Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests: Difference between revisions

Archives

• v
• t
• e

Previous requests & responses
Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132 This page has archives. Sections older than 24 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Other links
Teahouse (for new users) Help desk Frequent requests Talk Third Opinion Incident Noticeboard

I wish to create a javascript tool for locales(languages,countries..) conversion from enwiki to tawiki of some articles. I just found Unicode.org/cldr project, can i use it for wiki? will it be allowed to copy their xml content? http://www.unicode.org/repos/cldr/tags/release-1-7/common/main/ta.xml. Thanks -- Mahir78 (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just found this extension http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CLDR --Mahir78 (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) might be the best place to ask about this. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here, a little uncertain if this is even the right place, wondering about how to deal with an editor that seems to be counterproductive in their editing (such as I have seen), hostile in discussion, and notably prone to inaccurate interpretations. The most recent posting I have seen is on my talk page under the section "Handling it here". It's confrontational and bothersome, to be sure, but what I'm concerned about in the long run is that this editor was repeatedly reverting valid edits and when addressed by myself and another editor (independently), responded with persistent and hostile denial of the issue. This response often included factually inaccurate statements, such as about what was posted when, and paranoid inferences about intent in following. I can detail the inaccurate points, but one example would be a reference in the last posting to here (WP:ASK), apparently indicating a belief that I had posted here at some point during the discussion, which is utterly untrue (for whatever it's worth, though it did inspire me to inquire here now), with offense given in consequence. To try to be gentle about it, I think this person may not have complete benefit of their faculties. What concerns me then, is that this is a fairly active editor and there appears to be no self-check on the original behavior of precipitous reversion, nor means to engage. I don't even know that the specific situation at hand requires further action, but since the editor removed the entire section with the original comments from their Talk page, I am interested to at least see awareness of the behavior collected in some manner, as well as hear any perspective on such matters. ENeville (talk) 04:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its a bit hard to evaluate without knowing the specific article and material in question. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I wasn't sure how direct to be. I'd say it's more a matter of the editor in question, Montanabw, rather than specifics of the precipitating edit dispute, which I forsook for the benefit of atmosphere (but still disagree with). My concern is that myself and another editor (Notyourbroom, whom I do not know outside of comments on this matter) criticized Montanabw for inappropriate reversion. Montanabw's response demonstrated no contrition, and follow up expansions on the importance of the underlying issues elicited no understanding. Montanabw's comments have been punctuated by references to unfounded personal inflections attributed to myself or the other editor, such as collusion or insult, which only confuse and distract from the relevant point (although I guess they do support a general characterization of counterproductive hostility). The most recent installment occurred on my Talk page after I posted here, and would seem to indicate that I may now be a focus of hostile efforts by Montanabw. I should note that I was away from WP until I posted here and posted the 'note' on my Talk page. So now, in addition to my concerns about a pattern of reversion harming WP and an editor who seems impervious to feedback, I guess I'm concerned about what I may face personally from a much more active poster in consequence for holding that such concerns matter. ENeville (talk) 18:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you are actually being harassed by another editor then you could go to Wikiquette alerts. But as no specifics have bee posted here, it is hard to see what you expect us to do. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am troubled that you have accepted Roy Maloy as the current Record Holder for Tallest Stilts. If you Check the Current Guinness World Records Files you will see that Roy is never mentioned. They have Saimaiti Yiming of China as their accepted record holder for steps and Doug Hunt of Canada for the heaviest stilts with the weighed collective of 137 lb. If you Check with Alternative Records(a record authority in Germany) you will see that Doug Hunt of Brantford Ontario has met their guildlines -same as Guinness as the Tallest Stilt record. Both Record authorities (Guinness & Alternative) require that you take at least 25 forward steps unassisted. Roy did stand on tall stilts but did not balance unassisted or at least was able to take required 25 steps. You could say however Roy stood on the tallest poles?

Doug Hunt Brantford Ontario Canada —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.159.239 (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I suggest you begin a discussion on the article talk page. The article has been tagged for cleanup since it does not have enough links to reliable sources; however, I don't think you should edit the article yourself, since you appear to have a conflict of interest. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friends. Similar to Avon in the late 1980s Lipton just became the focus of a large campaign for it's animal testing - in labs to bolster it's healing effects.

What made it notable is that the PETA group redirected thousands of emails to the parent company for blocking as opposed to responding, and that postings are beginning on facebook and other social media as a result.

Also it is not industry standard and the source though controversial states other tea companies have supplied written proof they do not do testing.

In any event, my two contributions were not altered by the editor, but instead completely removed. Also request for additional references was not requested, instead just removed.

I suppose he meant well but the speedy removal of not one but two seperate postings left me feeling he looked up my other contribution and sort of followed me. That wasn't cool either. Until resolved that he will not be looking for and deleting my posts It will be hard to enjoy wikipedia which I have not been on in while.

Please send a friendly message to him regarding that as well as review whether I should have time to cite more sources and maybe he could have simply modified slightly or improved. Below are the articles that likely needed improvement, as well as my request to Wentomowameadow also additonal links to support new media controversy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipton_Institute_of_Tea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipton_Institute_of_Tea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wenttomowameadow http://www.peta.org/b/thepetafiles/archive/2010/12/15/was-your-tea-tested-on-animals.aspx

Please assist in updating the controversy thousands are posting and emailing on.

