Discussion moved

 – RfC opened by OP at Talk:Pablo Casals#Request for comment. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Pablo Casals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• El cant dels ocells (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am experiencing problems with the editor In ictu oculi concerning Pablo Casals. I noticed that, even though Pablo is typically used on Wikipedia, he was mentioned in some of articles as Pau, his Catalan name. In good faith, I went and changed these to Pablo for consistency and to help the reader. The above editor mentioned that this was problematic and gave a link to Google Books. Upon looking at this link and performing further searches, however, it appears as if Pablo is used overwhelmingly, and the use of Pablo and Pau in texts related directly to Catalonia is mixed, with Pau not appearing to be more common. I have given all of this information on the talk page, but the user has ignored it and asserted that I do not understand the situation. As a compromise, I changed my edits that affected Catalonia related articles to restore Pau alongside Pablo and explained my reasoning for this. Even after doing so, which was intended to suit both opinions, the user insisted that I should not have edited the articles and Pau should be restored alone. I have tried to discuss the situation, but I feel as if my attempts at explanation are being ignored. The main discussion is on Pablo Casals. There exists another conversation on El cant dels ocells that might be of note. I ask you to read this to see the link provided by the user: he performed a search for '"el cant dels ocells" "pau casals" song' to assert that Pau is more common, which is inevitable if the user explicitly searched for Pau Casals. Changing Pau to Pablo in this search gives twice as many hits. I hope other editors might be able to look at this situation to provide advice. After realising that there might be opposition to my original edits, I have provided further information and attempted to come to a compromise, but all of this has been ignored. I have no choice but to seek guidance from those elsewhere and from those who might consider properly what I have written. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I don't think this we can actually resolve this dispute on this page although we can give advice. The article talk pages are the best place to thrash this out. Questions of ethnicity and nationality can be very sensitive. While there is a clear-cut policy on how article titles should be handled (WP:COMMONNAME) guidelines on the form to be used in the body of the article are not so clear. In general, there is a requirement for self-consistency within an article but there is no requirement for consistency across all of Wikipedia (although in general consistency is encouraged). For some issues, guidelines explicitly protect differences between articles: examples are date formats, national varieties of English spelling systems, and citation styles.

I realise your "compromise edits were made in good faith, but my advice to you is not to edit the articles at all until a clear consensus emerges. There is no policy that forbids such edits, but a widely accepted convention in the event of a dispute is to revert the article to the status quo ante pending discussion—see WP:BRD. I would give it a few days to see how the discussion shapes up. If it is still intractable after that, you may be interested in using the request for comment process. SpinningSpark 07:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I am not seeing your claim that In ictu ocu used the search term "el cant dels ocells" "pau casals" song in the gbooks search. The search term in the discussion is casals "El cant dels ocells ‎" and returns results mostly for "Pau Casals". SpinningSpark 07:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, Spinningspark. I apologise if this page was not the best place to seek help. I was unsure about the best course of action and was hesitant to post it somewhere more serious. I am very appreciative for your advice. The other user only stated he or she opposed the removal of Pau, which was why I believed changing my edits to include Pau once again in Catalan-related articles could only have satisfied the other user. I had no reason to believe that it would not have neutralised the situation, as I had hoped. Instead, it appears as if he or she opposes the inclusion of Pablo whatsoever in these articles, even though Casals is known as Pablo by the majority of English speakers. Concerning your second comment, the search term "el cant dels ocells" "pau casals" song was discussed at the talk page of El cant dels ocells. Whilst hit counts by themselves are not entirely reliable, the fact that "el cant dels ocells" "pau casals" song gets 23 hits whilst "el cant dels ocells" "pablo casals" song gets 66 hits does indicate some kind of problem with the other user's assertion. For the search term casals "El cant dels ocells ‎", you must click on the books to see the full name: often only Casals appears on the main Google page. On the talk page of Pablo Casals, I explained how I did this for the ten books on the first page. Three used Pablo, two used Pau, and the other five were not written in English. Out of interest, I have just repeated this for the second and third pages and was very surprised by what I saw: eight used Pablo, none used Pau, one did not display enough previews for the usage to be determined, and the others were not written in English. Because, of the two books that used Pau on the first page of the search, one of the books was focused on Catalan music, the other user wrote 'Okay so based on this I will follow the Google Books and restore the Catalan name to articles directly related to Catalan culture.'. I subsequently did a Google Books search and found four only books that both mentioned Casals and were focused on Catalan music:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=R4ZESwAACAAJ&dq=casals+catalan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sqQLU7CzBsWp7AbSzYCQDg&redir_esc=y (uses Pablo) http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ssQhIHb-gx8C&pg=PA97&dq=casals+catalan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sqQLU7CzBsWp7AbSzYCQDg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=casals%20catalan&f=false (uses Pau) http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lwQCywAACAAJ&dq=casals+catalan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sqQLU7CzBsWp7AbSzYCQDg&redir_esc=y (Pablo) http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VNyocuVg5m0C&pg=PA173&dq=casals+catalan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sqQLU7CzBsWp7AbSzYCQDg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=casals%20catalan&f=false (Pau) Many other books exist that discuss Casals whilst mentioning Catalonia, but, because they had a more general scope outside Catalonia, I have not listed them here. This is because the above user appears to be focused on Catalonia-related articles. There are many of these books, such as this: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=m8W2AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA113&dq=casals+catalan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sqQLU7CzBsWp7AbSzYCQDg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=casals%20catalan&f=false (Pablo) I can understand why editors might wish to use Pau in an article about Catalonia. My problem, though, is that this name is unfamiliar to many English speakers. A very quick way of seeing this is to search 'Pablo Casals' and 'Pau Casals' into Amazon with the 'Music' department selected. At least on Amazon.co.uk, there are 400 hits for Pablo and just 38 for Pau. It seems to me beneficial to note Pablo when Pau Casals is mentioned in these articles, but the other user appears to want any trace of Pablo removed. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

COMMONNAME usually trumps stuff like this. Stone Cold Steve Austin isn't kept at "Steven James Anderson", Pablo Neruda isn't kept at "Neftali Ricardo Reyes Basoalto", Natalie Portman not at "Natalie Hershlag", Xiaxue not at "Wendy Cheng", "郑彦彦", or "下雪"... the list goes on. I know these are all cases of popular pseudonyms, but I'm sure there's an on-point case of a person known by multiple forms of a single name where the one he was born with doesn't win out. And while Chiang Kai-shek is not at "Chiang Chie-shih" (or any of the other romanizations of his names), the reason for this is most likely that in English, he's best known as Chiang Kai-shek. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Mendaliv, as I read this, the dispute is not primarily about the titles of the articles, but rather about how Casals alternative names should be handled within the body of the article. As I said above, the guidelines are not so clear cut on that issue. SpinningSpark 18:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah. If that's the question, I agree with your reading: if you just look at the articles I listed as examples, you'll see different ways of handling the question even among them. I was going to suggest that the practice with biographies about Japanese people (romanized names, western name order comes first in lede and article title) suggests the conclusion is to use the most common English name, but then again, biographies about Chinese people tend to use eastern name order (though those names are presented as romanized first). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

More specifically, the question is about the use of Casals' name on other articles. From what the other user has said, he or she does not wish Pablo to be mentioned in any Catalan related article. In other words, he or she thinks Pau should be used with merely a hyperlink that goes to Pablo Casals (something like 'A famous Catalan musician was Pau Casals'). My problem with this is that it is reasonable to believe that many users will not click this link and will carry on reading, unaware that Pau Casals is the same as Pablo Casals. This is a genuine concern because Pablo is so common in English. What do you both think about this? 131.111.185.66 (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought I would provide a couple of pieces of information from the help pages. Firstly, there is WP:SURPRISE. Secondly, we have this from the manual of style: 'Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so. Also use a link, but do not make a reader be forced to use that link to understand the sentence, especially if this requires going into nested links (a link that goes to a page with another technical term needed to be linked, which goes to a page with a link to another technical term, and so on). Don't assume that readers will be able to access a link at all, as, for example, they might have printed an article and be reading the hard copy on paper.' 131.111.185.66 (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hmm, here's a thought: Using Pau would seem to be a corollary to WP:ENGVAR. On the other hand, and also a reasonably extension of ENGVAR, is that this is English Wikipedia. What matters is not what Catalan speakers will identify him as, but what English speakers will most readily identify him as. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. Your reasoning about this being English Wikipedia was the same reasoning that led me to believe that Pau should be changed to Pablo in all articles, which is what I originally did. Out of courtesy to the other user, though, I changed these edits to things like 'Pau Casals (often known by his Spanish name, Pablo Casals)' so that we could still have the Pau reference to Catalonia. If it were down to me, everything would be Pablo because it is the common name. I accept using Pau in places, yet I think it would be foolish to have Pau with no mention of Pablo. Do you happen to know what the best course of action would be from here, Mendaliv? The other user seems very adamant about what he or she wants and does not appear to be listening much to what I am saying. There has been little input from editors outside this page. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I tend to agree with your reasoning, but as you are meeting opposition I go back to my suggestion above. First thrash it out on the talk page, then, if you cannot reach a compromise, open an RFC. Honestly, I cannot see the objection to stating both names other than nationalistic feelings - and it is not a Wikipedia requirement to go out of our way to soothe those. SpinningSpark 13:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you once again, Spinningspark, for your help. I am sorry for taking so long to reply: I have been incredibly busy. Since the other user has ended the discussion, I have followed your advice and submitted a request for comments. I have not done one before, but I tried to follow the guidelines as closely as possible (in particular, ensuring the question itself is neutral and my subsequent notifications to relevant projects were neutral). I hope you might copy your opinion there. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm marking this as moved to the RfC now, which can be found at Talk:Pablo Casals#Request for comment. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Mendaliv, and thank you also for the advice you have given here. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Problem here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks like you've started a talk page discussion, which is a good first step. Only 24 hours passed between starting that discussion and starting this one. You really need to wait a little longer. Notifying the user at his user talk page might also be advisable: he might not have seen the talk thread. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless, repeatedly removing maintenance tags without explanation or attempting to resolve them is not acceptable. I have left a templated warning on the user's page. SpinningSpark 16:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The complaining user is pushing an agenda he and he alone has, several other editors are trying to deduce just what he is trying to accomplish, but he has not been able to articulate what he means to say, only that everyone else in the world is wrong, and we have to prove it to him with cites for centuries-old ethnonym/demonyms while completely shirking the onus of the burden of proof to suggest it is wrong. His use of CN tags is malicious and purely in line with pushing his agenda, completely without merit and is harming the integrity of any article mentioning Geats. JesseRafe (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Once material has been challenged it is subject to WP:BURDEN and should not be re-added without a reliable source being provided. The information in question is not "obviously true" enough to my mind that this requirement should be waived, though personally I tend to think if something's "obviously" true then finding and providing a source should be a non-issue in any case. I would strongly recommend that editors focused on including the material would find it more constructive to simply provide a source than to dispute whether one is required. DonIago (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Please read the talk pages, I asked SergeWoodzing what he was challenging - spelling, association with Gautar, the fact that they exist, what? and he ignored the question. User:Til Eulenspiegel even gave an 1837 example of its usage but Serge still claims we have no citations for it and that it was a made-up name from the 1980s and that we are all on some conspiracy to get the word "Geat" used since he himself doesn't think it's a word. JesseRafe (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Those are unsourced claims... it's not possible to use {{cn}} maliciously in the way you suggest, particularly when only used once or twice. Furthermore, you have continued to blindly revert and restore the improper capitalization to "King" when used as a proper title. I have reverted you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• It is "obviously true" that Geats is the term used in Modern English since 1837. It is obviously true that Geatas is the term used in Old English for the same thing, before 1100. There isn't much literature on them in the in-between years 1100-1837 to establish continuity, but what would it take to satisfy Serge? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I honestly don't know enough about the dispute to opine on it. All I know is that JesseRafe (now blocked) was blindly reverting maintenance tags (and restoring errors), without adequate edit summaries. Had he used rollback to accomplish it, that would be in violation of its policy. If there's an ongoing dispute with SergeWoodzing and he's using the templates to prove a point, edit warring to remove the templates is not the solution. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

What, have they rewritten WP:POINT now? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Show me he's (1) disrupting Wikipedia and (2) doing so to make a point. And there are all these references to ongoing discussions. I haven't seen one link to such a discussion in here, nor to diffs demonstrating an agenda on Serge's part. While I don't dispute that one may exist, the onus is on those claiming such motivations to actually show it exists. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I see, by the way, some discussion at Talk:Geats that JesseRafe very obliquely references above. It does seem, however, that this issue predates that discussion (see JesseRafe saying Serge is on a "pet crusade", though doing so without diffs). Also, frankly, I see this argument as a demand for Serge to prove a negative—to prove that Geats is made up or something. I don't think that's quite how WP:V works. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

He cannot prove it is made up, because we have already proved it is not made up, but that didn't solve whatever his issue is. There should be a minimum Competence requirement for editors to understand how to type in a google search bar and discover how it takes only five seconds to answer questions like these. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

If there's a source that Geats is a term used to refer to the place, then I suggest you just cite it for heaven's sake. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

That is equally as disruptive as demanding "proof" that "France" is a term used in English to refer to a place. Fails mimimum expected WP:COMPETENCE levels for anyone to verify that, it takes about five seconds if you are really sharp. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Since I'm not competent, would you walk me through it? And provide the source while you're at it? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

If you are not competent enough to type "Geats" into the search bar, should you be here? Here are some tips though in hopes it will help you zero in on what you want. 1) Do the search on google books 2) Use date restriction to works before 1980 3) Sort by date and go to the last page. Ignore all the misreading of "goat" before 1837. The term "Geat" has been the English term used since at least Kembles 1837 literary translation of Beowulf, he adapted it from Anglo-Saxon Geatas. This has been stated many, many times now, but some editors just want to go there. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so Geats has been attested to refer to the place in 1837. Seems like you've got a source for an explanatory footnote there. Thanks for providing it. Let's cite it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Geats actually refers to the nation that lived in the place, it is the plural of Geat. The English name for the place at that time is Geatland. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

What is your source for that, please. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Monarchy of Sweden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Problem here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Sections combined. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It is quite difficult to argue with a self-appointed expert who never provides any factual basis for his arbitrary edits, other than the tiresome ”I’m right, you’re wrong” mentality. The fact that Woodzing brought this matter here says more about him than anything concerning the actual content within the article in question. RicJac (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: Unlike the previous case, I'm not sure this dispute is ripe for dispute resolution. From the look of things, while there is talk page discussion happening, it hasn't progressed much. Thus, I would advise the participants to continue discussing, and perhaps that the proper venues to ask for outside advice would be WT:SWEDEN and WT:NORSE. The only point I would make to @RicJac: is that his comments here and here are in a needlessly hostile and confrontational tone. RicJac, I would advise you to cool your jets, focus on the content rather than the contributor, as discussion of the latter can serve to cloud otherwise principled arguments and damage your own credibility to outside observers. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Do you mean we should put something on the talk pages at WT:SWEDEN and WT:NORSE to find out from them whether or not Swenglish is being used in English text, and whether or not the Royal Court uses an abbreviation for the official Swedish name of the Royal Family? If that's what you mean, I'd be glad to transfer the question to both places.

I wish I could say there has been "focus on the content rather than the contributor", but it doesn’t look like that’s what’s been going on here or here or here or here, which had my head spinning after this and this. It’s hard to concentrate on one content issue when you suddenly get bombarded on several other fronts. I guess that’s why I may have posted this here too early, as you seem to see it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

More bombardment here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be a very good idea to post something at those two talk pages; I can't guarantee a response as I don't know how active those projects are, but I think if you do get a response it will be from some knowledgeable folks. As to your other concerns, I wouldn't think too much of it. When I notice an editor doing something I think is mistaken or vandalistic (as opposed to merely content I disagree with), I will often skim their recent contributions for things needing correction as well. And while I do take issue with some of the personalities being used, it's just... it's one of those things. We aspire to a collegial, professional level here, but not even our most experienced contributors do that at all times. Chalk it up to it being the internet, perhaps. I don't particularly like being called "power hungry" or ignorant or the like myself, but I've learned that responding to it just muddies the waters, raises my own stress level, and then the other side has "won" (keeping in mind that Wikipedia is not a battleground, of course). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, although if you had given me the very helpful advice to "focus on the content rather than the contributor" and I ignored that, I would expect you to react. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Stemming from the above dispute, it would be helpful to get additional eyes on the dispute at Geats. The problem seems to be with what sourcing is needed for the etymology of the term, and has spilled over into other articles such as Götaland mentioned above. I will refrain from summarizing the opposition side as I do not really understand why there is opposition to sourcing the claims. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Dial H-I-S-T-O-R-Y (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hello,

I would like to get the "his article appears to be written like an advertisement"-tag on my 'dial H-I-S-T-O-R-Y' page removed. I have improved it since I had the tag but I don't know what to do next. So here are my requests: - Can anyone point out where/if there are still problems in my article? If so, I would appreciate it if anyone could show me the any sentence that is a problem. - I can't check in my history who added the tag, so that way I can't ask this person to remove it. Where can I get feedback on when this tag could be removed?

