Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 123

Archive 120

Archive 121

Archive 122

Archive 123

Archive 124

Archive 125

→

Archive 130

In the process of creating a page for Tricia Aguirre

Answered

 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

https://www.newikis.com/en/wiki/User:Nerdypunkkid/Arise My name is James. I'm in the process of creating a page for Tricia Aguirre, not even as a musician anymore, but as an actress, because acting is the field she works in the most. Her full name is Patricia Lourdes Juanita Aguirre. Despite that fact that it's taking some time, I'm still working on it. For whatever reason, I'm not able to access her page https://www.newikis.com/en/wiki/User:Nerdypunkkid/Arise in order to continue fixing and tweaking so it'll eventually be suitable. I don't know what happened or why, but I need that page back, please, to keep working. I'm not completely familiar with the rudiments of Wikipedia and I only want her page to stay as neat and as polished as it can be. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CDDA:EE40:A094:A1E9:932C:D1A5 (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what "newikis.com" may be, but it's not any part of WIkipedia or any other Wikimedia Foundaton project. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Abraham Isaac Kook

Answered

 – . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there an experienced editor fluent in English and Hebrew, who knows how to properly add the critically important supporting document and picture links presented on the talk page, to the article page?

Ksavyadkodesh (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see Category:User he and Category:User he-4. You might need to check in their contributions to see if they are in fact active before contacting them. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

JURASSIC PARK episode of FUTRUAMA is incorrect and 'an editor' sends me nasty

Answered

 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

PastorJamesGillespie (talk) 12:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC) The listing of 7 episode of the 4th season is incorrect.

It is list in numerous sources as 5th season episode 2 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0584444)

and some DUDE sends me warnings about vandalism....it isn't a crime to remove BAD INFO..here is his nasty note Doniago left a message on your talk page in "August 2015". Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Jurassic B... View message View changes

This has been largely resolved at the article page, please see what's happened there. If you wish to dispute the matter further, please discuss it on the article talk page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Saint_Anne_Byzantine_Catholic_Church

To Whom It May Concern:

I wrote the entire wiki located at https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Saint_Anne_Byzantine_Catholic_Church. There have been some worthwhile additions by others over the years.

User "Laurel Lodged" continues to remove a germane piece of information which obviously he/she does not understand given the fact they reside thousands of miles away. The information being removed is about the location Saint Anne Byzantine Church was first located.

Now "Laurel Lodged" threatens to have me "blocked" with "(Undid revision 678426831 by Dataproducts (talk)Please desist in this vandalism or your account will be blocked.)"

This needs to cease. How can this be stopped? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dataproducts (talk • contribs) 19:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, do not claim ownershp of the article. Secondly, you are both in serious breach of the Edi Warring policy (WP:3r) and can be immediately blocked. Please engage in dialogue on the article's still unused talk page. PLease remeber to sign your poss. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Article now protected so that it can only be edited by administrators until the issue is resolved. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Kudpung, I agree with the edit warring charge (both sides are guilty), the ownership charge, and the protection. Everyone else, please note Talk:Saint_Anne_Byzantine_Catholic_Church, where Dataproducts's contribution would be appreciated. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Can an article be nuked from orbit for massive unsourceability?

I discovered Wyangala was GA nommed by a likely sock/meatpuppet of the article creator and passed last October. I found that in three paragraphs early in the history (as a proof of concept), not one thing stated matched any of the sources provided. Everything failed verification (due to widespread synthesis or original prose). It's up for community review, but nobody is picking it up to run with it, so it will likely be delisted. It's not being worked on by anyone else, either.

Therefore, it's unsourceable prose, backed up by sources that can't be tied to anything in the article in its present form. If it's as widespread as I think it is, I don't know that the article can be salvaged from its present state at all, because it will be more work to figure out what's accurate and what's not than it would be to rewrite it from scratch. Is there a mechanism to just wipe the article out and do that? MSJapan (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

You could cut it down to a bare stub, a sentence or two, and go from there, at least if no one objects. If they do, can go from that point as normal. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

How to handle an unnotable topic with multiple notable related topics

I'm trying to figure out the best way to handle an instance where a topic is not notable, but it has multiple closely related topics that are notable. I'm looking for a general answer, but my specific example is the game Heart Forth, Alicia. I don't think the game itself meets WP:GNG and thus shouldn't have its own article, but the publisher Chucklefish has an article and the composer Manami Matsumae does too. Right now, Heart Forth, Alicia redirects to Chucklefish, but this means someone looking for the game won't be able to find the composer very easily from searching for it. Should the game get an expanded section in the Chucklefish article that includes mention of the composer? Or should the game just not redirect to any article (more diplomatic, but less helpful to the casual googler)? I'd really appreciate some feedback on this. -IagoQnsi (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't find a reference to that game in Chucklefish Game's website, nor vice-versa. Is this game still being published by them? ~Nylhce (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The standard procedure is to create a redirect to the next most notable and appropriate related article after having merged any usable content. Redirects are as easy to find for the Wikipedia search engine and Internet search engines as any other pages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Alright Kudpung, I guess I'll just leave it pointed to Chucklefish. And Nylhce, Chucklefish is sort of "back seat" publishing it if you will; they aren't providing funding outright, but they're providing resources and such and for all intents and purposes should be considered the publisher of the game. More info here. -IagoQnsi (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Picture of Anita O'Day

I do not think the picture that you show of Anita O'Day is really her picture. I knew her 30 years, and my husband , John Poole, was her drummer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.103.181 (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The picture from 2005? She was perhaps older than when you knew her. Age affects us all. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

image doesn't fit in artist page

Hello I'm trying to update a page someone created about my work but I can't seem to add an image properly to the profile, can you help me ? mixmasterlcsd212.129.61.67 (talk) 13:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Insufficient information to respond. Please give us a link to the page you're trying to change so that we can see what you've tried. Have you uploaded the image already? We'll need a link to that as well. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

mww merge into founder page

Answered

 – Tiggerjay (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This pr firm non notable can it merge to ceo page MWW (company) Tonyhhhhhhh (talk) 01:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

User indefinitely blocked, no response needed. — TransporterMan (TALK) 02:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

General board for article creation

Answered

 – Tiggerjay (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering if there was any generalized area to talk about creating an article. Maybe a "notability noticeboard" or something. It's regarding an arson attack in the West Bank on 31 July. It's in the news again because the mother just died. It's already listed in a few areas, including List of Israeli price tag attacks, but I was wondering if it was appropriate by this point to break it off into a new article. I'm not usually one to create articles, with the Israeli-Palestine conflict especially is a powder keg around here. Checked out WP:RA and both the WikiProjects for Israel and Palestine, but none seem like an appropriate central place for discussion. hbdragon88 (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

There is the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk; there used to be a Notability Noticeboard, but it was closed do to lack of interest from experienced editors (information on said closure can be found on the bottom of the noticeboard talkpage). ʍw 23:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion request on wikipedia page

Answered

 – Tiggerjay (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

We have had three requests now to take down/edit our wikipedia page: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Truck_and_Trailer_South_Africa

We realise that the content isnt sourced very well but there just isnt much info online for our brand. Is there anything we can do to make it better? We have mentions and not "full" coverage online... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce Ungersbock (talk • contribs) 06:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The short answer is no, there is nothing you can do, if reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia are not out there already. Articles can be on Wikipedia only if the subject of the article is notable, which is the standard we use to determine whether or not an article can exist. See the general notability guideline for the basic standard and then see Notability (organizations and companies) for a broader discussion of how notability applies to companies. Moreover, even if adequate reliable sources do exist, you should not be editing your own article under our conflict of interest standards (though you should feel free to give them on the article talk page for some other editor to include, you can use the {{edit request}} template on the talk page for that purpose): if your company is important enough some independent editor will take the time to create or improve the article. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Lots of "one of the largest coal reserves in Asia and the world".

I came across this repeated phrase in a number of articles about coal mines in Queensland, Australia. It can't be right since it appears in 78 coal mine articles (not just Au.) with (reported) reserves ranging from 163 million tonnes to 3.57 billion tonnes.

The phrase appears to originate in the editing of User:Bine_Mai. This user has created 3,554 articles, the vast majority being about oil fields, gas fields and mines; with some about football players, oil and gas terminals, and solar parks and a few other subjects. X!'s Tools reports them to be in the "일반 문서" namespace? which Google translates as Korean for "general documents", I don't understand this as the user is listed as Romanian & the articles appear to be on the English Wikipedia.

I'm not inclined to approach this user on their talk page, since there seem to be certain consistencies there which may not have been addressed by the user. This user's autopatrolled user right was removed in March 2015.

I could go and add cite templates to the 78 articles or just remove the phrase from most of the articles, but I don't have the stamina to go through 3,500 odd articles fact checking. Many of these articles have been edited by other users and no doubt good information added. WikiProject Mining is listed as semi-active.

So... I'm out of my depth here. I don't know what to do, but I am concerned about this particular repeated phrase, since it is not a casual assertion. Of course people visiting Wikipedia should do their own research, but there is the real potential for people to make substantial decisions based on this repeated statement, e.g. somebody researching mineral resources owned by one particular company and thinking they have struck a proverbial gold mine—assuming that that particular company owns all the best resources. I haven't gone through the gas, oil and other mine articles; but I am concerned about their accuracy as well. I concur with User:Bearian 's comments in User_talk:Bine_Mai#Concern. If these 3,500 articles have resource information sourced mostly from the companies owning the resources, then there may be serious NPOV problems. As of September 2015 there is a lot of market volatility around mineral resources, especially fossil fuels; I would hate to think that Wikipedia has a disruptive influence out in the world namespace, and I fear for the possible consequences to Wikipedia & Wikimedia reputation. David Woodward ☮ ♡♢☞☽ 13:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

My Wikipedia entry

Someone created a Wikipedia page for me, and I was not happy with the content. I tried many times to correct the content but the editors kept reverting to the original page. Is it possible to remove the current page, so that I can write my own page myself? I thank you for your help on this.212.185.96.28 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid it is not. Even if the article is about you, it is not yours, nor would you have any form of editorial veto over it. If you're asserting that content in the article is actually inaccurate or unreferenced, we may be able to help with that, but it won't necessarily be removed or changed just because you dislike it. But to help you at all, we need to know what article you're referring to, what portion you object to, and why you object to it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Add Lesley Gore

Stale

 – . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Honorific_nicknames_in_popular_music: Lesley Gore should be added to the article "Honorific Nicknames in Popular Culture". She has often been referred to as the 'Queen of Teen Angst'. Helenjeanmarie (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC) Helen Jean Marie

Do you have a reliable source that we can use to verify that statement? Tiggerjay (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Need Help For Edgar Contreras Page

--Richards j065 (talk) 09:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)Hello, My page https://es.wiki.x.io/wiki/Edgar_Contreras_Rosario have a warning - Posible autopromoción o contenido publicitario: el asunto o la redacción de este artículo o sección inducen a creer que debería ser borrado. Por favor, añade argumentos y referencias que permitan evaluar la relevancia del tema, revisa su redacción o edita el artículo, según corresponda. De no ser así, el artículo será borrado en 30 días a partir de la fecha original de este aviso. Por favor no retires el mismo sin consultar antes con el usuario que lo colocó, o bien, con un tercer usuario que goce de la confianza de la comunidad —preferiblemente un bibliotecario—. Para crear artículos con más garantías de éxito te recomendamos que utilices el asistente para la creación de artículos.

As per the warning i have edited the article but still i am getting the same warning.

Could you please let me know what i can do to remove the above warning and save my page from deletion.

That article is on the Spanish language Wikipedia. This one is the English Wikipedia, which is an entirely separate project with different policies. It looks like the article was flagged for being promotional; the template contains some further instructions to take on that project. You'll have to handle it there, we don't have any say over what other language projects do. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

add new info to existing web page

I'd like to get the below added to this page: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Noodles_%26_Company

Add to Recent history:

Noodles has struggled with a backlash against carbs. The stock lost almost half its value from January 1st through October 5th, 2015.

Add new paragraph to Menu and restaurants:

In an attempt to show that carbohydrates are not the enemy, in 2015 the chain retooled its menu to remove artificial colors, flavors and preservatives from its noodles, sauces, condiments, salad dressing and bread. It will exclusively serve meat raised without antibiotics or hormones by 2017.

Both get this footnote:

Noodles & Co. Fights Back Against Carb Police After Stock Plunge by Craig Giammona, October 6, 2015 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-06/noodles-co-fights-back-against-carb-police-after-stock-plunge

--Don Wiss (talk) 02:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit and anyone includes you. Please feel free to make those additions yourself unless you have a conflict of interest. If someone reverts the addition, discuss the matter on the article talk page. If you need technical help in making the edits, please also feel free to ask here. If you do have a conflict of interest, repeat the request that you made above on the article talk page and put {{edit request}}, including the brackets, on a line by itself at the top of your request and an editor without a COI will eventually — it can take quite awhile — consider whether or not to make the additions. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Need help finding reliable Korean or Chinese language sources

I'm working on List of League of Legends Champions and it's currently being nominated for deletion. Where can I help find people to help me find foreign language sources?--Prisencolin (talk) 06:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Rampaging user and page desecrations

we have a user that goes by the name user:AngusWOOF who has been systematically purging pages of content for being "unsourced by reliable means" and leaves pages blank, this involves many voice actors like David Vincent and many others. It's starting to get to the point where this might be considered foul play and I need some assistance getting the reins in on this person as soon as possible, the voice actors in question have already spoken out about this and they are none too pleased. We can fix these articles but only if the individual in question is stopped beforehand. As mentioned to the user beforehand, ANN and IMDB are credible and reliable sources for all information pertaining to the individuals in question and cannot be deemed unreliable. NitescoVeritas (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@NitescoVeritas: I had a quick look at the edits, and see nothing wrong with them. If you have a look at our verifiability policy, unsourced or poorly sourced material may be challenged and removed at any time. The burden is on any editor who may wish to reinstate it to provide a high-quality, reliable reference for the challenged material, and once it has been challenged, providing a good reference is not optional. If such a reference is unavailable, it may not be reinstated. IMDB is not a reliable reference, as it is user-generated. If by "ANN" you mean Anime News Network, I don't know enough about it to know if it would be reliable or not, but that would be better asked at the reliable sources noticeboard. It looks like at least some of its content is user-generated and not fact-checked or editorially controlled, so that portion of the site, at least, would not be a reliable reference either. If they do have fact-checked and editorially controlled material, that might be. I also don't know who you're referring to with "we", but please do be aware that if that means you are being compensated or employed to edit in these areas, you must disclose that fact as required by the Terms of Use. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

ANN encyclopedia entries and IMDb are not reliable sources per WP:IMDB/RS and WP:ANIME/RS. Also please note the material in question is NOT deleted but commented out. If you can establish that the material should stay using reliable sources, then comment those in and cite those entries. The voice actors have NOT spoken out about this. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, just checked Dave's facebook page, he did post that his roles disappeared. Most of them should be back though. I'm using his Facebook as a primary source per WP:SELFPUB AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Possible corporate account there, see https://www.facebook.com/Nitesco-Veritas-Studio-143124699090183/info/ JohnInDC (talk) 11:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I got a critical note on my talk page. It's signed by an IP [1]. Any suggestions on what I should do about it? Report these two to COIN? Or harrassment? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I would continue with your sound and proper editing, reverting apparent COI / unsourced / etc. edits as you come across them. If the problem continues, or escalates, you can seek semi-protection for the affected pages, or blocks for the IPs if the edits seem concentrated in one or two places. Editors with an agenda sometimes react with a lot of anger when their aims are frustrated, but give up when they realize that they aren't going to get their way. Perhaps this will be one of those cases. JohnInDC (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Fight the New Drug

Fight the New Drug is a page about a religious group which wishes us to only have sex that they approve of. They pose as a non-religious organization, but I've substantiated that they are not. They have removed all criticism repeatedly. We could use some help from editors in balancing this. Too bad Wikipedia can't help with the big billboard they've bought in my neighborhood, too. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBerkeleyWay (talk • contribs) 05:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't help with anything except being an encyclopedia. Same goes for whoever is filling our encyclopedia with the sort of pablum that's in the "findings" section of that article. The criticism section currently lacks any reliable sources. Of course, the so called "findings" section is synthesis of two studies and their own propaganda. I've tagged both sections, put the article on my watchlist, and will get around to nuking all the garbage if someone else doesn't do so. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Ross Bay Villa

Draft:Ross Bay Villa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Draft:Ross_Bay_Villa&oldid=685406300 Is there anyone out there --a real person-- who can save my sanity? I've struggled for three weeks creating a simple Wiki listing for a historic house in Victoria, BC, Canada. It seems, now, to have disappeared. Yes, I took and own the two photos I uploaded. (One disappeared.) Yes, the property has municipal Heritage Designation, though the InfoBox insisted that it didn't. And now it's all gone. Help requested, please. Nick Russcomm (talk) 01:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Russcomm: A software problem meant pages were blank for a while. The software has been fixed but some of the affected pages need to be edited or purged to display. I have purged Draft:Ross Bay Villa. I see you had infobox problems earlier. In [2] <nowiki>...</nowiki> was added around the infobox. That prevents it from working. You used VisualEditor. I don't use it myself but I think <nowiki>...</nowiki> can be added when you try to write template code directly in VisualEditor instead of usings its features to edit templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Grizzly bear

Answered

 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Ussuri brown bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Himalayan brown bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Marsican brown bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mexican grizzly bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

ABC Islands bears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Alaska Peninsula brown bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ussuri brown bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

I am not posting to TALK because my question relates to the many articles about the brown bear. All of the articles above are about the same species. I am a biologist who works in the area I am discussing. I try to help edit but I probably can only find about half of the brown bear articles.

There should only be one central page for every species. If a student searches for brown bear, Mexican grizzly, or black grizzly all searches should direct to this one page. I propose that WP should have a rule that for every species that there be a main page where the science for the species is described. Another page that disputes the science must debate science on the main page.

There is only one species of brown bear and the Kodiak subspecies (debate exists within Russia where modern genetics has less weight) but there are thousands of old Latin and common names for them. "The specific status of North American grizzly bears is one of the most complex problems of mammalian taxonomy. The difficulty stems directly from the work of Merriam (1918), who concluded that there are 86 forms of grizzlies (and brown bears) in North America." (Rausch 1953) Merriam's Lamarckian version of genetics permitted litter-mates to be assigned to different species. WP now permits articles on all 86 brown bear species in North America. WP now permits editors to say that the grizzly bear and brown bear are different species because the old scientific literature supports this. Is this acceptable?