--WikiShares (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My edits in question can be seen here and here. I think it's fairly obvious why these had to be removed immediately. I left a friendly message at User talk:WikiShares explaining the issue. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiShares, That sort of content definitely needs robust sourcing, and the sourcing ought to be added at the same time as the content. If there are reliable sources to support your additions, then please do cite them. The burden of proof is on the editor adding the material, not on the editor removing unreferenced material. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. Will reference first and with reasonable sources. I reduced the information significantly then referenced a Discovery channel's green website along with a Vegetarian online publication (that had a dozen or so photo's of it' writers in the about us), and they appeared credible. They both cite Peta as making the claim, however they publish it and add additional commentary as well. The general content of the two articles are still over the top in promoting it's flavor or teas and claims and could use editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiShares (talk • contribs) 01:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the other editors above, that kind of thing absolutely needs reliable sourcing before it belongs in the article. Furthermore, the sourcing needs to indicate that it is actually a notable controversy, and not merely a brief mention on a PETA website. Dayewalker (talk) 02:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daywalker, the request was to cite reliable sources to support my additions. Please also note that there are requests for the blatant advertising to be corrected which for some reason is being blatantly ignored. Upon your last revision I did some research and found the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Mtl1969 . The link shows MTl169 has had a history of promotion of Lipton. Additionally promoting Ben & Jerrys ice cream which also lists it at as a Uniliver company as is Lipton. The history shows significant marketing and PR efforts by this user. However the user is not shown doing the revisions. Other seem to assist the user in keeping the advertising going while they only correct any non promotional information. In this case you stepped in and controversy was not supported. In that case the wording might be changed to the frequently used term "criticisms" which can be supported. Please undo your deletion of the contribution and if you are interested in bettering the contribution please feel free to change it to criticisms. Public criticism of the animal rights testing for bolstering tea claims is on the Discovery channels website and on other well respected websites in additon to the new Peta campaign which is not to my knowledge a banned entity, regardless of their tactics. The reason I am taking the time to continue this is that it is clear the group of you are not removing the blatant advertising while discouraging not assisting me with adding relevant and recent content on the state of the company and it's recent PR problem. Their company has phones ringing off the hook and is being deluged with complaints via email from thousands of people according to another article. So mentioning the criticism is acceptable in the context of citing the general allegations and citing reputable sources. It is a part of it's history. It made a huge blunder publicly offending many people and is dealing with it right now. It is part of it's recent factual history which is what makes Wikipedia so relevant. Please do not team up and block contributors. Instead please assist and if needed help edit the contribution. That is the appropriate thing to do. Currently you have not read what was written on the top of the page by other editors. They requested the article not continue to read like an ad. Is there any reason you have ingnored that request while effectively assisting in censoring my criticism comments? The nature of all comments on the Lipton pages is highly skewed with PR garbage on behalf of the company. It needs to be looked at as do the contributors that have put forth the promotions of it, and deletions of anything but advertising. Wikipedia is now obviously being targeted by people interested in internet PR as are blogs and other media. That is not to say that you are part of that, but you are assisting in only the censoring of non promotional content. That is serious and if continued could hurt Wikipedia. Please read the request for the article to be improved. Then please correct the deletion of the comments and feel free to change the wording to criticisms vs controversy. --WikiShares (talk) 04:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on edits, not editors. When I get a chance, I'll look at the article and see if there's advertising in it. It would help if you would go to the talk page of the article and detail some of the specific problems with the article you are having. As for the animal testing, if this is really as big of an issue as you say it is, it should be easy to find reliable secondary sources showing how controversial ths matter is. Dayewalker (talk) 04:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. I can't find any serious news sources for this, and until we can it doesn't belong in the article - which I note has been pretty heavily pruned to remove promotional content. Dougweller (talk) 08:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made three reverts at List of The Angry Video Game Nerd episodes trying to maintain an edit based on policy and with a reasonable amount of support (Talk:List of The Angry Video Game Nerd episodes). If I do a fourth I will violate 3RR. Where can I go to try and get support for my efforts to improve a page. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you read WP:3RR as it allows for reversion of vandalism or unsourced material. The rule is aimed at edit warring. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been engaged in a long, unproductive dialogue with another editor at Separation of church and state in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which has focused on a dispute about the first sentence of the article. (Basically, that editor objects to a sentence that states "separation..." describes a principal embedded in the US constitution.) Over a period of weeks, I have posted a request for comment, a request for third party opinion, and a request of the US Government policy group talk page. No replies. (Except for one RfQ reply that was a question, with no followup.) We really need some additional neutral parties to participate to resolve the dispute, and I don't know what else to try. Please advise! (Or hop over to the talk page and weigh in yourself...) Thank you. -- BTfromLA (talk) 19:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By a wild coincidence, I just researched this issue yesterday while editing another article. Will come over to the talk page and join in. Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:R help (edit | template | history | links | watch | logs)
Another editor and I were involved in a recent Tfd to delete {{R help}}. The Tfd closed after a few days, and the decision was to Keep the template as is. The other editor then proceeded to "be bold" as he put it and make changes to the template anyway. At first it seemed like disruptive edits, however the other editor proved that he was sincere by not entering into an edit war (thank goodness). At present, we seem to have reached a complete logjam in the discussion. I would have gone to WP:3, but there was one other editor who made a brief comment in the discussion. Any and all experienced counsel would be appreciated!
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  23:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS. The most recent discussion is here: Template talk:R help#Requested move.

Responding editors should be aware that there is an ongoing WP:RM on the topic. --Bsherr (talk) 00:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Another administrator has closed the discussion in question. It's nice to know that this option is available! I will remember it in the future, if needed. Happiest of New Years to you and yours!

 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  18:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you an editor with particular interest in duplicate content or plagiarism?

Can you assist (or point me to policy or provide advice on how to deal) with duplicate content? Is it appropriate to have the same section in two articles? I'm guessing we have a policy or guideline on that. Here's evidence of the duplicate: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copyright&diff=prev&oldid=404099724 (see my edit summary)

This issue came up after I noticed some dubious content in Copyright and commented on it; discussion here. I also came across some possible plagiarism, which I noted in said discussion.--Elvey (talk) 22:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wikipedia:Plagiarism help? – ukexpat (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has been an (obscenely) long debate about a link to a comic strip here. You can see that the fans of the comic wanting the link have not established an overriding consensus to keep the link (the burden to show why it is valid within the framework of Wikipedia is on them), or put forward a case that has convinced other editors that it belongs there. However, as there is a hard core of users who edit the article who will keep adding it back in.

What is to be done here? I can't edit war with them, but I really feel that it's important not to just let have people get their own way just to prevent ructions. Inappropriate content should not be allowed because of this sort of thing (particularly as this comic appears to appeal beyond reason to many contributors and is often spammed in articles). What can I do? You only need to look at my talk page to see that I'm suffering criticism and policy attacks (3RR warnings for two edits!) by the comic's fan-base for any action I take. Would I be right to remove the link and request page protection? Wenttomowameadow (talk) 05:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see consensus on the page to include the link, and I also disagree with the theory that the link has been there for x number of days, therefore that's the consensus. I don't think it's worth edit warring over, though. I would suggest filing a request for comment, so other editors who aren't involved directly with the article can voice their opinions. Dayewalker (talk) 07:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's been through the RFC process already about a year ago by the looks of it (several people chimed in and the link remained out of the article for some time). I'm probably going to just drop it at this point, as there doesn't seem to be a way of keeping the elves from putting it back in. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 07:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is necessary for article found it on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat32#FAT32 - where is about "FAT32 ...... ...... The maximum possible size for a file on a FAT32 volume is 4 GiB minus 1 byte (232−1=4,294,967,295 bytes). Video applications, large databases, and some other software easily exceed this limit. Larger files require another formatting type such as NTFS."

And I have to write to you about size for a file on a FAT32 ... If you have to work with a file with size aprox. 1 Gib (a audio file made it with sound forge) the FAT32 don't let the system to calculate adress for a bit great than 704 mb (more than a compact disc capacity). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.122.88.88 (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File Allocation Table (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thank you for your interest in improving this article. Do you have a reliable source to confirm this file size limit? Is this a limit imposed by the operating system or only by certain applications? I suggest you post this to the article talk page where it will be seen by the contributors who are most interested in the topic. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I observed that in time. My job - it is on a radio station, where I have resposabilities to record all the programs 24 h / 24. And when i forgot to restart, after 24h, the sistem record (a computer with fat32), the file record was after 48h large than 704mb (more than 900mb). And when i tried to read with winamp the file, the line time had erors ... And when I tried to put out from the original file a piece , the system was not able to cut - paste with sound forge. I had to split it, to can use, in pieces with maximum 700 mb. After that I repeat it to have a conclusion, with other sistems ... Results equal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.122.88.88 (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now i have an account to could answer to any question. tomi01_2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomi01 2000 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you'll need to look for is a reliable source that actually says that. While I don't doubt you did what you said you did (and I know myself that FAT/FAT32 does tend to get awfully twitchy with large file sizes), but since that's not actually verifiable, it wouldn't be appropriate as the basis for article content (it would constitute original research, which is disallowed). I imagine though, that if this problem really is that widespread, someone's seen about it and written it up in a tech publication. You could always take a look for that as your source. (Off the topic slightly, you probably should be using NTFS or a *nix filesystem for what you're doing, or else you're very likely to run into this again...). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Romania. And something it's very strange for me. BUG system - for fat32 it is not existing , because the source don't exist? To exist a reality fat32 trouble on wikipedia, has to be published on a tech publication. Wikipedia don't have the power to sustain a true! that's my conclusion ... It's not posible to made for any articol - "completing articles " with public opinion until somebody comes and tell - that it's false.