Thanks, Johannesdebruycker

Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dial_H-I-S-T-O-R-Y Johannesdebruycker (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

To be honest? It needs to be re-written from scratch. Reading it bring to mind that it was written by someone with a close connection to the subject - it's written as a political analysis rather than facts about a film. It's rife with original research, redundancy, non-neutral point of view, original research and relies too heavily on primary sourced. Яehevkor ✉ 10:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The person adding the tag can be found in the page history. It was added in this edit by Shawn in Montreal. You can contact them on their talk page. SpinningSpark 10:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't take this article seriously with the phrase "photographic, electronic, and digital images" (needless, meaningless distinctions given nothing is made of it in the article), nor with the "critical reception" section that has exactly one citation to some form of criticism (and the rest things like distributor info and a bunch of name-dropping of places that show this video). I actually cleaned up the latter because of just how egregious it was. Respectfully, this article does a disservice to Grimonprez and the subject matter by being so promotional. Advertising copy like this does not belong in the encyclopedia. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

For over a year an editor has been changing the GPS coordinates of random locations. Neither a source nor a rationale has been provided for any of these edits, so it's hard to know whether the edits are OK. Could some geographically-inclined editor please check this out? Thanks. 71.139.148.231 (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Copied from my 9 December 2010 post at Talk:West_Coast_Airlines_Flight_956#Coordinate_error:

Though there is no express exception to Wikipedia's general rule about sourcing for coordinates, there seems to be something approaching consensus by silence that while sourcing coordinates is the best practice, that coordinates do not have to be sourced. (See this brief discussion.) Part of the problem is that if coords are inserted, as usual, in the title of the article and/or in an infobox as part of the built-in parameters of the box, there's frequently no non-clumsy way of adding a source reference (the source parameter in the coord tag is expressly intended for use by bots per the tag documentation; adding a ref in an infobox — which worked in this case — may well break other infoboxes, especially if the ref is long, complex, or has unusual characters). (See this discussion.) But in my mind, the bigger problem is that that many subjects which lend themselves to being given coordinates simply cannot be located except through original research or reliance on sources which would not be considered to be reliable for other purposes. For example, Wikipedia:Obtaining_geographic_coordinates#Manually says that it is an acceptable practice to provide coords for an article by going to that place yourself and using a GPS unit to obtain the coords. Similarly, on a number of occasions, I've provided or corrected coordinates for articles by simply looking up the street address of a place through Google Maps and then using Google street view (or, in both instances, some other similar service) to confirm that the place on the map that the search has taken me is really the place the article is about. Though I'm a strong believer in proper sourcing for article content, I'm, frankly, okay with this situation. To me, coordinates are a lagniappe or "add-on" to the article, as are images, which are also generally unsourced except for copyright compliance, or are from unreliable sources, and are frequently original research (e.g. my panorama which appears in the Bisbee, Arizona article). The only time that sourcing should be a requirement for such things is when a dispute arises about them.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I understand the situation, but the problem with that policy is that a surreptitious vandal could easily wreak havoc on the data. I've seen it happen with population stats, circulation figures, etc., where an editor gradually replaced the numbers with unsourced nonsense numbers, and since the edits were done gradually, rather than via the typical en masse editing of most vandals, it wasn't noticed. ... 71.139.148.231 (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I've just checked three of her changes and they were all good, if slightly overprecise. The problem that you describe is always possible here at WP, but that doesn't seem to be what's happening here, at least based on my small sample. Do you have some where they seem to be wholly incorrect, or are you just concerned about the pattern? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It was just the pattern - the randomness and the lack of explanation for the changes. Thanks for checking. 71.139.148.231 (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow. I never really thought about this issue, and it is indeed one. What I really wonder is what exactly the standard should be for targeting the coordinates, especially with large places like municipalities. Do you mark the geographic center of town (where a seemingly-schizophrenic pattern of annexation hasn't rendered this meaningless), a major historical location (such as where the town was founded), the town council building, the most major crossroads... something else entirely? By the way, my gut instinct is the location of the political "center" of town is the most straightforward, especially in major cities like Houston, whose unusual borders make defining what the center of town is difficult. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

If Wikipedia was printed on paper there would be a forest of dead trees giving the best practices on that subject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. Like many things in many wiki-projects the habitues there treat these as if they are policies or guidelines, but they're just project conventions so far as I know. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC) PS: Other than do DR and annoy folks here at EAR, about the only thing I do regularly at WP is add coordinates. My general practice is not to provide sources if you can go to the coordinates and confirm them on the ground, which is in keeping with Wikipedia:Obtaining_geographic_coordinates#Manually. When the coordinates are for a place which will not be self-confirming (e.g. a historical place that's not there any more), I try to add the source in an <!-- HTML comment --> after the {{coord}} tag, but when the coords are in an infobox html comments will sometimes mess up the box (in which case I lazily give up and don't include the source unless challenged). — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

A curious issue. Has anyone asked why these coordinates are being changed? Are they merely increases in precision? Or do they shift a position? Are they obtained from a GPS device, or a map? And what kind of device, or which map? Is there any problem regarding which datum is being used? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd argue that when dealing with metropolitan locations, or even neighborhood-level things and campuses, you don't really want or need a higher degree of precision. You want a good center spot to the appropriate level of coarseness. I see it as a significant figures problem: shifting the location of a place like a city by a few arcseconds in any direction is going to be meaningless... even a minute of arc or two is not going to make a huge difference. I'd honestly even say that for places like cities, we might even want to round coordinates to the nearest minute. But as TransporterMan has said, there has literally been tomes of discussion on how to approach this... and while I'm told that reinventing the wheel is one of my proclivities, I'll refrain from trying to do so here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Of the four that I checked (I checked another after posting above), two were minor corrections and two were major corrections (or maybe it was one and three; I forget for sure). By "major corrections" I mean that whoever had initially entered the coordinates had pointed them at the wrong place altogether and Juliesimmon had pointed them to the correct place. What all four had in common was this: they were improvements. I don't know how she's selecting the places to check, perhaps it's just at random, but she's doing a good job based upon my small sample of her work. As for the precision question, my feeling is this: Either overprecision (generally on a large area such as a county) or underprecision (generally on a small area such as an individual building in an urban area) can give a misleading impression to our users, what we need is the right precision. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC) PS @JJ: You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Obtaining_geographic_coordinates about acceptable sources for coordinates. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

  If checking few of those edits shows them to be improvements, and there is no particular grounds for suspecting otherwise, then the question is answered: they are good edits.

  Yes, I have seen that page. And it does say to use WGS84, but not very prominently. So I reckon a high likelihood of editors getting tangled up on the datum, especially if they are taking coordinates from a map. I am starting to get ideas for checking this kind of stuff, but (aaargggghh!) I am over-extended and backlogged as it is. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Resolved by AndyTheGrump. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi I edited the page airline airbags by adding the airline Air Astana.However in doing so i messed up the page's layout and i dont know how to correct this. Please help Simon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.82.168.253 (talk) 13:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed the problem for you, and alphabetised the list. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Tutorial/Wikipedia links ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

On:

-- it says, "...If you want to link to an article, but display some other text for the link, you can do so by adding the pipe "|" divider (SHIFT + BACKSLASH on English-layout and other keyboards) followed by the alternative name. For example:

   [[Target page|display text]]

will display as this: display text ..."

Shouldn't "Target page" be something a bit more relevant to the topic at hand? As it is, it's the actual main Wikipedia homepage and not an example "target page" relevant to the lesson. I find that confusing. It seems to me that "Target page" should be a dummy page with an explanation saying that it's the real target of the text link, "display text".

I'm using Firefox with the Interclue add-on, an excellent tool for seeing where a link goes without actually clicking on the link. But Interclue shows the condensed text of "Target page" and it seems confusing unless I actually go to that page -- which is still confusing!

Cheers!

Webbie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webistrator (talk • contribs) 22:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not particularly sure what the issue is here, but if there's a technical issue with Interclue, I think it may be on their end. Piping links in that manner seems pretty standard, though it could be because the link is to the main page? You might want to ask at WP:VPT or possibly the Help Desk. This board is more geared towards resolving disputes. Best of luck! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

List of Midsomer Murders episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello Wikipdia. I am just wondering whether you can help me please I can't seem to fix this article on the Midsomer Murders page. As some information from Series 1 is missing. The viewers part of the information seems to be missing and also the filming date information as well. I am hoping that you could fix it for me please thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.142.141 (talk) 07:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

So it looks like the issue is that the Series 1 table had columns added to match the other Series columns, but no data for those cells. This is further complicated by the fact that the citations for the figures in all the tables is just to the BARB ratings, but the link doesn't provide that information... not that offline sources are bad, but it's a poorly formed citation. Anyhow, I'm just going to remove the extra columns from the Series 1 table. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Gustavus Adolphus Pastry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The merger discussion here is a bit stagnant and needs attention. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Why do you even want to merge those articles? Gustavus Adolphus Pastry is about as tenuously connected with Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden as Battenburg cake is with Prince Louis of Battenberg or Victoria sponge is with Queen Victoria. SpinningSpark 16:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. Nobody has suggested that the pastry page be moved to the article about the king. It should be moved to the article about the day, which is the only day it is served. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

While I've become something of a mergist after several years on Wikipedia, this is one of those cases where I don't think separate articles are a bad thing. As an aside, I do think that we might want to move Gustavus Adolphus Pastry to Gustavus Adolphus pastry or (possibly) Gustavus Adolphus (pastry), however. I don't know enough about the pastry itself to know how it's most often called in English, but it seems WP:NCCAPS would call for the former at least. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree about that move and don't find your motivation for retaining this article separate from the one about the day. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the merger suggests that the article about the pastry be merged with with the article about the day when it is served, not with the article about the king. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Right, I misread the merge target. That makes more sense now. I still don't think it is such a big deal that this article exists. There is no minimum length for articles, even for FAs, it all comes down to sources. There does seem to be a lot more that could be said about the history of this custom that is not yet in the article. SpinningSpark 21:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Black Veil Brides (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Veil_Brides

Let's start with the genre, everyone seems to be throwing genres everywhere without actually paying attention to the characteristics of them or the characteristics of the band in question, "metalheads" are trying to put a void between the band and the label "heavy metal" and Black veil brides fans are trying to push for them being labeled as a metal band.

This has resulted in the editors trying to appease both/all parties involve by labeling them loosely with Blanket terms like "shock rock" and "glam rock".

Their earlier releases as "Black veil brides" (we stitch the wound (2010), set the world on fire (2011), can be easily characterized as POST-HARDCORE (a subgenre of hardcore punk.) They have the screaming/shouting vocals that are often present in post-hardcore, they have the simplistic clean guitar sections and chorus driven song structures that other post-hardcore bands display as well as pop punk styled CLEAN SINGING sections. Their music is almost identical to other post-hardcore acts like FALlING IN REVERSE, ALESANA and PIERCE THE VEIL.

Falling in reverse's song "born to lead" from their release "fashionably late" (2013) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItxJFWITRxk I think this is a perfect example because it's actually a NEWER song and therefore is arguably more relevant to Black veil brides than older post-hardcore releases (especially if you're going back as far as the mid 80s.)

Black veil brides's song "Knives and pens" from "we stitch the wound" (originally on their first ep "sex & hollywood.) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFDCHdKbKBY The songs are both extremely similar, the main difference is that Falling in reverse's song in general is more complex (less focus on the chorus, more complex clean guitar riffs and slightly more complex and plentiful drum patterns.)

As you can see both songs start with a clean singing section and then move to a harsh section (both are attempting screams.)I'd in fact argue that Black veil brides's song Knives and pens fits the characteristics of "post-hardcore" better than falling in reverse's song (which is LABELED as post-hardcore.)

Here's a NEWER Black veil brides song which appears to be even more similar - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuGzJVKtW6g (there's a much higher emphasis on pop punk elements in this, the song structure is less complex than "knives and pens" however the leads are more technical, This still easily fits the label of "post-hardcore" although I think you'd have to note the emphasis on clean singing similar to pop punk and the increasingly simplistic song structure also found in pop punk as well as more simplistic drum patterns which fit in either pop punk, pop rock or glam rock/metal.)

Many people love to label Black veil brides as a metalcore band and there are many similarities (as post-hardcore bands tend to be VERY similar to melodic metalcore bands.) I find that although there are similarities that the heavy metal influence is not particularly present in Black veil brides music. (in metalcore's case this comes from thrash metal/groove metal - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6XCItRgC2w and MELODIC DEATH METAL if you're referring to Melodic metalcore bands - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AepTFljiq04 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO9kGDNyQkw You'll still notice thrash and groove metal influence is still present in these two other songs even with the elements taken from Melodic death metal.)

You'll notice that the metalcore songs (especially the melodic metalcore songs.) are structurally a lot more complex, they usually contain many more riffs and are not so reliant on the chorus, you'll also notice that the drum patterns are more varied and less simplistic (A trait obviously from thrash and even more prominent in melodic metalcore because of the Death metal influence.)

Apart from the song structure, the vocals are quite different as well, Clean vocals are prominent but don't seem to be the main theme in metalcore (not even particularly in melodic metalcore.) although this can vary from band to band, the harsh vocals tend to be quite different as well, many metalcore bands (but not all) tend to utilize both growls (usually weak, high pitched growls.) and somewhat thick mid-high pitched screaming vocals as well as shouting vocals. Black veil bride's harsh vocals are thin, weak and shrill shrieking vocals and although they can be found in melodic metalcore, they're found more often in post-hardcore.

- http://www.last.fm/music/Falling+in+Reverse (post-hardcore) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falling_in_Reverse (post-hardcore) - http://www.sputnikmusic.com/bands/Falling-In-Reverse/24527/ (post-hardcore) - https://itunes.apple.com/au/artist/falling-in-reverse/id439592053 (post-hardcore) - http://www.punknews.org/bands/fallinginreverse (post-hardcore)

If A lot of Online sources are labeling a SIMILAR ARTIST as Post-hardcore would it not suggest that Black veil brides are also a post-hardcore band? (I'm happy to expand the list but it suggests that I should keep the links to a minimum for whatever reason.)

Anyway onto their latest release, listening to it I can still see post-hardcore present in it but I'm finding similarities with alternate rock/pop rock groups like panic at the disco, fall out boy, sum 41 and even Blink 182 (It's like they're taking different things from each band.)

Anyway the whole point of this section was to get Black veil brides label AWAY from the "glam" label, musically they sound NOTHING like this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WAZ60xA9wo or this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDcBKVKQizg - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0EQlIzPowM (This song is more similar to Panic at the disco...) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOgpdp3lP8M (song by panic at the disco that according to the wiki page should sound less like that song than the two glam songs.)

I'm also not fond of the "shock rock" label either, I'd suggest LADY GAGA'S performances/style suit the characteristics far better, Black veil brides are a pretty average modern punk band. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPiZVs2dy-4 (at warped tour.... a predominately PUNK concert held if I'm correct annually.) Does this performance look any different than this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IGDnVTP2Bc or this performance -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBq5fdJaukc really differ that much from this one? - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9LlP-BKVVg

Again I think this whole "shock rock" thing was just a ploy to appease the angry biased people from both sides that have been "fighting" all over the internet.

The only reason I believe the band is grouped with glam is because of a MISCONCEPTION about their appearance and because of them labeling some glam metal bands as influences (funnily enough everyone skips over all the punk, post-hardcore, pop rock, electronic and even metalcore influences they've listed.)

The bands earlier appearance was reminiscent of the mid 2000s SCENE KIDS trend (dyed long swept fringes, skinny jeans, skate shoes, white/black band T's or sometimes a white T with a colourful picture on it, face paint especially Black eye shadow and eyeliner and even sometimes white face paint for that "Anime" look.)

They seemed to have kept the "scene" style hair but have swapped the clothes for a leather approach, bands from Judas priest to Guns'n roses have been seen wearing similar attire (some glam bands did as well.) which is where I think most people are getting this "Glam rock/metal" label from.

Anyway I've got more but I think this is long enough, I'm happy to provide a much greater amount of references and evidence if need be and to go further into detail ESPECIALLY on the musical genre. I'm sorry that this was rushed.