Should there be a way for people to find all of the articles on this species? Every old name should have an article when someone wants this, "but these should all advise the reader of (1) the accepted scientific status, (2) the current accepted name, (3) and if there is an ongoing debate - a reference to both sides.

Example: "The Eurasian brown bear (Ursus arctos arctos) is one of the most common subspecies of the brown bear, found across Eurasia." Eurasian brown bear This is not true. Fifty years ago it was true but it has not been for 25 years. There are many seemingly reliable sources that were once correct to support this claim.

I like the idea that there is an article about the grizzly bear as long as someone writing a report on the brown bear knows that scientifically there is no such bear as a "grizzly bear". Grizzly bears still exist in our culture and language and there should be a page to discuss them with their old name (only used in North America). There is a huge trove of folklore for example. The lead for the Himalayan brown bear would be enough if used consistently in every article.

These articles are very misleading scientifically. I cannot find all of them to fix them and I cannot engage in TALK for 28 different articles over the same issues. Grizzly bear for example has many scientifically invalid claims about science that are supported by long outdated citations that 50 years ago were reliable sources. Rausch is one example, his work is still respected for some topics but modern work has left other topics outdated. The Daily Republic newspaper is cited by an earnest editor on a technical topic for a claim that was once accurate.

I recognize that even though I have technical expertise that we are all equals in the collegial process. I know how to do this. What I cannot do is do this on 28 or 56 different articles for the same species and the same issue.

Thank you your advice Raggz (talk) 04:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Raggz. I'm not an expert on bears - or any other kind of animals, genera, species, or whatever - but It does sound as if you may be right and that it would be probably most logical to merge the contents of all these articles in to one article. There are two ways of doing this: Post an exact copy of yyourur message above at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals and hope that someone will do it, or choose the best of all those articles and propose merging all the others to it; then if nothing gets done after a while, you're in for a few long evenings in front of your computer and you'll end up with something that you can get reviewed and promoted to WP:GA. To see how to propose a merge, go to WP:MERGE and if you get stuck o the technicality of it, leave a note on my talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Raggz and Kudpung: A merge is not necessarily a good idea here. There is no Wikipedia rule that there can be only one article per species, nor should there be. We do have a rule that there must be only one article per subject, but a subject can have sub-articles that expand on one particular aspect. So, for instance, we have an article on Albania, but also History of Albania. And a sub-article can itself have sub-articles, so we also have Ottoman Albania. In the case of grizzly bears, as stated, Brown bear is the species article for Ursus arctos. Most of the other articles have a scope limited to one sub-species; Kodiak bear is Ursus arctos middendorffi, California grizzly bear is Ursus arctos californicus and so on. The exception is the Grizzly bear article which is about the brown bears of North America as a group. But even that has an identifiable scope that is different from both the species, and any of the sub-species articles. The decision on whether or not to have separate articles is an editorial one, based on how much reliable information is available. If there is enough information on a sub-species to fill a decent article, then it can have a page. It can often go the other way though, there are countless species out there for which next to nothing is known. There may not even be enough to write a genus of family article. You may be interested in our sister project Wikispecies, which has a more structured and scientific approach. SpinningSpark 17:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Other language edition template

I am sure I have seen a template that suggests an article could be improved/expanded with material from another Wikipedia language edition. It's a similar idea to the stub templates. I can't find it - any ideas? SpinningSpark 07:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Translation#Requesting a translation from a foreign language to English. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks PrimeHunter. I really must start asking you questions directly - you always seem to know the answer. SpinningSpark 12:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Often I just know where to search for the answer. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

subject: my modifications made today 15 october 2015 to the article "Bavaria"

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

Ladies and Gentlemen, I hereby protest in the strongest terms against the invalidation of all the modifications I made today of the article "Bavaria" by an administrator called DrMies ! These invalidations were made in an obvious and deliberate attempt to minimize and conceal as much as possible the leading role Bavaria played in the Nazi movement and the Third Reich.Prior to my modifications, there was only a very short half-sentence about that subject in the whole article without any details and no mention at all in the short historic summary of Bavaria in an earlier part of the article. I have also noticed, that the whole article has been written in a cunning attempt to embellish Bavarian history by omitting anything which might be contrary to that effect. One of many examples: no mention that Bavaria only became a kingdom in 1806, because it was granted that honour by Napoleon who saw the Bavarians as his most loyal allies in Germany.

I hereby kindly ask you to check the facts, reconsider the invalidations and choose your administrators with better care in order to improve the unfortunately tarnished reputation Wikipedia has in my own experience in the academic world.

Yours truly Lux-hibou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lux-hibou (talk • contribs) 23:26, 14 October 2015‎

@Lux-hibou: Articles like Bavaria, where they cover a broad topic, are often written in a summary style, with the primary article being a brief overview of the topic's main points, and subarticles drilling down into more detail. In this case, perhaps you're looking to work on an article like History of Bavaria, where history in particular would be covered in greater detail? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Lux-hibou:The article Bavaria does indeed have many sub-articles that provide additional details. Did you not see the edit summary made by Drmies here [3] ? I notice you haven't taken this up with Drmies before making your 'protest in the strongest terms'. Courtesy and collaboration would generally require that such issues be discussed in the first instance among the involved editors either on their talk pages pr on the article talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• I tried to give as much information as I could in a pithy edit summary--the edits were not, in my opinion, an improvement to the article, and Seraphimblade surmised correctly that extra detail in this article is unwarranted. I note also that Lux-hibou claims this was done in "an obvious and deliberate attempt to minimize and conceal as much as possible the leading role Bavaria played in the Nazi movement and the Third Reich"--what a completely revolting remark. Lux-hibou, do you think that such accusations are in any way acceptable in adult company? Drmies (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
• Lux-hibou, Your comment above about an "obvious and deliberate attempt to minimize and conceal" is a clear violation of our No Personal Attacks policy. I call on you to strike it promptly or apologize for making it. After that, a discussion can be held at Talk:History of Bavaria (or some other suitable location) on how and whether your edits can be incorporated into some one of the Bavaria-related articles. DES ^(talk) 00:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Help with article being mislabled as a place on Google's Knowledge Graph

When doing a Google search for "Trinity Baptist Church, Concord NH" I discovered that Google's knowledge graph thinks the name of the church is Trinity Baptist Church sex scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I found that odd, and investigated. What looked like happened was the article used to be a page about the church itself, but eventually was changed to only be about that particular scandal. When the switch was made, categories, "official website," geolocation, and a redirect were left in place, which caused Google to believe this was still a church. I made some edits along those lines, and they were approved for the most part.

However, I recently tried to get rid of the old redirect and was met with some opposition, mainly that I'm "campaigning." I don't necessarily disagree with that, since I do want to see the result changed, but I haven't changed any of the substance of the article and I simply want to fix an obviously wrong Google Knowledge Graph issue. I thought I would post here and see if someone with a neutral point of view would be interested in taking a look at the situation, and maybe advocating for the change if it seems like a legitimate change. I'm willing to accept any advice as well. Thanks! BenjaCamp (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Google's Knowledge Graph links directly to Trinity Baptist Church sex scandal and not to the redirect Trinity Baptist Church (Concord, New Hampshire) so I don't know whether the old article name and current redirect are actually affecting Google's choice. The Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. I don't know how Google processes such feedback. I don't think we should change Wikipedia content based on how Google currently uses it. Google could change it at any time, and many other websites use our content. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Please help with draft; my brain is wracked...

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

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Schnitzel_Records_Ltd.

I'm looking for some assistance relating to two issues on this draft.

The first issue is that approval editors have not checked all references, and so are labeling the article as not properly notable. This is not a guess: ref. #2 is an offline interview from the largest alternative radio station in all of Austria, and reference #3 is a 5000+ word interview from a generalist music website that gets very brisk web traffic (+/- million hits/mo.); both references are specific to this business, not about it's bands, have a wide temporal spread, and are not casual mentions. Press relating to the label's activities is covered in many of the other references; often briefly, but not casually. I've actually sourced and read through or checked every reference on this list, and would be happy to go over them with any approval editor or helpful being to determine suitability for the article - whether they should remain in place, or be removed.

The second issue is that the language may or may not be promotional. (I think this may have been fixed at my last edit.) Because I've been unsuccessful in getting approval editors to leave comments on the exact problems or phrases that have occured with the page, and it would be very helpful to have a detail-oriented second pair of eyes on the page, I am requesting assistance to get this published. I'm still a n00b; please help!

15tinybirds (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

First off, never use sites like Discogs, Reddit, or anything else that is written by random strangers, logarithms, or monkeys on typewriters.

Second, usual trick is to start with only the most unaffiliated sources that are specifically about the subject, not affiliated subjects, not affiliated sources. It is possible to get an article made with just three such sources (maybe two if they're both in-depth academic books with no connection to each other beyond being about the same subject). Interviews can be tricky when it comes to affiliation because the subject is has some control over what's gonna get out there and so it's considered somewhat affiliated. Write the article using only these unaffiliated and specific sources sources, no others. Then after it's approved, expand with affiliated or less-specific sources.

Course, there is the possibility that a subject simply won't have enough unaffiliated but specific sources to make an article -- in which case, they just don't get an article (at least for now). Ian.thomson (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Bulgarians article

Resolved

 – ANI was created. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Stolichanin has been introducing unbothered bizzare nonsenses with seven reverts today. 45.33.130.174 (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong forum. We have dedicated noticeboards for complaints. Try taking it up with user first. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Feedback Request Page

Answered

 – and user notified on talk page.Tiggerjay (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I cannot figure out, from the instructions given @ Feedback Request how the use the Bot to randomly select editors listed at the page. Could I have some help with this, please? Also, if the Bot isn't working or I choose to randomly select prospective commenters myself, is there a recommended number of requests, at least to get started? Thanks for any help. Regards Tapered (talk) 01:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the purpose of the bot. The way the bot works is that when a Request for Comment is opened, the bot will automagically select editors from those listed on the Feedback Request page. If you want feedback, then, you need to either open an RfC and allow the bot to randomly select editors, or you can contact editors manually via their Talk pages. You can't randomly select editors via the bot through any means other than opening an RfC. May I ask why you're concerned about a maximum number of requests? How many RfCs do you think you might need to open, and at which articles, and for what purpose? DonIago (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Mike Jacobs

Resolved

 – Page in question was deleted. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason why "User:" is listed prior to the name 'Mike Jacobs' on http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Mike_Jacobs_(soccer_coach)

How can that be removed from the name or title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlssoccer1996 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Mlssoccer1996 "User:" at the start of a page name indicates that it is a page about a Wikipedia user, not an article about an encyclopedic topic. There should never be a page with a title such as User:Mike_Jacobs_(soccer_coach) (as user names should not have such parenthetical inclusions), and I see that the page has in fact been deleted. DES ^(talk) 15:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

In fact the deletion log reads: 10:41, 15 October 2015 Spinningspark deleted page User:Mike Jacobs (soccer coach) (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: There are only trivial close paraphrasing changes between this and the deleted article Mike Jacobs (soccer coach) (deleted as a copyvio)) DES ^(talk) 15:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I just deleted it. It seems to have been created as a reaction to the imminent deletion of Mike_Jacobs_(soccer_coach) for copyright violation. It is no more acceptable to have copyrighted material in user space than it is to have it in an article. SpinningSpark 16:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "" defined multiple times with different content

Resolved

 – Tiggerjay (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I have this message: Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "" defined multiple times with different content in Dayton Project. If anyone knows what it means (or better still, how to resolve it), this would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkeye7 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 16 October 2015‎

@Hawkeye7: Fixed with this edit. This is a new software feature, and it's catching some small errors that weren't noticed before. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I had not seen this error before, and didn't know what to look for. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Serious Formatting problem in the article "Yves Congar"

Resolved

 – fixed Tiggerjay (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

In the article on "Yves Congar," the list of seven references appears in the middle of the article, not under the "References" rubric. Under "References" the first three references only appear. I do not know how to fix the problem.

Is there anyone who can?

--Anadessma (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Fixed -- the {{reflist}} was improperly placed in the middle of the article. Deleting caused all of the references to properly collect at the bottom of the page. See this edit if you're interested in what and where it was removed. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Snow Bowl (2008)

Please review my draft. Thank you and leave a note on my talk page. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

It appears that you have already submitted this for review, so expect a reply in a couple of days on the draft page. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I better see a reply in like 2 or 3 days and no more than that. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

You "better see a reply" in 2 or 3 days? Please keep in mind we are volunteer reviewers at Articles for Creation, and we review articles out of goodness. We use what free time we have to do as best we can, so I kindly ask you to tone down your demands. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 03:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Tackling continual vandalism

SICPA

This page has come under continued attack from a malicious poster who is editing the page with inaccurate and plainly wrong information. I have been asked by someone who works for SICPA about what can be done to stop this.

I was hoping someone could give me some advise as what I've read suggests that just continually re-editing the page isn't the way to go.

All help gratefully received. Iain

Iainplunkett (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

That's an issue for the French Wikipedia. Dispute resolution procedures usually work the same way on the major language wikis. Use the article's talk page to try to reach common understanding. Also leave a message on the talk page of the person who is adding the material. I would suggest that you're far more likely to reach common ground if you avoid accusatory labels like "malicious", "vandalism" etc. Also, a person who works for the organisation in question is usually not the best person to judge if the material is "right" or not as they will want to present their organisation in the best possible light. I suspect that this is *not* vandalism, just a disagreement over how to present info about the company, but if I'm wrong Vandalisme en cours is the last resort, *after* trying discussion with the user. Valenciano (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. It appears to me to be a disgruntled ex-employee. The content being added is really about internet speculation with very little fact behind it. I'll suggest they reach out but I'm not sure about the reception they'll get. Thanks for the French link.

I do have a slightly wider question. It seems that whoever put the page up has disappeared long ago. I was wondering if the best way forward was to approach someone on the Wiki team to create a brand new SICPA page to replace the existing one? That way there can be no conflict of interest. I was then wondering whether that page - say it's written in English - could be ported (with correct translation) onto the French and German Wiki so there is consistent and approved content.

SICPA doesn't currently have an English page and I think it should as it's responsible for the inks on over 80% of the world's banknotes - including the UK. I'm just trying to find the best solution that will incur no conflict of interest. What do you think? If you have any other suggestions I would be very happy to hear them. Thanks again.

IainIainplunkett (talk) 09:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Vandlism on Jennifer Blanc article

I came across some edits to this article which looked like vandalism and are probably libellous. I don't know anything about the subject, but the refs certainly don't support it. I have taken out material in the article itself but having trouble figuring out how to untangled more material that persists in the references. Can someone help? I have to go off line and don't want to leave something like that unaddressed. Mesmacat (talk) 10:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

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

I have restored an earlier version of the article. See Help:Reverting#Manual reverting for how to do this. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Moon Landings

Conspiracy theory rant
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
On the 7 convective maned , Moon Landing which never took place why Wikepedia does not suggest a ( maybe not ) Why must we and future generation of suckers still buy a LIE of that amplore ! And still pay Internet ! Now that science denied , this Ludicrous Myth ! What is need to be done for a bit of honesty in our received information ! It is tiresome ! Any time I want to read About the Moon ( their it goes again !!! ) The first Moon Walkers are the USA are this soon enough Tieres us never to visit the Space Page ! Of Wikipedia Thank You for trying to understand ! and send en answer ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.94.109.227 (talk) 02:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Question about relative weight of competing theories in an article

I'd like to start by saying I'm not sure if I'm asking this in the correct place. However, this is perhaps the place where people can tell me where I should ask my question if not here. My comments related to a discussion on an article talk page here [[4]]. The discussion relates to establishing the relative weight between two competing, scholarly theories. Going forward should we treat them as roughly equal or treat one as the minority POV and thus give it less weight? Currently this question of weight hasn't affected the article content but it might in the future. Because I can't cite any particular edits to the article as NPOV concerns I didn't bring this up as on the NPOV noticeboard. Alternatively, I considered the RS noticeboard but both sides are acknowledged as reliable scholarship, the question is only should they be given equal weight.

In the above link we have two competing explanations for change in voting patterns. One is the top down theory, the other is the bottom up theory. The top down explanation was the original and the two primary scholarly sources regarding that topic are about 10 years older (both 1996) than the two primary bottom up works (both 2006). At the time of publication in 2006 one of the bottom up scholars acknowledged his view was the minority POV. In 2011 another scholarly book said the bottom up POV was the "dissenting - yet rapidly growing - narrative..." and listed a number of authors who have followed the lead of the two primary bottom up works.

In scholarly work the number of citation a publication receives is a strong indication of scholarly endorsement of a topic, theory etc. I used Google Scholar to check for # of citations to date for the four primary works in question:

• Top Down Book #1: 165 times since 1996 (122 after 2006)
• Top Down Book #2: 125 times since 1996 (79 after 2006)
• Bottom Up Book #1: 354 (published in 2006), 251 of these were after 2010 when the "rapidly growing" statement was likely written
• Bottom Up Book #2: 138 (published in 2006)

Given the above do we give less WEIGHT to the Bottom Up theory because it was a minority theory when first published and "dissenting - yet rapidly growing" 4 years later? Thus the two scholarly opinions of relative weight, at the time they were written, say it was the minority POV. Alternatively, do we treat them with equal weight because "rapidly growing" combined with a clear citation margin in favor of the bottom up publications suggests the theories are at least equal competing theories in the eyes of scholars as of 2015?

Thanks for any thoughts both on the topic and where I should have posted this topic! Springee (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Springee has compiled his own research about the number of citations found on Google Scholar and has put forward his own argument that these citations indicate that the minority bottom up viewpoint should be given equal weight as the top-down viewpoint. The top-down viewpoint has actually been identified as the majority viewpoint in scholarship by multiple sources, and the bottom-up has been identified as the dissenting viewpoint or as running contrary to the majority top-down viewpoint. From the OR noticeboard "'Original research' includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Wikipedia."Scoobydunk (talk) 03:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Please do not bludgeon this discussion as you have on the talk page. Springee (talk) 03:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• This is still an ongoing discussion. Scoobydunk created a NORN discussion about the same topic. [5] Group input would be welcome! Springee (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

In light of a DRN discussion here [6] I would like to close this discussion as unresolved. Springee (talk) 01:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Page deletion

I will like to know how I can delete my own page (it was initially created without my knowledge)65.111.83.130 (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You have no right to delete it yourself, regardless of whether or not it was created with or without your knowledge, because only administrators can delete pages. The proper way to attempt it is to request deletion through Articles for Deletion, being sure to mention WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, but it's unlikely to happen if you are a public figure and the article about you is, or can be, well-sourced. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 06:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Media import problems

Hello,

While I have been editing for quite a while, this is my first foray into importing graphics into Wikimedia for subsequent use in an article. My difficulties begin with Wikimedia's request that I open an account, which it twice hasn't allowed me to do.