Maybe you know that - people are living on the earth, for a several thousand years, but we have television, cars, telecomunication, fat32, ntfs born in last century ... and that's not thanks for the curch rules ... Galileo has any source? He has reality and senses. Maybe wikipedia has power to do the right choice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomi01 2000 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are reasons we require verifiability, the main one being that we do want any editor to be able to verify what's in an article. For your particular scenario, there are any number of things that can cause file corruption. To verify your diagnosis as it having been caused by FAT32, a reader would have to be working with the exact same file as you were, generated under the exact same conditions, on the exact same system configured in the exact same way, and be able to verify it's the file system, not anything else along the line, that corrupted it. That would be difficult, if not impossible, for someone to actually do, let alone for any reader of the article. I've done tech support of that nature (both for a living previously, and informally more times than I'd like to count), and I can tell you just how tough an issue like that can be to run down. If the issue is published somewhere, on the other hand, any reader can look at the source to see who drew the conclusion, on what basis they concluded it was a file system bug, when the tests were run, under what conditions it was found to occur, etc. Like I said, it's not that I personally doubt you, but it is that we fully require verifiability. It's seemed to be a pretty good choice so far to do so. And realistically, bugs in a file system as widely known and used as FAT32 ought to have been found and documented somewhere. Try running a search, you might be surprised at what you'd find! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An IP user (Special:Contributions/84.236.96.225) is constantly making changes to Artjoms Rudņevs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), namely removing the letter -s from his name among some other minor unreferenced changes. I consider this to be borderline vandalism, as the user hasn't reacted to the discussion I tried to start with him on both his talk page and the discussion area of the article, and the user is also removing a valid citation while making his reverts.

Applying Russian grammar and the ethnic Russian spelling of his name is objectively wrong, because the respective player is Latvian and his name simply isn't "Artyom Rudnev" (as claimed by the IP user). Kursis (talk) 18:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would post warnings on the IP's Talk page. If he fails to heed the warnings, I would request he be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, another IP is doing the same thing as 84. above. I have warned the IP, but based on his/her persistence, I have requested a block. If this is going to come from multiple IPs, though, the article may need semi-protection. I guess we'll find out.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to handle this, at least for now. Rudņevs was born in the USSR and thus likely had his birth certificate as Руднев (Rudnev). Most likely his official name (passport, contracts, etc) is now Rudņevs; it is not impossible he still keeps Руднев, but this has to be proven by reliable sources. Russian media calls him as they please, per national sentiments. Materialscientist (talk) 03:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated on AIV, I'm happy to let Materialscientist handle the problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His official name is Artjoms Rudņevs. It is not impossible that he personally might favor the Russian spelling, but he's a Latvian citizen and all the names of Latvian citizens are adjusted according to Latvian grammar, as thoroughly explained in this piece of legislation (in Latvian): http://www.likumi.lv/doc.php?id=85209. Section 2, p. 12 clearly states that masculine names can only have the following suffixes: -s, -š, -is, -us (or -a and -e). Section 5 deals specifically with the technicalities of adjusting ethnic Russian names into Latvian.

Due to the unique grammar of Baltic languages, every single endonym (including, for instance, the names of all the countries and so forth) is adjusted to fit the rules of Latvian language with no exceptions, as explained here: [[1]] Kursis (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know how to edit the first section of articles as there is no "edit this" link - only in subsequent paragraphs. Please link instructions. My issue is the article Josef Strauss. In first section, second paragraph the name Franz Anton is highlighted to an incorrect link. It should be Franz Anton Ries.

Andy Rosten [email removed] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosten736 (talk • contribs)

Fixed the article. Can't comment on the "edit" tab. Materialscientist (talk) 06:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To edit the top of an article, sometimes you need to find the Edit link above the title. It lets you edit the whole article at once, obviously including the lead. HiLo48 (talk) 06:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See more at Help:Section#Editing before the first section. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this belongs here; please redirect me to a more appropriate page if it doesn't. But the article Tonic–clonic seizure has a whole section devoted to First aid procedures. It's marked as unsourced as well, but that's not the point of my question, which is: Is first aid advice in breach of WP:MEDICAL, i.e. "Wikipedia does not give medical advice"? Asav (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read the policy as a disclaimer, not as a prohibition against giving medical advice. It's like a lawyer giving legal advice to someone but telling the person he's not their lawyer and they shouldn't rely on the advice (because he doesn't want to be sued). It's still legal advice, no matter what the lawyer may say. However, even assuming my interpretation is correct, there's still the issue of whether it's a good idea to give such specific treatment instructions in a Wikipedia article. I don't know what the practice is in other medical articles, but my reaction is that this article crosses the line. Some generalized statements about what is appropriate (with citations) might be okay, but the level of detail in this article is far too much. And I would remove the entire section simply because it's unsourced and because of the sensitive nature of the information.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#HOWTO. Removed it. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a disinterested scholar/author on the history of science and hi tech. I am a known and published author, and will be giving a talk on the information age (uses and abuses) at the upcoming World Economic Forum, Davos. As a test, for my upcoming talk, I decided to first hand see what happened when I tried to edit some "controversial" biographies, but correcting them with reliably sourced and accurate information, which is where the interesting things lie. I have no personal or business connection to these individuals. The neutral material that I was trying to post was sourced, relevant and on topic.

There is one bio, which seems to have a lot of tampering (both sides) with (Naveen Jain of Infospace and Intellius fame). The page is completely moderated by a Wiki editor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ronz#top) who appears to hide behind various Wiki rules to allow only the posting of negative inferences, and not keep it either scholarly or factual. He restores the mundane and trivial, allows unsubstantiated inferences, but argues and removes anything, including real sourced information, that goes against his prejudice against this individual. For whatever reason, there is a lot of history here. One can see it throughout the discussions and his consistent undoing of any neutral or positive edits, and any attempts to remove unsubstantiated negative comments.

I have seen this happen with even my own Benign edits, as well as some other individuals who tried to contribute. He has blocked access to anyone from adjusting or fixing the site with the exception of himself. This is not proper journalistic or scholarly.

Is there a way that this obviously prejudiced editor can be disqualified? I have to say, given the fact that I did this to gather information for an important talk, the problem is now worse than I have feared for the overall credibility of the site. I have also taken the liberty of writing Jim W., who is a personal friend, but under my real name. He knows about my upcoming talk at Davos on this subject.

So, please let me know what you will do about this, as the results will be reported and published, whichever way they turn out. So, please give it priority attention. I am happy to reveal my identity to show that I have no personal connection. I have my own substantial entry on wiki, but have not attempted to edit that.