Technicalbrutaldeath (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:TLDR version: Technicalbrutaldeath disagrees with how the Black Veil Brides article lists the band's genres. I don't believe there has been a recent discussion at the talk page, though I would suggest dramatically trimming this down before posting a request anywhere. This sort of request probably shouldn't require more than a paragraph, if even more than a sentence of the format: "BVB is not glam. Here's a reliable source stating that they are not glam: (your source goes here). The three sources used to support the statement in the article are unreliable because (your reason goes here)" —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit: I may post a shorter version but one paragraph is hardly suitable and you also failed to sum up my request, I'm asking them to list Black veil brides as a Post-hardcore band with pop punk, alternate rock, melodic metalcore and pop rock influences, I'm asking them to remove the "glam" AND "shock rock" label and consider leaving the hard rock label (as that's the only blanket term I can see fitting for their music.)

You're going to have to explain that last part to me, as I've mentioned I'm new to requesting/editing wiki pages (which is why I've chose not to edit anything yet, I'd prefer someone with more experience do it but perhaps look at what I've provided.)

Technicalbrutaldeath (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

One of our core policies is verifiability. Mendaliv is suggesting to you that you find reliable sources that verify they belong to the genre you suggest and don't belong to the genres currently in the article. You are then in a position to make that point on the article talk page based on Wikipedia policy, or even be bold and improve the article. On the other hand long diatribes explaining why you personally think the article is wrong is not a good basis for changing the article: it is counter to our no original research policy, which is another core policy. Follow the blue links to read the relevant policies and guidelines. SpinningSpark 17:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd note that the BVB article is indefinitely semi-protected (since 2011, wow), and Technicalbrutaldeath's account is new enough that he cannot boldly edit the article at this time. To Technicalbrutaldeath: if you have suggested changes, coupled with the sourcing Spinningspark rightly indicates is necessary, you can discuss them at Talk:Black Veil Brides, since other editors involved in the article are likely to disagree. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:BP ( | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Over the last couple of days it seems the Talk:BP fishing section has been overrun with soapboxing about me, my lies, my misinformation, my alleged COIs and generally my evil-doing. This is not something I consider desirable personally or for Wikipedia. Am I handling it right? And what should I do? Geogene (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Boy. I've been glancing at this these last few days, trying to get a finger on what the situation is so as to weigh in, and really haven't succeeded. Obviously there's a lot of history here. But the pattern of argument gives me the impression that the personal commentary referenced above is just window dressing to the underlying content dispute, which is likely deadlocked. My own belief is that such situations are triggered by the dispute being whittled down to the key content issue, which in theory means that it's ripe for more formal dispute resolution (WP:DRN and up) or a RFC. But as is the pattern with these situations, the dispute moves in a new direction, muddying the waters with concerns of disruption, tendentious editing, or other behavioral issues. But I think this issue is deep enough that, without some reduction to simple terms by those involved, it's beyond EAR's help. In short, I don't see anything that screams for an intervention on the grounds of incivility, thus the solution is to do all you can to keep the focus on the content. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like good advice. Thanks for picking through that tarry mess! Geogene (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

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

According to your records he started acting in 1961! But I just saw him on Bonanza in 1959 s1/ep13 (vendetta) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.85.98 (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure? I'm seeing pretty much no indication that Caan appeared in any episodes of Bonanza. The IMDB entry for that particular episode doesn't show Caan, and it shows a number of uncredited appearances. I don't doubt that you could be right, but it's partly an issue of published sources. If the episode credited Caan, or if some reliable publication indicated that Caan was on that episode of Bonanza, we'd be able to say it, no problem. It's a bit difficult for us to go by something like an uncredited bit part that some might reasonably argue isn't even him. Anyway, I'll post this as a question to Talk:James Caan. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Underwater locator beacon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editor is not allowing any edits. Person isn't helpful either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.128.40.138 (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you're both well beyond 3 reverts in 24 hours. You need to sit down and discuss rather than continuing to revert. I'm templating both of you for edit warring. I've not reported this to WP:ANEW yet, but I'm sure someone will if you two persist in reverting each other without discussing this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the warnings took hold. Reverting has stopped, though I don't think discussion has happened. Probably worth checking up on in a week or two. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Answered

 – PrimeHunter is absolutely correct. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi and help! I think I once saw something about a way to link to a talk page thread in such a way that no matter how the thread is later archived the link will still find the thread. Can someone please remind me how to do that? Thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you thinking of Help:Permanent link? A permalink will not show later edits to the thread. Wikipedia:Flow is not at the English Wikipidea yet but is supposed to get permanently working links. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply; if that is what I saw before then I didn't really understand it the first time. My goal is to log a current talk page thread for future reference, but when I wish to use it again in the future it will probably have been archived. I'd like to click the same link from my log a year or two from now (or whenever) and have the thread in whatever archive come up. Is that possible? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not possible to make a link to the archive page if you don't know what its name will be. If you know what the name will be and know that the thread will be archived as soon as the archive is created then there is a cumbersome way to do it with #ifexist but I haven't seen it done in practice. The permalink method will give a link to the page where the thread is today (it will also work if the whole page is moved), and show that page as it looked at the time the permalink was made. It's the same as clicking "View history" and select a version in the page history. For example, if you on 20 Februray had made a permalink to the thread currently at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 119#American Theatre Hall of Fame, clicked the thread in the TOC and copied the url, then you would have gotten a link like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests&oldid=596297509#American_Theatre_Hall_of_Fame. Note that it misses the 25 February post because it was posted after the hypothetical permalink. If you make a normal section wikilink to a discussion then there may at some time come a bot and update the page name in the link to point to the archive page after archiving. I don't know the circumstances for such bots to update links and it may not be systematic. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Phooey.... but thanks for the explanation! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

To my dismay, I learned early on when beginning to contribute to Wikipedia articles about historical people, that a woman who was a queen of a country, for example, normally is not called that in an article's name but she is referred to there by her often obscure maiden name plus maiden title which thus can lead to text entries and image captions like Queen Hedwig Elizabeth Charlotte of Holstein-Gottorp (a German location which has never had any queens) rather than Queen Charlotte of Sweden and Norway which to me would be more logical as well as give due credit (even in her article's name) to the more important of a woman's titles and legacy. I have corrected hundreds of such misleading text errors by now.

This maiden name stuff is carried too far, in my opinion, when some editors, who are very busy with articles on royalty, in a manner that borders on WP:own, will not even allow a woman's higher and more important and more famous title to be given in bold type in her article's lede. That must be confusing to many readers. OK, so I've accepted the maiden title stuff as incontestible, but I see no logical reason for this latter development of the principle, and I think it should be curtailed.

Where, please, can I start a constructive discussion on this topic? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that the rules you're looking for are at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). Use your browser's in-page search ability (usually activated by doing Ctrl-F once you're on the page) to search that page for the word maiden and see if that's not it. But haven't you already had that discussion there in 2009? And it would appear that just that point has been raised as an RfC there ending just six months ago ending in no consensus. But maybe you're talking about something else and I'm not discerning it. Are you? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC) PS: I would note that the closer of that RfC concluded:

There was agreement that the current conventions on the naming of consorts is insufficient, but because of the nuances in participants' positions, no particular solution was wholly agreed to. I recommend starting a new RfC where one or two concrete proposals from this discussion are put forward...

No one did that, so perhaps you might want to do so. If you do, you would be well advised to read the closer's entire remarks about how the new RfC should be formulated. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I concur with TransporterMan here. A specific course of action might be to start spitballing ideas at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility), looking at that archive page for possibly courses of action, etc. prior to actually starting a formal, widely advertised RfC. You're of course going to want to advertise the RfC at relevant WikiProject talk pages (WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage), Village pump, and possibly T:CENT. My advice with framing an RfC is that you should have a single, concrete, concise, polished proposal, otherwise discussion is going to go off in every direction. I can't say you're likely to have a positive (or negative) outcome, but from what I've seen with RfCs, it's essential to keep it as narrow as possible if you want a specific outcome. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both so much for these very constructive suggestions and links to previous discussions! I do not believe this specific detail has ever been proposed or discussed before.

How about this?

Proposal: When for an article about a married royal woman we use her unmarried title and geographical origin as the article's name, it is appropriate to mention her married title in bold type in the article's lede. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

That seems like a pretty concise proposal. You may want to add an explanation of why you feel that's the correct course of action at the head of the discussion section of the RfC (see WP:RFC#Example), or perhaps in a statement, while making sure that your explanation is neutral as possible (obviously since you're advocating for a particular outcome that's not going to be perfect). Anyway, be aware that RfCs can take awhile to really run themselves down if they take off (and not all do). I can't tell you if it's going to work, though. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Another editor has brought it to my attention that this matter already is covered by WP:R#PLA, and indeed I think it looks that way. Almost all these married titles of royal women, I'm sure, already exist as redirects, or should. Would you agree, or do you think an RfC is still a good idea? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I think I get the idea here a bit better. Your intent is to leave the article titles as they are, but where the article title is the royal's unmarried title, her married title should also be bolded in the lede? Sounds like a pretty straightforward application of WP:R#PLA, both in letter and spirit. Someone searching for the person by that married title might be confused when confronted with an article on a facially different person, and may not immediately understand that the linked title is about that person. This of course presumes that your intent is only to start bolding married titles in such articles, rather than moving the article to a different title... in which case WP:NCROY should control. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

By the way, you should probably post at WT:NCROY or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility suggesting that the bolding of alternative titles (where a redirect might reasonably exist for such title to that person) be added to the relevant guideline (whether NCROY or the Royalty and Nobility project's guideline). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

One time as I was patrolling Recent Changes, I discovered the article Kinzelyuk Waterfall. It is a short article; the only information in it is its height and relationship to other geographical features. I'm afraid it may not meet WP:NGEO, but I'm not sure whether I should nominate it for deletion, as the Russian Wikipedia does have an article about it. Please help! ChromaNebula (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You can take it to XfD if you like, but there is nothing wrong with short articles, or with stubs that are capable of expanding into something longer. There seems to be some sources out there in the Russian language. There is the paper by Fedorov cited in the article for a start and this book seems to say that the falls are the largest in Russia. That would make it notable in my book. SpinningSpark 20:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd say give some more time for now. It does look like you pinged the creator at his/her user talk page in part about the issue. I'm a bit concerned that the editor who created the page imported a reference from the Russian Wikipedia page but didn't translate the author's name. I wonder if the editor has checked those citations... because otherwise this is essentially an unattributed derivative work of the Russian Wikipedia article. Anyway, WP:NGEO isn't exactly in force at this time, and either way WP:GNG would seem to be how we would treat this particular geographical feature anyway. I don't see any indication that it fails GNG. I'd probably !vote weak keep if faced with an AfD, unless it came to light that the sources were somehow bad. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

‎:::А. А. Федоров would seem to be Andreĭ Aleksandrovich Fedorov, a botanist notable enough to have an article here. SpinningSpark 00:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe it. I guess I'm more concerned by the creation of the article without changing that; it implies to me the content is just copied over, which means it may run afoul of our attribution requirements. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Koi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of longest-living organisms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Maximum life span (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I have found 3 wikipedia pages with unreliable, unsourcable material. I have tried to delete the material myself, but other users keep reverting my edit.

Links and the info I find unsourcable / unreliable are as follows..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koi#Health.2C_maintenance_and_longevity

"One famous scarlet koi, named "Hanako," was owned by several individuals, the last of whom was Dr. Komei Koshihara. In July 1974, a study of the growth rings of one of the koi's scales reported that Hanako was 225 years old.[14]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest-living_organisms#Aquatic_animals

"Some koi fish have reportedly lived more than 200 years, the oldest being Hanako, who died at an age of 226 years on July 7, 1977.[53][54]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_life_span#In_other_animals

"Koi (A Japanese species of fish, 200+ years, though generally not exceeding 250) Hanako was reportedly 226 years old upon her death.[15][16]"

Is there any way to have this unsourcable information removed? Supposedly this fish died before anyone was using the internet, so the story / legend has followed on to the internet through word of mouth, not an actual reliable source.

It seems to be very misleading.

I'd like to show the most recent edit on the Koi page

" 17:49, 20 March 2014‎ CombatWombat42 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28,449 bytes) (+487)‎ . . (Undid revision 600468346 by McGeddon (talk) Not a particularly exceptional claim, has been in the article for a long time, find a source proving hoax and I will be happy to see it deleted, else BRD) (undo)"

I think having to find a reliable source to debunk already unreliable information, is counter productive. Rather we should have definitive proof about this so called 226 year old fish, and if there are no reliable sources whatsoever, chalk it up to being a hoax / myth / lie, and has no place on wikipedia, just as the loch ness monster is not to be taken as fact either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.248.70 (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Note - also recently raised at WP:ANI#Koi page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

...and as advised in the ANI thread, the first thing to do is to discuss with other editors on the article talk page. It is an unfortunate fact that there is an awful lot of vandalism on Wikipedia from unregistered users, often in the form of unexplained deletion of a chunk of text. Such deletions are usually reverted without much investigation - which is why we advise to always leave an edit summary explaining what you are doing and why. You have been reverted numerous times by several editors (I am assuming you are the same person whose IP was blocked) and it is unacceptable to continue making the same edit against opposition. As I said, the way forward is to discuss the issue and try and reach a consensus. I don't know what the result of that discussion should be, but if the story is as widely reported as you seem to indicate then it should probably be in the article if for nothing else to say that it is not true since our readers may ne coming to the article precisely to find that out...and to say that it is not true requires a source saying that, hence McGeddon's request for a source. SpinningSpark 19:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'd like to start off by saying there is no researchable evidence to say Koi live anywhere between 50 years and 226 years.

Based on not seeing evidence of Koi living past 50 years, let alone 100, 150, 200, etc, we can rule out the Hanako story.

But, since it's so widespread on the internet via unverifyable sources, I guess I can show you some links / discussion that disagree completely with Hanakos age.

http://www.koi-bito.com/forum/main-forum/2047-growth-rates-longevity.html

http://www.koiphen.com/forums/showthread.php?13181-Life-Expectancy-Of-quot-Kept-quot-Koi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.248.70 (talk) 03:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

http://www.koiphen.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-35646.html

http://www.koishack.com/forums/topic/2270-how-long-to-do-koi-live/

I hope this is enough to keep the Hanako legend in the fantasy realm, rather than still being repeated as fact?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.248.70 (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

You need to take this to the relevant article talk page (likely Talk:Koi), as the users above, and in both threads you've posted, have directed you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Rollercoaster (song) ( | article | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm having trouble with archiving a talk page. The discussion is old and no longer relevant since the article has been rewritten. I have successfully moved the current talk page to Talk:Rollercoaster (B*Witched song)/Archive 1 but now cannot clear the main talk page as it appears to be vandalism. Can someone please help? I tried posting this in the false positive reports but has been days and no response.

147.69.137.58 (talk) 10:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like it needs archiving to me, and in any case, even if the 2007 threads were to be archived there really isn't a need to archive the one that is just a few days old. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done, though it should be noted that archival was not necessary here. The vast majority of article talk pages are never archived despite having eight- and ten-year-old discussions. It's just not needed where the talk page doesn't get enough traffic for it to truly get overloaded with threads. I don't think it was disruptive in this case, and since it's already been done it should probably be left to stand. However I wouldn't advise you to make a habit of doing this, 147... it's just unusual and that can set off alarm bells for a number of editors. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi! There is a category in Wikimedia Commons that I would like to use in an article, but no equivalent category in main Wikipedia. Is it possible to use such an imported category? Thanks! --BenBurch (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

You cannot add a Wikipedia article to a Commons category, the categorisation on the two projects is entirely separate. However, you can create a category of the same name on Wikipedia. See WP:CATEGORY and HELP:Category. On the other hand you may have wanted to link to the Commons category from a Wikipedia article. In that case you can use {{Commons category}}.