Even beyond establishing the account, I am pretty much clueless. I have a public domain graphic I wish to import. I suppose I must scan it into my computer, but don't know the procedure for importing it into Wikimedia. I searched for that info, but didn't find it.

Obviously, any help will be appreciated.

Georgejdorner (talk) 01:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Georgejdorner. Once you have scanned the image, go to Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard If the image is in fact public domain, use the Commons upload wizard. Note that "public domain" is a more restricted concept than most people understand. What is the source of the image, and how do you know it is in the public domain? You will need to have answers for the upload process. If you care to give the answers here, we can advise you further. DES ^(talk) 01:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh and you already have an account, you shouldn't need a different one. DES ^(talk) 01:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

In this case, I am borrowing from an unclassified U.S. Air Force history written by a USAF historian on the American tax dollar. I do believe that qualifies.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It should, Georgejdorner. Strictly speaking, it is PD only if the photo was taken (or other work was created) as part of the person's official duties as a direct US federal government employee, not a contractor. DES ^(talk) 23:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Should have mentioned the historian was a U.S. Air Force colonel on official duty.

A thankful tip of the hat to DES for the assistance.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The concern is not whether the historian/author was on official duty, but whether the creator of the graphic was on Uncle Sam's clock. If they are one and the same, no problem; if not, could be a problem. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

"The United States Air Force in Korea" is an uncopyrighted document produced by the U.S. Air Force using taxpayer money. Niggling about whether the colonel drew the graphic is somewhat beside the point; whoever drew it was in government hire. (I did attempt to discover the artist's name.)Georgejdorner (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Create Rebelution Count Me In Acoustic Wiki Page

Resolved

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Count_Me_In_(Rebelution_album) Hello, my name is Justin and I am wanting to create a page that does not exist on Wikipedia. Count Me In Acoustic Album by Rebelution is the page I am wanting to create.. I would greatly appreciate if I can get your approval to work on and finish this Wiki page. Thank you and I hope to hear fro you soon.

Justin ≈≈–– — Preceding unsigned comment added by B2292295 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions in the first paragraph of Articles for Creation. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Can't save edits

Hello, am updating this page Will Holder (designer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), regarding myself, Will Holder. Hoping to remove the "This article has multiple issues" by changing links to citations. When I try to save my changes, the captcha refreshes over and over, and I can't save. Help! Wpholder (talk) 11:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure why you can't edit; perhaps others can offer advice. In any case however, you should leave the templates up on the page - the article still needs a good bit of work, including (by way of example) third party sources showing the subject's notability. JohnInDC (talk) 13:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

"Ali of Hejaz"

Resolved

Re: Ali of Hejaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello,

I would like to point out a major error in the above page; it contains the unmistakable photograph of Amir Faisal, erroneously referenced as Amir Ali. Both were sons of Hussein.

Thank you,

Please post edit requests on the talk page of the affected page putting {{Edit Request}} on a line by itself at the top of the request or boldly make the change yourself. Remember that even with images that if your edit is reverted or your request is challenged that it will be your obligation to provide reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia to support your version. Please also remember to sign all of your talk page posts with four tildes like this: ~~~~ Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Rai Sahabs in Sahaswan

Resolved

Mr.Krishna saxena is an Great engineer of 1840s,He was awarded for his dedication towards his work and given name of Rai sahab by queen victoria and still know as Rai sahabs in sahaswan.Later his Son mr.Rama krishan saxena made a proposal to roadways department and become the man who started transport service in that area although he worked for roadways department. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.50.73 (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

To draft or request an article, please follow the procedure set out at Articles for Creation. Remember that for all practical purposes all material must be fully supported by reliable sources as defined by English Wikipedia and that if you draft the article you will be responsible for providing those sources; if you merely request the article, it is still a good idea to provide the sources in your request, especially if they are not in English or are hard to find. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Move/redirect help

Resolved

I've done extensive work on the Barbus barbus article, which currently redirects from Common barbel. This should really work the other way around - see Common bream for an example of how it's done with other fishes. I'd like to change this but have no idea how - any help gratefully received! VagrantDarter (talk) 11:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Follow the procedure set out here. If none of the first three bullet points apply, follow the procedure set out below them; if any of them do apply, click on the "discussion process" link in the first sentence of that section and follow that procedure instead. Note that those procedures are currently somewhat backlogged and it may take awhile before someone responds to your request. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks! Much appreciated. VagrantDarter (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Irondome persistently reverts 67.87.189.39 edits in violation of WP:OWNER

Resolved

Re: Panther tank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please, take a look in the Revision history at the Irondome's 10 edits from that on 19:57, 9 November 2015 on. They are mostly reversions of my contributions without any summaries (blanking vandalism). He seems to be out of control maybe filling offended and seeking retribution. He erased my 2nd comment left on his talk page under User_talk:Irondome#Response to .22Panther edits.22.. He thinks he owns the Panther tank page in violation of WP:OWNER. Please, intervene.--67.87.189.39 (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

And I think you should grasp the basic WP concept of WP:BRD which you have flagrantly and contemptuously ignored, despite my repeated attempts to communicate with you, as is evident on your talk page. Do not waste volunteers valuable time. I would rather advise you to get some WP:CLUE on how WP runs. I shall comment no further. Irondome (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

"(BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus" (see WP:BRD). WP:CLUE says: "Disputes are resolved in favor of whoever offers the best reasoning – not in terms of rhetoric", e.g. of the Irondome's User talk:67.87.189.39#Panther edits attempt to communicate. The Irondome's response to 67.87.189.39 of 22:40, 9 November 2015‎ with "see WP:BUGGEROFF" on Special:Contributions/Irondome reveals the Irondome's true intention to communicate in addition to the "adherence" to Wikipedia:Civility. Please, stop the Irondome's tendency to do blanking vandalism inconsistent with WP:OWNER even though preceded by the communication of Irondome's (personal) preferences.--67.87.189.39 (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Apparently Kudpung กุดผึ้ง did not read or understand the constructive edits of 67.87.189.39 and, instead, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง semi-protected Panther tank under the false pretense of including communication in the edit summaries (which, per definition, are communication, as telling something, and very desired), and by doing so, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง abused Wikipedia:Protection policy#Content disputes and thus undermined the removal of logical errors, repetitions, and prolix descriptions from the page's lead, or, in other words, its constructive development.--67.87.189.39 (talk) 01:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I repeat, I made a clear attempt to reach out to you, which you blatantly rebuffed.I did not report you for edit warring (which I should of, on reflection) because I am a patient man.WP:BRD is a critical method of how we work here. Your attempt to cast it aside as a tool which may suit you or not is an example of your arrogant method of interacting on the 'pedia. You have been willfully negligent in even attempting to communicate with both myself and User:BilCat, when engaging. You have made no attempt whatsoever to communicate in a meaningful way with anyone you have engaged with, apart from highly contemptuous edit summaries (which do not count as meaningful communication) which infer that you, and only you, know how to edit, and impugning the efforts of others. I would suggest that ininvolved parties examine your extremely discourteous and dismissive message on my talk page. If you do not "have time" to engage with colleagues on this project, and claim that you do not even wish to communicate with the authors of the lede, then I would suggest this is not the place for you. I suspect your bizarre claims of "ownership" are in fact a form of Psychological projection, in which you, in fact, are suffering from. Anyone who knows me, (and there are many here) knows my method of working, and my great passion for consensus and co-operation in editing. Your attempts to attack a highly respected administrator here are also reprehensible. Adhere strictly to WP:BRD, drop the aggressive tone you seem to habitually adopt, and learn some humility. You ignored repeated requests to refrain from posting on my talkpage. WP:BUGGEROFF was an exasperated final comment on your way of doing things and your whole approach. Change your ways sharpish, is my advice to you, IP. Irondome (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

This forum is not a place to complain about user conduct or content disputes with other users, but a place to seek assistance with content editing matters. For disputes over content see Dispute resolution; for complaints about user conduct either contact an administrator or file your complaint at Administrators noticeboard/incidents after carefully reading and complying with the instructions there and be aware that complaining about another user's conduct always puts your own conduct up for inspection. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

See below Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#How to protect constructive edits by expert unregistered editors against abuse by registered ones .26_administrators.3F.--67.87.189.39 (talk) 08:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

How to protect constructive edits by expert unregistered editors against abuse by registered ones & administrators?

Resolved

 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

This is the most blatant piece of trolling I've seen in my 7 years and 1,200 edits on this help forum

Re: Panther tank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Re: The poorly formulated request above titled "User:Irondome persistently reverts 67.87.189.39 edits in violation of WP:OWNER". The question is in the title: How to protect constructive edits by expert unregistered users against abuse by registered ones & administrators? The Panther tank article is only an example. Unregistered users are usually not familiar with the intricacies of the Wikipedia rules or may not know how to respond or how to defend their constructive edits. Some, e.g. some busy experts, may not want to register, but only to fast correct pages without lengthily and time consuming seeking of consensuses on the talk pages, where, sometimes, the level of discussions is quite low or the participants are mostly looking for amusement, e.g. on Panther tank, which lead looks like garbage since at least 2011. Can Wikipedia afford loosing edits by expert unregistered users? 1. In Wikipedia:Reverting, in the sentence "Editors should provide an explanation when reverting", should not the word "should" be replaced by "must"? 2. In Wikipedia:Reverting#Explain reverts, in the sentence "Edit summaries, always a good practice, are particularly important when reverting", should not the last clause be replaced by "are obligatory when reverting"? 3. Should not the reverting without an edit summary be not accepted neither processed by Wikipedia at all (e.g. 7 in a row from 20:24 to 20:33, 9 November 2015‎)? 4. In Wikipedia:Protection policy#Content disputes, following the last sentence "Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own positions in content disputes", should not be placed a link to the page, e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, where inexperienced users can report the administrator abuse (e.g. try to find facts in support of protection of 21:58, 9 November 2015‎ by Kudpung). 5. Should not the Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule be strictly (automatically) executed without exceptions preventing abuse with impunity, (e.g. for 7 in a row from 20:24 to 20:33, 9 November 2015‎)? 6. Should not a single administrator have the power to place Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings/Usage and layout#Single issue warnings without placing Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings/Usage and layout#Single issue notices first (e.g. User talk:67.87.189.39#November 2015) considering that it could be in retribution for an attempt to uncover an abuse (e.g. try to find facts in support of protection of 21:58, 9 November 2015‎ by Kudpung)? If not, should not such a warning include a link to the page, e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, where inexperienced users can report the administrator abuse? I believe, those 6 questions are very important for improving quality of many Wikipedia articles. I edited thousands of various Wikipedia articles under different IPs over more than 10 years including establishing structure for Intel Pentium microprocessors in collaboration with very intelligent editors, many unregistered, and doubling the content in just a few days. Nobody was wasting time to reach consensus on the talk pages, but also nobody was repeating the same twice and knew good when saw one. Eventually, everybody understood what everybody else meant and the consensus was being achieved by not being able to write better. That seems to be the most efficient way of editing and Wikipedia should protect it at all cost. That is the content editing matter of this request.--67.87.189.39 (talk) 08:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC) Timbo's Rule #13 says "Since such a high percentage of anonymous IP editors are vandals, they are all treated like shit. Trying to make serious edits to Wikipedia as an IP editor is like blindly blundering through the countryside on the first day of hunting season dressed like a moose." Now some IPs like 75.108.94.227 (talk · contribs) do a lot of good work, IPs tend to be first on the scene with "breaking news" in an article, but broadly speaking Timbo is correct. From a cursory look at the article, I see two different versions with no obvious evidence as to what one should be the preferred version; it is possible for everybody to be wrong. Stick to discussion on talk page, escalating to dispute resolution if required, and don't play the victim - it doesn't work. Registered editors kick IPs, admins kick editors, arbs kick admins, Jimbo kicks arbs, IPs kick Jimbo .... it's the kick the cat syndrome all over really. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC) Or stop editing, but the rules evolved not without a reason, so, maybe, they can be further improved especially when an analysis and constructive suggestions how to do it are provided, as effective tools against vandalism caused mostly by IPs might coexist with a stronger protection of valuable contributions also by IPs.--67.87.189.39 (talk) 10:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC) EAR operators please consider this thread as closed. 67.87.189.39 is WP:NOTHERE and runs the risl of being blocked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC) These would be good questions, but you are not asking them innocently, with what in equity law is called "clean hands". E.g., in your #3 you complain of being reverted without an edit summary. A look at the revision history of Panther tank shows that you were engaged in an edit war with Irondome. In an earlier edit summary (18:27, 7 Nov) he did say "your refusal to take to talk is becoming irritating". The day before that he said (21:22, 8 Nov): "this wording is in line with the supporting citations. please do not revert before discussing at talk, re Curruthers". I suspect he stopped writing edit summaries when he realized you weren't reading them. Not only "unclean hands", but none of this being in the nature of asking for assistance it appears you are in the wrong place. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC) You meant "The day [after] that...", as Nov 8 is after Nov 7 WP:AGF. Please, mind the level of sophistication is this request: (1) I do not recall "irritation" as being a valid reason for the 1st incident of reverting of my edit quoted by you (18:27, 7 Nov)), as Wikipedia:Reverting clearly states to "revert an edit made in good faith only after careful consideration", and quoted by you "irritation" is certainly not an attribute of "careful consideration", but an emotion characterizing a lack of consideration... in violation of WP:OWNER. Additionally, my ample edit summary of the reverted edit is so detailed and specific that only a person acting in bad faith could not consider it constructive, but, instead, an act of the alleged edit war. Also, the edit, to which my edit was reverted to, was also a result of my earlier edits that you failed to look at. (2) How your 2nd quote "this wording is in line with the supporting citations. please do not revert before discussing at talk, re Curruthers" proves the alleged edit war, where it was to explain where the "over-engineered" phrase came from, and not followed by reverting? I subsequently checked and the "over-engineered" phrase was absent. Nobody considers Panther tank to be "over-engineered", but to the contrary - "one of the best", as stated at the beginning of the article's lead. Can you see the inconsistency between "over-engineered" and "one of the best"? Nobody considers "one of the best" to be "over-engineered". Or one or the other. It is formal logic the intro was lacking and desperately needing. (3) You wrote "I suspect [he] stop[ed] writing edit summaries when he realized you weren't reading them". How writing by me the longest edit summaries could raise the suspicion that I did not read them? Where is a shred of logic in that assumption, and since when any (incl. yours) suspicion overrides the policy Help:Edit summary#Always provide an edit summary "especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors"? (4) Considering the above, do you want to provoke me, so I will make a mistake to give Kudpung กุดผึ้ง a reason to block my IP, as he threatens on my talk page and mentions in his response just above yours here? Really? If not, what is the point of your response? 2 + 2 is 4, but when you do not like someone, is not? --67.87.189.39 (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC) There is no point in continuing this discussion. 67.87.189.39's self fulfilling prophesy has worked and has been blocked according to warnings and for wasting our time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC) This is the most disgraceful and grotesque sustained attack that I have ever experienced on Wikipedia. The bizarre and torturous mindset of this individual is perfectly illustrated in the above rants. This has caused me some considerable stress. Only extreme self-control prevented me from responding hours ago. Irondome (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Adding a reference to External Links

Hi, I wanted to add an External link to Darren Aronofsky wikipedia entry. I entered: Skorin-Kapov,Jadranka (2015) Darren Aronofsky's Films and the Fragility of Hope, Lexington Books. It appeared in preview, but is not showing on the wikipedia page at https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Darren_Aronofsky Why is this so? Thank you for help! Jadranka Skorin-kapov Hatripet (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

AS far as I can tell, you previewed this but never saved the edit, at least not successfully. No such edit is in the edit history for Darren Aronofsky, and no edit to that page or indeed any article is in your contributions list, Jadranka Skorin-kapov. Perhaps there was an edit conflict that you didn't resolve, or some loss of communication the blocked the save, I can't tell. You would have to redo the edit. Note however that links to amazon.com (or any other commercial vendor) are usually not favored as reference citations, and external links other than references should generally appear only in the "External links" section. See WP:ELYES and WP:ELNO, please. DES ^(talk) 00:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

request for an expert to fix some messes that I have unintentionally created

Please excuse my incompetent efforts to propose deletion of the article Energy transfer. I tried to follow the instructions, but I just seemed to be led around and around in circles, with the sad result that I have made various messes. Please would you very kindly fix them. I wish to propose deletion of the article Energy transfer.Chjoaygame (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Manually registering an AfD can be complex. It's best to use WP:Twinkle which will automatically carry out all the various steps and transclusions. To save time, I have deleted the AfD page you created and started the process for you again on your behalf. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy transfer. As I am only involved in a purely technical capacity regarding format, I will be voting in the discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for this. It seems that you have done all that is needed to set in motion the necessary discussion of a proposal to delete the article? Chjoaygame (talk) 06:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Still Receiving RfC Notifications

As far as I am aware I have unsubscribed from all feedback request lists when I retired. However I am continuing to get notifications of RfC on my talk page which are being sent to me by email. Could someone look into it and see why legobot keeps dropping messages on my talk page? The last three all had policy and guidelines as a common denominator. But I looked again and did not see my name on the list. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

You have several options: You could leave messages at

• Wikipedia talk:Feedback request service
• User talk:Legoktm
• User talk:Legobot
• If you don't want any messages at all going to your user page you can ask me or another admin to fully protect it for you.

--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Kudpung, a user's request to have his or her own talk page protected is not a sufficient rationale to protect the page. User talk pages should only be protected in extreme circumstances. A better solution here is to use {{bots|deny=legobot}} which will prevent the bot from posting to the page while the issue is resolved. SpinningSpark 20:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

How to present the dates of a person when date of death is not known?

If we know the dates of a person for sure, we write in his article "John Smith (1848-1922)". If I don't know the date of death for sure I can use circa like in "John Smith (1848-c.1922)". But what do I write if I only know that he was still alive in 1922? Circa won't do because he could conceivably have lived for another ten or twenty years. SpinningSpark 20:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Spinningspark, See WP:APPROXDATE where the example "Robert Menli Lyon (1789 – after 1863)" is given as well as other examples relevant to this issue, including some using "fl" for "flourished". DES ^(talk) 23:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

About Tom Spahn

Resolved

I'm trying to create credible citations and references for the Tom Spahn page. I've got a section References and a section External Links, I'm confused on what the difference between them is, or if I even need one or the other or both? I think I've added in reliable sources, but they may be spread among both sections.

Any help appreciated. I don't do this very often.