I look forward to hearing from you. Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 19:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correctly, you are referring to User:Ronz as the editor "blocking access" to article Naveen Jain, and I assume that "Jim W" is Jimmy Wales. I have made neutral edits in the past to Naveen Jain without any problem, and Ronz is a well-respected editor who has made over 50 thousand edits to Wikipedia over 5+ years, so it seems unlikely he'll be "disqualified" from editing the Jain article or any other. You have said that you have edited Wikipedia in the past, and Ronz has asked you to state whether you have edited the Jain article in the past. So, have you? What was your former userid? It seems to me that "testing" Wikipedia to gather material for a presentation, as you seem to be doing, is de facto disruptive. --CliffC (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "He has blocked access to anyone". Naveen Jain is semi-protected and can be edited by all autoconfirmed users, meaning all accounts that are at least four days old and have made at least 10 edits. Your account already has enough edits and will be autoconfirmed in two days. Only administrators can protect or unprotect pages. Ronz is not an administrator. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for some possibilities in a dispute. Your post here was non-specific and didn't give any diffs so I looked at the issue you brought up at Talk:Naveen Jain#Technology pioneer. You were apparently referring to [2]. "Technology Pioneer" doesn't belong in the caption field of an infobox. The documentation at Template:Infobox person#Parameters says: "caption Caption for image, if needed. Try to include date of photo and the photographer." If the image was not taken at or otherwise associated with a Technology Pioneer award then it shouldn't be mentioned in the caption. If the World Economic Forum has given him a Technology Pioneer award then it can be mentioned in the body of the article, with a source. I couldn't find a source or list of awardees in a limited search. Can you provide a link? World Economic Forum#Technology Pioneers Programme says they give 30-50 awards each year. http://www.weforum.org/community/technology-pioneers says: "Since 2000, more than 450 innovative companies from five continents have been selected as Technology Pioneers". It doesn't sound equivalent to a Nobel in science. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to post an article on virtual set technology, as it relates to the broadcast industry. There is currently a virtual set technology (VST) article posted, but this deals solely with audio, and has nothign to do with Video or the virtual set concept as used within the broadcast industry.

Please advise how I may post an article by the same name, but different topic.

Thanks very much for all you do as Wikipedia, and for addressing my little issue in such a big world! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.200.61 (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the article's actual name? There is no article titled virtual set technology. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is already, however, an article titled virtual studio which sounds like what you want to write about. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DISAMBIG explains how to name articles with similar names. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back in Nov 2008 the previous article for "Austin & Pickersgill" was merged into A&P Group. The editing unfortunately shows a complete misunderstanding of the relationship between these two enterprises, and is riddled with errors in text and references. I pointed this out on the A&P Group discussion page in Oct 2010, also offering to rewrite the articles provided a demerger was agreed. Unfortunately no response from anywhere.

I'm not sure how to go about this. Can I create a new Austin & Pickersgill article, or will that be blocked as a previously merged page? Are the previous two unmerged texts still available somewhere (this could save me some editing time)? Davidships (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a good idea to create the Austin & Pickersgill as a userspace draft first at User:Davidships/Austin & Pickersgill so you can work on it at your leisure. The pre-merger version is here. Hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ukexpat. That will get me started when I'm back from holiday next week. Davidships (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I blue-linked the subpage for you by adding a {{Userspace draft}} template and added a link to it on your userpage so you can find it easily. Hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've had an ongoing dispute with a user ArnaudMS regarding the page Bambu rolling paper. Admins have PP the page before to stop ArnaudMS but he's back and keeps putting up false information without references. I've asked other editors for help, but no matter who works on the page he keeps putting up a false date of 1764 with no substantiation. A few of us did research and were able to find a reliable date of 1908 using the OHIM / European Trademark office. The user still reverts this information and then says some mean things on various pages. Then ArnaudMS keeps putting up his brand images, which are taken down because of misuse, then he puts them back up again (then they will be taken down again).

Could a 3rd party editor please review the page Bambu_rolling_papers and help make it truly 3rd party written, with only clearly referenced text and legal images.

Sorry for having to ask for help but I am not going to engage in an edit war. Thanks!!!! Nahome (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if you were all to read WP:TPG and follow the recommendadions for talk page formatting and message signing, and read up on WP:CITE and get the inline citations formatted according to guidelines, we may have a clearer overview towards offering an opinion. After all, it's only a very short article. Thanks.Kudpung (talk) 05:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for your input but I didn't want to edit the page further b/c ArnaudMS will attack. If I try it - you'll see the attacking result :( Nahome (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will jump in later today at least to put the references into standard format and add some "citation needed" tags. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a try Jon, hopefully I at least made your editing easier. I followed the reference template and removed the inappropriate links and the non-referenced item at the end. Please improve it further though as I am sure I got some stuff wrong. Nahome (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nahome: Thanks for working on it, but as you will see the references displaying at the bottom are still just the numbers linking to external sites. The material inside the ref tags needs to be put into proper format so the references display at the bottom of the article. I will fix this later if you haven't yet. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I repaired the references so they display properly and while I was there, noticed some tendentious statements which were not supported by the cited web pages, regarding sundrying and saccharine flavor. I deleted these, with an explanation on the talk page. I also changed the 1764 reference to make clear it is a company claim, but even this is partly unsupported by the very sparse Bambu web site (the date is there, but not the other details about Alcoy). Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My edit got reverted, the deceptively sourced statements and misformed references are back in the article, and two users are busy reverting each other on the hour. I hope an admin will take a look, as this page is way out of control. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned ArnaudMS that he may be blocked for disruptive editing if he keeps re-inserting his claims about Bambu rolling papers (such as the 1764 foundation date) without persuading the other editors that his claims are justified. EdJohnston (talk) 06:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ed I see why it's so important to them that they remain on the List of oldest companies. They have it hyperlinked to their Bambu.com web page! They say how they are one of the 1000 world's oldest companies. See http://www.bambu.com/history.php, This information we have uncovered about the true foundation date being 1907 must be quite devastating to their marketing. I hope they will amend their marketing and quit using us as their false springboard. Can you please help Page Protect the List of oldest companies.Nahome (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HELP - NOW THEY ARE ATTACKING MY PERSONAL USER PAGE AND ALSO 3RR'S THE List of oldest companies. Please assist asap :( After an Admin warning the user 71.164.114.50 re-attacked me and wrote some long amazing posts on my page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nahome&oldid=405228494 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nahome&oldid=405250909 User claims to be from Newport - quick Google of the store they claim to be from says Newport NH But IP traces entirely to someone/somewhere else entirely (I'm sure that is just a lie like everything else). Please block them from being able to attack me or Wiki any further.

Nahome (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that 71.164.114.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been blocked for 31 hours. If you still need to ask for page protection, use Requests for page protection. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have written an article about Kento Holding in English, German and Portuguese. The English article was deleted nearly instantly saying that, I could start a discussion on the page. I put the Hold-on sign into the article to ask for "wait" with the deletion. I started to give proof of the importance of the company with all the details necessary, but instead the discussion also was deleted. This is not the way to handle such things. At least the discussion about the importance or non importance should have gone ahead. I would be pleased to receive any clarification about that matter. Regards--Cruks2010^(talk) 16:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "article" consisted of a statement of where the company was incorporated, and who owns it. This led to a speedy deletion, since there was nothing to indicate that the subject was notable in any way. Wikipedia is for articles about notable subjects, and most companies are not notable; in the case of companies, more information can be found at WP:CORP. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):Hi. This is not the department for resolving deletion issues. Different language Wikipedias often have different thresholds for inclusion. The best way to handle these things is to follow the clear instructions on the two deletion messages on your talk page on whom to contact. Those editors will be able to explain their reasons for deletion, and the admins may, on resonable request, userfy the deleted article so that you can work on it in your user space without fear of it being deleted. Please correct the details in your signature, the talk page link goes to a deleted page. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 11:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surakarta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) User:Merbabu for second time removes the flagicons of Bulgaria and Spain, used before the names of the the towns Montana and Bilbao, listed as sister cities to Surakarta. He does it even after I asked him politely about the reason of undoing my edit. Whithout getting any answer I put the icons again there and they were removed again by the same user,showing not valid reason for his reverting. In every article the sister cities are shown with the flagicon of the country they belong to.Drjmarkov (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the same user User:Merbabu has decided to apply a disputed policy about the usage of the flag icons on just that article. I have tried to discuss with him the problem,but he deleted the discussion on his talk page for the reason of "removing rude editor's comments". I haven't said anything rude - I only told that his opinion is "radical" and that he "oppresses" a MOS policy that is still disputed.I asked him,why is he starting with such that article.Drjmarkov (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The flagicons for twin towns have been restored. The use of flag icons in twin town/sister city items is standard Wikipedia practice and is not about be challenged at Surakarta. Further removals may be met with warnings for disruptive editing to make a point. A message has been left on the article talk page to this effect. --Kudpung (talk) 05:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add a source to the entry, "Chatroulete," but I didn't enter the citation correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annabel Tree (talk • contribs) 07:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. Jonathanwallace (talk) 07:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request unclear