By the way, you should include a datestamp in your signature. Either you are using three tildes instead of four or you have "treat as wikimarkup" checked in your preferences. SpinningSpark 18:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Request unclear

 – Requires clarification. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hebrew GAWD- English GOD. Name of the Assyrian deity, and is repudiated by Yahweh in Isaiah 65:11 "But ye are they that forsake Yahweh, that forget My holy mountain, that furnish a table for God, and furnish a drink offering to Meni". Traina, A. (2007 reprinted). Holy Name Bible. Ronceverte, WV 24970: Yahshua Promotions. pp. 869–870. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: location (link) Holy Name Bible translation DamondLMitchellSr (talk) 06:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)DamondLMitchellSr

Nam(u) Myōhō Renge Kyō (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could someone help out on above mentioned article? Beginning edit war with IP user. 1. This article is not about Nipponzan-Myōhōji-Daisanga 2. This is NOT the Russian Wikipedia. When looking at the article's history its been a long way to reach consensus as Nichiren Buddhism relatated issues tend to be controversial by nature. Links to Nichiren Buddhism which leads to articles on respective schools included. Please note that Nam(u) Myōhō Renge Kyō is the fundamental mantra to basically all Nichiren Schools who seem to have nothing better to do than to kick each others head in online – proclaiming peace. Cheers.--Catflap08 (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Kind of an aside, but what's up with the parenthetical in the name? It's a bit unusual to have an alternative spelling indicated that way in Wikipedia. My understanding is that where we aren't compelled to use a particular spelling by what's used in particular sources, we use the standard romanization for article titles. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Sheboygan Municipal Auditorium and Armory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've already reverted these edits twice, so I can't revert again. But maybe I'm missing something. Are these good edits? [1], [2], [3]. Thanks for some help with this. 70.235.85.36 (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I reverted it; seems like a classic case of WP:IINFO/WP:WEBHOST. There may be some agenda, though I haven't read the edits closely enough to say for sure. I also left a NPOV warning on the user's talk page. He's on his second actual revert since 09:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC). Should keep an eye on this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Sale High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, This is a revised version of a request I posted on Talk:Sale High School a week ago, to which there have been no responses.

I came to that page while searching for information on Sale High School for Boys, attended by playwright Robert Bolt. The current co-educational Sale High School is completely unrelated to the old one, being the successor to Norris Road Secondary Modern School. On closer inspection of the page, I see that John Andrews, named as a Sale High alumnus, would have attended the old Sale High for Boys in the 1940s, unless he was one of the first pupils at the Norris Road Secondary Mod.

However, when I attempted to add a note mentioning the existence of the two earlier schools called "Sale High School" (the Boys' school and the corresponding Girls' school on a separate site) and the risk of confusion with the current establishment, it was removed by an experienced editor. I don't think the older schools merit an article of their own (and my information is purely personal knowledge, the only potential references being somewhat unclear Friends Reunited pages), so can somebody please suggest an acceptably Wikipedian way to stop the confusion of old and new. 90.246.91.194 (talk) 11:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest in the first instance you speak directly with the other editor involved to establish what the problem is. Their talk page is at User talk:Flyer22. It is not entirely clear to me from their edit summary exactly what the objection is. I can see several problems with your edit, but I couldn't say if this is why Flyer22 reverted you. Most importantly, you provided no source for your information, and have admitted here that it is all personal recollection. Presumably it would be possible to source this from somewhere but if it cannot then it does not belong on Wikipedia. I can see some books on gbooks ([4][5][6]) that might be helpful but there is no preview available. Of course, the entire article is unsourced, but that's another issue (someone might take it into their head to nominate it for deletion). Another possible problem (easily fixable) is the style of writing. We don't tell our readers what they should be noting or what is important—see WP:WTW. We are not trying to teach anything here, just present information. Feel free to come back here if you are still having difficulty. SpinningSpark 14:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me like there could be grounds for starting a disambiguation page if articles exist for those other schools. At the very least a {{about}} or {{for}} disambiguation link at the top of the article if there's only one or two existing articles about places that were once called "Sale High School" would work. But if those schools weren't called "Sale High School", but something similar, it's probably not appropriate to use the disambiguation link or disambiguation page structure to link people to those schools from Sale High School. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no article about the old school although it seems to have somewhat more notability. It would seem it no longer exists, presuming the poster is correct in saying these are two unrelated schools. In any event, article disambiguation is not an issue as there is no other article to disambiguate. SpinningSpark 15:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I have managed to find a couple of sources which allow me at least to put in a basic note about the existence of the earlier pair of schools called Sale High School without straying too far into original research. 90.246.91.194 (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

If there's doubt about the "notable alumni", even if it's not based in sources, since that person's entry isn't supported by a source anyway, it should just be removed and noted on the talk page, rather than a clarifying note being made in the article. It really isn't encyclopedic tone in my view. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I've managed to add refs for both John Andrews (writer) and Robert Bolt as alumni of the old boys' school. 90.246.91.194 (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you please help me to create a new entry "A closed form solution for Linear Programming"?

Thanks, Garry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrynewyork (talk • contribs) 13:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the first thing you need to do is respond to the editor who removed your additions at Linear programming. This is being discussed on that article's talk page. If you are intending to create an article based on the same paper you cited there, you need to consider the notability of the subject. I can see no examples of other scholars having cited the paper. It is very new and it may be too soon for any analysis by independent authors. If that is the case then it is not a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article, at least for the time being. SpinningSpark 14:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

And with respect to noting the new approach in the main article on Linear programming, WP:UNDUE would be the controlling policy; new approaches, theories, hypotheses, etc. generally don't get mentioned until they've gained more prominence in their respective fields. I would say that even in the most niche articles, you wouldn't be able to talk about a new approach like this until the article was cited at least once. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Next-Generation Incident Command System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can you please provide more specific reasons why you marked my content for deletion? The reasoning is quite vague. Jlrsn (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I've also nominated it for deletion as a blatant copyvio of its sole source ([7]). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a notable subject (there are scholarly papers on it) and the speedy deletion rationales are dubious, but Mendaliv is quite right, you can't simply copy material from a website without permission or attribution. SpinningSpark 19:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I do have direct permission to copy the material. And I can attribute it, if necessary - any suggestions on how it should be attributed? I have spoken face-to-face with the author, the content is not licensed, public domain, free to copy. Jlrsn (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You want OTRS, though frankly I do not see that page being kept as-is. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain more what you think I want on the OTRS page? Also, additional reasoning for, "frankly I do not see that page being kept as is" would provide more help in resolving this. Jlrsn (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually you might find Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials more helpful than the OTRS page, but OTRS is who you'll ultimately need to contact to arrange the permission for Wikipedia to use the material. The problem with the page as written is that (in my view) it's overly promotional. A Wikipedia article should begin with a short, neutrally-worded, and clear description of what the subject is. In this case, the first sentence being "NICS is a web-based command & control environment for small to large to extreme scale incidents that facilitates collaboration across Federal, Tribal, Military, State, County, & Local/Municipal levels of preparedness, planning, response, and recovery for all-risk/all-hazard events." is pretty meaningless to your average reader. It's software, used apparently in disaster management, for something called "command & control" (which isn't explained). The entire second half of the sentence, where it says it's for small, large, and extreme scale incidents, for collaboration between various organizations, etc. is fluff, needless wordiness, and frankly reeks of a marketing style of copywriting (where it's critical to get all the keywords in) rather than encyclopedic writing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Mendaliv that it is preferable to rewrite the article in an encyclopaedic style rather than simply have its copyright released. However, if you are in control of the page, or can influence someone who is, you can simply put a notice on the page that the material is in the public domain. This is acceptable to us, even preferable to OTRS as all editors are able to verify the PD status of the material. SpinningSpark 21:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, while a lot of your feedback seems like subjective judgement - I think I understand. I appreciate the clarification and examples. Jlrsn (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that much of what I state is subjective, but I make it based on my experiences on Wikipedia with respect to what the article standards are. Sometimes it's difficult to put a finger on exactly which style guide or policy specific content may run afoul of, but I can tell you that the phrasing in the (now-deleted) article—even if we presume it acceptable—is not an effective way to write a Wikipedia article. By the way, I see you recreated the article, and it got deleted again partly on copyright violation grounds. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, the article title is now salted. Seems a bit odd for only two deletions, but given G12 apparently applied to both deletions it's probably appropriate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Wercengetorix (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=goingthruvinyl&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go

I started to remove links in Wikipedia which direct to a site that I say is now in copyright violation. As well, the links were initially inserted into Wikipedia for advertising. My removal of the links have been reverted twice over by an editor "Hobbes Goodyear" who states I do not have evidence to back up my position. I have not been able to settle the matter with the editor; they either fail to see my reasoning, or choose to ignore it, and I feel it has come to a battle of will over reason. The editor's approach has always seemed to me as authoritarian and dismissive.

I was the one who inserted the links and requested the article which heavily relied on the site for references because I was directed by the owner of the site to do so. I am locked out of the site, and not in communication with them anymore, so the matter cannot be resolved there, and I think that any more discussion with the editor will be wasted time.

below is the interaction on the editor's talk page:

  28.2 (1) The author’s or performer’s right to the integrity of a work or performer’s performance is infringed only if the work or the performance is, to the prejudice of its author’s or performer’s honour or reputation,

      (a) distorted, mutilated or otherwise modified; or

      (b) used in association with a product, service, cause or institution.

  R.S., 1985, c. 10 (4th Supp.), s. 6;
  2012, c. 20, s. 19.

       You have provided no evidence that you are the actual author.
       You have provided no evidence that the website in question has acted unlawfully or immorally.
       You have provided no evidence or claim that this website is acting in contradiction of any legal decision in the matter. If you have pursued this matter within your own legal jurisdiction and have obtained some sort of judgment or injunction against this website, please point to evidence of same. If this is a legal matter, please have it decided in your local jurisdiction, not here.
       In my own opinion, some of the refs to this website are useful, some are pointless--I agree that the pointless ones should be removed. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

   There are two issues here. Leaving copyright aside for the moment, if the external links are not useful to a reader of the article, then they should be removed. Please see Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided for guidance, although it might be better that you post requests at individual article talk pages, rather than remove links yourself, as you hardly seem neutral in the matter. I have reverted some of your changes, but left others intact, assuming that you also edit under the name User:Utsid3sP1q3. And as a side note, please edit under a single user name or at least identify on your user pages that accounts are operated by the same person--see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. You should assume that where I reverted, I thought that the links were of use. In at least some of the cases where I did not revert, I thought the removal was valid because the links were more spam than useful.

   You are making unfounded claims that you previously behaved wrongly at WP (by adding these links in the first place) and, now that you have a business grievance (again, unfounded), that you have seen the light and would like to undo your past wrongs and, incidentally of course, damage the other party. I do not find that this makes you especially credible. You provide sections of copyright law, but no evidence that they apply here at all, other than your anonymous assertion. I am not an expert on what constitutes a good case in theses situations, but it seems to me that you provided no case at all. You might want to briefly summarize the situation here: Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems, and ask for help on how to proceed. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

   If you have been wronged in your business dealings, then I commiserate, but is it reasonable to expect me or any other Wikipedia editor to support your actions based solely on your anonymous say-so? You refer to "the evidence I provided", but I see none, other than your anonymous claims. If you just want to vent on my talk page, well, okay, that's fine. I have already agreed with you that, in some cases, these links are just spam, in which case they should be removed, regardless of copyright. But, if you want me or other editors to act on your claim that these links are to copyright violations and so to be avoided even if useful, then I think you have failed. If you want advice on how to make a better case, then I again urge you to seek advice at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. Here's what I would post there: "Hi. I wish to remain anonymous, but I used to work with this website where I provided content. We had a falling out, but they continue to publish content where I hold copyright, without permission or compensation. I am considering but have not yet begun legal action to stop them. There are links to some of this material in Wikipedia. One or more other WP editors believe that some of these links are valuable, and so disagree that they should be removed, unless they are in violation of copyright. Unless and until I am successful in my legal proceedings, is there anything I can do to have links to this material removed per WP:COPYVIO?" --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

   "Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues."

   "For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception:
   1. Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted :works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work, or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that :violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement.[2] If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its :copyright, do not link to it. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly :relevant when linking to sites such as Scribd or YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright."

   4. Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions. See external link spamming.

   11. Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)

   "Main pages: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Spam

   It is obvious that a link from Wikipedia to an external site may drive Web traffic to that site. But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a :site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if Wikipedia guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and :let another editor decide. This suggestion is in line with Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guidelines.

   Wikipedia uses the same standards for evaluating links to websites owned by for-profit and (real or purported) non-profit organizations. Links to potentially
   revenue-generating web pages are not prohibited, even though the website owner might earn money through advertisements, sales, or (in the case of non-profit :organizations) donations. Choose which pages to link based on the immediate benefit to Wikipedia readers that click on the link, not based on the organization's tax :status or your guess at whether the website's owner might earn money from the link."

   Again, if you have been wronged in your business dealings, I commiserate. But if I say, "Some is spam, some is not", this does not mean "all is spam, blacklist them". And it is unhelpful to keep regurgitating yet more policies against copyright violation. These are not in question. What is in question is whether there is a copyright violation in this case. Given that there is only your anonymous claim, and that you continually decline to provide any other evidence whatsoever, why would you expect impartial third parties to take action against this site? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wercengetorix (talk • contribs) 23:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The TLDR version of this would appear to be that Wercengetorix claims copyright to content being used on a website called "goingthruvinyl", which Wikipedia links to in several instances. I'm not sure if the issue is in part due to a dispute that Wercengetorix has with goingthruvinyl, or if there's a claim that Wercengetorix' content is simply being copied by goingthruvinyl without a license. The whole claim that it's spam seems like window dressing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi There, someone has filed a deletion for our Company Article in English, this is an error and I kindly request to restore the page online. The article is en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selerant‎. there is no reason for deletion as the company in on business. Ncolombo (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion moved

 – Editor also posted to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, where it is more appropriately handled. DMacks (talk) 03:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Minas Morgul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I added the "Notability" template to Minas Morgul because it appeared to me that while sources are provided they are all inherently linked to the Lord of the Rings franchise and do not in and of themselves establish notability of the subject. Another editor disagreed and unilaterally removed the tag twice. It is my belief that when the removal of a maintenance tag is contested it should remain in the article until there is a clear consensus favoring removal. There is now a Talk page discussion regarding the sources themselves here, but I would appreciate a ruling on the appropriateness of removing the maintenance template. Thank you! DonIago (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Adding that the documentation for the template explicitly states, "If the template is re-added, please do not edit war over it. Questions of notability can be resolved through discussion or through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If the article exists within the scope of a specific WikiProject it may be beneficial to invite feedback from the group." I have asked that the removing editor re-add the template as a show of good faith. DonIago (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It is useless to fight over whether an article should be tagged or not. Tags are removed when an editor considers that the problem to which they relate has been dealt with. If there is subsequently disagreement over whether the problem has, in fact, been adequately dealt with then a much more productive activity is to discuss what the problem actually is and try and fix it. Perhaps it can't be fixed immediately and the tag ought to be replaced, but discuss first. I don't understand what you mean by "inherently linked to the Lord of the Rings franchise". Minas Morgul is a place in the fictitious Lord of the Rings universe so references to it are bound to be LOTR related. The real test is whether or not there are sources that have a substantial out-of-universe discussion of Minas Morgul such as in a review. If you really think that the subject is not notable the way to test it is to nominate it at AfD. SpinningSpark 16:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You ended up phrasing the thrust of my concern better towards your conclusion than I did; my apologies for any lack of clarity. In the discussion at the Talk page (linked above) the analogy I drew was that "The Star Trek Companion" does not illustrate the significance of Star Trek as a subject because it's specifically written to discuss Star Trek (though it is possible that such a book might discuss the out-of-universe significance...that would need to be clear in the text of the article I think). Hopefully that was clear.

In any case, there is a discussion, but I do feel that the tag should be in place until there's a consensus to remove it, especially given that the tag's own documentation says as much; what's the point of having that in the documentation if it can be freely ignored?

Unfortunately, it's not clear to me whether the editor I'm discussing the matter with has any interest in addressing my concern (given they apparently feel the sources present address notability), or simply wants the tag gone.

I don't know whether this is out of scope, but would you perhaps be willing to review the linked discussion and offer a third opinion? As evidenced, you seem better able to verbalize the specific issue.

