - the use of a copyright logo of an organizations in article about the organization is a valid non-free use as far as Wikipedia is concerned (see WP:LOGO and {{logo fur}}). – ukexpat (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I added it back for you while I was taking a look at your draft. A couple of comments if I may: at the moment the draft is very promotional in tone and would probably be speedily deleted if moved to the mainspace in this form. Second, if the promotion issue is dealt with, you will need to cite non-trivial coverage in multiple sources independent of the subject to demonstrate how or why the subject is notable per the guidelines at WP:ORG. Hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark Prior Article

My name is Chris O'Leary. I am referenced in the article about Mark Prior, specifically in the section about his pitching mechanics. A user named TommyLasagne keeps deleting the section that describes my view of Mark Prior's pitching mechanics without comment (but leaves the Dick Mills section in place). This section was written by someone else (but I have made some minor edits to it to clarify it and to improve the writing). I assume that TommyLasagne is either a Dick Mills fan or someone who doesn't like me and my work. Can some independent person please render a verdict on the section about my view of Mark Prior's pitching mechanics as it currently exists? I already removed a link to a page with some commercial content. The linked-to pages are purely editorial in nature and were originally linked to by someone other than me. Thepainguy (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to agree with TommyLasagne. Unless you can provide independent third party sources that call you a baseball pitching expert or establish your credentials in that area, we can't consider you a reliable source. Please also review our conflict of interest guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

First, I didn't create the paragraph in question, so I'm not sure how it's a conflict of interest. I can find out who created the line and when, if you want. Second, my work on pitching mechanics is followed by scouts and coaches from a number of organizations, including the Cardinals, Tigers, Rays, Pirates, and Mets. Just this Wednesday, I got a call from a minor league coach for the Tigers asking a question about the Inverted W (which is the problem that Mark Prior has). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepainguy (talk • contribs) 04:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

But you keep re-adding it, which is an issue. More importantly, if you provide us with independent third party sources which we can check, some form of the paragraph can probably be kept. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Any template coding experts available to help a WikiProject?

At Template talk:Infobox musical artist, in the section called "Color" (near the top of the page), consensus was achieved for changing the background colour of the infobox to grey when an invalid parameter value is entered for "background", but nobody got around to making the change. The question was raised again in a new section, "Bad background values". This is probably a simple change, but the question has also been raised as to whether it's possible to create a tracking category for instances that have an invalid value. The same changes would probably be welcome in Template:Infobox album and Template:Infobox song (pending approval of course, but perhaps it can be done at "musical artist" first, and if we get it working, we can ask watchers of the other templates if they want it too). --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You may get better luck at Wikipedia:Help desk. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

How to remove the advertise note?

The Article about Cranfield School of Management is tagged with a note about advertisement for a while now, even it has been rewritten and edited by many users. How can the tag be removed? It does not indicate which parts were disturbing.

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

Anyway2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anyway2009 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are some specific things that I found:

• "a leading business school" is unsourced WP:peacock terminology
• "The course is distinguished from many of its competitors by three factors." Un-encyclopedic advert-like bit
• " the faculty combines both business and academic experience" contains more peacock terms. How is their education any different/better than other business schools? If it is not different or better, then it should be left out.
• The notable alunmi section has a lot of red links. If they are so notable, why no wiki article? Only the truly notable should be included.
• The Advisory Board section should probably be cut altogether, as other similar articles do not include such material.
• External links need to be weeded: Remove links to Twitter and student blogs.

I hope this helps. --Diannaa ^TALK 18:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• 1) I don't know if you have looked at other schools entries in wikipedia, many sound much more advertising: "Warwick Business School, also known as WBS, is one of the world's top business schools." So thats not advertising? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warwick_Business_School - As the rankings indicate on the site Cranfield SOM is indeed one of the leading institutes.
• 2&3) I accept that the MBA part sounds a weak.
• 4) How can you measure notability by the fact if a person has a wikipedia entry?
• 5) Wikipedia does not support articles to be different from each other?? - one that includes additional information is subject to be advertised?!
• 6) If you look closer, the twitter account is from Cranfield itself, so the source is reliable. The "blog" link is an official presentation of the MBA programme.

• So except for the MBA part it seems rather this entry is disadvantaged by wikipedia for unfair reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anyway2009 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did look at several business school articles and discovered that many of them are advertorial in nature. Even Harvard Business School features a "Written like an advertisement" template!! I hoped to use them as a shining example of all your article could be. No such luck!!