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikipedia EDITOR (History and Land Claim)

I have a record of the biggest land claim (Johannesburg City in South Africa). The history of Johannesburg has been revealed and proved. Johannesburg is known for gold mining and production in all of Africa. And the blacks tribe Bakwena Bamare-A-Phogole are its rightful owners. The land is so huge it is causing a big commotion in South Africa land affairs department to settle. The Bakwen Bamare-a-Phogole has lodged a land claim. This is a history that should never go untold.Send me your email adress, i will submit to you a draft document from department of land affairs about his Bakwena Bamare-a-aPhogoe tribe an land claim. From Stephen Mogagabe cell: ^{[details removed]} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.10.10 (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question about using Wikipedia? -- John of Reading (talk) 10:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 11:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been cleaning up and re-translating some articles brought across from French Wikipedia, and am noticing that sometimes the original editor leaves out most of the French language references (for example, Trévou-Tréguignec, which I am editing right now). If I simply clean up the existing article, it will have few sources; if I put them back in from the French Wikipedia original, it will be extensively referenced to sources, most of which are not available online (for example, a monograph published in 100 copies in 1902) and are in a language most Wikipedians can't read. Seems like the right thing to do, but a lot of work for very little benefit. Please let me know your thoughts. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More references are always better. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources the article is based on should be cited to make the article verifiable, regardless of whether they are online or in English. Note that older books are often fully visible in Google Books. This tool is handy for creating Wikipedia references from Google Books URLs. --JN466 17:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of knew that was going to be the answer....will do. Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answered

 – nothing to do with Wikipedia Jezhotwells (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, User:Kainaw won't stop making assumtions about me and he keeps on giving me a "do it yourself" indirectly. I have asked several questions to confirm disputes, i.e. who voices warmonga on Kim Possible, Kristen Johnston or Kerri Kenney? or Who's the girl in Club Can't Handle me by David Guetta and Flo Rida singing in the background? I ask them, and they keep telling me to use twitter, even though it says that my e-mail is taken just because my aunt created an account anf forgot her password. what can i do to convince this user that i am not lying? N.I.M. (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Get another email account like gmail and get a Twitter account. Your questions are often only answerable by the people directly involved with the media in question. They are not great questions for the reference desk. --Leivick (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't create new e-mail, server probloms, and another thing, User:Kainaw says that i'm lying about his screen reader because he is using one. I am using JAWS. He also says that i haven't attempted to research resources myself, when i have. He'd know that if he thought lojicly: "Ok, he's asking because he tried googling it, nothing, so he tried asking someone near by, nothing, so the ref desk comes next." that's usualy what most people do before they come to the ref desk. I'm sure User:Kainaw himself has done it too. He says i am using my disability as an excuse when i am not. My version of JAWS is picky, i can't help it. N.I.M. (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Server problem" I don't know how that would prevent you from getting an account one of the many free email providers out there. You are asking questions on the ref desk that are easy to get answers to if you ask the right people. The people who work at the ref desk are not the right people. You need to contact the producers of these songs or the voice actors themselves. The ref desk wont do it for you. --19:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia carry articles on seemingly non-notable books such as Whispering to Witches, yet repeatedly deletes an article on Fledging Jason Steed - a book which has been named as a favourite by stars such as Justin Bieber and Taylor Swift on the Ellen show, and by Malia Obama on the Teen Zone show?--80.176.190.43 (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the notability guidelines for books and "but...but this other article exists". – ukexpat (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I understand all that but... it seems to meet at least the minimum Wikipedia book notability guidlines, including reviews by Wikipedia-approved "reliable sources" organisations such as Kirkus,[3] and being stocked at more than 70 libraries across America,[4]. Not to mention being named as the favourite book of the daughter of America's president.[5] --80.176.190.43 (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent deletion discussion was in June 2009. If there are new reliable sources to show that it passes the notability guidelines for books then a new article might be possible. It should be created as a user space draft so that it can be reviewed without risk of immediate deletion. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recreating this article is not worth the time/effort. It will be deleted within minutes and you will probably be banned as a sockpuppet at the same time. Hey ho - let the Wikipedia 'police' have their jollies, and don't bother playing into their hands.--BullLane (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This subject, the human classification by race, has been ring-fenced by two editors who are relentlessly pushing a single point of view as if that is the only one extent. I have objected by generating long lists of the counter opinions of other qualified geneticists and biologists who disagree that race is entirely a social construct, and provide evidence that many scientists believe (especially in the medical field) that humans can be usefully divided by DNA markers, anatomy, geographical origin, etc., in order to provide more tailored medical intervention. At every turn my many suggestions have been met with scorn, bullying, threats or, if the evidence I supply is incontrovertible, complete refusal to discuss the issue. (One example, my scientists have been rejected as "unreliable," using as evidence a study by a Stanford team that agrees with them. When I supplied TWO Stanford teams who agree with me, there was no reply whatsoever.)

I do not seek ot overturn the general gist of the article; rather, I wish merely to have some small section to indicate to readers that the subject is hotly disputed and that many legitimate workers in the field disagree with the political/sociological interpretation/classification of human races. Tholzel (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Your signature is not displaying properly -- it has no link to your talk page. See WP:SIG. Regarding the race discussion, please see the advice given at WP:ARBR&I. This is a hotly disputed area and what you consider to be 'a small section' is unlikely to be accepted without major debate. Wikipedia is not a forum. If you find yourself continuing to make your arguments without persuading anyone else on the talk page, please take that as a sign that you should consider dropping the subject. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 06:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for your suggestion. Unfortunately, there are plenty of editors who disagree with the current one-sided version, but they are also prevented from getting a foot in the door. My complaint is that the article is controlled by two editors of like mind who are deliberately excluding a major aspect of the subject matter, no matter how many other editors disagree. I do not wish to argue the points, but just let readers know that the subject is highly contentious with strongly differing opinions by sources as qualified as the only ones currently allowed.Tholzel (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The embedded image at Pirates versus Ninjas is not necessary for describing the content, and features a blog URL in it for promotion. I feel that it should be removed from the article. Is that correct? Would I be right in thinking that it should deleted from Wikipedia altogether, particularly as it will be unreferenced after removal from that article?

One other thing; the websites section of the article features sites that probably have high user counts but are unlikely to have featured in the development of the meme or impacted it in any way. There certainly aren't any secondary sources available to show that they have. I feel like zapping the section but I'm worried that it would pointlessly ruffle feathers (particularly as it probably could be argued that RealUltimatePower had a lot to do with the development of the meme). I would appreciate any input on that issue. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 09:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biggles: Adventures in Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi,

I wanted to seek guidance on the above article. In February 2007, after much research and contact with the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch, I added the following factual piece of text:

"The Bell Jetranger Helicopter used in the film was involved in a serious accident in 1989, when it collided with overhead electricity cables when the pilot was approaching a field to land. Luckily the crew escaped with minor injuries. However the helicopter did not fare so well, it was written off and broke up for parts."