Thanks either way. DonIago (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

notability and in universe issues are two separate issues. And template documentation is not binding. You yourself have admitted not actually reading the referenced book, you are making a judgement from your own bias. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 17:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I asked you to provide more information to establish that those sources constitute third-party sources; thus far you have not done so. Providing other, more clearly distinct sources would also moot this situation effectively. Secondly, template documentation may not be binding, but it would have been an act of good faith on your part to honor it, or at least honor my request that the template remain until a consensus emerged to remove it, rather than unilaterally claiming my insertion was unjustified. DonIago (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Articles on exclusively in-universe topics are really on the decline. Stuff like this more often than not belongs elsewhere. Anyway I'm re-adding the template because I agree there are notability issues. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. DonIago (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Given that the article's at AFD now and Gimli and I are discussing the situation a bit at my Talk page (and the article's Talk page? I haven't looked there yet), I'd be content to see this closed or collapsed; in any case I consider it settled and thank all editors for their involvement. DonIago (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello I have been involved in a dispute over a relatively minor issue. I am trying to get an Infobox and have opened a Rfc. However, one editor is being quite aggressive towards me. He/she has also stated 'Allow me to say it again for your infobox... "it ain't happening". RfC all you want, I have no problem with everyone, Australian or not, having their say. But, it ain't happening'. He/she appears to be unhappy that I am trying to edit an article on Australian politics and I am not 'local'. Is my proposal for an Infobox really that stupid? Should I be allowed to edit articles on Australian politics? I took this to the talk page but this editor has been quite unpleasant. Please give me advice or assistance here or on the page. Thanks. LordFixit (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: Sorry the dispute is at Talk:Australian Senate special election in Western Australia, 2014#Infobox LordFixit (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course you can edit articles. Consensus still applies though. You're flogging a dead horse, there's half a dozen oppose and only you support. It ain't happening. Timeshift (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I have asked for outside help as all the people who oppose it are friends of yours. Please stop following me. LordFixit (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you've already claimed WP:CANVASS, WP:MEAT, and WP:VOTESTACKING. And as someone else said, "Gosh, how dare three people disagree with you? It must be canvassing! I mean, obviously you can't say that, because you can look at our contributions and see that no one has discussed it outside this page, but by all means throw the implication out there anyway. Or maybe they're all meatpuppets! Yes, multiple editors of more than six years in good standing are clearly throwing it all away over an infobox on a minor electoral article. It couldn't possibly be that other people have an interest in this article and disagree with you, now, could it? Perish the thought!". Timeshift (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't you have anything better to do than spend literal hours following me around? All those people are friends of yours and it is a concern that they are the only ones to have had any input so far. One even stated they would 'turn gay' for you LordFixit (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps have a look around to see who contributes the most to oz politics articles. Could it be the same names you're claiming "have a long history of Wiki friendship"? One's even an admin. Stop creating stories please. Timeshift (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Timeshift9 asked me to comment here because I was the one that posted the "go gay for Timeshift" comment on his talkpage. I have not been canvassed by Timeshift9 for the discussion about the Infobox. The "go gay" comment was meant in jest, referring to the fact that Timeshift9 and I had years of animosity on WP, but eventually managed to establish a constructive working relationship. Timeshift9 and I still often find ourselves on opposite sides of content disputes, most recently here: (click). --Surturz (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou. Timeshift (talk) 01:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Where did he ask you to do that? It's not on your talk page, Surturz. LordFixit (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Er, here? Timeshift (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. LordFixit (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

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

I am writing referring to Rosenberg shoes. We are a 111 year old company that has two choices. Do I follow a path of Historical relevance or one orientated towards one with a business bias. Both seem to be viable. Unfortunately business is easy to cite and source, where as historical, from my experience can be hard to provide excellent citations. I have created a balance and admit that I am still learning how to create the page. Another project I would like to start reviewing is the Prahran Club. The Prahran Club again is one of the oldest clubs in Melbourne or be it Australia, with a wonderful rich history but again hard to cite apart from photography. As I would like to participate more within wikiprojects, I would ideally like to start communicating with some more senior members of the Australian Wiki community. I would like to hear from historians or business authors as to how a historical / business page could be improved. Thanks in advance.Blueskiesinthemorning (talk) 06:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I see that you're writing for a company with which you are involved. You may not realize, but this is frowned upon by the Wikipedia community. At any rate, the best advice I could give for how to write an article about a business would be to look at how recent featured articles about businesses are written; the structure of such articles likely conforms to what's considered standard. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Mendaliv. As discussed I have been looking into the prahran club history also, but unfortunately it looks like developers and politics have engulfed the club. Thank you for your candid response, I could have hidden the fact but chose to be open and up front about my article. I am proud of the business. With many stores closing, our store remains stedfast considering the age, something that is against the norm. We have a wonderful history, a wonderful customer base and a beautiful store front. I appreciate your comments and will review similar listings to continue with improvements on the article. I have found some terrific historical documents from the national archives website relating to my great grandfathers naturalisation and grandfather service with the RAAF during world war II. Despite these documents, I am in agreement with you. To follow both paths makes the article multidirectional and possibly confusing in contrast with other articles. I will work on improving the article and provide a clear direction. I was pleased to see a recent post by the user 'Biatch' with a great write up relating to Windsor. Thanks again, I appreciate your response and understand the position. Blueskiesinthemorning (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

si:ආර්නොල්ඩ් රොස්‌

I have translated the following article to sinhala language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Ross

But in my sinhala article (specially in that infobox) there are still some English words.But don't know how to change it.Please try to help me. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaturaka (talk • contribs) 01:57, 11 April 2014‎ (UTC)

The problem with the infobox is that the infobox template si:සැකිල්ල:Infobox scientist appears to have been copied from English Wikipedia and not fully translated. If you look in edit mode at the template page you will see parameters of the form "labeln=<foo>". The <foo> parameter needs to be replaced with a Sinhalese translation. For instance label10=[[Doctoral advisor]]. You need to translate "Doctoral advisor" into Sinhalese (also remove the wikilink if there is no equivalent Sinhalese article). If you are not confident editing templates you should find someone on si.wikipedia who is; it is very easy to make a mess of templates and this is not good when they are used on multiple pages. You also need to translate the image captions which you can easily find by looking at the page in edit mode. I also suggest that you provide translation of the quotations and references titles, but leave the original English in the article as you are citing something in English. The portal links at the bottom either need to point to Sinhalese pages or removed. They are all redlinks except for the Mathematics portal which redirects to si:ද්වාරය:ගණිතය. Replace the mathematics link with one going directly to that page to get rid of the English. Similar problems with other templates on the page. SpinningSpark 11:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Recently the article Clarence Snyder underwent speedy deletion for copyright violation, and 123chess456 posted a notice on my talk page, apparently thinking I had written the article because of my edit history. I didn't create the article, don't remember what my edits were (this was apparently in 2005), and since the article has been deleted, I haven't been able to review the history myself. 123chess456 did say that one edit was "a major edit", but also that my "edits were minor".

I reviewed the Oversight FAQ and it really sounds like Oversight is for more serious things, but 123chess456 suggested that I request Oversight so that my edit history isn't connected with what was apparently a blatant copyright violation. Is this something that I should request Oversight for, and if so, what should I request? That all my edits to that article be suppressed?

(Also, is there any way for me to view them, now, after the article itself is deleted?) DavidConrad (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Generally, my understanding is that the cure for an erroneous warning is to remove the warning from your user talk page. Oversight is not considered necessary. Same for bad blocks; you don't get your block log purged when a block is appealed successfully. You're welcome to ask for oversight of course, but my understanding is that things like that aren't considered needful of oversight. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess I'll just remove the discussion from my talk page, then? Or, perhaps, archive it? DavidConrad (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

That's totally up to you. Nobody's going to question you for either action. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Please forgive me if it turns out that I have come to the wrong place. Sean Lien is now in the midst of a heated campaign for mayor of Taipei. I have tried to change his page from one managed by those promoting his campaign to one that is balanced and properly referenced. Kai010101 and others seem inclined to start a wiki war. I think it best to admit that I am not a supporter of Mr. Lien, but I do believe that he is deserving of a fair and balanced page. I have decided not to revert Kai010101's last edit, but I do find the reasons given inflammatory. I do though acknowledge that I could have chosen some of my words more carefully. I ask that an editor who can view these things impartially take a look at recent edits and handle this in a manner that those more experienced in these matters deem best. Thank you.ShunfaSu (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me that the most recent revert is mostly stylistic and organizational, though there some phrasing tweaks. I don't think they render the current copy totally unbalanced, however. I'll also note that given File:Sean Lien 連勝文 Taipei Mayor Campaign Photo, April 2014.jpg, which is attributed to the Lien campaign office (and yet isn't anywhere else on the web), there's a fairly clear indication that Kai010101 is affiliated with the Lien campaign. While this should not disqualify his edits, it's something that should be taken account of. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. As I said, I think that I should stay out of it.ShunfaSu (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

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

I have during the last cuople of weeks been working with article Landskrona BoIS, the history of the club mainly. Lately I have been having problem in this otherwise undelicate matter (as I believed it to be). One is a User:Reckless182,

that keeps suggesting that headlines are "option statements", while I think of them more as a summary of the next part of the text. For instance "1994-1996 Financial disorder led to dual relegations" ,there are no problem with its sources. So I find it very strange, and have found similar and related articles whith such headlines. As I see it, the headlines are NPOV, povided that the following text supports the headlines (incuding sources, of course.)

But far worse - User:Swedishpenguin has at more than one occation

1. removed sources
2. removed and changed text, so it will not be understood by most users. For instance "White Collar / Blue Collar" instead of "middle class appeal" / "working class appeal" , more than 100 years ago.
3. he has also removed good references changed text and then asked for references again. For instance "GF Idrott was one of the first sports clubs in Landskrona, founded in 1882" Changed statement into "GF Idrott was the first sports club

in Landskrona , and then asks for reference !

1. removed pictures
2. At my talk-page he even admits to be annoyed by me. I have given him a warning at his talk page. Since he isn't intrerested in the article at all, he ought to be denied access to the article Landskrona BoIS

A strange thing jus occured, as User:Reckless182 has answered at behalf of User:Swedishpenguin (at the talk page of the article). So if I have suspected sock puppety, it isn't strange. But at present , we need help as it turnes out to be an edit warring. User:Swedishpenguin seems to think it's funny to destroy rather than create. Please read his last comments at my talk page. But we do need help to solve this. Boeing720 (talk) 09:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Boeing is bending the truth here. I do believe that headlines should describe the text, however Boeing has described the text with headlines that have been awfully biased, examples include: 1980's and early 1990's Mostly a dull period and The third millenium - a good start. I have suggested alternative versions that are more neutral but Boeing would rather have it his own way it seems. I am offended to be accused of sock puppetry. I am only defending a fellow editor who I believe is making a good job, from being wrongfully accused of vandalism by Boeing. Me and Swedishpenguin have been trying to sort out several problems with the Landskrona BoIS article, this includes language issues, POV issues and a lot of material that does not have anything to do with the club, examples include early sports history in Landskrona and some material regarding the social class climate and media. When we have tried to help we have been accused of all sorts of things by Boeing, most notably vandalism and sock puppetry. I can only hope that Boeing realises that we are only trying to do what's best for the article. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

A further note. Boeing720 continually resorts to reverting edits that he doesn't like. In my opinion, me and Swedishpenguin are the editors that need assistance. Boeing720 should be eligible for a topic ban if he continues his disruptive editing. He is clearly acting as if he owns the article. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is a bit of a head-scratcher for me. It looks like the reverting and counter-reverting has been going on for several days now, and neither of you have provided diffs, so I'm going to just comment on what leaps out at me. First, regardless of whose version is better, you all need to stop the reverting and discuss the changes. Boeing720: Reckless182 and Swedishpenguin are not vandalizing the article. Furthermore, the section headings that Reckless182 points out above are problematic. Not only do they not appear to be directly supported by sources (and I don't mean direct citations in the section headings, which is not allowed), but they are not compliant with the manual of style (we use "1980s" not "1980's"). I'll also note that Swedishpenguin has opened a discussion at WP:ANI (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Behavior of Boeing720 at Landskrona BoIS), which has attracted exactly one response from somebody outside the dispute. To all of you: That is paramountly unhelpful, and will only dissuade people from responding. Please try to concisely describe your position, provide diffs, and don't argue back and forth needlessly. You aren't going to convince each other at this point: that's why you've come here and to ANI. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Answered

 – Multiple responses were entered at the AfD, which closed as delete. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The article is nominated for deletion (1 day left). There are a several sources, see the extra listing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick McKeown (2nd nomination). Needs general editing help and verification that those sources are reliable. There are several audios and few large textual interviews. Thanks. sobaka_kachalova 05:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SobakaKachalova (talk • contribs)

Answered

 – See Wikipedia:Translation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Here are several pages that need for some proper additional translations, as always, no copyright usage there:

• Narthakio (Narthace) - additional translation (from the Greek Wikipedia)
• Artemisio - additional translation (from the Greek Wikipedia)
• Afetes - additional translation (from the Greek Wikipedia)
• Rossini in Wildbald - proper translation from the German Wikipedia, list the articles in the list: Articles for creation/Opera — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terriffic Dunker Guy (talk • contribs) 00:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You might want to ask at the specific WikiProject talk pages for the countries associated with those languages. I think you'd have better luck finding people who speak those languages at the proficiencies necessary to translate articles there. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You can make a request at Wikipedia:Translation. SpinningSpark 11:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I would like to replace all instances of: File:Map_of_Roman_roads_in_Italy.png

With: File:Italy_topographic_map-ancient_Roman_roads.svg

The latter is based on data from the 1926 edition of the "Historical Atlas", by William R. Shepherd, traced by me (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Ancient_Roads_of_Italy_and_Sicily_nopng.svg), with a geographical map made by User:Sting (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Italy_topographic_map-blank.svg) and combined into one by User:Flappiefh.

Do it?

--Agamemnus (talk) 03:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, first off, I was a bit concerned about the fact that you traced the roads from something produced in 1926, but it seems William Robert Shepherd died 80 years ago so that's probably okay in most countries. Hmm. Yeah, it seems like you'd be safe replacing the former with the latter, but you may want to let people at WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome know. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure they're equivalent, so i don't think all instances should be replaced. Is there any reason why the two Sicily roads (via Valeria and via Pompeia) were left out? And what happened to Ancona?! Via Flaminia is no longer considered to go towards it? -- Jokes_Free4Me (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

A branch road apparently went to Ancona, but it doesn't seem like via Flaminia itself went to Ancona. I could be wrong but that is what all the sources (and the map I referenced, which is also referenced in the current via Flaminia article) show. Via Valeria and Via Pompeia were left out because my map is about roads in Italy (the province), not Sicily (the province). The roads themselves are traced in black. --Agamemnus (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello there, the roads previously mentioned do exist in the map I produced, but they are less visible than others. @User:Agamemnus : we should work together to complete the map by adding informations from the old File:Map_of_Roman_roads_in_Italy.png. Please contact me on my french discussion page when you find the time. I'm pretty busy right now but I'll keep in touch. --Flappiefh (talk) 12:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

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

So this article about a wireless speaker was kept at AfD on pure WP:GNG grounds earlier this month (I wasn't part of that discussion but probably would have reluctantly !voted to keep barring a good policy argument that it failed WP:NOT). Nonetheless, there have remained some issues that I had tried to address, such as describing the product as "rugged" or the rubber body as "sturdy", including rather substantial quotations from reviews, use of the ® and ™ symbols, including an unsourced "reviews analysis" section, several needless sections, and keeping the infobox image width in line with other articles. Naturally, I was reverted. Discussion is happening (mostly at user talk pages), but I'm concerned that I'm not explaining these things adequately. I'd appreciate additional eyes. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Chemtrail conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I am having difficulty with a topic in which my good faith edits are repeatedly reverted. [8][9][10] The description in the reversion summaries vary pushing a POV, pseudoscience or fringe topic (I am not) and most reversions are summarized with what I feel to be illegitimate reasons. My edits are based upon reliably sourced facts that should not be in dispute. I have discussed these issues nearly to death.[11] I am being accused of various things for which there is no foundation (which continues [12]) and I wound up losing my cool. I do not want this to happen again. I know there is a procedure to handle my concerns but am unfamiliar with starting or completing these processes. I am requesting assistance in properly resolving a content/conduct dispute and how to handle the unfounded accusations. The latest is here [13]. Thank youJohnvr4 (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion ongoing at Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory#Edit War - No discussion - why not?. Since there are more than two editors involved this isn't suitable for WP:3O. This appears to have been going on long enough to be classified as an edit war, though 3RR does not appear to have been violated. This does look like quite an involved, developed dispute. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes this is ongoing. Every edit I make is treated the same way. Is there any advice or referral on how or where I should handle it? Is the dispute resolution noticeboard appropriate or should it be somewhere else like NPOV notice board? Even the RS noticeboard topic was hijacked. I tried the dispute resoluiton once was but was told it was inappropriate or that I did it wrong. Then I was blocked. I'm hesitant to do it again. Thank you.Johnvr4 (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You should deal with this on the article's talk page. You are a classic, single-minded, obsessed SPA, and the fact that all other editors consider your edits to be disruptive and your reactions to be immature and gross violations of NPA and failure to AGF are other matters which only makes things worse. That you dare to return to the same types of behavior which got you blocked repeatedly is rather surprising. That fact says something serious about your state of mind and your lack of competence. Maybe an admin should apply Arbcom discretionary sanctions, since this subject is covered. Any admin can do it without further discussion. Topic bans for this and similar subjects, including what you're working on in your subpages, might be appropriate. Your single-minded obsession needs to be broken, at least for a while, so you can learn to edit here. Choose uncontroversial topics. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Answered