Kmccall (talk) 07:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC) Ken McCall

Read the External Links Policy to see what they are and the very strict rules for what can and cannot be used as an EL. Sources used as references should not go in the EL section, but should be linked by an inline citation to a reference in the references section. Manual of Style – Layout might well give you some additional insights, too. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

My talk page

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

---

Am I permitted to ban another editor from my talk page? I seem to recall that this is allowed, or has been at some point, but I can't find chapter and verse.—S Marshall T/C 23:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@S Marshall: Yes, you are and it's common practice. Chapter and verse can be found here ;) --TMCk (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Google Plus as Publisher on links

Hi! I'm adding references to car articles but the references always have Google Plus as a the Publisher of the link although I get the links from carsguide.co.au What happens is I need to manually remove the Publisher info but what I want to know is why does Google Plus appear at all? How can I prevent it from appearing in the references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homediva (talk • contribs) 10:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@Homediva: I see you use Visual Editor and your references, e.g. in [7], include the parameter publisher = https://plus.google.com/117765394071064821584. Your url http://www.carsguide.com.au/car-reviews/skoda-octavia-used-review-2007-2014-35383 has this in the html source: <link rel="publisher" href="https://plus.google.com/117765394071064821584" />. I don't know why carsguide.com.au has that html in their pages. It may be a coding error at the website. Visual Editor's "Automatic" option for references uses it to automatically produce a publisher parameter. I guess you either have to avoid "Automatic" for that website, or manually remove the parameter afterwards. You can remove it before saving. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

removed update to bosnian pyramid "claims" page

Answered

 – . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello your "editor" instructs me to "talk" on a page similar to 1/2 an encyclopedia, devoid of a clear TALK link where it should be near the top. Difficult? This above page was edited by me AND REFERENCES SITED, but when I put the references the page had already reverted from someone who apparently has no clue that Obama and other global leaders have commended co-scientist Paul La Violette, as well as Dr. Semir Osmanagich receiving a Congressional letter of praise from his local rep in Texas. THOSE were my references, to their own website where many vids exist up to this year not ancient 2006 slander links like you have the page currently, showing scientific international conferences with the above named parties who are astonishingly well-respected scientists. Your page also fails to note that Dr. Osmanagich is a DR of archaeology and this all needs to change in light of above. Please fix updates as I am screenshotting this and will make an effort to publicize the censorship and outright lies you are allowing to stand on this subject, to instigate a boycott of wikipedia. :) (This is american, is it not??) Thanks so much and happy learning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letterhead330 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

LaViolette's bio is here. No mention of Obama. Osmanagic has a PhD in social sciences. I've read the English translation. Meh. A quote from Letterhead330's edit[8]: "The rest of this article appears to be the work of those concerned that the goldmining aspect of these pyramids and their bible-defying age, will come to public attention to the embarassment of other erroneous entities. The rest of this article is being left in its attacking state, with only the above edited by a party who has examined the evidence and determined this to be a slander page. Slander found as follows from some uncredentialled possibly jealous or embarassed party:" The edit also mentions Valery Uvarov several times. The title "head of the Department of UFO Research, Palaeosciences and Palaeotechnology of the National Security Academy of Russia" sounds impressive but the academy doesn't seem to really exist. So far as "references cited", I can only assume this means LaViolette and Uvarov who were only mentioned. Doug Weller (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Letterhead330, you'll get more help if you would read the messages and warnings on your talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Can someone else have a look?

Resolved

 – OP blocked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying to add the fact that there are historains and scholars who deny an event popularly referred to as the Armenian Genocide in the article on Turkey but think I am being misunderstood. -Dominator1453 (talk) 05:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

It appears the issue has been well discussed at Talk:Turkey#Armenian issue and there is no support for your proposed edit. A request for opinions at WP:NPOVN could be made but a quick look at the section I linked makes me think a new discussion would get the same result. Johnuniq (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Johnuniq. Then I am afraid a neutral point of view is lacking at Wikipedia. Just like the media reports, those who make the most effort to push their point of view get the final say. No worries. Dominator1453 (talk) 07:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Advice on potentially libellous article

I've started an AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Europe Trust‎, for an article which I think may contain libel. So far I've had only one response, by an uninvolved editor who only seemed interested in the subject's notability. The article's about a notable organisation, but I'm concerned about legal implications for Wikipedia: I think the whole article needs to be deleted and re-written. What's the policy on this sort of thing? Thanks, Norvoid (talk) 14:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You can reach other experienced volunteers at WP:OTRS: by emailing info-en-q@wikimedia.org . Please include both the address or title of your article and specific information on the problems you have with it. While your email will likely remain confidential, certain unforeseen circumstances, including but not limited to security breaches, subpoenas, or leaks, might compromise that confidentiality. Note that while volunteers may assist you in removing very bad data, they will not add new data for you - for such edits you need to use the talk page as described above. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

There's no need for confidentiality and emails here - isn't there some sort of review process where editors can look at an article, and see that it's an attack article in need of a complete rewrite? Is AFD the only way to do this, outside of mailing about it? Thanks, Norvoid (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

If you think problems with an article need to be fixed, go do that. If someone disagrees with you, try to come to some kind of agreement; if you can't, seek dispute resolution to get other editors involved. But the starting point is as simple as pushing that edit button. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Norvoid: AfD is not for sorting out NPOV concerns. It doesn't look like you've attempted a talk page discussion yet, which should really be the first step. It's also much too soon for WP:DR or other "next level" sort of processes. That said, I'm inclined to agree there are problems with the page. Drawing connections between individuals or organizations and terrorism is, of course, a very serious matter that requires exceptional sources and care in their use in the article. I did some cleanup, erring on the side of WP:BLP for now, until a discussion takes place on the talk page (which I've started Talk:The Europe Trust). Let's continue talking there. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Moving archives of Talk:List of YouTubers

Resolved

A few months ago, the page at List of YouTube personalities was moved to List of YouTubers; the main talk page was moved along with the article, but its archives stayed at their original titles, and they can all be accessed from here. Could someone with administrator tools move all the archives and the archive index to the new title? I could technically do this myself, but since I can't move more than one page at a time nor suppress any redirects, it would make for a messy process. That's why I'm asking for an administrator to do so. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 23:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

This has already been actioned following Eventhorizon51's post to WP:AN. For the record, this appropriate place to post the request would have been WP:RM/TR. 103.6.159.75 (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

date of birth is different

Resolved

Sreerama chandra Mynampati

Date of birth shown in google search page is wrong.

The content in the Wikipedia profile is correct.

19 January 1988 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shilpanayudu (talk • contribs) 15:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

We have no control over what shows in Google or where they obtain their information. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Mobile / Desktop loads different pages

Hello,

The HomeSlice Group Page display is confusing me. When creating the page we did not have enough sources listed so it was marked for speedy deletion. Afterwards we fixed the problems and it was removed from Speedy Deletion and I continued to edit. The problem is the mobile view still has the original problematic information. The confusing part is - when you are on your desktop and click mobile view the correct version shows up. But when you pull it up on an actual mobile device the old page (w/ page issues marked for speedy deletion) pulls up. Regardless if they are a first time visitor or not. Have tried the page cache purge several times as well - still no resolution.

Apologies if this is listed somewhere and I could not find - and Thank You in advance if you know how to resolve this. Bjurgensen (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

May I ask who are "we"? Mlpearc (open channel) 01:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

"we" = I work at the company, and listed it on the talk page to make everybody aware. Bjurgensen (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Others have noticed that something is wrong with the mobile site: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 142#en.m.wiki.x.io stuck and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Wikipedia pages and their edits are "out of date" on mobile and other devices. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Basic Income in Canada (merging)

There are two articles on Basic income in Canada. 1. Guaranteed Annual Income , 2. Basic income in Canada. They need to merge. Can someone fix that? --Mats33 (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

can you provide some reasoning for the merge. It seems that if anything GAI would merge into a section of Basic Income, however both seem to have enough coverage to warrant their own independent articles. Tiggerjay (talk) 10:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Tulio Crespi

Hola! Me dirijo a Uds para informales que en la biografía de Tulio Crespi figuran sólo 2 hijos, cuando en realidad somos 6. Si les interesa completar la información diganme que les detallo los nombres. Saludos cordiales. Flavia Crespi flacre@hotmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.104.84.192 (talk) 08:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

South-up map orientation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Resolved

Hello, I've been engaged in discussion with another editor using this article's talk page, but could use some help from a neutral 3rd party (https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:South-up_map_orientation). The disagreement involves the discussion of social psychology research relating to interpreting the significance and meaning of south-up map orientation. In the interest of full disclosure, I'm a professor of social psychology and have been involved in some research related to this topic, though this topic has been explored and replicated independently by a number of different research labs. From my perspective, research experiments relating verticality (up/down) in general to valance (good/bad) is extremely central to understanding and interpreting why south-up maps are interesting and meaningful (not "trivial"). Several of the experiments I tried to cite actually presented participants with a map oriented to have south at the top vs. south at the bottom and then measured how that influenced participants' judgments of real estate value. The other editor (Strebe) would like to summarize this section ("Psychological significance") to 1 sentence citing 1 source, and I believe 3 sentences citing 3 peer-reviewed sources would strengthen the entry. Please advise. Arlenmoller (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

This forum does not provide dispute resolution, but only advice about how to edit. If only two editors are involved, you might want to request a Third Opinion to obtain a neutral observer's opinion about the dispute. For other dispute resolution possibilities consider the various options listed in the dispute resolution policy. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Power Without Glory book

I have just written and published 'Power Without Glory' subtitled 'Racing the Big-Twin Cooper' ISBN 978-0-9943661-0-8. It is an illustrated motorsport history book.

There is already a page which says 'Power Without Glory' is a novel. There appears to be no provision to edit this to mention the new book which clearly comes under the same heading as it presently is. Could you please advise how to handle this?

Terry Wright — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsrwright (talk • contribs) 01:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The new book should have its own article with a distinguishing title (such as "Power Without Glory (nonfiction book)" or something similar). But that's only if the new book is notable which, if it's "just" been published, is pretty unlikely (though possible, and congratulations to you if you've already received that kind of coverage). You, however should not write that article or write about the book in other parts of Wikipedia, as to do so may be seen as spamming. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Improvements to Beau Burchell and referencing questions.

I recently did a bit of an adoption for the article for musician Beau Burchell and had some questions regarding referencing. He appears to be a very prolific producer and I had a question regarding referencing his credits. I can find him in the credits for all of the albums that he is listed as being involved in, and I was wondering if it was good practice to reference a source for every album. The most steady references point to either Discogs or Allmusic and I didn't want to go overboard if it wasn't necessary. It would result in a rather long reference list for a relatively short article.

Abovethestorm (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

This isn't acceptable, is it??

[9] : POV? spam? 32.218.37.10 (talk) 05:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• I wouldn't say spam, at least not right out of the gate. It looks as if someone was attempting to start an article and pasted their result in the namespace (if you look at the bullet underneath the out of place bit, you'll see "Inserted imp," which looks to me to be a botched edit summary.) That said, it very well could be spam. Benefit of the doubt is in effect as far as I am concerned but I cannot say conclusively. Regardless of intention or not, the content in the offending edit did not belong where it was placed. Good call on the revision. Abovethestorm (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Hello editors,

I have made great improvements to the stub article on Kamcord.

I have reached the limit of what I can do on my own and request help with the following three issues:

1. I am an employee of Kamcord and disclosed that I am in my talk page as advised. While I took great care to be as neutral as possible someone neutral should review my work.

2. I can't seem to get the company logo or a preview picture of the website to show up correctly in the summary on the righthand side. I think it's because my account does not have the proper permissions. Could someone add those so it looks polished?

3. I addressed many of the items in "Multiple Issues." If you feel I have done so sufficiently, could that warning section be removed by a neutral editor

Thank you for any help you can provide.

Greg Russo (talk) 07:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Overall it looks to satisfy WP:POV and the only bits that I noticed that might stick out were stylistic in nature.

1. Regarding the events of Spring 2014 and July 23, 2015 as placed in the lead section, I would personally move them down to Kamcord#History. That would be a more appropriate place for a timeline of events such as software releases. If you can, I would expand them to the point where they warrant their own subsection under "History" to give the article more content and perhaps take it out of WP:STUB.

2. A couple of your references are lacking a title= attribute, which you could add to allow the URL to look tidier (example: the yclist link could be titled as whatever yclist actually is.)

I'm not an expert by any means, just adding to the discussion. Also, I removed that multiple issues tag for you. Abovethestorm (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Update - I added those title= attributes I mentioned above. If you are having trouble finding something to use, a view of the source code of the site gives an easily copy and paste friendly link title within the <title></title> tags, which is a method I use fairly often. Abovethestorm (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Two Editors Using Disruptive Editing and Ad Hominem Attacks

Editors Sir Joseph (talk · contribs) and Debresser (talk · contribs) are ganging up to bully their viewpoints by reverting others edits without waiting for consensus. They engage in ad hominem attacks, do not engage in assuming good faith,and make sweeping dismissive comments without saying anything of substance, sometimes without bothering to read what has already been posted. They cite WP help pages incorrectly and engage in disruptive editing, as well as biting the newcomers. But most importantly, they are reverting helpful edits and accusing others of edit wars before waiting for consensus. Here: Talk:List of notable former Orthodox Jews and here: Off the derech. I reported this on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and was referred to here. Lokshin kugel (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

You might want to point out that you reported us to WP:ANI and were summarily shot down for not using the talk page and reverting without consensus. You are really asking for a boomerang and block as per SPA and OWN and COI and all the other three letter policies. I suggest you cool down a bit before things get really out of control and you are indef blocked. I understand you feel deeply about this topic, but that is why you need to take a step back from this topic. You can't just edit emotionally. Also, WP:NOTHERE and where is my ad hominem attack? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Please also don't forget your problems with WP:CONSENSUS, WP:OWN, WP:EDIT WAR and WP:BRD. In other words, that you're an edit warrior, who is not afraid to go against consensus based on good arguments on a talkpage, who is much too close to the issue of the articles he is editing, and thinks he owns them because he recently created or expanded them. Debresser (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Due to lack of editor assistance on this page, I have moved this request to the Dispute Resolution page. Lokshin kugel (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Air New Zealand Flt 901 crash 1979

I was intimately involved in the recovery operations and attempted to add to the body of knowledge about this aircraft accident. My input was in two sections: Recovery and Memorials narratives.

I got a notice from reborn22 that my entries were struck due to not being "constructive." When I attempted rebuttal with her I could not find a forum and got lost in a bunch of confusing personal emails and declarations about her life...I think...like I said very confusing and not contact point found.

Please advise how an eye witness contribution to a world renowned aircraft crash in Antarctica in 1979 could not be "constructive."

I also attempted to create a Wikipedia account to no avail. Thank You. 17:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)173.197.158.9 (talk)T. A. Green

Thanks for trying to improve Wikipedia, unfortunately Wikipedia needs to use reliable references and in wikipedia terms you are not a reliable source unless your eye witness account has been published or reported on in a newspaper or journal. That said it would do no harm to explain what you want to add on the article talk page and other editors familiar with the topic could help. MilborneOne (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The added content was neither controversial nor contentious and is unlikely to be contested, if we were to insist it be sourced then we would need a source for every sentence in the article. That said, however, the detail is minor, is not strictly encyclopedic, and does not necessarily enhance the article's report of the aircraft incident or its conclusions; eye-winess accounts are usually to be found on other kinds of websites. Nevertheless, Flyer22 Reborn was most likely mistaken when they labelled your edits as vandalism.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Help with revisions

Hi,

I need help updating a page to this: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Lucy_Hanna&direction=prev&oldid=697980432

That includes supporting links with additions. Can you correct and update for me?

Thank you!

• It looks as if the article has been cleaned up already by Melcous, Materialscientist, and Titusfox. If yiu wish to discuss these edits please use the article talk page and call other users to the attention of it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Need some input on this talk page post

Resolved

Is this kind of message appropriate for an article talk page? I don't think it is because it does not seem to bring up any concerns about the page, and it seems to be more about the editor than the article. I want input from administrators on this matter. If I chose the wrong forum to put this in, let me know. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

This is, indeed, the wrong place to seek administrator comment. AN or ANI is the place to get administrator comments, with AN being more for advice and ANI being more for complaints; in either case be sure to carefully read the instructions first. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

What is the appropriate avenue to resolve a dispute over a dispute tag?

Resolved

The neutrality of an article is in dispute at Veganism. Other editors are refusing to even allow a dispute tag added to the top of the article in question, while simultaneously engaging in the dispute on the talk page. What is the most appropriate avenue to settle a dispute, over the addition of a dispute tag? Zippy268 (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest you be guided by the comment on the article talk page by one of our most experienced editors (admin, 145,000 edits, been around for 12 years...). If you can't accept that, then call other contributors to the discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

That user is a user that is involved in the dispute. I would prefer a neutral party. I guess what I was intending to ask is "what is the appropriate avenue to call other contributors to the discussion, over a dispute over a dispute tag?". Thanks! Zippy268 (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The appropriate avenue to call more editors to a discussion is request for comments (Third Opinion does something vaguely similar, though without contributing to consensus, but is unavailable in this case due to the number of editors involved). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion which does not appear in edit diffs

Resolved

Militia occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof deleted material from the Escalation subsection of the article, but this deletion does not show up in the diffs. Here is one diff https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Militia_occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge&diff=698938715&oldid=698937599 and here is the next diff https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Militia_occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge&diff=next&oldid=698938715. You can see that an entire relevant, reliably sourced and NPOV sentence and supporting citation disappeared and that it does not appear in the second diff. I've never seen this happen before. It looks like a "stealth deletion". Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you need to take a closer look at the diffs, because the sentence you refer to is certainly present in this diff after my edits, which did not remove that sentence. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The sentence you refer to was rewritten by another editor in this edit. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I see, my apologies. The edit which actually deleted it was shown as adding material and the only deletion edit shown was yours. My mistake! Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Janet Burroway

I was dismayed to see that someone has flagged my Wikipedia article as being prejudiced in my favor and more detailed than some readers would find interesting. (I was glad, a little surprised, to see that someone has added to the bibliography three of the four books I published in 2014.) The complaints seem to be made on the same day, so probably by the same person. The article was originally written by someone who had interviewed me for a magazine, but not a personal friend. I don't at all mind if the article is made more "neutral" by someone at Wikipedia, but it is alarming and shaming to be publicly flagged in this way. Can you tell me how I can get the article "corrected" and the complaints removed? Thanks.Jburroway (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Janet Burroway

Article improvement tags are not a badge of shame for either the article or for the subject of the article. (Indeed, the number of articles here which have one or more is staggering; there are almost 20,000 articles which are tagged with one or more of the issues tagged on your page.) I note that experienced editor TeriEmbrey has spent some time working on your article and in one of the later edits said, "removed essay tag -- article still needs work on other issues though". I'm pinging her so that she can help you understand why the remaining tags are there and perhaps work towards resolving those issues. If she cares to do so, please have that discussion at the article talk page, not here. If she does not care to do so, you can make specific edit requests on the article talk page. Put each in a new section and start it with this code on a line by itself: {{Edit request}} However, you'll need to provide specific fixes. A request only that the article needs to be improved probably won't be answered since those tags are already posted at a list (of thousands of articles) which need fixes. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: @Jburroway: I've been working on editing the article as time allows. I'll put some more work into this article this afternoon. TeriEmbrey (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, TransporterMan. I feel better, will wait to see what's needed, if anything, from me. Jburroway (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)JBurroway

@TransporterMan: @Jburroway: I did some heavy editing of the article yesterday afternoon and this morning. While I was editing it, the article was hit with more maintenance tags for citations needed, etc. I've tried to correct those, but there are a few paragraphs lacking citations from published sources. If I find appropriate citations, I will add them. Please take a look at the article and, if you have comments or suggestions for improvement, leave them on the article's talk page. It may be ready for an assessment upgrade on its accompanying talk page, too. TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I was following this accompanied by the vain hope that I might find time to contribute a bit to the cleanup. I found no such time but realize it doesn't matter, because the job undertaken on the page has been very nice. It was a good bit of a mess before and is now a credible Wikipedia page. Well done. JohnInDC (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Honorific nicknames in popular music.