This piece of information has recently been deleted by an editor on the grounds that "it's not actually relevant to the film"

That being the case probably half of the rest of the article could be deleted as being not relevant.

Is this in keeping with Wikipedia policies?

Booke23 (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is probably covered by the key question, "does this content add to the reader's understanding of the subject?" – ukexpat (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I point out that one shouldn't insert information into an article, factual or otherwise, based on "much research and contact with the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch": this will fall under WP:OR. Instead, information needs to be derived from published reliable sources, per WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your replies. I should point out that the information I refer to is actually taken from an official accident report published by the AAIB. This report is not available online but is in the public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Booke23 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again my question, a little more bluntly, "So what?" - what relevance does this have to the article about the movie? – ukexpat (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how many readers of the original article thought "So what?" Not many it seems as the above paragraph remained on the article for nearly 4 years. In an article about a film, judging if facts are relevant or not is very much subjective. As I said, a significant amount of the remainder of this article and many others like it could be removed using this rationale. However this is an encyclopedia. Part of the definition of encyclopedia is "a summary of information from all branches of knowledge" So surely supplimental information is required. If I wanted to read basic facts I'd look at a dictionary entry.....which is what some articles on wikipedia are in danger of becoming with policies like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Booke23 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it was there for nearly 4 years is, to be frank, irrelevant - there have been cases of serious vandalism and hoax articles that have been around for as long or longer before they were dealt with. But back to the issue - you would have a point, maybe, if the official report indicated that the use of this particular helicopter in this movie damaged it in some way leading to its demise, that would possibly be relevant. However, the mere fact that it crashed three years later is, as far as this article is concerned, of no relevance. I am sure many vehicles used in movies meet untimely ends some time after filming wraps, but that does not mean that its relevant to the articles about the movies. Similarly, the fact that one of the stars of a movie dies, even if in tragic circumstances, some time after filming, is not relevant to a movie article. – ukexpat (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We shall have to agree to disagree. I just looked up the first helicopter based show that came into my head: Airwolf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). And there I find an extensive paragraph describing what happened to the helicopter after the show. Including details of subsequent owners and details of an accident that destroyed the helicopter. Completely irrelevant to the show. But I, and thousands of users want to read about it. Because it's interesting. Booke23 (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The blue water Navy article needs immediate help. It's just in a big mess.Bcs09 (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Blue-water navy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). – ukexpat (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A heads up here, the user is calling it a "big mess" due to consensus on a proposal not going his way. Situation is under control now with a Mediation Cabal request having been answered and a consensus recorded. G.R. Allison (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Three times I have modified the "Early Life" section of Richard Holbrooke to remove "His original name remains unknown.[2]" and replace it with "His original name was Goldbrajch." I added a footnote that the source is "Declration of Intention, Southern District (New York) Court." I have that document in my possession. I also have two other sources where Dan Holbroolke indicated his birth surname was Goldbrajch.

GaryMokotoff (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Gary Mokotoff[reply]

This is a content dispute and should be discussed on the article's talk page. If you have sources other than the declaration, please discuss them them there. – ukexpat (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Order of the Straight Arrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

hi , i edited snipe hunt as above using a link tp another wiki page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Order_of_the_Straight_Arrow

i got a message saying it was an unreliable source : Hi there. Thanks for your interest in the article Snipe hunt. Unfortunately neither of the references you provided are considered reliable, so your edit has been reverted. Have a read of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Examples of sources that are considered unreliable and therefore not allowed on wikipedia include any wiki sites, including other wikipedia articles, networking sites such as facebook and myspce, forums, and blogs. Also have a read of WP:Cite web to learn how to format references properly. For starters you need to place 'ref tags' on either side of the website you are using as a reference. If you wish to add popular culture mentions to articles in the future please ensure you have a reliable reference that is formatted properly. If you cannot find a reference from a reliable third party, then it should not be mentioned on wikipedia.

this to me seems contrary , if the other article (order of the straight arrow ) is allowed to stand , but i can't link to it in a related article , how does that work ? could someone explain ?

cheers paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmoza (talk • contribs) 09:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for posting here. The answer is that there are lots of poorly-referenced articles here, and only a relatively small number of editors who are concerned with cleaning up sourcing and, as a last resort, starting the deletion process on articles that can't be well sourced. The Order of the Straight Arrow does have a notice on it about its lack of good sourcing. Can you track down some more reliable sources for either of them? It would certainly be appreciated if you could. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

75.73.50.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Has repeatedly ignored my requests to acknowledge January 1 as the date Cuomo took office. He/she is causing great disruption to this page, and refuses to offer any legitimate counter-arguements on his/her position other than "Disagree", despite the points I have made on his/her talk page and in my reverts. We have not had any feedback or support from any other users. I have maxed out my three reverts, so cannot do much further, except to see if he/she makes some argument on his/her position. Sinisterminister (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you have breached WP:3R so I would advise you both to leave the article alone for the rest of the day. – ukexpat (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have acknowledged this and will stop. 75.73.50.195 has made a rather desperate comment on the discussion board. Fortunately, GoodDay (talk) has provided some helpful backup. Sinisterminister (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)The NYT says he was 'sworn in' on 31 December 2010. I suggest you leave it at that without trying to put your own interpretation on it, hope that nobody reports you for WP:3rr,(blockable) and try to be a little less aggressive on other editors' talk pages. --Kudpung (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The NY Constitution says an elected official assume office at midnight New Year's Day, following the previous year's November election. If oath taking was taken so literally? The US. Presidency would've been vacant for roughly 10 minutes, every Inauguration Day. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, while I appreciate your input, I think you are missing the point of the debate, which is the legal distinction that has been made between a swearing in ceremony and the official, legal point at which an elected official has taken office. That said, I agree with GoodDay. Ceremonies are just that - ceremonies. And the cited source (here) reveals BOTH that while the swearing in ceremony took place on the evening 12/31, but Cuomo did not officially become governor until 1/1. This was all stated in one sentence in one New York Times article cited. I am not "interpreting" anything, and am not sure where you are seeing this. The facts are quite clear. Sinisterminister (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I only partly read the NYT article, and I have no knowledge of, and no personal interest in the Constitution of the United States. That said, I was far more concerned with the tone of your messages to another editor when you are in breach of policy, and not signing your posts. Kudpung (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, I'm not sure who you are responding to. And why are you referring to the US Constititution? And who is not signing their posts? This is all very confusing. Please clarify. Sinisterminister (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hi. Please look the recent edit history of Chicago. The user Verygentle1969 keeps adding a sentence that is unsourced trivia. I have deleted and explained why but he/she keeps adding it back with no explanation and without addressing the issues raised. This trivia simply does not belong. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have explained your deletion in your edit summaries, but a new editor probably won't have discovered the History tab yet and won't have seen your messages. I suggest you post at User talk:Verygentle1969, very gently, explaining your concern. I've begun the page with a standard welcome message. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user User talk:Verygentle1969 ignored my concerns, after I told him of them on his talk page. He again edited without source or comment. I deleted his latest edit as unsourced. Any help you can provide, would be appreciated.Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's made the same edit four or five times today; I added a 3RR warning to his Talk page. Let's hope he doesn't do it again. (He's made edits of similar type to Mexico City and List of Independent Cities.) JohnInDC (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to get a list of any old article I created that was eventually deleted. I had a bunch that were deleted for lacking sources a while back before I learned to give a proper citation, and I wanted to go through them, but there are so many from a long time ago I lost track. I don't know which ones are really worth trying to save, but at least a list would be helpful. Can something like that be requested? Maybe some sort of bot that matches article created by me with eventual deletion and make a list?Mathewignash (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't get a good reply here, ask the question again on your talk page and add the {{adminhelp}} template. Only an administrator will be able to see your deleted contributions. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:DDRfan/Dax-Devlon Ross (writer)

This is my first article and it is about a living person of note. I am requesting assistance in whatever changes I must make in order to make it fit the Wiki guidelines. I appreciate any/all help. Thank you in advance! DDRfan 16:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)DDRfan DDRfan (talk · contribs)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

First you need to establish that this person is notable enough for a Wikipedia article to exist about him. To do this you must show that he has attracted media coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the writer himself. There are additional guidelines at WP:AUTHOR. My Google searches find books by this author but not much that is about him.