 – Specific feature not currently available; notices can be disabled at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I created an article at the request of a group of other editors some time ago. I keep getting notifications every time someone links to that article. Is there a way I can remove my name as creator or ask that I no longer receive just those notifications about new links to that one specific article? Thanks in advance for any assistance. Meclee (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The setting is under your preferences. This link should take you to the right place. SpinningSpark 23:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

If there's a way to remove specific pages from generating notifications for you, I haven't found it. Algemene Ouderdomswet, for instance, was created by me nearly a decade ago as "AOW", which was then moved to the current title, with AOW long since becoming a dab page. Thankfully it's a low traffic page so I'm not getting an insane number of inbound link notifications for it, but it's still annoying as I have literally zero interest in it. Yet I do like getting notifications for some articles. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Removing a user as creator from the history is technically possible for an administrator, but is not permitted for the obvious licensing reasons. It is also not desirable because some other poor sod then "inherits" the title of creator. It happened to me on Marlon Brando, Sr. after the removal of copyvio. There is a blacklist of users who do not trigger notifications. This can be overrided on an individual basis at Special:MyPage/Echo-whitelist). What you want is an individual blacklist on a per-page basis. There is a a request on Bugzilla for a per-page blacklist, but the proposal is a global blacklist. Perhaps you should start a new bug for an individual blacklist. SpinningSpark 11:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I might consider a new bug or perhaps a request for a user preferences option. Regards Meclee (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Siege of Lal Masjid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A series of anonymous IP editors have been removing considerable sections of the "Siege of Lal Masjid" article. I have been reverting these actions, along with other editors. After one of my last reversions, I got a message stating that the spam detection filter disallowed my reversion. After a while, this became a simple "non-autoconfirmed user making rapid reversions" tag. I just want to make sure that there isn't a valid reason for the mass removal of this content. Is there a political minefield I'm walking into here? I don't want to revert anything if it is contrary to a previous decision. I don't think this is the case, as there hasn't been activity on the talk page in more than 6 months, but as a new editor I wanted to double check to make sure I'm approaching things correctly. I have since autoconfirmed, and the latest reversion went through just fine. WikiSpamIsFun (talk) 06:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like you did a thorough job checking your work here. Honestly I don't see a reason not to revert section blanking when there's no edit summary except where it was to remove blatant vandalism (and then I might remind the editor in question to use edit summaries in the future). If it persists, you may want to request temporary semi-protection at WP:RPP. I've also warned the most recent IP in question about this. As an aside... you might want to think about a different username... it might confuse people (at least put a note on your user page explaining it). Just a word of advice from someone who's been around a bit longer. :) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. I would have reminded the editor to use a summary, but it seemed like malevolent editing through multiple IPs that wasn't going to be affected by discourse. My username is just me being my sarcastic self, but you're right. It's better to change it while I'm still a new editor than wait. I'll think of something less confusing :) Thanks a bunch for your help. WikiSpamIsFun (talk) 07:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you on that; I'd only give the "use an edit summary" reminder if upon review of the deletion it's clear that it was to remove vandalism. As to the username, I figured that it intended as a joke, and I do get it, but I think you might attract the wrong kind of attention to your edits while you're still establishing yourself in the community. Take a look at WP:CHU, and feel free to leave a message at my user talk if you have any further questions. :) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I've confirmed your account so you should now be less likely to get disallowed edits in the future. SpinningSpark 08:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Answered

 – Merger discussion took place at Talk:5W Public Relations#Propose merger of this article with Ronn Torossian. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Earlier today I noticed two wiki's that I have been following recently - were combined? These two articles were completely unique of one another - and it confused me. The wiki's in question are a company and the companies CEO. Now the companies wiki was merged into the CEO's wikipedia, and this didn't make sense to me. The company is quite large as well as the CEO - so it doesn't make sense that these two pages be one. Looking for some insight to curb my confusion. Thanks!

Wiki's in questions:

CEO: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronn_Torossian Company: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5W_Public_Relations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southjimkelly (talk • contribs) 21:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion that led to the merge is at Talk:5W Public Relations#Propose merger of this article with Ronn Torossian. You should take it there first. SpinningSpark 23:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Is it possible to withdraw my own advanced submission for a new article that has been nominated for deletion? 49.181.236.168 (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking about an actual article or a draft you have submitted somewhere?. If no one else has edited it you can have it speedy deleted by placing the code {{Db-author}} on the page. SpinningSpark 10:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It's an actual article I submitted. It hasn't been edited by anyone else. So that's okay for me to insert that code even though it's been nominated for deletion and two other people have weighed in with posts regarding deletion?49.181.236.178 (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you link to the article please. We cannot find it from your edit history because you have a dynamic IP address. These problems are avoided if you create an account. SpinningSpark 14:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I decided to take the plunge and search for it. It wasn't likely nominated on April 27; all the ones nominated before 09:36 UTC with at least two !votes by that time had significantly more contributors. There are a few possibilities on April 26. Regardless, I don't see the harm in letting AfD run if the OP wants the article deleted anyway. It's not likely to change things. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Williams Landing railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An issue has ben raised on the Williams Landing railway station#Cost & criticisms article over whether neutrality policy has been breached by the addition of uncited text. There has been correspondence (3-4 edits each) and it has reached a stalemate. The dispute was nominated for a WP:DRN but knocked back on the basis it hadn't been discussed thoroughly enough. As the original issue was raised by a third editor, doesn't qualify for WP:3O.

In theory the discussion could go on, but I don't think either editor has much more to add. As it stands there is a 2-1 consensus that not to include the added text, but would prefer to get some sought of outside opinion, so that all editors can be comfortable with the decision reached. Is there an appropriate place to seek this? Mo7838 (talk) 02:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I was going to post something here, but I think it'd be better to just post it as a general reply to the thread at the talk page. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Appears to be pretty well in hand now. Will continue to observe. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Hallo, I have problem when using this template: template:South America topic. When using suffix, I can choose whether there is space between the main word and the suffix. However, when adding prefix, no matter I use the word "prefix" or not, there is always a space between the prefix and the main word. Are there any methods to delete the space between them? Thanks. Linzaap (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Finally got a chance to decipher this request. My understanding is that the "[Continent] topic" family of templates by default use the continent name as the heading (i.e., South America), but you can add a prefix or a suffix to that, so you can get "Geography of South America" (2=Geography of) or "List of South America topics" (2=List of, 3=_topics). Note the underscore there; since the template parser presumably ignores leading whitespace (so 3= topics gets parsed as "topics"), whoever designed the template noticed that the linked text was underlined anyway, so the underscore is covered up. Thus, you can have headings like "South America-related topics" (3=-related topics) as well. Linzaap's problem appears to be that prefix automatically adds a space, so you do something like 2=Anti- and 3=_Politics; you'd just get "Anti- South American_Politics".

As an aside, the problem with the underscore "hack" is it's only partial, and isn't going to be searchable as "South American topics", and a screen reader might not parse it correctly. While it seems that you can use the suffix= parameter, which presumes a space, you could probably also just use   in the 2 parameter. But I'm not about to go mucking about with that family of templates since it'd likely require a bot operation to update all instances of the template. And for the same reason I'm reluctant to touch the template to accommodate Linzaap's request. I'm honestly not sure exactly who to ask about this either since this is quite a large family of templates. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

And it does seem that using   sidesteps the whole need to use an underscore issue. The documentation for these templates should probably all be updated to reflect that. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Mendaliv, thanks for your detailed reply. However, I am not going to make any changes in that template since my aim is to make a same template in other language. So, if you know anyway to remove the space (whether writing in the template is needed or not), would you show me the method?Linzaap (talk) 11:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I see. What you could do is replace all instances of "{{{1|{{{prefix|}}}}}} " with "{{{1| {{{prefix|}}}}}}"; that would make the 1/prefix parameter pair work in the same way as the 2/suffix parameter pair (use 1 when you don't want a space, prefix when you do). Note of course that this template may depend on other templates that your language Wiki may not have implemented, or may not implement in the same manner. In other words, it might not work. Good luck. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I just realize that there is a space in front of every names. Yet, I find another problem. If I type {{North|a|suffix=b}}, it generates the result: aNorth b. However, if I type {{North|prefix=a|b}}, the result is b North)(the result I expect is a Northb). Do you know why the result is above and are there any ways to solve it?Linzaap (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It's because {{North|prefix=a|b}} is equivalent to {{North|prefix=a|1=b}} (since named parameters aren't included in the "count" for the number of unnamed parameters), and the 1 parameter apparently overrides the prefix parameter. To get the expected result you'd need to do {{North|prefix=a|2=b}}. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, it helps me much.Linzaap (talk) 06:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

I am seeking advice on what to do about dealing with one particular editor (SPECIFICO) who IMHO abuses the WP:BRD process. He frequently reverts my edits and then fails to constructively participate in any meaningful discussion. FYI this editor has recently been permanently topic banned from "Ludwig von Mises Institute". A very recent example was when I placed a few paragraphs giving an argument about making a set of edits on a talk page, ending with "does anyone object", to which his reply (which I'm quoting in its entirety) was "yes I do". Surely this is, at best, unconstructive. I think his subsequent edits are typical of his modus operandi. Reissgo (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Because I and several other editors had previously detailed our objections to your edit, and because you have repeatedly ignored such objections and been blocked for edit warring on this and related articles, I wished to respond to your request without provoking yet another round of fruitless discussion of your POV. 19:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

P.S. this section is an earlier (and shorter) example of SPECIFICO's behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reissgo (talk • contribs) 22:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Newspring church with perry noble as pastor is NOT affiliated in any way shape or form associated with the Southern Baptist convention or any other Baptist. Please change this misinformation as we DO NOT claim this church at all!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.64.96.47 (talk) 05:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. An article created on April 14 with a maintenance tag, with the maintenance tag including a date=October 2011 parameter. Looks like it was cut-and-pasted from the long-deleted Newspring church (though I'm not sure I would A7 what's currently there). I wonder if it would survive AfD. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Very strange. Couldn't find an old copy via Google but did find a BLP draft about its pastor, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Daredevil1234/Draft. Ah, found [14], maybe that's relevant to the article. Dougweller (talk) 07:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, this is about a videogame developer called "Bplus" with a less than stellar track record: Its past games have not been reviewed well, with typical metacritic scores between 44 and 52: [15], [16], [17], [18].

Now this company has released a new game called "Bit Boy!! Arcade", where there aren't yet enough reviews to warrant a metacritic rating, but it's not looking good either: [19].

This videogame creator has its own promotional page on the web where it seem oblivious to its track record, featuring lots of positive reviews from pages that I have never heard of: [20]. Which is fine, of course they can do whatever they wish on their own website.

But please take a look at this article: Bit Boy!! Arcade. In the section "Reception", the same pattern of only featuring overly positive reviews is present. ("received almost only positive reviews", quickly followed by "universal praisal").

Now I've asked several of the big videogame review sites to review this game. All of them declined. So there are only reviews from small review sites. And these small review websites are all conspicuously positive. So this is a question about "not enough good data". There is data, but it might be tainted, or obscure.

My question: Are there inclusion guidelines how notable a review website must be to be included in a reception section?

Or my question In other words: can I create a videogame that is so obscure as not to be reviewed by the big boys, get a few positive nods from unknown review websites, and then write on my wikipedia article that I've "received almost only positive reviews" and "universal praisal"?

Thanks. Srezz (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting question. So basically, when you're making an evaluation as to things like a consensus of reviewers, you technically need a citation for that evaluation. In other words, you can't just take three positive reviews and write "All reviews of X were positive." Technically. I know it's not extensively followed for critical reception sections (mostly because situations like these are uncommon), but WP:SYN would seem to be the controlling policy.

What you can't do is add a note that the big reviewers are ignoring the game unless, again, there's some reliable source stating that the big reviewers have ignored the game. So I get your frustration. I would argue that the controlling interest here should be to prevent the article from presenting something in a deceptive manner. Anyway, you might get better advice/direct assistance if you ask at the Video Games WikiProject. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, I'll try my luck there! Srezz (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

 – AfD was withdrawn. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

So an argument has come up at an AfD that for a medical research company to be notable, it must be notable for its products or its scientific discoveries, rather than its corporate or financial business. Furthermore, it seems to be being argued that the sources used must not have relied in any way on the company's press releases to be considered "secondary". See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novavax, Inc. More opinions would be appreciated. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I have two questions regarding what makes a stable title. First, does an article's title become stable if it has remained for several years, even if it was moved to that title by a user who is now banned? Second, if an article was boldly moved to a new title, can it be reverted years later under WP:BRD? I'm asking because User:bobrayner reverted years' old moves of a great many articles recently for these reasons and they don't seem valid to me, so I'm trying to find out if that is the case. Please let me know if this is something I should ask elsewhere. Thank you. --Local hero ^talk 15:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

From all appearances Bobrayner's reverts have to do with place names in Kosovo. For instance, Gornje Ljupče being moved to Lupçi i epërm: the former is the Serbian name, the latter is the Albanian name. I believe this puts the articles squarely within the ambit of WP:ARBEE or WP:ARBMAC. What this means for Bobrayner's reverts, I'm not sure, but I think the best option for you would be to leave a message at Bobrayner's user talk page and try to discuss the issue, and if you can't come to an agreement, using the requested moves process. Unilaterally reverting under some rationale invoking WP:BRD is unlikely to result in a favorable outcome. BRD isn't policy, and it isn't a guideline; it's an essay describing a common editing custom that editors use to avoid edit wars. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Correct, though some are shared with the Republic of Macedonia. I've tried discussing this with bobrayner but he typically doesn't respond to my comments. I have initiated WP:RM processes, as with Peskovi, but I was hoping there would be a more efficient way to do this instead countless individual RMs. I guess I'll be taking it to ARBMAC or ARBEE, thanks. --Local hero ^talk 18:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that Bob isn't willing to discuss it, but that's just how it goes sometimes. Under normal circumstances (i.e., if we were dealing with one or two articles that weren't related to previous high-profile arbitration proceedings) I might advise being bold yourself and changing the title... but I really think treading lightly might be the better option. Be careful about pursuing an outcome based on purely procedural grounds by the way (i.e., a revert should happen regardless of which outcome is correct because the revert was improper); while there are times and places for such arguments, I've found that people tend to get the wrong idea about your motives (or the discussion rapidly turns into an argument about the substantive merits of the outcome anyway). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems that Bobrayner was undoing some moves by User:F382d56d7a18630cf764a5b576ea1b4810467238, a person better known under a previous name who is no longer active on Wikipedia. If User:Bobrayner intends to move a large number of articles to Albanian names it would be better to propose it at WP:RM to allow review. This applies even if the moves he is trying to revert were unwise. A move review that could be related to this issue appears at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 March#Bistër. I checked the recent edits of User:Local hero and I don't see any evidence that LH has tried to ask User:Bobrayner about this on his talk page. It's hard to say that Bob is ignoring you if you haven't tried to contact him. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the input. You can see at Talk:Peskovi and Talk:Maja e zezë that I tried discussing it with him before starting RMs, but he was either dismissive or flat out didn't respond. You'll excuse me if I didn't find it useful to then ask him on his talkpage of his rationale when he wouldn't give it to me on two pages that he clearly monitors. Anyways, we're past the point of him intending to move the pages; he's already done it. So, what should be done now?