Resolved

https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Honorific_nicknames_in_popular_music&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop

Eminem not mentioned. Edit request: Eminem: crowned "King of Hip Hop" (by the Rolling Stone) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.21.176 (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I see that you've now placed an edit request on the talk page of the article. That's the proper method. Now that you've provided sources set the "answered" parameter on your edit request back to "no". Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Inline citation

Resolved

I am genuinely confused about the subject of inline citation, in a case where information for an article is largely provided by the organisation which is the subject of the page. Being required to cite other media sources, eg local newspapers (dodgy at best), often cannot be done, particularly when reciting a history of which only the members of the organisation have a complete knowledge. I appreciate that self-provision of information provides questionable authenticity, but how else is this to be done? Is there a provision for satisfying this need for authentication by clearly stating that all the info has been provided by the subject of the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobinWiseman (talk • contribs) 17:20, 13 January 2016‎ (UTC)

You say, "how else is it to be done?" If it cannot be done then the organization should not have an article about it because it is not notable for Wikipedia's purposes. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not just a collection of random articles and facts. We do not have a staff of paid editors who determine what subjects are and are not important enough to be included. At the same time, we recognize that our encyclopedic purpose needs to exclude unimportant subjects. We instead have the Notability guideline (click on the link in the last sentence to see the Notability guideline for organizations) to determine importance. Any subject which is important enough to have an article here ought to be important enough to have generated some coverage, beyond passing mentions and publication of press notices, in third party sources which meet Wikipedia's test of reliability. Please be sure to sign your talk page posts with four tildes like this: ~~~~ Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Best place to open generalised discussion of issues found in multiple "Files for Discussions"

Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2016_January_19 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

To cut a long story short, User:Marchjuly has opened a number of "Files for Discussion" including several I wanted to reply to.

The same basic rationale appears in numerous discussions on that page alone, and whatever side one takes on the arguments given, it's not workable (nor sensible!) to make virtually the same argument for each entry on a file-by-file basis.

As this would be better distilled to the underlying key issues then discussed as a general interpretation of policy, I'm wondering where the best place to start that would be? Thanks for any help. Ubcule (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, this is just something that's unavoidable with the current system. There is a mechanism to do a mass nomination, but it's not compulsory to my knowledge, and in many deletion processes can work against the nom's goals when there are underlying substantive differences in each case (as appears to be the case here). I'm not going to say it's fair, but you're going to be best served by hashing it out at the individual deletion discussions, in much the same way as you appear to have done, by reference to your rationale at other discussions. And if you wish to discuss the underlying rationale as a matter of Wikipedia policy, the venues to do so would be Wikipedia talk:Non-free content (first choice) and Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion (second choice). However, that wouldn't result in the FFDs being suspended or held in abeyance. I can't tell you what the likely outcome will be, but it seems likely that since you're dealing with video game screenshots, the nuances of the non-free content criteria have already been explored and rationales for deletion are pretty well entrenched. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

That's some very useful info, thank you! I'll definitely take a look at raising this at the Non-free Content talk page (as you mention) when I have time.

Thanks again! Ubcule (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

What to do about a user that hides from discussion?

First, I can't really discuss this with the other user because they "hide" their talk page! ["Rbreen talk history"]

Looking through that, you can see the user has a history of blanking and redirecting any discussion. I made note of this in the talk page after I found that users where posting to another user's talk page because Rbreen had tried to hide by redirecting discussion to an unsuspecting user. This had happened many times before - Rbreen picked someone with a similar name - route comments directed to Rebreen over to that user, that user would find out, then Rbreen would find someone else.

Normally this wouldn't be an issue, but Rbreen typically makes a lot of controversial edits to religious pages and I'd like to discuss some of those issues. And since Rbreen did not comment on any of the article talk discussions for a particular article that was involved in an edit war, I wanted to follow procedure and post a comment on their user talk - which I was tricked in to posting on Rbrohm's user talk! (see the history there, as I cleaned it up)

Is level of chicanery acceptable? Am I handling this situation correctly? Cpflieger (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I restored Rbreen's user talk page and informed him that WP:UP indicates that the redirect is inappropriate. I'm not sure what exactly was going on with the redirects to Rbroen and Rbrohm, but I can't really say it's deliberate versus a weird mistake. Anyhow, if Rbreen won't discuss at his own user talk page, you should just try to initiate discussion at the relevant article talk pages. If Rbreen continues to ignore discussion and boldly edit, and ignores notifications at his user talk page, then we might have a case ripe for administrative intervention. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Cpflieger: You might find the advice at Responding to a failure to discuss to also be useful. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Seeking information on where to report abusive, uncivil and unproductive behavior

I am quite new at Wikipedia, although an avid user for some time. I studied for some months to understand Wikicode and am eager to contribute. I wished to bring the fruits of my several diplomas and languages to Wikipedia's amazing achievements. I participated in a discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joey Bond. Biruitorul made for a bickering, time-wasting, unproductive atmosphere that I certainly didn't expect. I want to report this incivility. According to Biruitorul, because I am new means that my reasoning to 'Keep' the Joey Bond article from deletion doesn't count, for I am already deemed a lowly "single account user". On the same page, other just plain rudeness and incivility ensued towards users Checkingfax and Corinne. Kindly inform me where to report this. Many thanks. With much appreciation, cordially, User:Jbeaton5 Jbeaton5 --Jbeaton5 10:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I haven't done any deep investigation because this is not the forum for it. The place to make complaints is at WP:ANI but you'll need to be pretty sure of your facts and back them up with diffs, and that the issue requires admin intervention. Personally, from what I saw there, it would probably not be in the community's interest to spend time on at ANI. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Kudpung. I very much appreciate your perfectly clear explanation. Perhaps I overreacted. Sensitivity is a question of degree, like many things. I will refrain from pursuing ANI; as you so correctly say, it is not in the in the community's interest. Again, I very much appreciate your time and attention. Jbeaton5 Jbeaton5 07:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Kudpung and any (talk page stalker). Just for the record, I did bristle at being labeled SPA/Canvassed and being lumped in likewise with several editors that I look up to. I did do some digging and Biruitorul has a chronic edit record of nominating an average of 5 Romanian articles for discussion (AfD) every month endlessly and getting shot down on most of them. This is toxic to the project and a waste of our limited editorial resources. Article Joey Bond has issues, but they are fixable. It is not your average crap article that deserves deletion discussion. Natalie.Desautels who was the initial author of the article wears her feelings on her sleeve and makes herself an easy target for serial AfD nominators. But she does not quibble, she takes action to address all issues raised regarding any room for improvement in articles that she puts her shoulder to. I do not see much WP:Alternatives to deletion (ATD) going on here, and that is a WP:Policy. There is also WP:Before which is also a POLICY (not a mere guideline or essay). There are a lot of junk articles on the Wikipedia and Joey Bond is not one of them. Deletion discussion is premature. Paging Jbeaton5. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 13:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax Excellent comments which make such good sense! Jbeaton5 --Jbeaton5 07:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Jbeaton5 I am more concerned with the issue Checkingfax raised, that Biruitorul is engaging in a pattern of nominating a certain type of article for discussion leading to possible deletion, unnecessarily wasting other editors' time, than I am with his style of communication. I see that s/he does not go out of his way to be polite or conciliatory, and is rather abrupt in his/her comments, and expressed unwarranted implications about several of us, but I don't think his comments rise to the level of uncivility that you should pursue sanctions for it at ANI. I also do not like incivility, but there are many other editors who are much less civil than this editor. In your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joey Bond, at 07:15 on 21 January, you quoted both Biruitorul and PRehse and criticized the tenor of their comments. I did not think they were being uncivil. They could have been more cordial, but I think they were expressing their points of view in a fairly normal way. When Biruitorul said "There's precious little in the way of independent sources here", s/he was saying that there were hardly any independent sources in the article". When s/he said, "Romanian Roma don't have such names", s/he was just expressing an opinion. When PRehse said that "The article itself smells of over promotion", s/he was suggesting that there was a touch of overpromotion in the article, as if the writer were promoting the virtues of the person and perhaps also his CDs and DVDs, and, if true, that would be against Wikipedia policy. See WP:PROMOTION. S/He was not saying that the article, or the article's writer, smelled, he was saying that the article might be close to violating a WP policy, and so was something that needed looking at. You can see that I support keeping the article, and I agree completely with Checkingfax, but I don't think you have a strong enough case for incivility to warrant taking it to ANI. Corinne (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Corinne Your explanation gives me perceptive and is much appreciated. With this new understanding, I do agree that there is not an incivility case here strong enough for solicitation to ANI. Thank you so much. You have set a wonderful example for me; I look forward to being a contributing participant in Wikipedia's editorial resources. Jbeaton5 --Jbeaton5 07:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Jbeaton5 That's great! Corinne (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete my name from the internet

I found my name in the internet: Norbert W. Knoll-Dornhoff I have no connection with wikipedia. Please delete my name from the internet within 48 hours, otherwise I'll involve my Lawiers. N.W. Knollvon Dornhoff [email redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.59.179.79 (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No legal threats. Wikipedia is large but only a tiny part of the Internet. Please link to the page(s) you refer to. If you mean KnollvDornhoff or Norbert W. Knoll-Dornhoff - Austrian Economist then they were both deleted yesterday. They may still appear in external search engines like Google until the search engines discover the pages have been deleted. We have no control over that. People do not have the right to decide whether they are mentioned in Wikipedia, but inappropriate mentions can be removed. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: see this (or you could do it). Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I have also deleted the user page. I think that was all the content on Mr Knoll-Dornhoff we had. Deleting the name itself - say the signature here - seems unreasonable. Huon (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

O.K. I agree with this solution. I have opened a German "Benutzer Seite" unter Norbert Wilhelm Knoll-Dornhoff. I would be grateful if an wiki expert could review it and advise me as to how it can be an article. Kind regards, Norbert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norbert Wilhelm Knoll-Dornhoff (talk • contribs) 15:04, 24 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Norbert, Wikipedia quite strongly discourages people from writing about themselves, due to the conflict of interest. A quick look in Google does suggest to me that you may well qualify for having a Wikipedia article written about you, as it appears that you may well have notability. If you have already got something written that could form a starting point, and it is in a fairly neutral tone, you should probably visit the articles for creation process, where you can submit it as a draft to be reviewed. If you don't already have something, then you should visit the requested articles process. In both cases, please provide any and all links you have to good independent reliable sources, which can be used to both verify your notability, and assist in shaping the article's content. N.B. no matter which route you go down, you will not have editorial control over the article; your feedback and comments are most welcome, and Wikipedians will do their upmost to try to keep the article neutral, fair, and balanced, which includes taking your views on it into account. Murph9000 (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Ahhh, I had a thought after posting this, and did a quick check. It seems that you have already been working on de:Norbert Wilhelm Knoll-Dornhoff as de:User:Norbert Wilhelm Knoll-Dornhoff. If you are most comfortable working in German, you should probably conclude the first work and negotiations on the article over there on German Wikipedia. Once the German language article is reasonably stable and complete, and the other editors on German Wikipedia are happy with it, we can translate the article for English Wikipedia. Please feel free to leave a note, perhaps at requested articles, when the article is ready for translation. Murph9000 (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Using wikilinks for film info

Resolved

Note a number of section tags for Elaine_May#Film_career and beyond. Those sections are about films she was involved in and link to the film articles which support the commentary. The question is also about the Filmography section, which is a bare list of linked movies. Can it be necessary to find another source for each of the films? Note Elizabeth Taylor filmography and most others, which don't have a source for each film. See also May's talk page.--Light show (talk) 05:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The fact of being in the films themselves usually do not require extensive citation. I believe filmography sections are given a lot of leeway, and where the list of films/works is also a list of articles, we kind of think of each entry in the list as a summary style entry. As to that particular article's tags... I think part of the issue is not so much that the film career section doesn't provide citations for the appearances, but the commentary that is in those sections (e.g., "Director May originally submitted an ambitious 180-minute work..." needs a citation). I would also argue that those sections, or perhaps the entire article, should be tagged for WP:TONE/WP:PEACOCK violations, or at least badly needing citations: "a sophisticated, now-cult black comedy"; "an ambitious 180-minute work"; "critically lauded and modestly popular"; "even more notorious disaster"; "enormous cost overruns"; "one of the biggest cinematic disasters of all time". That's just one subsection. These are all things that need citations, attributions, and probably qualification (e.g., what is an "enormous" cost overrun?). Really, the article does need work. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

One_Direction

Resolved

It is currently saying that Harry Styles has left One Direction, which is not true. It's not confirmed at all, so I'd appreciate it if you would take him down off of the past members list. Thank you!

Appears to have been corrected already by another editor. Please note that this forum is for advice on how to edit, not to edit on your behalf. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, so if you see a problem, fix it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 06:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Factual accuracy dispute

Resolved

I am having a dispute with another editor on List of tallest buildings in Miami. A factual accuracy dispute had been on this page since October 2014. A lot of work has gone into editing this page since then, updating every source. We have discussed it on the talk page, Talk:List of tallest buildings in Miami factual accuracy dispute]] after which I removed the tag. In terms of the tallest buildings there is no better source than the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) and The Skyscraper Center is the official online database for the CTBUH. Most other tallest buildings in other cities use Emporis and other websites. I have done as much as possible to update this list and double check sources, citing both CTBUH and Emporis. The dispute seems to be only that the other editor (B137) disagrees with the source. When asked he came up with what sounds to me like some fringe theory about the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The FAA does not have a database for heights of buildings and no other list of tallest buildings sites FAA data. In the past he has posted original research and deleted sources disagreed with. We have also discussed this at length on the talk page section 'Overhaul', in which B137 was for using CTBUH as the main source. While I agree that no source in infallible, Wikipedia requires verifiable sources, and the CTBUH is it. When/if the sources adjust their data then we can change it in the article. I explained that if there is disagreement about one entry in the list it could be cited (and has), but that's no reason to dispute the accuracy of the entire article. B137 again placed the Factual Accuracy Dispute tag (from October 2014) on the page. I would like B137, and any other editor, to add to the article, help update and improve it. Just tagging it as disputed because he doesn't like the source seems like possible vandalism.? Can another editor or Admin please remove the dispute tag now? 1305cj (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

This forum is for advice about how to edit, not to request edits to be performed on your behalf. Feel free to remove the tag yourself and if you are reverted, follow bold, revert, discuss. If the discussion becomes stalemated, after being thoroughly discussed, consider dispute resolution or, perhaps first, if there is a question over reliability of sources, seek advice at Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Two points, however, about the tag: First, article improvement tags are not considered to be badges of shame, so the tag remaining on the article does no harm and, second, there clearly is a dispute (else you would not have come here) so the tag appears to be appropriate at this time. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess that wasn't clear, the page said this was for requesting advice, feedback... about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and how they may apply to the issue or situation, not just "how" to edit. Guess I did make a request though. I've been through the bold/revert/discuss cycle already, don't want to continue and risk edit warring. Wikipedia requires verifiable, reliable sources. The list has that. So the dispute is not with facts or data in the article, it's a dispute between editors about if the accuracy dispute tag is needed. Facts aren't being disputed, only original research and fringe theories. So while the tag isn't a "badge of shame" it's being used more like vandalism by mislabeling and discrediting the entire article because his fringe theory wasn't accepted. 1305cj (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Speculation about the Future

I edit on many energy and technology articles and I focus on how the world is now. I constantly run into statements in articles that say things like "we can generate enough power from wave energy to power all of the worlds domestic, industrial and transportation uses" there is no mention that we can't do this now or that the statement is from a theoretical study about a hypothetical future. While I accept the technical possibility, the economic, political and practical aspects of this kind of content turn it into science fiction. This sort of material peppers articles in such a way that the reader can't tell the fact from the fiction. I doubt that any other encyclopedic work would have this issue.

I'm not succeeding on talk pages with this issue, the Sci-Fi fans are numerous.

So my question - is there any policy guideline that covers these future speculations. Is there any mandate even to separate them from the current facts in an article? Dougmcdonell (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

If a speculation or prediction comes from a reliable source, it's usually ok to include it. Future predictions published by newspapers, magazines and books are everywhere. If a statement is obviously some editor's opinion, you can either add a "citation needed" tag or just delete the comment with a summary statement, such as "unsourced speculation." --Light show (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

pls see WP:SPECULATION -- Moxy (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Light show and Moxy, I appreciate the your comments and the links. Gives me some studying to do. Dougmcdonell (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft denial

Draft:Gestalt Pastoral Care (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Feb. 4, 2016

Hello! Back in October 2015 a submission titled Draft: Gestalt Pastoral Care was denied by Wikipedia. I understand the reasons. My organization's problem is that we don't have any other published third party sources at this time to beef up our article. Could you please give me some suggestions about how Gestalt Pastoral Care (a nonprofit organization) could proceed in completing an acceptable Wikipedia article? The organization has grown from a grass-roots level since the 1970s. It is mainly the birth child of its founder, Tilda Norberg. Therefore the previously published information/articles about Gestalt Pastoral Care (the subject matter for the wiki page) is written by Tilda, and thus the problem with having neutral, third party sources in our bibliography. Suggestions?