Then, sadly, I think you need to post the links to those reliable sources at Requested articles and not write the article yourself. Your user page says that you have worked with this writer and that you are a fan of his. This makes it likely that you have a conflict of interest in writing the article and are unlikely to achieve a neutral point of view in your text.

All bad news, I'm afraid, but most of these links are already on your talk page as part of the messages there. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite agreed. Basically, you're writing ads/puff pieces, nothing near neutral encyclopedia articles. The draft in your userspace has the same problem. If you're an admirer and former coworker, probably best to let someone else write this one, if an article's appropriate at all. Maybe you can find a topic you're a little more able to be neutral on. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will delete it. Wiki is obviously not the place for me. DDRfan 18:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)DDRfan — Preceding unsigned comment added by DDRfan (talk • contribs)

Your filmography of Sylvester Stallone left out a moive that he stared in back in 1967 with Edd Byrnes called the RED BLOOD,YELLOW GOLD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.243.221.98 (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So long as reliable sources confirm that he was in that film, you can add that to the article. When it says "You can edit this page", really, you can! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was obviously edited by someone whose first language is not English. Please review.

Parts that are grammatically incoherent include, but aren't limited to:

'1998-2002 La Usurpadora and Hiatus

Gaby was invited in 1998 to star in one of the most important roles of her life, the novela "La Usurpadora" who until then would be Thalia.'— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyra borealis (talk • contribs)

Why don't you go ahead and fix it? – ukexpat (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure how to cite these language use tables. They are from the U.S. Census Bureau, here (see Detailed Tables » [XLS - 850k] ) and will be cited on Welsh language. Help would be appreciated. Daicaregos (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[6] looks like it may have the information you need. Is that what you're looking for? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of something like: <ref>{{cite web|title=Table 1. Detailed Languages Spoken at Home and Ability to Speak English for the Population 5 Years and Over for the United States: 2006-2008 Release Date: April, 2010 |url=http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/language/data/other/detailed-lang-tables.xls |accessdate=2 January 2011 |publisher=[[United States Census Bureau]] |date=27 April 2010 |work=[[United States Census Bureau]] website}}</ref>. Would you use a "format" section? Any other changes? Daicaregos (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd throw in "format=xls" and omit the "work". If you include both "work" and "publisher" the reference will mention the USCB twice. -- John of Reading (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that. Thank you both for your help. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot Guard Riders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have tried (in vain) to edit the Wikipedia article on the Patriot Guard Riders. The original author states: "The Patriot Guard Riders is a motorcycle club that attends the funerals of members of the Armed Forces at the invitation of the deceased’s family.[1][2][3][4]"

This is completely false as the Patriot Guard Riders themselves state in several locations on their website that they are NOT a "motorcycle club". They are in fact a legally incorporated, non-profit organization which does not require it's members to ride motorcycles, does not have meetings and do not collect dues.

When I have explained this to the author (who keeps changing the edit back to "motorcycle club") his reply is that it is OK to use motorcycle club because "he feels" that they are! He also states that it does not matter what the PGR wants to be called.

This type of attitude by editors on wikipedia is very detrimental to the reputation of wikipedia. One PGR member who is also a teacher has stated on the PGR website: "I am a teacher, I use wikipedia a lot, and I count on the accuracy of the information." When editors refuse to replace opinions in an article with an accurate fact, it makes wikipedia useless.

As I stated to the author on the "talk" page, the Patriot Guard Riders have worked very hard with the Confederation of Clubs (national clearinghouse for all motorcycle clubs) to allow our members to wear PGR patches on their clothing. This is a very sensitive issue amongst motorcycle clubs and the COC has allowed the PGR members to wear their PGR patches (which members purchase, unlike motorcycle clubs where they must be earned) to "missions". The COC allows this because they do not recognize the PGR as a motorcycle club. Stating that the PGR IS a motorcycle club could damage their reputation and cause problems with real MC's.

Patriot Guard Riders Articles of Incorporation http://www.patriotguard.org/Portals/0/NTForums_Attach/PGR%20Articles%20of%20Incorporation.pdf

PGR Non-Profit, 501c3 Approval http://www.patriotguard.org/Portals/0/NTForums_Attach/PGR%20501c3%20Approval%20letter%20-%2022%20JUN%2007.pdf

"Motorcycle Clubs" are not Corporations!

We would respectfully request that the article be amended simply to state:

"The Patriot Guard Riders is an American, non-profit (501c3) Corporation who's members attend the funerals of members of the Armed Forces at the invitation of the deceased’s family.[1][2][3][4]"

This would make the article true and accurate.

Thank you for your consideration.

Scott Hayes, moderator, pgrny.org Patriot Guard Riders Rochester, NY

Winger58 (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I already see you've been told by several editors at the talk page, we go by what reliable sources say, period. Several sources were shown to you indicating that the Patriot Guard was stated to be a motorcycle club. (Note that this doesn't mean it's a "motorcycle club" according to any given organization's standards for one, just that it would be considered in common parlance to be such). If you feel that's an egregious error, you're approaching this from the wrong direction. You need to first contact the sources who said it's a motorcycle club, explain you feel they made a factual error, and ask them to correct. If they do so, we'll change the article according to their correction. We're here to summarize and collate what sources say, not to substitute our judgment for theirs.

If you've already done that, and they stand by their story and are unwilling to correct, I'm afraid you're out of luck. It's a possibility that might happen, and they might say "Hey, folks, by any reasonable use of the term, you're a club made up overwhelmingly of motorcycle riders. You're therefore a legitimate and noble motorcycle club, but in a common manner of speaking a club nonetheless." (You could sue them, I suppose, if you really want to take it that far.) And unfortunately, we generally cannot take the word of an organization over that of a disinterested, reliable third-party source which has written about it.

If you haven't yet contacted the sources and asked them to correct, I'd strongly advise you do so. Wikipedia follows what reliable third-party sources say. We don't correct, editorialize, or do our own reporting. If the source corrects or changes what they said, we do too, but not the other way around. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some time ago I was looking at the Discussion page for Prostitution and saw an Edit Request from Laura Agustin. Someone responsible replied to her saying it was ok but she should not write about her own work. I then wrote underneath that I would be able to do this. No one has answered me and I don't understand how to make an Edit Request there. I don't want to participate in the discussion/argument about the meaning of prostitution, just add something about Agustin's work.

Wikinawikina (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just wrote something but it has ended up under someone else's issue. How do I ask how to make an edit request please?