Mendaliv, my argument is not solely based on procedural stuff. I fully believe that most of these articles belong at their old titles. See the discussion EdJonston linked above for an example of me trying to prove that. --Local hero ^talk 18:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@Local hero: Sorry, I didn't intend to imply that you were trying to make a purely procedural argument, my intent was to discourage you from pursuing an argument based on which version should win out per BRD. In another context, in a different system, that would be a strong argument to lead with... but oddly enough not on Wikipedia. Concise, simple, and neutrally-worded substantive arguments almost always seem to be the most persuasive here. Anyway, while normally I'd agree with Ed that pinging Bob at his user talk at least once more would be merited, it looks like it was all hashed out at least somewhat during those two requested moves, which I'll note ended in no consensus (one got overturned at move review). Maybe you'd have luck with the same rationale for Maja e zezë at move review? I know the issue with that one is that it was to revert a sock move, where Peskovi was not... it seems like a no consensus might preferentially default to the stable title. I dunno though, this is getting out of my element. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh no worries, my mistake. I wouldn't mind starting another MRV, but I'm afraid it would only solve that single article's problem. I'd like to take care of the whole thing, if possible. I don't know if the outcomes of the MRV discussion establish some sort of precedent. For example, since Bistër was moved back, does that mean all of them should be moved back if they were longstanding? Or does an RM have to take place for each one first? Or does it stay at the current title if the revert was of a now banned editor?... But yea it doesn't seem like this is a common situation to come by. --Local hero ^talk 05:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia processes like that rarely if ever establish precedent, and are generally narrow adjudications of individual cases. Sometimes initiating a rulemaking process can get a lot done at once, but here, I'm really not sure what you could do other than kicking off individual RMs. If you had a general substantive argument to justify the moves (e.g., the current titles violate WP:NCMAC), you might be able to start a mass move request, with the discussion, say, at a WikiProject's talk page. Or maybe even just kick off a general discussion at a WikiProject's talk page. I know that large grouped adjudicative processes are frowned upon a lot of the time (I think every time I've ever seen a mass AfD it's closed speedily with the nominator advised to separately nominate the individual articles). It's just how it is; people on Wikipedia like to handle things in a piecemeal fashion... at least until a conflict crops up. Good luck. I don't envy you working in this subject area. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

All right, I think I'll take this latest one the MRV to see if it'll result differently than Peskovi since it was done by a user who would later be banned. Then, I might move back some of the obvious ones like City Stadium (Besianë) for consistency with the city's article being at Podujevo. Thanks again for your help. --Local hero ^talk 22:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Cornelius Gurlitt (art collector) was turned into a redirect to 2012 Munich artworks discovery, referencing WP:BLP1E. Now that Gurlitt has passed away, it would seem that this policy does not apply anymore. Is the subject notable enough for his own article? On German Wikipedia, which does not exactly have a reputation for inclusionism, the same question was essentially answered with "absolutely!", so I'm quite a bit surprised that the typically significantly more inclusionist English-speaking Wikipedians appear to disagree. I also have to say that I find the situation where Cornelius Gurlitt (art collector) and Cornelius Gurlitt (art dealer) are both redirects rather unsatisfying and unfortunate for the reader who seeks information specifically on the man himself, which is now spread throughout the article 2012 Munich artworks discovery, even where it does not really belong. Another possibility would be the creation of a subsection specifically on Gurlitt. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I think WP:1E covers notability situations involving people known for only one event, living or dead. WP:BLP1E to my understanding is more an extension on that which allows deletion when the outcome of an AfD is "no consensus". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I got it somewhat wrong there. But WP:BIO1E is the guideline you're looking for. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

And on the subject of people expecting to hear about Gurlitt being confronted with an article about the artworks discovery, the principle that governs is discussed in WP:SURPRISE. Generally speaking, it is allowable to have related topics redirect to one another, particularly where one isn't notable. It's not necessarily ideal, but it's often used to help people find at least some information about the related topic rather than finding nothing at all. And indeed, when individuals are searching for WP:BIO1E/WP:BLP1E cases, 99% of the time they'll be searching for information about the event anyway (and often might not know the name by which Wikipedia calls the event). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Given that Gurlitt is linked from Deaths in 2014, the chance of users looking for biographical info is non-negligible. Since Gurlitt's family background and date of birth are well-known and widely publicised, I wonder how WP:PSEUDO applies here. If the German(ophone)s can write a full bio of the man, why can't the Anglophones? (Also, if Gurlitt were not notable, why can he be on Recent deaths in the first place?) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to either, I'm just saying that if the article were restored and then sent to AfD on the same argument you're making here, you can fully expect WP:BIO1E to be cited. I will say that since the redirect wasn't done following an AfD (and seems to have been done unilaterally), there's nothing really precluding you from starting a discussion to restore the article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Where should I start such a discussion? Specifically some place a lot of Wikipedians are watching who are interested in the topic would be nice. Many WikiProjects are not particularly active. Is there some more centralised discussion? My question on the talk page received little reaction ... Perhaps the help desk would be a better idea? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest trying the WikiProject on Germany or the Village Pump. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The article (before being made a redirect) was 16 November 2013. Reviewing that shows that there is nothing to say about the person except that he was involved in the 2012 Munich artworks discovery. The November 2013 page has a couple of extra lines which are merely editorial comment intended to denigrate the person. There is nothing there to support WP:N. Wikipedia is not a place to settle scores by erecting memorials with praise or censure. Johnuniq (talk) 03:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I think Cornelius Gurlitt, unlike his father Hildebrand Gurlitt and his inherited art collector, is not notable on his own. Just leave the redirects, and that should be good. --bender235 (talk) 07:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I am not sure what to do here. Glevum (talk · contribs) is doing edits with a very substantial amount of copyediting, like this, this and this. As far as I can see, the copyediting is good. The little thing that irks me is that he marks all these edits as minor, while they clearly are not. I tried to raise the issue very politely on his talk page, but he removed my post -it means he's read it, but hmm, doesn't strike me as collaborative. What should be done? It is a minor issue, but I don't know what to do in these cases. Thanks! --cyclopia^speak! 16:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, removal of such notices is understood to mean acknowledgement of the notice. Since Glevum's most recent contribution was to remove that notice, let's assume for now that he's acknowledging it and will endeavor to use the minor edit feature correctly from here on out. If there is continued misuse of the minor edits feature, we can cross that bridge when we come to it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

I would like to expand this section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Harvard_Advocate#Notable_past_members into its own article titled List of Harvard Advocate people. Is there an inline procedure for expanding sections into articles or should I go through the create new article window? 2hayden2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2hayden2 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I can see no great merit in separating the list from the article at this point. Instead, I'd suggest that it might be better to work on the article itself. It is almost entirely lacking in inline citations, and fails to demonstrate, through third-party published reliable sources that it meets our notability guidelines - without which, it risks deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

As for Andy's point about failing WP:N, I'm not too worried about that. But I agree with Andy about not splitting out a list page; better to expand the main page. I'd be happy to help with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

New York: A Documentary Film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello,

I noticed in the entry for "New York a Documentary" by Ric Burns credit for a participating Historian,"Craig Steven Wilder" was omitted in your entry...I believe he his contribution was informative and extensive.

Thank you,

John Richardson (Redacted)

(Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.247.224 (talk) 03:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there has been no discussion of this at Talk:New York: A Documentary Film. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm new to wikipedia editing and tried to make a minor edit to the entry "Biopower." It did not seem to be working apparently because someone else was immediately changing it back (took me a while to figure this out). My change put the definition at the front so that if someone googled the term, they would get the definition on the search page without having to open the article. A definition would give the meaning of the term rather than the originator of the term (though of course "Foucault" has a particular meaning for anyone who has read him--not necessarily the audience for the definition). I found the responses of the other editor to be aggressive and made the experience pretty unpleasant. I'm still not entirely clear on how editing wikipedia works. I'm a graduate student with interest in knowledge claims but don't have a lot of time. Is there a simple tutorial to guide people through the process? Again, that my edits were so immediately and summarily dismissed made me think the program wasn't working. Assistance would be much appreciated. Thanks! Eburg Editor (talk) 13:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand it is frustrating when your edits are reverted. The best way to solve this is to follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle. You were bold and made changes to the article, someone did not believe your edits were helpful to the article and reverted them. The next step is to go to the article's talk page, Talk:Biopower and discuss why you believe your changes improve the article. Then when there is consensus to make changes, make them GB fan 13:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The Ribbon International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am having a problem with an editor changing a word in a sentence. After the second change, I provided a link to information for the proper use of the word, on his talk page. I then again, changed the word back to the original. The editor then made another change incorporating the information I had posted concerning the word, but it was still wrong. I then changed his word back to the original. The editor has now changed the word again, two times. The sentence would have to be totally rearranged for the word to work right in the sentence. The following are the word changes in the sentence.

Original - The Ribbon International is a world wide art project comprised of 36 x 18" cloth panels, promoting abolition of nuclear weapons, disarmament, peace, care and protection of the earth and its inhabitants.

Frist and second edit - The Ribbon International is a world wide art project composed of 36 x 18" cloth panels, promoting abolition of nuclear weapons, disarmament, peace, care and protection of the earth and its inhabitants.

Third and fourth edit - The Ribbon International is a world wide art project comprising 36 x 18" cloth panels, promoting abolition of nuclear weapons, disarmament, peace, care and protection of the earth and its inhabitants.

The word comprising should reflect to The Ribbon International, as the panels being the basis of The Ribbon International and NOT being the basis of the panels. In order for the sentence to read correctly:

A world wide art project of 36 x 18" cloth panels comprising The Ribbon International, promotes the abolition of nuclear weapons, disarmament, peace, care and protection of the earth and its inhabitants.

Apparently this editor was more concerned with making his 100 edits that I read about on his talk page. Thank you Susan Macafee (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no clue what edits or editors you're talking about, though from the look of things there's quite a bit more wrong with that article than simple wording. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I surrendered after seeing "batiking" in the second sentence. That's gruesome. Is there more of that standard? HiLo48 (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Apparently batiking is actually something. Anyway, I've warned Susan Macafee about edit warring; there's definitely a slow edit war happening. I'm also concerned that there seem to be at least three COI-afflicted editors involved with the page. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Batik is real. It's the Indonesian/Malay word for form of fabirc treatment. But batiking isn't a word in those languages or Engliah. HiLo48 (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

"Batiking" in this context means "making a piece of fabric art with the batik process" and is perfectly good word formation by the usual process in the English language. I wikilinked to "batik" for that purpose. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

At best, it's an ugly, unnecessary neologism, probably used out of ignorance of correct English and an inability to say what's needed using existing, accepted language. It doesn't belong in a quality encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 02:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I dunno. As far back as the 1960s I used to hear the term routinely employed by my sister, who developed an early interest in fabric art and design. My sense is that it's a very common term within a small community. Anyhow it doesn't land funny on my ear. (The subject article however seems to need a lot of work.) JohnInDC (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

That being said, while it may be a perfectly cromulent word, it is a bit slangy and informal, and for that reason probably not suited to a Wikipedia article. JohnInDC (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

As a linguist, I think it's an entirely straightforward and sensible gerunding (see what I did there?) of the word "batik". We can scoff at neologisms all we want (and in most cases do so correctly), but the -ing suffix in English is so productive that you can more or less assume it's acceptable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep - Talk:The Ribbon International. I've tried to keep the most egregious examples of puffery out but still have to go through the article sentence by sentence. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

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

(see previous thread at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 120#Minor dispute over product article)

The creator of this article insists on assessing it as mid-importance for one WikiProject, as well as marking it as C-class, despite some ongoing disputes as to the appropriate depth of coverage, neutrality, and other issues. Is this appropriate? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: I believe importance should be assessed irrespective of content. Quality should be judged on content. C-class states, "The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup." If it has adequate reliable sources then C-class is probably appropriate. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

An editor has removed a wikilink to the subject identified in an image because they say there is already a link in the article text (in this case the opening paragraphs). My understanding is that image captions should include wikilinks even if these links duplicate links in the article text (the logic being that readers looking at the image are not reading the article and should not have to search out the link in the text in order to link). I skimmed Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions, but I can't find a clear statement regarding our standards for captions and wikilinks. Any ideas? Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@Candleabracadabra: WP:OVERLINK: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Unfortunately that does not seem definitive to either preference. I guess the next step would be dispute resolution if there is not agreement? Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything definitive, and really, most MOS/content type things aren't here. With stuff like this there's usually freedom to come up with a local consensus that an extra link would be helpful. And honestly... if you're talking about a longer article, there's always this situation that bugs me when I'm reading a subsection, notice a name for the first time... and it's not linked. Then I have to backtrack and see if it's linked earlier (and hopefully it'll be a bluelink). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@Candleabracadabra: I would use some common sense here. If the original wikilink is some distance away from the image, then wikilinking the caption is helpful to readers. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

My understanding was that we were pretty consistent in including wikilinks in image captions (at least on a significant term's first appearance) because an image is always distinct (ie. some distance) from the text where the term may be linked. In other words, if you're reading the caption and looking at the image you aren't reading the article, so it doesn't make sense to have to go look there for the link, but if that's just a convention.. well? I dunno. RfC? Groan. I am open to suggestions on how to resolve the difference in opinion in the instance I'm dealing with. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:3O, or just informally ask for more input? RfC seems a bit far to go for something like this... but on the other hand, since it's a pretty cut-and-dried question it might be something that gets answered easily (rather than the mountain of opinions that more amorphous RfCs tend to generate). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks so much for the input! This is a great place to get help. Since in this instance the image is in the opening section and the link is in the lead I am going to let it slide.. at least for now. I think we serve our readers and it would be appropriate to include a link for a relevant subject (especially for such a prominent photo), but as the manual of style doesn't offer usable guidance on this issue I guess there isn't a right answer. Thanks again. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to say... if the case were that the bluelink and the caption were spatially very close to one another, I would be less inclined to link the caption too. But, I think there are situations where it could be helpful anyway (like when the bluelink is buried in an infobox). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

This is my first time posting here, so forgive and appropriately redirect me for any mistakes. Basically, I've been editing the page K'naan (Somali-Canadian rapper) for language/structure and adding newer information (with references). As is the case with articles sometimes, you come across disputes with other users, who may disagree with your edits and prefer to make their own edits/reverts. Recently, I have come across a certain user who has done so a number of times, I don't feel its time for "dispute resolution" since we have just begun to take it to the Talk Page. I would mainly like consultation to observe some of my concerns and whether they are valid or not. Since I don't feel it would be right for me to press my angle, if it were to be in the wrong.

1) I added a disambiguation header linking to Knaanic language, since "Knaan" redirects to the artist. This was removed by the user.

2) A section titled "Feud with k-os" (another Canadian rapper), was replaced with "Musical disputes". I object to this because, its only one "dispute/feud" so no point added a plural/nondescriptive header. Furthermore, "Musical disputes" implies creative differences a rapper has with a producer/writer/artist he's working with, not a feud with a rival/competing rapper (k-os) as is the case. The concept of "rap feud" is common in the Hip Hop world, and commonly mentioned as such in most Wikipedia articles on rappers.

3) A section entitled "Activism and views" made mention of K'naan's activism work, as well as his "view" a comment he made on Somalian piracy. The user renamed the section "Philanthropy", and removed any mention of the Somali piracy comment, citing it to be irrelevant or unimportant. I beg to differ, since the artist is Somalian closely connected to Somali culture/issues, and Piracy is a big issue related to Somalia. This is where i noticed there seems to be a deliberate attempt at POV or whitewashing the subject article. 'Philanthropy' has positive connotations whereas 'Activism' has neutral/variable connotations; this seems to be against the spirit of NPOV. Outright removal of a controversial section like his view on piracy seemed to fit in with that line of thought. His editing of "feud" to "musical dispute" also seemed to be an indicator of the deliberate toning-down of language in the article.

This is the Talk Page section where I've brought some of these concerns to the user directly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:K%27naan#Philanthropy // DA1 (talk) 05:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the dablink has (rightly) been restored. No opinion on the other issues. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm back! An editor has redirected an article on an obviously notable subject. It's part of a pattern of going after me, so I want to avoid the conflict entirely and get a clear community consensus on the subject. I would like a wide hearing of it. I am familiar with the AfD process and I would like to use that, but I have taken some criticism for nominating an article to determine whether it's a legitimate subject when I don't want it deleted. I think that's silly, AfD is where it's decided whether we include an article subject, but if that's a problem.. What are my other options? I am wary of RFC. Will that draw a wide audience to actually look into the subject and determine notability? I don't want drive by "I don't like it" votes. I want the sources and coverage to be assessed fairly. What is best way to deal with this situation? Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources, reliable sources and ... well you know. Also your kinda vague, you open your statement about a redirect and all of a sudden your talking about AfD,RfC & nobility (which has nothing to do with redirects) Mlpearc (open channel) 19:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

If it's a longstanding article WP:BRD suggests reverting the redirect and starting a discussion. Did one take place before the redirect was done? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

New article. I will discuss on talk page. Sometimes jumping through hoops for the sake of jumping through hoops when the outcome is easily predicted doesn't seem useful, but okay. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually it looks like it was an article was redirected, was an article again and was redirected (I think). Anyway. I initiated a discussion, but as I indicated the outcome is predictable so I would like to seek wider input for a consensus. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• The article in question is, I suppose, Climate variability; it was created by {{User:ChildofMidnight]], who left us this version, which was restored by Candleabracabra here, and since expanded a bit. ChildofMidnight's version was reverted to a redirect by (admin) Father Goose in this edit, with the explanation that it duplicates content, and Candleabracabra's version was reverted to a redirect by Viriditas, who was subsequently reverted by Candleabracadabra. There are some sources given in the latest version, but only two of those appear to be peer-reviewed publications. Drmies (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• To respond to NeilN's comment, neither version I mentioned was a "longstanding article", having been (substantially) edited only by ChildofMidnight and Candleabracadabra, respectively. But there is a bit more to it: there was a stub before ChildofMidnight edited it--a rather POV stub with the claim that "The term is a more neutral counterpart of climate change." This stub was redirected as a "POV/redundant article to climate change" by (admin) Neutrality, before it was restored and expanded by ChildofMidnight. The claim that it "is a more neutral counterpart" is still in the article, though now rephrased: "The phrase climate variability is a more neutral and less politically charged phrase than climate change which includes the assumption that a particular change of the climate is taking place."