Thank you, Alison — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.234.209.139 (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2016‎ (UTC)

I am afraid that the answer is, without that third-party material available, we cannot accept an article on that subject at all. We do require such material in order to ensure neutrality. Of course if in the future substantial amounts of independent and reliable material are published about the organization, an article would be possible at that time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: This is a cross-post of WP:AFCHD#16:28:30, 4 February 2016 review of submission by GestaltPastoralCareGrow. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The thing you need to realize is that Wikipedia is not a public relations platform on which any group or person is entitled to maintain an article about itself for the purposes of increasing its visibility. We're an encyclopedia, on which the availability of third-party reliable sources about a topic is the base criterion that has to be met for that topic to qualify for an article. Lots of people and groups don't satisfy our inclusion criteria — not because we're being unfair to them, but because it's not our purpose or role to be an all-inclusive promotional directory of every single group that exists at all. We don't grant non-profit groups an exemption from our inclusion standards just because they're doing good work — helping groups increase their public profile because they haven't already gotten enough press coverage to get into an encyclopedia the normal way isn't what we're here for. So if those sources don't exist by your own admission, then the organization just can't be on here yet. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: The draft has now been speedily deleted per G11. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

YogaSlackers

Resolved

 – Article speedily deleted as copyvio. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

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

To me, this article reads like an advertisement, but I'd really like a second opinion before tagging it or making any changes. Thoughts? Rasimmons (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Glad I could have the input. Rasimmons (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

What's worse, all the revisions contain copied-pasted text from a variety of sources—mostly the subject's website. I've tagged it for speedy deletion accordingly. While much of it has been cleared out, even the current revision contains copyvio text. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, the games we play... Rasimmons (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

If there's a lesson here it's that anytime you see a newish article that's iffy in terms of promotional language, it can be enormously productive to run a copyvio check (I love Earwig's Copyvio Detector). This is especially true of the first revision of an article (i.e., before the copied text gets wikified). Far too often, rehabbing a promotional article that doesn't clearly qualify for G11 gives us something that's just a derivative work of a copyvio. Sometimes you can use {{copyvio-revdel}} to just slice out the copyvio revisions, but in this case every single revision has some copied text. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, good catch. I took out everything that seemed overtly promotional but did not consider the obvious inference, which is that material that sounds like it came from a brochure or web site might've, you know, come from a brochure or website - thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I asked some more experienced editors rather than make any edits myself. I didn't know how to check for copy-pasting, but it's good to know now. Rasimmons (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Tsunesaburō Makiguchi

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

Even though I have retired from en.wikipedia this edit has caught my attention [10]. In the talk page the reasons for the edit has been given as follows: [11]. Besides the fact that the edit as such is purely POV it also defies logic. How can a group founded in the twentieth century predate a group originally founded in the late nineteenth century?? Besides that the edit deletes well-resourced material. The reason for me turning to this noticeboard is that I am officially banned from articles relating to Nichiren Buddhism. For that reason I decided to retire … none the less I fear that certain articles on the subject are being white washed yet again. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Moved from WT:EAR. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Eurotophobia

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

I must again request assistance from this board, as I don't want to step on toes, but feel like I ought to do something. The aforementioned page has multiple issues with sourcing, and I feel as if it would work much better as a simple dictionary article (maybe at Wiktionary). The subject is plainly not notable or sourceable enough to provide any useful information to readers, in my opinion. Looking on the article's talk page, it seems that it was already nominated for a deletion, and through the arbitrator's "fuzzy math", the decision was to move the article instead, which it appears was not done either. Should something be done? R. A. Simmons ^Talk 01:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Flow-Based Programming primary-inline tags

Flow-based programming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I don't understand the reasoning behind the "primary-inline" tags added to this article, and am wondering if they can now be removed. There is a fuller description on the Flow-Based Programming Talk page. Jpaulm (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The talk page does exist, even though it is shown in red! Jpaulm (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Link fixed to make talk page link work. (With {{La}}, article title must be exact.) The tags are proper because to say, "Stevens wrote several articles describing and supporting the FBP concept, and included material about it in several of his books." Wikipedia policy requires a source under the Verifiability policy which actually says that; to look at his writings, analyze or count them, and make that assertion violates the No original research policy. Frankly, that paragraph is subject to being removed altogether as not being reliably sourced with proper sources. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the "talk" link! I am wondering if the problem is simply that this technology was not called "FBP" when Wayne wrote his books. If this is the problem, could we not simply add a clause saying something like "...in several of his books, using the earlier name "Data Flow". This earlier name is given in the preceding History paragraph, so I thought it was obvious! Maybe not?! Alternatively, if the issue is that we need actual quotes from Wayne's books, unfortunately I only have two of them in my possession. I don't seem to have the Byte article, so I have no objection to dropping the reference to it, and including his book "Using Structured Design" instead (which is in my web site bibliography). In "Software Design - Concepts and Methods", he has a whole appendix describing DFDM, an early FBP implementation for the IBM S/370. In the other book ("Using Structured Design"), he has a number of references to Data Flow. Are you saying that I (actually it will have to be someone else, as I am banned from changing this article) should include actual quotes from Wayne's books, or would my above suggestion about including the earlier name be sufficient? If either is the right action, could I ask someone to make the necessary changes? TIA Jpaulm (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

If the fact that he mentioned it in "several books" is important enough to include in the article, then there should be an independent reliable source which says "several books" which can be cited to support the statement. If you try to cure it by quoting his individual books or even saying something like "he mentioned it in [Book Title A], [Book Title B], and [Book Title C]," which is a statement which can legitimately be sourced by those books as primary sources, then you start running into the problem of whether that level of detail gives undue weight to the fact that it was mentioned in those books. The question of what it was called when he wrote the books is an entirely different problem which I've not addressed until now and did not play a part in what I've said up until now. If it is well-established in the article through reliable sources that what he called it is the same thing as FBP, then there shouldn't be a problem. If, however, that fact is not established through reliable sources, then to say (or imply or take for granted) that what he was talking about is the same thing as FBP may be prohibited original research even if it is generally accepted in that discipline that it is the same thing, unless the process that he describes (i.e. disregarding the name that he calls it) is undeniably the same thing as FBP. Finally, let me note that the simplest remedy for you might just be to leave it as it is with the tags in place. There doesn't seem to be anyone working to remove the material (and I'm not going to do it) and it doesn't seem to be all that controversial. It could remain there in the current state forever under those circumstances. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your very clear and complete answer - I think what you suggest is definitely the simplest solution! I was worried that these tags would trigger some kind of review process, but it sounds like that isn't a big concern. Thanks again! Jpaulm (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Structuring content with a conflict of interest

Hi there,

Let me start by say I have a conflict of interest, I'm not a PR person but I do work for the company who makes the thing I'm talking about!

The article in question is: ThumbSat

The initial article was written by another user after this user had contacted us by email. When I saw the page my opinion was that the article wasn't clearly about either the company or the satellite (since both have the same name). I attempted to rewrite the article to make it about the satellite and bring it in line with other satellite pages such as Envisat (I used that one as a sort of template). I'm aware of the guidelines on conflict of interest but I intentionally tried to keep the article neutral and reference other sources for each statement. I asked about how I should reference my conflict of interest on the help [page] and the responding editor reverted the page back to the original.

I'm not hear to complain about either the original author or the editor; I need assistance on why my edit wasn't up to scratch? Was it purely due to my conflict of interest (and if so is that prejudice appropriate? my understanding is the guidelines are only.. well... guidelines).

Many thanks,

FraserJamesRobinson (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Main thing that caught my eye about the reverted edits was the phrase "turnkey solution". Those two words alone are about as strong an indicator you can get that something's a promotional edit. See WP:SOLUTION for the Wikipedia community's general attitude towards the business use of "solution". You also appear to have removed material that was critical (or not glowingly positive) of the company or satellite (or both); specifically cost information and questions on when the satellites would be launched. That's also a red flag re: promotional editing. There was also a question raised, not so much about a simple COI question, but about whether your contributions constituted "paid editing" within the meaning of the Wikimedia Foundation's TOS. I'm not so sure that's a problem here, but you should understand that Wikipedia has a very strong community... shall we say... concern when it comes to affiliated editors making edits containing buzzwords and removing critical material. I'm not suggesting that's inappropriate either, just what the status quo is. Honestly, your best bet when dealing with articles about a company you work for is to make requests at the talk page (i.e., Talk:ThumbSat) for non-controversial changes (using {{Request edit}} to signal an editor to make the change). Potentially controversial edits shouldn't be done without discussion with other editors. Part of the problem, and why we discourage affiliated editors from directly editing articles where they have a conflict of interest is because very often their edits are done without the experience necessary to understand our community standards. The WP:SOLUTION problem is a case in point: It's not immediately obvious to most that Wikipedia prefers not to use that sense of "solution". Adding a conflict of interest to the process just makes the learning curve even steeper. Of course, some editors will persistently make promotional edits even after understanding our community standards, but I believe most transgressions are unintentional. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. So moving forward here (there are other issues with the original author have a conflict of interest by being a direct competitor, but I'm looking for a resolution as opposed to more issues) is there any method by which I can edit my previous input to include details (like cost of the satellite etc.) and remove stuff that you have suggested (like the 'turnkey' etc.). The current page structure doesn't really follow the structure of pages about satellites and it's a bit unclear about the purpose of the page (company or satellite). Of course I could revert back to my changes and then edit the page but I don't want to do that without some oversight at this point. Once the page has been set up (and moved away from the current page which is quiet misleading on some aspects) I'll then continue to request edits in the talk page. Does all of this sound reasonable? Would it be a good idea to move this page to a draft (I think that's possible - I've read so many Wikipedia pages on rules and regs. that I'm getting a bit overrun) that way we can revert to my edit, and then have someone fully review the article and make sure there's no inappropriate text. I'm also a little concern that all the references at the moment are from press releases (which is all that's possible at the moment) does that suggest the page shouldn't exist at all? FraserJamesRobinson (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@FraserJamesRobinson: Listing the price of the satellite is promotional (and wouldn't be allowed) and not encyclopedic. Remember this is an encyclopedia not a billboard site. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mlpearc That is the reason I didn't list the price of the satellite in my edits. I didn't want to make the page seem like I'm trying to sell anything or advertise the sale of the satellites. I'm really out of my element here, so if one of you Wikipedia experts tell me to list the price I'm happy to, otherwise I'm happy to no include it (for reference here's my initial proposed changes: [[12]].FraserJamesRobinson (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, just goes to show you it can be complex at times. Me, I could go either way on leaving the cost in, since it strikes me as a matter relevant to the whole "cost of entry into space exploration" issue... but traditionally, we don't have price lists and the like in Wikipedia articles. So I'd probably defer to Mlpearc's opinion. Just bear in mind that this happens even where there isn't a COI concern. I imagine if you were to have used the edit request template and just asked for the price info to be removed, though, it probably would've been taken out. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Also to answer your question about whether there should even be an article... I'd say you're okay. Might be a little iffy at the moment, but one more news feature would push you over the edge to definitely notable. The Wired and Discovery News stories are sorta treated as the same since they seem to have been triggered by the same press release/cycle. The Make coverage looks just like a press release reprint. So... yeah kinda iffy. But like I say, one (preferably two) news features would make things secure. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

help for creating template and title boxes

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

i need urgent help because i ceated a article by seeing its original and the box from original is not coming — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dileep kurapati (talk • contribs) 05:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I have restored the redirect per the previous AfD on this subject. There's no indication of new notability for this subject under WP:PORNBIO, and given she seems to have retired it is unlikely she will become notable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The Vamps Discography at Promotional Singles & Soundtrack Singles or Soundtrack

Resolved

Hi Wikipedia

I am Excellent researcher looking into My Favorite Topic Bands & Artists. I am always updating to date with New Music that are being released from the Albums that has just come out.

I have added about roughly 50 changes to wikipedia on New Music that is on Youtube Not on Wikipedia.

On Wikipedia Editing I have Fix Things & I don't Ruin Adding New Stuff, I get stuck Sometimes when I add something like a singles for a example and doesn't gone as panned When that is different and like adding the new releases onto the Singles in the Years Shown.

My Question is I have researched A band Called the Vamps for a long Time Now and a lot of People is Keep Editing My New Added Stuff which is True, that I have found on the Internet.

What I found is That There are 3 Promotional Singles & That's It Which are 1. Dangerous from the Meet the Vamps Album is a Promotional Single & 2. What I found is that The Music Video for Cheater is a Promotional Single Not a Single & also 3. Stolen Moments is a Promotional Single from the Album. All Three of these Should have there own Table with the Year With It.

A Promotional is/ Means it is a free download from the Album for the Band or Artist is giving away But It is Not A Single & a Difference also to SOUNDTRACKS as well Okay. If you don't know the difference then have a look at the Internet, I did and There is a Difference Okay.

And Also there should be a Different Table & Is to Be Called Soundtracks, or Soundtrack Singles from the Film or the Album Shown. There Are 2 Soundtracks for these Films from the Vamps, Which are Hurricane which is from Alexander the Great, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day Film & Kung Fu Fighting from the Kung Fu Panda 3 Film Which are Film Albums & Soundtracks from the Film & Can be a Singles as well. SOUNDTRACKS Are Not Promotional Singles, They Are SOUNDTRACKS Okay, So Please put them into a different Table with the Word Soundtracks or Soundtrack Singles with the Year & Album or Film Album Shown above Well.

I am Trying My Hardest to Seperate the The Vamps Promotional Singles from the Soundtracks. If You Don't Believe Me Then Have a look at the Other Soundtracks from the Albums or Films Shown. For Example

In 2006 Brad Paisley who is a Country Singer who sang 2 Soundtracks Called "Behind the Clouds" & "Find Yourself" from the Film Cars (soundtrack). These here are Not In the Promotional Singles Table Because They ARE NOT FREE DOWNLOADS & They are From A FILM & Is a Singer As Well.

2011 Brad Paisley Sang "Nobody's Fool" "Collisions of Worlds" (with Robbie Williams) from the Cars 2 (soundtrack) Which are Singles & from the Films Listed.

In 1997 Seal Sang "Fly Like an Eagle" From The Film Space Jam Soundtrack which are Singles & from the Films Itself.

In 2001 Seal Sang "This Could Be Heaven" From the Film The Family Man Soundtrack, which is a Single & from the Films Itself.

In 2006 Seal Sang "A Father's Way" from the Film The Pursuit of Happyness Soundtrack which is a Single & from the Films Itself.

In 1996 R Kelly Sang "I Believe I Can Fly" From the Film Space Jam and the Album Called R. Which is a Single from the Film & The Album.

In 1997 "Gotham City" From the Film Batman & Robin and the Album Called R. Which is a Single from the Film & The Album.

And The Very Last Example is Phil Collins Sang in 1985 "Separate Lives" (with Marilyn Martin) From the Film White Nights Soundtrack Which is a Single from the Film.

In 19988 Phil Collins Sang "A Groovy Kind of Love" & "Two Hearts" from the Film Buster Soundtrack Which Are Singles from the Film Itself.

In 1999 Phil Collins Sang "You'll Be in My Heart" From the Film Tarzan Soundtrack Which is a Single from the Film Itself.

In 2000 Phil Sang "Strangers Like Me", "Son of Man" & "Two Worlds" from the Film Tarzan Which are Single from the Film Tarzan like You'll Be In My Heart.

In 2003 Phil Collins Sang "Look Through My Eyes" from the Film Brother Bear Soundtrack Which is a Single from the Film Itself.

In 2004 Phil Collins Sang "No Way Out" from the Film Brother Bear Soundtrack Which is a Single from the Film Itself.

So You See from these Examples, NONE OF THEM ARE IN THE PROMOTIONAL SINGLES Because They Are Not a FREE DOWNLOAD, They are Singles Download from the Charts/Top 40 and Promotional Are Not.

There are Other Examples Like 2014 Brad Paisley sang "All In"& "Runway Romance" from the Film Planes: Fire and Rescue (soundtrack) which is a Single & from the Films Itself.

I do not know how to make a Table with Singles & Music Videos, with the Directors and the Year Shown, So Please could you tell me how to make one and putting the information Myself in Please.

Hope You are getting the Message Now But You Help me separate the Promotional Singles & the Soundtracks in 2 different Tables, then I will Be Happy and I will not bother you again and That Will Be It.

But If You Change my Editing Again When I Fix Something Like This One More Time & not Getting my Message then BUZZ OFF & GET LOST & leave my EDITING Alone Okay Because I am Very Mad Right Now.

Thank You

Bye

Kind Regards

From

James Duggins (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)James DugginsJames Duggins (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Crossposted from poster's user talk page and answered there. - TransporterMan (TALK) 02:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Amanda knox

Resolved

 – Fixed! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that in the summary of Amanda Knox it says a 20 'years' old student not the proper English 20 'year' old. It is locked so won't let me change it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.147.174.44 (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Got it! Thanks for pointing out that error. By the way, in the future you may request uncontroversial edits on locked articles at the talk page—in this case, Talk:Amanda Knox. You probably would have had a faster response there. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Need help updating a logo in an organizations infobox

Hello, I need help updating the trademarked logo for Schott NYC. I went through the various options but could not make heads or tails of it. I am new to Wikipedia and would be real thankful for any pointers (or help ;-)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rknoerk (talk • contribs) 20:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Rknoerk: WP:FFU is very helpful for issues like this. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

An IP deletes my edits to a page

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

Hello, I am adding information to a page - https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/RAF_Upottery. With references and links to South West Airfields Heritage Trust, an organisation that supports the heritage of the airfiield and maintains a Heritage Museum on the airfield. An IP 86.160.66.81 then deletes it. How is this resolved please? Chrisdunn112 (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

So it looks like the issue is the IP is reverting your addition of an external link and information about an organization somewhat related to the airfield. I'm guessing the IP thinks it's spam. I'll have to have a think about this one before giving any recommendation, specifically whether it fits within our external link policy. I can see arguments for either side. Of course, if someone else reading this page knows better than me, feel free to act on this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Chrisdunn112: I agree with the IP: Your links added little value to the article. And particularly in light of your addition of links to the same website in two other articles, they appear to be Wikipedia:linkspam. See also the reply to your previous question at the Teahouse. —teb728 t c 07:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

About editing Donalsonville, GA

I screwed up Donalsonville, ga info on Wikipedia I need assistance on putting the city info back up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhodge34 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jhodge34 - I simply undid your edit. Thanks for asking for help though. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Dispute about journalistic fairness in pro-wrestler article's intro

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Seth_Rollins https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Seth_Rollins#The_Sting_quote_is_MISLEADING_as_hell

Hello, we've been discussing here about the Wiki's introduction of this particular wrestler. To sum it up: an old, veteran wrestler has said about another young wrestler that he is "the most talented he has ever seen or worked with" in an interview. This has been reported in the intro of aforementioned wrestler. My friend and I tried to point out what we feel to be some issues inherent to reporting that statement removing its supposed contextualization. Mostly, we are questioning the validity of the source (the veteran wrestler said it to an interview made by the wrestler's own employing company) and the true meaning behind the words "most talented". If you read the interview in its entirety, it becomes apparent that the "talent" the old wrestler is mentioning is just the young wrestler's ability to keep doing quality work with a higher working schedule than normal during the time they had worked together (in other words: being resourceful professionally and consistent); a wrestling fan would probably take a broader, decontextualized, "the most talented" as in "the most charismatic, the best in the ring" or a combination of both.