Next question: OK if it is truly a leading school and you have a secondary source that says so, then what you have to do is add the citation, and it is no longer puffery, but a properly cited fact.

Next question: I feel that the notable persons were added as a way to build up the school in the eye of the reader and not to impart information. To have so many that are red makes them look not notable. It looks like a miscellaneous collection of stuff which is something Wikipedia is WP:NOT.

Next question: This does not actually have anything to do with the advert-tag; I just felt it would be an improvement to omit the list of the advisory board as per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The material is not that notable, and will quickly go out of date.

Next question: links: We do not link to Twitter or to blogs. See WP:External links#Links normally to be avoided. #11 Twitter; #12 blogs.

When you say this article is being "disadvantaged" you give me the impression you think this article is in competition with other articles on the wiki. That is not actually not the case. Perhaps the school is in competition for students, but the article merely needs improvement, as do by far the majority of our articles about schools of all types.

I have placed a template loaded with useful links on your talk page. Regards, Diannaa ^TALK 22:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

expanding content and creating new articles

Hello - it has become seemingly impossible for anyone to successfully contribute to the articles that exist about the community of New Rochelle, NY, or for any new articles relating to the community to be created with any chance of remaining as part of the wikipedia encyclopedia. This problem has only been escalating over appx. two years, and thus there are quite a large number of individuals who all have first hand knowledge and experience trying to contribute and having their additions removed, articles deleted outright etc. I have personally discussed this with at least 25 other individuals who I am familiar with including several who are involved with local historical and civic organizations, in addition to some of their younger interns and local students. What can be done to help address this issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinxyjinx (talk • contribs) 04:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello sorry you are having problems ! Perhaps best if you bring your concerns up here-->Wikipedia:WikiProject New York they might be-able to help more. When posting to there talk page i would suggest that you point out a specific article and/or articles that are of concern. Hope this was helpful and you resolve your problem ASAP, as we do desire all to contribute....Moxy (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Human Height

This page is constantly attacked by vandals, most of them IP users. Since its creation, this page has been vandalized a hundred times. I suggest blocking indefinitely this page from edits by IP users. You can check the vandalism history on the page's edit history. Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Italodal (talk • contribs) 05:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You can make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Trying to edit references...

I'm trying to edit out a spam site that's listed as a reference ( http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=British_Traditional_Wicca&action=edit&section=5 ).

This is what the edit box reads:

==References== <references/> ---- {{WiccaandWitchcraft}} [[Category:Wiccan traditions]] [[an:Wicca britanica tradicional]] [[ca:Wicca britànica tradicional]] [[cy:Wica Traddodiadol Prydeinig]] [[es:Wicca británica tradicional]] [[gl:Wicca británica tradicional]] [[it:Wicca britannica tradizionale]]

Why doesn't it show the links as given in the Wiki page? When I edit out the first one, I don't see any references in the preview. What's up?

Blessings,

e

You have to edit the reference where you find it mentioned in the text of the article. The <references/> tag pulls all the information to the bottom of the page for reading convenience. Edit the section with the offending reference and you should be able to find the link in question.--~TPW 23:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

New_Zealand_Emissions_Trading_Scheme lack of neutrality issue

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

Talk:New_Zealand_Emissions_Trading_Scheme#Proposal_for_Catonz.27s_.27Easter.27_edits_starting_2_April_2010. Disagreement on pushing a POV by deleting sourced material, lack of NPOV, WP:SYN, undue weight, article structure. Mrfebruary (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That section contains one post by you, and another post in reply, both on April 11. The reply seems to give a reasonable explanation for your biggest concern about neutrality, including reasons for removing citations from one section while agreeing they would be appropriate in another, and he also agrees with the need for further improvement regarding structure. I don't see a problem that requires intervention. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Help editing

I would like to request help with editing. I want to submit an article for "Vail Place." It is my first article and it is on my project page. I would like it reviewed/edited before submitting it please. Thanks. --RecoveryMN —Preceding unsigned comment added by RecoveryMN (talk • contribs) 10:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Just thought I would let you know the article is now at User:RecoveryMN/Vail Place. To have it as your main user page is not the correct place to develop the article. Some people have begun to help with editing. Diannaa ^TALK 02:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Help with editor who doesn't understand broken links