  Since the article is under discretionary sanctions (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Final_decision), and given that "the assumption that a particular change of the climate is taking place" is the consensus view among scientists", and since two administrators have reverted what they deemed to be POV versions of the article, and since the article in its current state still preserves the original spirit of the "more neutral terminology" view, I suggest that extraordinary care be taken here. Drmies (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• I have notified Candleabracadabra of the discretionary sanctions, and was alerted that they had previously been notified of discretionary sanctions in pseudoscience and fringe science by JzG. Drmies (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

If you object to something in the article why not simply remove that content? I changed the article a great deal from what was there before. I also initiated talk page discussion (yesterday) as was suggested above and listed additional sources on the article's talk page. It's a pretty basic aspect of climate science and I can't think of a good reason why we don't have an article on it. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I removed the assertion you mentioned as it is unsourced. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you can also remove the assertion, above, "It's part of a pattern of going after me", as it is likewise unsourced, and a personal attack to boot, lest I be forced to pursue disciplinary measures. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I answered in general terms because the question was couched in generalities. I'm ambivalent in getting into specifics here as it seems splitting the discussion between the article talk page (where it belongs) and here would be of limited use. To be honest, I'm here on this page to help editors with lightly watched articles example and not get involved with spillover from discretionary sanctions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. That's why I asked my question as more of a general question about the principles involved. Thanks for your assitance and also user:Mlpearc. Hopefully if Drmies thinks it isn't an independently notable subject he will take it to an articles for deletion discussion so we can get a wider community consensus. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anything of it. It strikes me as valid in its own right, but I merely note that it has been a POV creation and recreation from the get-go, and last time that was by you, after you restored ChildofMidnight's POV text. I noted also that the article was under discretionary sanctions, and reverted to a redirect twice by administrators, with arguments and all, so I don't see why you would blast the latest redirecter while you essentially restored what had been undone with valid arguments, twice in a row. In other words, you could have known better just from the history, and I wonder if this entire thread isn't to hurl some insult at poor Viriditas, who merely did to the same content what admins Neutrality and Father Goose had done twice before. But please go ahead and write it up anew, and in the spirit of collaborative editing, please apologize to Viriditas for your personal attack, with which you started this thread, though without naming them. I just know you probably didn't mean to insult them. Have a great weekend, Drmies (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, if there's inappropriate point of view in it please point it out (in the appropriate venue) and I'll get rid of it or better yet, take it out yourself! I posted a generalized question and was seeking generalized answers. My choice to exclude a focus on any particular article or editor(s) was intentional and for good reason. I was asking how to handle a situation generally speaking. I got some good suggestions and I followed them. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, this, "It's part of a pattern of going after me", directed at Viriditas, no doubt, is hardly a generalized question. You could show your good faith by striking it. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Early Life of Brady Dougan has been removed and replaced by career.178.197.227.241 (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Er... no it hasn't. The most recent edit to the article (and only edit this month) just tweaked the infobox. And there's an Early life section still. In fact, the "Early life" section was only introduced fairly recently, and hasn't been removed at all since. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Requesting an editorial review of Council_of_Graduate_Schools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am a paid editor for the Council of Graduate Schools. We would like to request some help with updating, expanding, and providing external sources for this page. We have drafted content at the article's Talk page that we would like to request a third-party review and post if s/he feels it is within Wikipedia's guidelines for neutrality and documentation. Thank you for any help you provide.

Nwt007 (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)nwt007

WP:PAIDHELP may be a better place to request this review. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Should articles about French institutions be titled in French or English, such as St. Charles Garnier College? Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names states that the common name should be used, which is Collège Saint-Charles-Garnier. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) states that it should be written in English, which is St. Charles Garnier College. Which one do I go for? Pjposullivan (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Both policies suggest using the most common name in English-language sources, so in this case the better choice is probably St. Charles Garnier College. Novusuna ^talk 18:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I concur. Basically the only times I'd recommend not using an English name is if there is effectively no English name. It doesn't need to be an official English name either, just something that is in the sources (and there's no other reason not to use it, like that it's obviously incorrect). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I screwed up and did a copy-paste move to try to purge an image cache from commons - I really should know better, but I wasn't thinking straight. Short story, the file that used to be hosted on en.wiki at File:Editorrib18.png is now hosted on commons at File:Editorrib20.png, but the move to commons left file info on en.wiki, which I moved to en.wiki's File:Editorrib20.png page by copy/paste instead of a proper move. What I need is the edit history at File:Editorrib18.png moved to File:Editorrib20.png, and I hope that deleting the File:Editorrib18.png page (and any redirect left behind) will allow the updated commons image to propogate through en.wiki, but at the very least, the edit history does need to be moved. Thanks for any help. VanIsaac_WS^cont 05:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hm? The revision history at File:Editorrib18.png (both here and at commons) contains nothing requiring attribution apart from the original uploader's upload, and there's nothing special at File:Editorrib20.png (either here or at commons). Is there any particular reason for the file to be locally hosted? Just delete File:Editorrib20.png here and at commons as bit-for-bit duplicates of their respective copies of File:Editorrib18.png. I don't think there's anything special needed otherwise. If a list of the contribs from each respective page needs to be listed at Commons (which is often done when a file is transferred over), that's a matter for the people at Commons to sort out. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You don't get it. File:Editorrib18.png and File:Editorrib20.png are not the same file at commons (they are similar, but the width of the gold ribbons is different), even though they are the same at en.wiki for some damnable reason. File:Editorrib20.png used to be called File:Editorrib18.png on en.wiki, but it needed to be moved (on commons) to make way for File:Editorrib18.png and File:Editorrib19.png, which were formerly File:Editorrib18a.png and File:Editorrib18b.png. I'm trying to get en.wiki to reflect the changes at commons, and part of that was preserving the file information from en.wiki, which is what I copied over without attribution. I believe that this also might be preventing propogation of the new File:Editorrib18.png image from commons. So, just trust me and do this: delete the file on en.wiki for File:Editorrib20.png. Move the last version (before I blanked it) of File:Editorrib18.png to File:Editorrib20.png, and all the attribution and file history will be preserved in the proper places. If you also delete (or suppress creation) of the redirect at File:Editorrib18.png, we can see if that solves the propogation/image caching issues that I'm running into, but either way, all of the history and file information at File:Editorrib18.png unambiguously needs to be located at File:Editorrib20.png. VanIsaac_WS^cont 22:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Sir, I was just accidentally uploaded the that article.The proper things and equations are ready with me .Can i proceed with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anu.gp (talk • contribs) 17:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

131.179.232.36 (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)My assistant tried to add a section to this entry. It was deleted three times with no adequate explanation. The editor mentioned "copyright" and "formatting" issues, but all our sources have copyright release, and our format complies (to the best or our understanding) with all other entries in wikipedia. We tried but failed to ask the editor (Evergreen) to be more specific. Can you help? Respectfully, Professor Judea Pearl UCLA <redacted> 00:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC) 131.179.232.36 (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Appears to do with this exchange:

• Kvihill (added sections "Causal Mediation Analysis" and "The Mediation Formula")
• EvergreenFir (Undid revision 611442340 by Kvihill (talk) at least a partial copyvio of http://www.mii.ucla.edu/causality/?cat=4 Also poorly formatted)
• Kvihill (reformatted and clarified /*Causal Mediation Analysis*/ and →‎The Mediation Formula: -- Undid revision 611463112 by EvergreenFir (talk))
• EvergreenFir (Reverted 1 edit by Kvihill (talk) to last revision by EvergreenFir. (TW)) (improperly marked as minor)
• Kvihill four edits.
• EvergreenFir (Reverted 4 edits by Kvihill (talk) to last revision by EvergreenFir. (TW)) (again improperly marked as minor)

There is no discussion at Talk:Mediation (statistics), though some brief talk at User talk:Kvihill. It is legitimate to donate copyrighted materials to Wikipedia, though this is not a guarantee that such materials may be used. In short, you/Kvihill and EvergreenFir would do well to sit down and talk about what specific objections there are to the material. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

We would like to add our company to Wikipedia but as owners we can not do this. Not sure how to go about having this done but if you require a list of articles and information on the company we would be happy to provide anything. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.25.224 (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You're looking for Articles for creation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Dear sirs,

It has come to my attention that a disgruntled employee has posted malicious content to the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReCellular

The information posted is not factual nor correct in many aspects. It should be obvious to the editor that the post is clearly intended to discredit myself (John Petzold) and the company.

I would ask that the recent edits made be reviewed in further detail and the author intents be reconsidered for context and purpose. I would be glad to provide factual details relative to public information, but I am restricted in sharing specific company information which is confidential.

eRC (eRecyclingCorps) is a great company and has an excellent standing in the industry and community. They purchased the assets of Recellular out of receivership, not the company Recellular. In doing so, they saved the jobs of many. The few select individuals who were affected by the restructuring of the new business do not represent the majority of those who are still employed and the edits as posted affect and discredit all. It is unfair and unjust to allow such malicious content on your site.

I hope you understand and make an effort to truly provide an appropriate post.

Thank you in advance for your consideration. Please feel free to reach me directly.

Sincerely,

John Petzold General Manager, Mobile Karma — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.32.34.74 (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems a new user by the name of EcomMK (talk · contribs) has handled the most egregious content there... and rightly so. The offending content was indeed an unsourced rant against the subject and a particular manager there. Thank you for reporting the issues here. As you may know, Wikipedia is a volunteer project, so it can take time to take note of and correct issues like these when they aren't promptly brought to the attention of editors. I've also tweaked the article a bit more by cutting out some promotional content. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Please refer to the recent discussion that has occurred on my talk page. I've been asked to stop creating redlinks in articles, and been told I'm doing nefarious, prohibited things. I'm not really interested in defending every one word change I make with two or twenty paragraphs of rhetoric, or becoming a Wikipedia lawyer.

Please review the state of affairs on my talk page, and let me know if I should go elsewhere with my time. Thanks. 70.247.162.65 (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi! After looking at the discussion, I'm not sure you're seeing their point. Since October 2013, editors have been trying to help you understand Wikipedia's policies, especially about redlinking. You assume that they're trying to attack your editing style, when in reality, they're just trying to help you see the way that Wikipedia works. If you're looking for a place to do whatever you'd like, then maybe Wikipedia isn't the place for you. If you're willing to follow Wikipedia's policies (most of the time), then I gladly welcome you. If you need anything, let me know! Thanks!

P.S: if you reply to this, please let me know by placing the following on my talk page: {{tb|Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests}}~~~~ Thanks in advance!—Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I have a long history with Wikipedia, and it's never been my understanding that Wikipedia works by virtue of the vast array of policies that nobody can truly understand, so much as the be bold spirit. That's the way I've always done it, and I've never had this kind of a problem before. Times change, to be sure, but I'm not prepared to make this kind of a change.

To me, this signifies that I can be bold so long as I'm doing it in a box. I can't accept that.

If that's not the way it works anymore, then so be it. Was fun while it lasted. 70.247.162.65 (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

You can feel free to be bold however you'd like, as long as it's not directly disobeying both Wikipedia's policies and suggestions by multiple other editors. If you decide to leave Wikipedia, I'm sorry to see you go.

P.S: if you reply to this, please let me know by placing the following on my talk page: {{tb|Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests}}~~~~ Thanks in advance!—Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, for one, you shouldn't put redlinks in a see also section. But as to other redlinks... I frankly don't know enough about the subject area to say whether, for instance "ray interpretation" should be redlinked. The rest of it... meh. I think Cuzkatzimhut et al. might be being overly picky about these things, but again, I don't know enough about the subject area. You shouldn't let this drive you out of editing, but do try to maintain a cool head, and understand that virtually everything that happens here is open for discussion at any time. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

If you went through the list of the unwarranted redlining rampage adduced you might change your mind. Many of the redlinks involve terms just explained; possibly unsatisfactorily, if only one discussed why on the Talk page, but clearly belonging there. If anything, they should be improved there. My own take is that the redlinker indulged in a form of rejectionist protest, of the "I don't understand this, I don't understand that, fixit, dammit, pronto!" form. The redlines were only part of the problem--I did not bother to go into the template excesses. (I am reminded of the Harris cartoon where Kepler explains that planets undergo elliptic orbits to a stunned audience, and the thought bubbles above everyone's head read: "what's elliptic?", "whats an orbit?", "what's a planet?".) Some of these stubs are on necessarily highly technical issues that require a painful formal training, and then they quickly clarify something to somebody who almost speaks the language. But you can't possibly explain absolutely everything in a garland of stubs and footnote wikilinks. An overall impression would send the motivated reader to a good book or review article. My own sense is that these articles are pitched to the motivated advanced undergraduate, as anyone above that would have enough training and aptitude to hit the books or the review literature to get the point. Raising flags in the mind of the random reader who just landed on this page by diffusing the point meant to be imparted by such may not be salutary. There is lots of that protest and confusion stuff in the talk pages, often abused as newsgroups, but there is no compelling reason the articles themselves should suffer. Serious editors often decouple from problematic articles, which then devolve to C class in no time, if you monitor their unstoppable decline. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

This might not be the place to report this but I've had difficulty finding where to report it. I made two replies to comments at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Media_Matters_for_America and the User:Scjessey deleted them using Twinkle. I restored them and User:Scjessey deleted them again. If someone wants to archive a subject on a talk page that's fine with me but to selectively delete my replies is a different matter. Isn't this also an abuse of Twinkle? I haven't done anything else about the matter except for sending an email at Special:EmailUser/Oversight. However, I wondered if that link was working because I checked the box requesting that a copy of my request be sent to my email account and a number of hours later, that copy still hasn't been sent.TL36 (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The matter has been resolved, at least as far as I'm concerned. Thank you for your time.TL36 (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Guys, I noticed during my wikiing today a lot of edits on Indian National Congress by one editor and also, upon looking at their contributions, further edit of very similar nature centred around the same subject. Some of the edit seem very constructive and neutral, some seem determined to remove any information on controversies surrounding the Indian National Congress party and its officers, even though some of these issues seem to be well sourced and referenced. So, the question, how do I approach this editor to seek confirmation of neutrality i.e. no Conflict of Interest, or does this get escalated and approached from an administration wikipedian? Kind regards. The Original Filfi (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a delicate matter to start asking someone about their real life. Really though, it shouldn't be necessary: CoIs are not the problem, but the disruption that CoI-afflicted editors can wreak. If this editor is being disruptive, it doesn't particularly matter if he or she has a CoI. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Fraternities and sororities in North America was cut and pasted from Fraternities and sororities at 13:30, 19 January 2012. Their edit history needs to be merged. But I can't do this histmerge because as stated in Talk:Fraternities and sororities in North America#HISTORY INFORMATION. (I have history-merged their talk pages.) The complications are:-
  1. Fraternities and sororities was edited many times after the cut-and-paste point, causing a parallel history which must be left behind when the page is moved for the history-merge; but the only way to delete some edits of a page's history is to delete all edits and then undelete the needed edits.
  2. Fraternities and sororities is sitting over a deleted parallel history.
  3. Fraternities and sororities's edit history is so long that only a steward can delete it.
  • Please, some steward do this:-
  1. Move Fraternities and sororities to Fraternities and sororities/zxcvbnm (not leaving redirect), to get it away from the old deleted edits.
  2. Delete Fraternities and sororities/zxcvbnm :: this is the stage that needs a steward.
  3. In Fraternities and sororities/zxcvbnm, please undelete edit "00:37, 17 January 2012‎ User:75.60.102.238" and all older edits.
  4. In Fraternities and sororities leave a redirect to Fraternities and sororities in North America, so that readers are still sent to the right place until I can get to the job.
  5. Please tell me when this has been done. I can do the rest of this history-merge.
  • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

This isn't exactly the right place to request the intervention of a Steward. To contact a Steward, you should use one of these methods (a post here isn't likely to be seen by one):

• Post at the Stewards' noticeboard on meta.
• Write the Stewards OTRS contact: stewardswikimedia.org.
• For emergencies: join #wikimedia-stewards ^connect and write !steward to get the attention of one.

Hope this helps. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)