Both my friend and I think that reporting a stray interview to introduce a concept like "being the best ever" - when there would't even a general consensus about it - it's not really encyclopedic per se; and we find the act of removing the context debatable. We can't edit the page, we proposed (if they really wanted to convey the "guy X is well-received" to the reader) - to at least add another interview of another veteran to reinforce the claim and write it in what we feel to be a more sober manner: "Seth Rollins' work has been praised by industry veterans such as Sting [1] and Triple H [2]" instead of "Industry veteran Sting has said that Seth Rollins' is the most talented wrestler he's ever seen, or worked, with". In the end everything we've proposed has been turned down with the rationale that they're just reporting the quote word-per-word and that it's lede-worthy because it's a veteran talking. You can read the discussion above.

Thank you and thanks for the attention. 93.44.154.112 (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

A Question About Company Listings

Resolved

I work for a retail store that is the largest of its kind in Canada. We've run into some trouble with competitors copying our marketing / using our slogans, etc. I saw that Canadian Tire's wikipedia page has a list of their slogans since the '70's Canadian_Tire. I wanted to create a page for my company, but when I signed up I saw that I should not create a Wikipedia listing for my company although there are obviously many companies listed in Wikipedia. I'm looking for advice on how to proceed as I don't want to do anything outside of Wikipedia's content guidelines, but clearly companies do get listed if they are influential to their category. Peterbenes (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Despite your conflict of interest, you may submit an article for consideration through Articles for Creation via the Article Wizard or you may simply request that someone look into writing an article through Requested Articles. Remember that for an article to survive it must be documented by multiple reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia and cannot be entirely documented to websites, blogs, or other material created by the company itself. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Need help classifying / deleting spam

Hello, I'm a new editor who came across an edit that appeared to be original research and spam. I reverted the edit but then discovered the user who submitted it had submitted the same edit to a number of pages. I reverted another but want to make sure I'm tagging my edit summary properly before moving on to the rest.

The user's edit history page is Special:Contributions/Pchelpcentre. He has inserted nearly identical wording into multiple technology pages asserting that those technologies are based on the same specific patent. The cited reference is a direct link to the patent itself.

Do I cite original research in my edit comment? Or spam? It doesn't fit neatly into the given definitions of spam (it has the appearance of a patent troll trying to bolster a claim against the companies who own the technology - so sort of "adding references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced" as per Wikipedia:Spam).

Would it be appropriate to post a warning to the user's talk page? If so, what would be appropriate?

I feel I'm being fairly bold for a new editor, so I don't want to become a source of problems myself. Thanks for any help!

Minstrel1977 (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Minstrel1977. Your summary was fine, but it might be a good idea to post a message on the talk page of each article. There you could mention that WP:NOTRS (A section of WP:RS) says: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." The question of whether the tech mentioned in a particular article is in fact derived from a particular patent is just such an "interpretive claim", and should be supported by a reliable, preferably independent, secondary source to be in an article, much less many articles. It may also be an issue of undue weight. Thanks for drawing attention to this. DES ^(talk) 15:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

DESiegel, thanks for make a new contributor feel welcome. I cleaned up the unreliably sourced material and commented on Talk as you suggested. Minstrel1977 (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Can I post an item that just made the news?

Can I post an item that just made the news and has multiple sources? I tried but the editor claims wikipedia "is not a news source and we don't know what if it's true". What I posted is true since it is taken from the article itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacezg (talk • contribs) 20:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper WP:NOTNEWS but our sister project WIKINEWS is. You are welcome to post your news item there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Am I seeing discussion or disruption?

Not an issue for Editor assistance/Requests. Referred elsewhere

 – Editors advised WP:ANI.

Daniel Cassidy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Gibberish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and others

Please give me an outside opinion of a discussion: Am I talking with an editor (Saineolai) who is not here to build an encyclopedia? WP:NOTHERE

• For example, I asked, "Can we agree to remove general insults ("nincompoop") and general compliments ("eureka moments")?"
• Saineolai answered, "I can't see any reason why one should one be given precedence over the other."

As a reality check on our discussion, read our contributions. For example, I contributed a book review from an academic journal (diff). Saineolai contributed an insult from an unsigned blog (diff).

Saineolai was cautioned before but has returned to defend the same unencyclopedic language and sources, insulting a specific writer and his theories about slang words. Scenography (talk) 05:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry - we provide tips and help on editing here. Dispute resolution forums are thataway... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest getting a third opinion instead. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 13:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Where can I ask advice without beginning a dispute? First I want to ask a more experienced editor for a general impression, such as "looks resolvable, have patience" or "looks irresoluble, seek help."

Also, in what forum would I report disruption, instead of a dispute about specific points? Scenography (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• See WP:DR for guidelines on handling disputes. As noted above this really is not the right forum for this discussion. Good luck. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

One more word: When you look at WP:DR you need to consult the conduct section, not the content section. You're talking about conduct issues and Third Opinion, Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and Formal Mediation do not handle conduct issues, only content issues. There's no real forum to get an opinion about conduct issues: it's pretty much a report-it-or-live-with-it situation, but there's no need to fear in reporting it at ANI unless your own conduct has been poor as well (in which case it can BOOMERANG on you) or unless you fail to read and carefully follow the instructions there. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Everyone, thanks for the advice, especially the distinction between content issues and conduct issues. I added the NOTHERE tag to this section. Scenography (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Andover Estate

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

Perhaps a skilled wiki editor could have a look at this article. It is written in a very judgmental tone & liberally peppered with scare quotes. There are no sources to speak of and one section appears to be reproduced in total from a local newspaper (no attribution), apologies if this is the wrong place to post concerns feel free to move this request if needed tks 78.145.23.228 (talk)

I removed several paragraphs of unsourced & POV material. It's still not up to snuff (a lot of it seems to be Synthesis) but at least it's shorter. JohnInDC (talk) 11:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Editing Biography Page

Bilal M. Ayyub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello Sir or Madam:

I am trying to update the following page

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Bilal_M._Ayyub

The information is reliable and referenced to prominent sources. However, as I was editing it, a user kept deleting the content which is sourced through reliable sources.

Should I edit it through talk or edit it directly? Since it has been flagged.

Grateful if you can advise how I can go update appropriately updating the page.

Warm Regards,

Rob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robmishra (talk • contribs) 00:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I would advise you to proceed at Talk:Bilal M. Ayyub given there are concerns regarding promotional content. As an added note, you may not add Amazon links (affiliate or otherwise) to Ayyub's publications, as you did in this edit. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Also at User talk:BAyyub, where these issues, including the poster's COI, have been discussed extensively. JohnInDC (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

List of people from Wolverhampton

List of people from Wolverhampton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An unregistered user is vandalizing this page today. As they do not have a talk page and have not responded to my reference to WP guidelines in the revert summary what is the next step? I do not want to be accused of edit warring if I revert it again. Keomike (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

You should warn the IP editor against engaging in promotion. See WP:WARN. Part of the problem is that those sorts of edits are hard to classify as vandalism, though they're obviously not correct. Could you argue it's hoax content? Maybe. The real question—whether you could have gotten tagged for 3RR over the additions—I think it's possible, though unlikely. Even if you couldn't legitimately call the addition a hoax, you could potentially argue that since it concerned a living person and was unsourced. But a better idea would be not to breach 3RR, and ask for help elsewhere (such as this board) if you have an editor who insists on adding something to a list article and refuses to discuss it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Professor of Politics

I dont know if this is the right place. My question: Is it correct, that the general term Professor of Politics redirects to the individual person Daniel arap Moi? -- Jesi (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it's not the right place, but in any case, no, that's not correct and I've asked for speedy deletion of the redirect. I can't think of anything that it should direct to. JohnInDC (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Jesi (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Dispute about changing a title

Resolved

I have created this proposal to change the title of the article Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings. Although it is very obvious that the title of the article is wrong, I have met very strong opposition from several users. These users started by presenting very weak arguments, and when I pointed out those weaknesses, they refused to respond and adopted an uncivil behaviour that violates Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I have told them about these violations but they have ignored me. Some of these users are very experienced editors, including one who is in the top 3000 list.

I have searched the help for ways of resolving this problem, but I have found so many options that I am overwhelmed. I'd like to get some advice about the best way of solving this problem.

Thank you in advance.

Elendaíl (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The best and most proper way is to file via Requested moves. Other content dispute resolution processes (such as Third Opinion, Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and Formal Mediation) will generally not take cases involving article names since RM has a built-in process for resolving disputes involving those issues. Issues involving conduct should be resolved by either talking with an administrator or, after carefully reading and following the instructions, filing at ANI. This noticeboard, however, is not for the purpose of resolving disputes. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!

Elendaíl (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Just an update suggestion

List of countries by system of government (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of countries by system of government- For Your Information for the politically correct editorial volunteers may want to update this info regarding the changes in government i.e.) Miramar, new elected government, Thailand's, Crimea, and a few others that have changed significantly over the past 3/4 yrs. I'm no scholar on political types but tend to always have international news drowning in the background. Also, with young adult children I'm always telling to "Look it up!", in my day it was Britannia enclyclopedia (lol), but I like to know there info in current or Mom (me) has to argue why I'm right and there info is not updated, and they are as hardheaded as I am about who's right, (which is usually Mom). Thanks just trying to keep or future generation passionate about the world around them. Lynda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.57.117 (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

proposed deletion (second proposal)

• Jordan Schaul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Schaul (2nd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Sir/Madam

A biographical article on me as the subject, which I created is being proposed for deletion for the second time and I feel in some ways that this is a punitive action for admitting that I recently received compensation for two articles I created and for some inadvertent conflict of interest relating to some articles I created or edited. Some other editors shared my sentiment on talk pages.

As a zoologist turned journalist, which includes 4 years writing for NAT GEO online, I feel that I established independent notability. That notability is being called into question. In addition, and I could be wrong, according to Wikipedia policy, journalists don't neccesssarily get secondary coverage, but they can be deemed notable for their contributions to primary resources.

I also noticed that the first attempt to delete this biographical article was unsuccessful and that was before new references were added and the article was changed and updated. Hence, I'm not sure why I am less notable now. Thanks for your consideration and any help you can provideJpop73 (talk) 06:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The 2010 AfD ended in Delete, so I'm not sure what you mean when you say the first attempt to delete the article was unsuccessful. I also see no reference to your history as a paid editor. Perhaps a review of your contributions was spurred by that admission, but that incitement would not, on its own, taint the actions of the nominator or any !voters. Anyhow, the relevant notability criterion you're looking for is WP:NAUTHOR. Journalists, and authors more generally, may be deemed notable for their primary works, but there are very clear limitations in those cases, and to my understanding they're primarily intended as gap-fillers to undercut non-notability arguments against pre-industrial authors or those from outside the anglosphere, where the relevant sources necessary to establish notability would be extraordinarily difficult to find, require translation, or would be considered primary sources themselves. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. It was my oversight on the 2010 deletion. My apologies. My paid editor documentation is noted on the respective talk page or user page for the articles I recieved compensation for````. Unfortunately, the deletion discussion page includes comments and recommended deletion notices because I was paid and because of apparent conflict of interests. I understand the editors grievences, but since my page was reviewed and accepted quite awhile ago, I'm not sure why the notability is suddenly called into question, as has the notability for other pages I have created. In addition, one editor who has been mentoring me for two years and has heavily edited my article, suggested that I just request to ban myself from contributed to the biography. I can copy the commentary for you if need be.

It seems, in my opinion that punitive measures are being taken because I accepted compensation recently and not because of any valid policy-based reasons. This has been noted by other editors, but I'm not sure what I can do. thanksJpop73 (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Honestly I'm looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Schaul (2nd nomination) and I'm seeing nothing but good, policy-based arguments for deletion based on notability. With all due respect, you would be better served by demonstrating that you pass WP:NAUTHOR rather than arguing ill intent on the part of the nominator or anyone commenting. Just because an article was accepted by one editor doesn't mean that it's about a notable subject. Reasonable people can disagree, and if there's a consensus that the subject isn't notable, that consensus trumps that one editor's opinion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit verification help

Hello, I'm seeking a volunteer to verify if 22 edits made by my bot look OK to you. The list can be found here. Thanks for any feedback. -- GreenC 18:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Entry is a copy of mass-posted adds.

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

I'm sorry to bother you all but I know nothing of wiki editing. However I was doing research on the cyborg distribution and found that the Wikipedia entry for it was almost an exact copy of the fake reviews that are part of a mass advertising campaign that cyborg is running. This wouldn't be so bad if there was even a single source providing evidence of the claims they make. Another serious issue is how biased the entry is. There is no mention of the known downsides to this distribution, for example the slow boot times, the copying of the Kali distro's format, and the incredibly slow download times when using the apt-get update command because of inadequate repository servers.

Cocoshrap (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Cocoshrap

Thanks. I can't see how this particular distribution of Linux is in any way notable, and have proposed the article's deletion. JohnInDC (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree, thank you for handling this so quickly. Have a good day.

Cocoshrap (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Cocoshrap

Message banner

A message banner that directs me to a message from 2012 has just recently appeared at the top of each Wikipedia page I access. Is there some way to delete this? (This is the first time I've ever gotten the message, though it is four years old.)

Thank you.

Lloyd Rose--72.83.83.171 (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)--72.83.83.171 (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)--72.83.83.171 (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

You're getting an old notification. See Wikipedia:Notifications/FAQ. I'm not entirely sure how it works for anonymous editors, but you should be able to click the icon at the top of your page where the notification is appearing to dismiss it. Then reload any pages that still have the notification. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

NSEL case requires attention

Resolved

This page needs opinion on the following:

Thanks to Adamtheroux's inputs on the case

• Biased claims have been made using self-published sources as citations (Scanned documents on Scribd)
• The tonality of the page is disputed -- For example under one paragraph it is written that Jignesh Shah was the 'mastermind' of the scam, whereas there is not proof of that and going through the sources I've discovered that he was bailed on the basis of lack of proof.
• Again under the subhead -- Jignesh Shah's Arrest/ Involvement in the scam -- the tonality is debatable and the subhead should simply be -- Allegations on Jignesh Shah --
• Went through the links about PwC report on this issue and its content and intent have been rendered questionable and I think this should be included in the text.
• All these points are backed by citations and are factual. Yet, other admins have been deliberately trying to hide this fact and therefore I think they are personally targeting Jignesh Shah for some reason, even though his involvement in the case was never proven.
• Other editors are clearly spreading propaganda through this page and targeting individuals using biased tone and aggressive disruptive editing which is against the Wikipedia policy.
• This page has many more such biased sentences, urge admins to help in clean-up

Deathmar (talk) 08:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

References

This page is not for the purpose of requesting dispute resolution. Please consider the options available at the Dispute resolution policy. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Can't find content on Hissho Sushi

I travel all over the USA on business and have enjoyed Hissho Sushi fare multiple times. I want to see more about the company and went immediately to wikipedia. Nothing. Can we fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vernon menard (talk • contribs) 21:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Vernon menard: You can request an article here: Wikipedia:Requested articles. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Canadian Senate expenses scandal

Resolved

I've been updating this page for several months. When I first came across the page (sometime in Aug/15)it had the "multiple issues" warning on it, so I started my Wiki journey by rephrasing to (hopefully) restore neutrality & posting info from source docs (eg, Deloitte audits, Senate docs, RCMP filings) as well as updating with Auditor General's report. I've left messages on the Talk page, but so far, no responses. Would appreciate an Editor looking the article over & advising whether it's up to snuff and the "multiple issues" warning can now be removed. I would like to continue updating, by summarizing the Duffy judgment. Thanks! LettieB2 (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Haven't looked at the article, but if you believe that the issues have been corrected, you are free to remove the warning. If someone restores it, ask them to discuss the issue on the talk page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Ghodaghodi lake

Ghodaghodi lake situdted at kailali distrct of nepal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.70.70.42 (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Please be more specific about what it is that you want or are reporting. If you believe that there is an error, please feel free to fix it yourself, so long as you provide a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Advice: obituary as main citation for GNG?

Robert Buntine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I am participating in an AFD for a high-school rowing coach and headmaster; notability rests on two obituaries published in a major newspaper. Is an obituary considered routine coverage, or can it be used to pass GNG? --Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The main problem with obits isn't that they're routine coverage, but that most of them are not reliable sources. This isn't true of all obits, and with online coverage it can be hard to differentiate "reliable" obits with unreliable ones. Some hallmarks I like to look for: (1) A signed article, (2) substantial length (more than 6 paragraphs), (3) placement in the print newspaper. The sort of obit that lends itself to an indication of notability is one published in print, in the main, sport, or arts sections of the newspaper, with an identified author who is on staff at that paper (i.e., it's not credited to a non-journalist family member who submitted the piece) or an indication that the story came from a major wire service. Obits that are near the classifieds section are very rarely reliable; they may be if they're substantial, have a naked author, and are set off significantly from where other, clearly unreliable (i.e. paid) obits are placed. Typically obits placed by relatives just look and feel different than regular news stories, while news story obits tend to look and feel like news stories. Language like "departed for heaven", "joined his wife", or "laid to rest" rather than "died" or "passed away" are usually seen in non-reliable obits. You're also less likely to see detailed info about funeral arrangements in reliable obits; things like the full address and phone number of a funeral parlor and information about where to send donations are a bit red flaggish. These are all rules of thumb, and are my own advice... I can't say for sure how they'd play out in practice. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft Review

I was wondering if someone could please review a draft article I have written here: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Jeff_Cavins

I have edited several articles, but have never written a new one from scratch and was curious if there is anything I should add or subtract which would make it less likely to be deleted.