Wikinawikina (talk) 12:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Laura María Agustín (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

You don't need anyone's permission to edit a Wikipedia article. If you can add relevant, sourced material to any article, be bold and try it. I've left you some introductory reading on your talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prostitution is semi-protected and can be edited by autoconfirmed users. Your account became autoconfirmed when you made your second post here so you should now be able to edit Prostitution. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created a new page naming Gerald A. browne after the American author.it got saved and it's shown in my contribution's list.But when i open a new page and search Gerald a browne, they still say that no page exists.

Xenops belle (talk) 12:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Gerald A. Browne (with the dot) exists. If you search for Gerald a browne, you will not get that page. For some things like that, you need to put in a redirect page (which I have done at Gerald a browne for you , if you want to see what they look like). Syrthiss (talk) 13:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) The article is there, but the indexes used by the "search" box are only updated once a day. If it hasn't sorted itself out in 24 hours, feel free to post again here. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article: PRESS FOR CHANGE

This article has been delted recently - Press For Change is still very much alive and well. We don't know who has done this, but we do know our website has been repeatedly hacked ove the last month, and wonder whether this is part of some strange person's campaign against us. Eitherway is there any way that this can be rescued. As it is deleted, I cannot edit. Many thanks Tommy 03-01-2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy1955 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re. PRESS FOR CHANGE I was going to put up a temporary page for this article, since it has been deleted - I can only imagine maliciously. If I do that will it destroy any previous record of the page. Tommy <e-mail redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy1955 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization matters. There has been no page called PRESS FOR CHANGE. Press For Change had a single sentence and was deleted in 2007. Press for Change had two sentences and no sources. It was deleted more than four months ago, 29 August 2010, per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7. I see no sign of malice in either deletion. Please don't throw around wild speculation like that. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. Only administrators can see the content of deleted pages, regardless of whether a new page has been created with the same name. If you refer to another page than those named here then please give the exact name including the right capitalization. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Hi Tommy. If you looked at your contribution (which is linked through your signature and through the "my contributions" tab at the top of the screen) you would have seen that you created an article on this topic at your user page (also part of your signature and linked through the tab for your name at the top of the screen) on September 27, 2010. It had never been deleted. Now, the reason I am using past tense is because I just deleted the page as a copyright infringement (as well as noting that it read as unsalvageably promotional and that it failed to indicate importance or significance). The deletion log entry is here. Since you are writing as if you are an owner of the content, please note that if you want to post that content here, you would have to release it into the public domain or under a free license compatible with ours for us to use it. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. However, the content was not suitable as an encyclopedia article in any event. Articles must contain neutral language and not read as PR pieces. Note also our notability requirements for organizations. You would need to cite to independent, reliable sources that verified the content to show that notability. Finally, please note that you may have just been speaking in a certain style, but your use of the word "we" in your post gives the impression that your account is shared by others in your organization. Role accounts are not allowed. Please also note our conflict of interest guidelines.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was wondering if anyone could answer my question. Is there an official standard format for "date of birth" on the Biography of living persons pages? My change to the Pierce Brosnan page was reverted to "standard format." I read on WP:DATESNO that both the "Month before day" and "Day before month" formats are accepted. I guess the British/European biography pages tend to use the "Day before month" format, while the American/Canadian pages use the former. I don't really care which format is used to tell you the truth, but I am concerned about consistency. In this section of WP:MOSBD, it says, "For an individual still living: 'Serena Williams (born September 26, 1981) ...', not '... (September 26, 1981 –) ...' I don't see anywhere in that section indicating that a different format other than "Month before day" is used. So, does it really matter? Thanks for reading. Happy New Year. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's related to our general rules on respecting variations in use of the English language. Articles on Americans use U.S. practice; articles on English, Irish and Indians use English practice, etc. If there is no standardized practice in the subject's country, then we retain whatever format the first creator of the article used. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, this problem would seem to belong on the Third Opinion noticeboard, but now more than two editors are involved. If this is not the right noticeboard for this concern, please forgive me but I don't know which noticeboard to contact besides this one.

A couple of editors are proposing references that contradict a New York Times article, but I don't feel their references either address the issue at hand and in one case one of the references doesn't strike me as being verifiable, reliable or third-party. This is concerning the artist, Mel Odom.

I have requested a Third Opinion in this matter when it was just two editors, myself and another, in dispute, but as I say, now there are three.

Please advise at the Talk:Mel_Odom_(artist)#Mdvanii and BillyBoy* Mel Odom (artist) Talk Page. Thank you.Mary Cross (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One NYT refrence A Doll for the 90's: Beautiful but No Bimbo is about Billy Boy, and apart from a very fleeting mention, is not at all about Mel Odom, and is not a source that contributes to Odom's notability. The second NYT reference: A Star Is Born, and She's a Doll is acceptable. More sources are required to satisfy 'significant coverage' per WP:NOTABILITY. The article needs a rewrite for neutrality and to remove the promotional tones. I see a list of references on the talk page. Is there any reason why these cannot be added to the article? BTW/ It is not recommended to ask for help in more than one department at a time.Kudpung (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one at the Biography of Living Persons board answered me. As I told you, I requested a Third Opinion but then the dispute became one between more than two editors, so I came here, not wanting to break the rules at 3O. The list of references you see are in my opinion tangential and do not support or deny the claim made in The New York Times, in my opinion, and the one reference that does deny the claim made in The New York Times is from what I consider an unverifiable, unreliable and non-third-party source. I'm not sure if anyone else is actually reading the references on that list besides myself. Any in depth help would be appreciated. Thank you.Mary Cross (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thionk that you have had sufficient answers, the fact taht you don't agree with them doesn't make them any less valid. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that I don't agree with them doesn't make them valid, either, with all due respect. If you feel the answers are sufficient then I would ask you to look closer. The issue at hand is whether or not Mr. Odom painted the first make-up for the Mdvanii doll. None of the contradictory references so far given by the other editors hold water, in my opinion. I'm looking for someone else to read those references as well. This is a dispute over references.Mary Cross (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

We've been having a minor edit dispute on the Stack Exchange page, regarding the Criticism section. Some other editors and I have questioned the validity of the criticisms. They are vague, and some do not understand them. The sources are small blogs.

The details are on the discussion page. Could someone please help sort this out?

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InverseHypercube (talk • contribs) 03:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded at the talk page. The article has several problems including unreliable and prinary sources and no clear eveidence of notability. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carnegie Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is vandalism on Talk:Carnegie Hall shown only by clicking on "Show" on the Jazz template line. I need assistance, as I have no idea how this vandalism is done. Even experienced editors can be at a loss about what to do.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been fixed already.

<advert> I've recently discovered the script User:Anomie/previewtemplatelastmod.js, which adds extra stuff to the "Edit" page listing all the templates used by the current version of the page being edited, with their most recent edit date, editor and edit summary. Armed with this you can go straight to whichever template has been vandalised! </advert> -- John of Reading (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to add her TV movie in 1997 with Richard Crenna, Deep Family Secrets, to her film career.

Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If you can add relevant, reliably sourced information to Angie Dickinson, or any other Wikipedia article, please be bold and do it. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

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

I have been working on the Sheridan College wiki and am stumped as to how I can add 2 extra co-ordinates in the top right hand corner. You see there are 3 campuses and they would like them all listed there, complete with campus name.

for example:

Coordinates: Oakville Campus 43°28'10.42"N 79°41'52.05"W / Brampton Campus 43°39'20.27"N 79°44'18.58"W / Mississauga Campus 43°35'25.77"N 79°38'48.93"W

Cumminsr (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Romona[reply]