I'm having a problem at Sun Microsystems with Kkm010 (talk · contribs) who simply does not get the concept of broken links in references. I want to avoid 3RR so can someone here step in and assist? The issue is simple, at least one reference has a link that is no longer available. This user and another have repeatedly deleted the reference and all the data that was referenced by it. I however did the correct thing an placed the {{Dead link}} tag in the reference and left a note on Kkm010's user page. In response to this Kkm010 left me a quite aggressive response on my talk page and reverted my changes. --Simple Bob (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Placed another note on Kkm010's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd appreciate you keeping an eye on things as I suspect from this editor's obvious incivility (see this edit summary for example) means he/she is very likely to revert again. --Simple Bob (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

As you can see on the user's talk page he/she continues to act with a lack of civility and courtesy. If it continues then perhaps someone (other than me as I'm involved) would like to issue a formal level 2/3 warning on top of the advice that Jezhotwells has already given. --Simple Bob (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've asked the editor what is wrong with the sources. I suspect we'll have to reinforce the point that not all sources have to be currently accessible. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

why deleted?

Beulah_Beach_Camp_and_Retreat_Center

I am archivist for Beulah Beach. I recall writing this article, then shortly it was gone, and upon inquiry was told that the researcher could not find it.

What was reason for deletion?

What might I be able to do to verify informaiton?

Thank you,

Walter Baughman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbaughman (talk • contribs) 18:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This request for help is the only edit ever made by your account. You have never edited Beulah Beach, Ohio or any other article. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope neither of you mind my playing the Helpful Hannah and butting in here to show the article in question.

http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Beulah_Beach_Camp_and_Retreat_Center_%28deleted_06_Mar_2008_at_23:22%29 Yopienso (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, that answers the question, the article was not considered to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, no one contetsted the deltion, so it was deleted two years and a month ago. Obviously it was also high on your priority list. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Chesterfield, Idaho

I'm at a loss on what to do. Could you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chesterfield,_Idaho#Lead_Section and at the recent history changes in the article. Bgwhite (talk) 05:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the entire Chesterfield discussion page would probably be best so you can get background info. Bgwhite (talk) 06:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

So I have looked, what is the problem? –– Jezhotwells (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I just added my response to him at the bottom of the article's talk page.

It's been the constant edit wars and the refusal of the other editor to change anything except when forced. He first accused me of plagiarizing and refused to tell me where I plagiarized until I asked another editor to intervene... He relented and said he couldn't find where I was plagiarizing. He refused to allow a source in until I asked for a 3rd party dispute. A independent editor has stepped in and the first editor either ignores his questions or ignores what the independent editor asks. Anything right now that he disagrees with he refuses to be allowed in or gets removed. How do I procede? Bgwhite (talk) 08:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It is very difficult when another editors refuses to discuss things. All one can do is continually ask for 3rd opinions or raise RfCs. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you critique my actions? I'd like to know what I've done wrong and how to improve in handling this mess. Bgwhite (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

American-Philippines War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_War (Philippines-American War)

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

My classmates and I are currently working on a class project regarding the U.S. - Philippines war, in which we deconstruct and improve the current wiki article to better represent the voices & memories of both Americans and Filipino during the conflict. We are undergraduate students currently enrolled in the School of Arts & Sciences at the University of Pittsburgh - the class being entitled Topics in Comparative Politics: American Wars in Asia. We are interested in furthering the academic analysis of U.S. foreign policy abroad, especially the role in which U.S. foreign policy assumed in Asia. We respectfully request that you post are updates on the U.S. - Philippines war, in your main page section - in the hopes that our article can be viewed and debated by the millions of viewers your website. We understand that your website promotes the distribution of knowledge and information amongst the masses, and we hope to assist you in this goal through our academic analysis of U.S. involvement within the Philippines. Thank you for consideration of our proposal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikikylecurtiz (talk • contribs) 06:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, the articles featured on the main page are selected from Wikipedia:Featured articles, so you needa to aim at getting the artcile to featured article status. Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page tells you more about the main page, Wikipedia:Featured article criteria tells you the criteria for featured articles. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

editing suggestions

I have an article in this location (User:RecoveryMN/Vail Place) that I have completed with editing. I made all the adjustments that the editor had suggested (cleaned up the links, shortened the highlights, and supported all facts with 3rd party references). Can you offer me any other editing suggestions before I make the article active? I don't want a speedy deletion for advertising therefore, should I remove any data/add any data? Thank you for your continued help. RecoveryMN (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)RecoveryMN