Thank you so much Matt Dunn

MJudeDunn (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

There's a built-in process for that in the Draft space, but it seems that you may have somehow broken it. I'm going to ping @Robert McClenon who works there to take a look at the situation and to note that in this edit MJudeDunn appears to have taken over a draft about an entirely different person with the same name — I think — and removed the review headers. I don't know whether the headers should just be restored or new ones added to get a review of the new material or whether the new material should be split off into a new draft or what. No one seems all that upset about the older draft having been taken over. What I do know is that this Editor assistance noticeboard is not for seeking such a review. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Here are a few comments for now. First, as User:TransporterMan notes, there are two people with the same name. MJudeDunn made a mistake in overwriting the existing draft with a draft on another person, but I will inquire into how an administrator can save both edit histories. With regard to the current Jeff Cavins, the Catholic writer, all that needs to be done to get the draft reviewed is to Submit it to review if you have the AFCH (Articles for Creation Helper) script enabled. Otherwise there is a template that needs to be added. If I am asked to submit it for review, I will submit it for review. Second, the usual place to discuss draft articles is the Teahouse. You can ask questions about it there. However, if you want it reviewed, you can ask me to submit it for review. It does appear that the draft on the technologist wasn't making much progress, but I would like to try to get both drafts into the review process with disambiguation qualifiers, rather than having one compete with the other. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, User:TransporterMan and Robert McClenon for your assistance here. As I mentioned, this was my first article. When searching for the name "Jeff Cavins" in wikipedia, and it said there were no existing articles, I didn't consider that there could be a draft in place for someone with the same name, so I assumed the text there when I tried to create a draft was like a lorem ipsum. This was my mistake. I had never heard of the technologist, so it didn't even occur to me that it was real, since I had seen no articles on the live site. I would like to ask you if you could submit my article for review, if, @Robert McClenon , you wouldn't mind doing so. Thank you. so much.

Matt MJudeDunn (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Contribution question

I may have not read all instructions so I apologize if my Q is defined somewhere.... I have made a contribution but think it is at the wrong place. I did make e-value as a contribution but it seams it is under p-value? Kindly guide me ViA-Lars (talk) 10:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Looking at your contribution history, I find no article contributions since 2007. I find one long comment on an article talk page which was reverted, probably because it was out of place (as you may have suggested, above) and/or violated our talk page rules. If you were trying to suggest or create a new article, you should do so though the Article Wizard, which you can find here, but be aware that all new articles must satisfy our requirements of notability and all assertions in them must be supported by references to reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Sean Christopher

Sean_Christopher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hello this is Sean Christopher. All the information in this article is correct except for the picture. I believe there are more than one Sean Christophers. Please change for I am the R&B singer. I attached the correct picture.

Thanks for your note. There doesn't seem to be a photo already associated with this article, so it doesn't need to be changed. More importantly though I don't think that the article meets the Wikipedia notability requirement so I have proposed that it be deleted. After you've worked up a more extensive discography and have gained some media coverage, maybe then - good luck! JohnInDC (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

First Norfolk & Suffolk

Hello,

I have recently spent several hours updating and improving the wikipedia page about First Norfolk & Suffolk as the info currently displayed was very limited, out of date, and incorrect. I used correct sources, uploaded new images onto wikimedia before embedding them in to create a very up-to-date, factual page about the company only to have it undone days later by someone saying there was nothing wrong with the old page.

This is the second attempt I've had at improving this page this year, and the first time I was unsuccessful too thanks to a seperate editor who decided that there was nothing wrong with the original page either. I live in Norwich, and am a bus enthusiast who knows a lot more about the company than these other people who don't even live in East Anglia. I have asked for an explanation as to why they have undone all my hard work as I don't edit often so I may have done something incorrectly but all I get is rude replies.

Any help would be gratefully appreciated.

Zak — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZakNelson1995 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Where have I made rude replies ? ....., I reverted you because the page is filled with YOUR images ..... We should have images by different photographers, The rest I've self reverted on as I didn't realize it was indeed sourced. –Davey2010^Talk 09:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I've readded the text back and about 3 images ..... Would've been nice if it was discussed with me tho. –Davey2010^Talk 09:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia and need some questions answered

Hello!

I'm new to Wikipedia and wanted to know what type of steps I need to take to get a page that was falsely renamed reverted to it's original name without breaking the Wikipedia process or rules?

How do I interact on the article talk page to explain why this name change needs to be reverted and why a large amount of additional edits need to be made to this page?

If I think it was inappropriate for another editor to change the article name before the discussion proposed even occurs, how and where do I discuss this?

Finally, if I believe an editor's comments in the Talk section reveal immense bias and are not appropriate for the objective discussion that is proposed, can these comments be removed from the Talk section? If so, how?

Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response.

--MistyScotch (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@MistyScotch: You can discuss the issue on the article talk page. You can also get help about moving a page here Wikipedia:Requested moves. As far as other editors comments, the guideline is here Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 21:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd be interested in the page you're asking about. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

What is the current name of the article you're talking about, Misty? --Orange Mike | Talk 23:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Zulu kings

Resolved

Please review dates you have listed for Zulu Kings reign - see Jama - I think the birth date is listed wrong - At Zululand hotel where we were they history and picture of each king and information about them with dates - it showed him born 1727 which makes more sense considering the date he became king - end date is correct 1781. 184.1.225.231 (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

This request should be posted on the List of Zulu Kings talkpage. This page is for obtaining advice on how to edit, not requests that someone do it for you. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

page move question

Resolved

an editor moved the article "area of a circle" to "area of a disk" which is against consensus if you look at the talk page section "move history"...I went to revert it and it said the action wasn't allowed in red lettering...is this something to post to administrator's noticeboard or is that too drastic at this point...should do a request for comment to settle the issue better?68.48.241.158 (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I don't think that IP editors can move articles. Those in favor of the article being named something other than what it currently is named should avail themselves of the procedure set out at Controversial requested moves. At this point, I see nothing to take to ANI except perhaps a slow-motion edit war that ANI would simply tell you to take to Requested moves. In any event, this noticeboard is not for the purpose of seeking dispute resolution, RW is for that in this case. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Tierra (Band)

Resolved

The name of Henry Kenny Roman is misspelled as Romain and also is not on the list of band members past present. He was on the 1973 album TIERRA 20th. Century Label.He played in various groups The Iperials, Loose Caboose, Xochipili, Dave Matthews Band and many others. He was a child prodigy playing drums at the age of 5, preforming with teens 5-6 years his elder. Would be nice to have this corrected as he is no longer with us. Norman Aguilar, Road Dog and Friend in growing up in the Barrio.

If you have a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia for this information, please go ahead and fix it yourself and cite your source or list the request and the source on the article talk page. This forum is not for requesting such requests to be made for you, since Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Regard, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Notwithstanding what I've said, above, I've corrected it from Romain to Román (not Roman), per the cited source in the Tierra (band) article. If there are other locations where it needs to be corrected, please feel free to do so, citing that source. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Interculturalness

I am kindly asking for help regarding the behavior of an Admin Ohnoitsjamie) that decided to completely delete any intervention done in one year of work on wikipedia, providing for earch intervention different reasons, but, as a matter of fact, deleting one year of serious work. I am an Italian Fulbright Scholar in Intercultural Communication, researcher and trainer, and I am trying to improve the interculturalness of some voices, and I read that Wikipedia appreciates contributions from different cultures (I acted only on topics on which I can have something to add, and where I wrote books or articles, otherwise I would not feel to be competent), so my work has been trying to add contents to the English version of Wikipedia that would otherwise not appear, only published works and with citation of proper sources. I wish to know if I violated any rule or it is normal to have all the work done deleted in one day - this is an example of a deletion of an approach that I think is really detrimental to wikipedia https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Intercultural_communication&diff=718145622&oldid=714929947 Thanks in advance for your kind attention — Preceding unsigned comment added by Culturalresearch (talk • contribs) 11:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a stab at explaining what might be happening but am sure too that I'm going to overlook something, and would solicit further comment from others. I looked over some of your contributions and noticed what to my eyes, appear to be a couple of essential issues with them. I looked at these:

Human Resources

Emotion

Value (ethics)

Skill

Marketing

Personal development

Each of these (except for perhaps "personal development") presents a broad overview of an ordinary concept. Your additions, often to the lead, presented highly specific and (again to my eyes) academically-focused commentary or observations about the subject that were presented without much in the way of context or lead-in. Several seemed to be written more like abstracts, summarizing research without really explaining how the concepts fit into the larger article. More to the point however, is that each of your contributions cited papers by the same author (presumably you but it doesn't matter) - this practice is sufficiently common among editors who are seeking to promote themselves, or their works - rather than objectively improve the encyclopedia, that the term "link spam" has been coined to describe it. See the page WP:LINKSPAM. I don't want to speak for @Ohnoitsjamie: but I would say that between the somewhat tone-deaf nature of your edits, combined with the single-source nature of the references, it was not an unreasonable conclusion that the additions were indeed a variety of link spam and subject to removal. I don't know really anything about your work, or how successfully or appropriately it might be integrated into the encyclopedia, but perhaps what I've said will be useful in some fashion as you go forward it in editing. I hope so. JohnInDC (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty clear to me that Culturalresearch is a single purpose self-promotion account, which is why I reverted (and did a bunch of other housecleaning from their last few months of contributions). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I wish to thank JohnInDC for the polite answer. I personally do not agree but I respect it, and also the Wikipedia article about SPA, that highlights "Communal standards such as don't bite the newcomers apply to all users. Be courteous. Focus on the subject matter, not the person. If they are given fair treatment, they may also become more involved over time." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Culturalresearch (talk • contribs) 19:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC) Also, I wish to highlight that the issue of interculturalness is still valid, since the material I provided comes mainly from Italian authors and in the future other Latin authors that are really misrepresented in the English version of the topics on which they have written published books. The next author I am about to consider is Francesco Muzzarelli who is absolutely unknown to non-italian sources despite his huge amount of publications in Italian, and Ciro Imparato, one of the world's leading scientists and trainers on paralinguistic research, who unfortunately died recently. I remember clearly of having read about wikipedia values of promoting interculturalness and different points of view within a voice and I hope this attempt to bring in Latin and non-english literature (and the effort to translate it) will be understood and appreciated.

requested moves

I began a RfC in the article "area of a disk" about changing the title to "area of a circle"...many people have weighed in...I see there's a requested moves noticeboard, should this be there too somehow now?68.48.241.158 (talk) 11:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Tigrayans

Tigrayans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The long-standing title of the page was changed from "Tigray-Tigrinya" to "Tigrayans". Based on an n-gram analysis it was determined this was more used term. Tigrayans is however a reference to the people of a region (people of the Tigray region), not a culture group. According to analysis of a sample of sources focused on ethnic groups "Tigrinyas" is the more common label (>10 references on Google Books), while Tigre is second most common (Tigre is not used as it refers to a ethnic group). Tigrayan is third most common with limited use by some encyclopedias (approx. 3 on Google Books using it as the primary reference). Multiple rename requests have neared consensus but not achieved consensus. Need assistance to move forward. Merhawie (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Clementine von Radics

Hi. Could you please provide some clarity on BLPPROD. Myself and another editor both prodded this as it doesn't have sources - Twitter, FB et al are not reliable sources. @Donottroll: However another editor disagrees and keeps removing the prod. Can you give some guidance on which approach is correct? Thanks Gbawden (talk) 06:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

You are correct about the sourcing, but once the PROD is removed by any editor for any reason (I guess, short of vandalism) the PROD process is over and the article must be nominated for deletion at Articles for Deletion. The process is a bit more cumbersome and can stretch out for several days, but it can't be stopped by an objecting editor. If you think the page should be deleted, go to AfD and follow the instructions there! Meanwhile I've removed the PROD template, because that process - for better or for worse - is no longer available for that article. I hope this helps. JohnInDC (talk) 10:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Need help correcting and removing bias from TWA_Flight_800 page

TWA Flight 800 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dear Editor(s):

I respectfully request help editing and removing bias from Wikipedia's TWA Flight 800 page. This is a controversial story with misinformation from the public and media, but also from the NTSB, CIA, and FBI. For example, Wikipedia's second paragraph cites an FBI claim that "no evidence had been found of a criminal act", while further along Wikipedia reports that "RDX and pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN)" (explosives common to missiles and bombs) were detected on wreckage items. Both cannot be true, and therefore great care must be taken on how to frame official pronouncements vs. conflicting evidence.

The official investigation was plagued with abnormalities, including the undocumented removal of wreckage that tested positive for explosives by the FBI and the CIA supplanting the NTSB's official Eyewitness Group Factual Report with a highly publicized CIA animation televised nationally weeks before the NTSB's fact-finding hearing. However, the Wikipedia page puts a positive spin on these instances, while employing the derogatory term "conspiracy" when mentioning those (including six high-level whistle-blowers from the original NTSB investigation) who question those and other abnormal events.

Here is how Wikipedia currently brings up the FBI's improper removal of evidence:

--- With lines of authority unclear, differences in agendas and culture between the FBI and NTSB resulted in discord.[32]:1 The FBI, from the start assuming that a criminal act had occurred,[32]:3 saw the NTSB as indecisive. Expressing frustration at the NTSB's unwillingness to speculate on a cause, one FBI agent described the NTSB as "No opinions. No nothing".[32]:4 Meanwhile, the NTSB was required to refute or play down speculation about conclusions and evidence, frequently supplied to reporters by law enforcement officials and politicians.[22]:3[32]:4 The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW), an invited party to the NTSB investigation, criticized the undocumented removal by FBI agents of wreckage from the hangar where it was stored.[34] ---

This paragraph makes it seem as though the FBI's removal of evidence was an act by a "Do Something" agency, in response to a "No opinions. No Nothing" NTSB. However the truth of the matter is that Jim Speer, who is now a whistle-blower, and was then an investigator working within the NTSB's investigation, discovered a piece of wreckage early on and recognized high-velocity damage on it. He then had it tested for explosives, and explosives were in fact detected on it. This was not a do-"nothing" effort. And the FBI's removal of that piece was questionable, especially since it remains unaccounted for today. I believe the current spin of this apparently illegal activity goes against Wikipedia's policy of maintaining a neutral tone.

Here is how the article summarizes the CIA's work:

--- [Based upon] how long it took for the sound of the initial explosion to reach the witnesses[,]...the witnesses could not be describing a missile approaching an intact aircraft, as the plane had already exploded before their observations began. ---

This is inaccurate. And it is based on misinformation appearing in a CIA animation, which was broadcast nationally only three weeks before the NTSB fact-finding hearing. The CIA analysis relied on a "sound analysis" applied to one or two witnesses who reported hearing a sound before apparently seeing a missile, while there were 670 eyewitnesses in total. And significantly, the vast majority of witnesses who saw a rising streak of light head up to the area where TWA 800 ultimately broke apart heard *no* sounds until after the aircraft hit the water, after falling from 2.5 miles up. Also, the CIA sound analysis only considered short range missiles fired relatively close to and below the jetliner, which is at odds with a significant number of witness statements describing a longer-range missile originally traveling closer to shore (such a launch could have been heard prior to, or about the same time as seeing a rising object approach the jetliner).

Beyond the CIA animation being misleading (and Wikipedia's summary of it inaccurate) that animation has since been critiqued by a former member of the NTSB's Eyewitness Group and two eyewitnesses whose observations were depicted by the CIA in their animation. This former investigator, together with these two eyewitnesses and myself, explain how that CIA video is inaccurate. Significantly, the CIA alleged that the eyewitnesses had changed their original testimony--that testimony conflicting with the CIA scenario. As you will hear if you watch the following point-by-point critique, the witnesses say that they never changed their testimony. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyluFVxqBlo (this link is just for reference in this request for Editor Assistance).

The current Wikipedia page on TWA Flight 800 contains inaccuracies and it is biased, but before making any corrections, I felt that contacting an experienced WikiPedia editor may be in order due to the controversial nature of this incident.

I look forward to hearing from someone willing to look into these issues.

Thank you,

Stalcup (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any evidence of a dispute in progress, so I don't think there's a particular need for the sort of dispute resolution being requested here. Stalcup, your first step should be to go to Talk:TWA Flight 800 with your concerns. You haven't done that, at least not recently (I see you did try to engage people there back almost 9 years ago, then stopped editing until just now). I haven't looked in depth other than to note the personal website you link on your userpage seems to be focused at "getting the truth out" about TWA Flight 800... so while I would normally suggest you be bold and try to improve the article, I will add a caveat that you should be very careful about inserting fringe material into that article, because it'll get removed, and rightly so. Some of what you're pointing out here seems to be fringe. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mendaliv, thanks for looking back at my past effort. Was "getting the truth out" my language? If so, I can see how it could be misread. My goal then, as it is now, was to make that page accurate and maintain a NPOV. I'll take your advice by expressing my concerns on the Talk page, and I definitely will not insert any "fringe" material. I hope you may be willing to monitor my efforts on that page to help ensure no such material is inserted, and if possible, it would be helpful if you could provide any example of fringe material that you believe I have pointed out, so that I can specifically avoid that/those areas.

Stalcup (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musalyar

Now the Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musalyar page is under misusing, Welcome and revert to the Old version, I will be edit, cleanup and add third-parties. Please block these accounts User:Vasikhali and User:Nashar.Elaf form editing. • ArtsRescuer 09:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I remember removing a ton of uncited information from that article back in 2013; the citation tag had been sitting there for months. There also seems to be quite a bit of uncited information there now. What is the problem, and why are you coming to an editor assistance page to demand that other editors be blocked? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Help with the content

I wanted someone to guide me over my content.

Also, I was trying for lice chat help but my server was banned which too much unprofessional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shehnaz17 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Futwatch

Futwatch is a website used for opening packs and "drafting" as you would on Fifa 16. The website was used for entertainment puropses. In futwatch, getting a player named "Jin Bum" allows you to make a joke out of it because the owner of futwatch made a joke about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkim126 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not clear what you're asking for help with. There is no Wikipedia article called Futwatch. If you're considering creating an article on this website please make sure it meets out notability guidelines for websites first. See WP:WEB. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Geographic location question

Just wanted to know if this reversion of content is correct? Didn't have any problems in the past with [City, State], but now more and more users (I understand new users do this, but not the old ones...) start arguing about this and use [City], [State] instead. The main policies, to my knowledge, regarding this are WP:USPLACE, MOS:OVERLINK and WP:SEAOFBLUE. However, some people just ignore it and argue for no reason. Any thoughts would be appreciated. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

{{city-region}} used to do just that, but it got changed years ago, and ultimately deleted as redundant. Unfortunately, the discussion that led to it as being in violation of WP:OVERLINK was at Template talk:City-region, which is deleted. I'm not sure if there's a clear policy or guideline on this but my understanding is that we just don't do the piped city and separately linked state anymore without a compelling reason (and the infobox isn't a compelling reason). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)