Archive 80

←

Archive 83

Archive 84

Archive 85

Archive 86

Archive 87

→

Archive 90

I created a new website. This is the link. http://www.classicaloceanliner.webs.com I made a new page and copied and pasted a wikipedia article to that page. here is the link to that page. http://classicaloceanliner.webs.com/titanic.htm At the bottom I put the link of the article and i thanked your website. Is it alright to do it again? I will add the link and thanks at the bottom.

Please email me a reply to <e-mail redacted>

-Akanksha Perera- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.97.168 (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't even have to tank us (though it's appreciated, and you're welcome). Wikipedia's content is free; just say it's from here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

As long as you follow the guidance at WP:REUSE, all will be well. I have redacted your e-mail address from your post above - we cannot provide replies by e-mail. Also this is a highly visible site and leaving your e-mail address here is inviting spambots to bombard you. – ukexpat (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Russian Airplay Chart was deleted. Could someone please go through Special:WhatLinksHere/Russian_Airplay_Chart and remove all the references to that chart in those articles? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Could Twinkle's unlink backlinks feature do that? --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 18:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I had never used that, but I think it is now done. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

That removed the links. The request was to remove the references. If the links are removed without removing the references, how can anyone find the references to remove them? I'm restoring the links for now.—Kww(talk) 14:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh! These are not references in the sense of citations. Ten pound was obviously referring to wiki-links, which need to be removed so that people don't keep trying to recreate the article Russian Airplay Chart (as has already happened) !!!!! It is up to individual editors to determine whether the chart is a good reference for their artciles, but as the Russian Airplay Chart article has been deleted twice, it is a good idea to remove red-links. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Since TenPoundHammer also listed the chart on WP:BADCHARTS (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28record_charts%29&diff=381617767&oldid=378455142), the intent was to remove all references to the chart. Removing wikilinks to a bad chart just makes it more difficult to remove the references. I have gone through your edits and completed the job (about 70 articles), and only reverted about four of your edits to keep the wikilink intact so that someone can finish those four.—Kww(talk) 17:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

^Comment: Perhaps it would have been better if User:TenPoundHammer had sorted this out themselves. This page is for editors who are requesting help with editing, not a dumping ground for cleanup requests that others can't be bothered to do. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Xero is making a number of edits that appear to be made in good faith but made in violation of WP:OR and WP:Manual of style (writing about fiction). I haven't yet checked his new citations, although his earlier ones do not make the points that he was claiming that they did. He makes claims stating that issues he apparently has not read show things that they do not show, even when informmed. I asked him to show me scans of the pages where these things occurred, but knowing that he could not, he refused, but he keeps reverting my correct statements. First he asserted that The Demon (vol. 1) #1 shows Lucifer, Hell, and the Silver City, when none are mentioned. The only time Hell appears in that series is in a dream sequence in the 14th issue. He insists that it appears by implication and credits Kirby erroneously with their initial presentation in the DC Universe, which is why I bring up OR and in-universe, but he keeps changing them. Etrigan was much later established as being from Hell, but comic books have a long history, particularly in the 1970s, when the character was introduced of showing characters they call demons that are explictly not from Hell, even if they have claimed to be at one time or another.

He then conflated my mentions of the appearances of Lucifer in earlier DC Comics, claiming that he appeared in a dream sequence in DC Special Series #8. This is a clearer case of vandalism, conflating what I wrote about that issue with what I wrote about Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen #65, which did indeed show Lucifer in a dream sequence.

I have asked him to stop this, but he keeps threatening me with the WP:3RR. It is clear that he has not read the issues in question or he would not be insisting on his false assertions.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 03:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am no expert on comics. You are discussing on the article talk page which is good. Perhaps you should ask for comments from members of the comics project? Jezhotwells (talk) 10:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(Cross posting a similar comment to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics #Hell (DC Comics) )

As a member of the Project in question, and having been asked for a 3rd party look, I've got real concerns about what is happening with this article. Mainly, as far as Wikipedia practices go, that the use of the talk page seems more lip service in this case. Bluntly, the content dispute should be hashed out on the talk page without the involved editors continuing to edit the content. That may be a bitter pill, but you don't get to "protect" your changes while they are a source of contention. - J Greb (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear sirs: I request a review of my article called "The current immigration (in-out) crisis of NYC". It is found under the code name Jack Armstrong II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Armstrong II (talk • contribs) 21:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd recommend checking out WP:YFA, which will give you some guidance for writing your first article. You might also like to pick an article on a similar subject, and use that as a template on which to build your draft. I had a brief look at the draft, but unfortunately it'll need a major clean-up before it's ready to be moved into mainspace. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the "in-out immigration" is incorrect; I believe you mean migration. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a non-neutral point of view essay based on original research and synthesis. Not at all encyclopaedic. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur. There is no substance to that "article": merely polemic and political assertions with a strong racist underpinning. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering what tense would be best to use in character bios in reality television shows, such as The Real Housewives of Orange County. If one looked at the situation from a biographical perspective, past tense would be appropriate. But if one looked at it from a writing-about-television perspective, logic dictates that one should use present tense. Right now, the article in question uses both tenses in the character bios. I plan on rewriting the character bios so they all use the same tense, but I can't figure out whether to use past or present tense. Any help appreciated --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 22:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"Reality TV" is not necessarily orthogonal to fiction, so present tense should be used for plot descriptions. For events which happen outside the camera's eye past tense is appropriate as it would be for other TV shows. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a dispute on the Allen Ginsberg page which has been filling up the talkpage for (it seems like) years now. The simple version of the argument is this: Ginsberg briefly became a member of NAMBLA and said he did this as a free speech issue. But this was very brief and hardly qualifies as an important issue in his life. Anti-Ginsberg activists tend to blow it out of proportion. I (and several others) have been arguing its irrelevance for a long time; those who support its presence on the page claim that deleting NAMBLA info is whitewashing Ginsberg's life. There are very few reliable sources out there supporting the concept that NAMBLA had any importance to Ginsberg: there's a brief article in Deliberate Prose (Ginsberg's book of essays) and not much else -- very few reliable neutral sources even bring it up. Eventually, I gave up and decided to ignore it, but lately the issue has flared up again -- editors going back and forth deleting and reposting the info. I'm afraid this will never be resolved without a third party. I'm really not sure how these disputes work, but please help us settle this in a mature and reasonable way. Thank you.F. Simon Grant (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFC might be a path to a solution. WP:UNDUE and WP:RS would be the relevant foundations most likely. DMacks (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I am a member of the Golden Crown Literary Society (www.goldencrown.org)and I'm working on getting some of our authors on Wikipedia, but when I tried to post this (below) it was deleted because, I was told, Mikaya Heart is not important enough. But she received a GCLS award. Is there anything I can do to make the article more acceptable? Thanks.

Mikaya Heart (née Ann Brander) was born in 1952 in Scotland. In 1982 she immigrated to northern California. She is the author of several books: The Straight Woman’s Guide to Lesbianism (ISBN 978-096151294)and Lesbian Adventure Stories, Wildheart Books,1994, (ISBN 978-0961512934); When the Earth Moves: Women and Orgasm, Celestial Arts, 1998 (ISBN 978-0890878750); With the Sun in My Eyes: the true story of Char Sundust, shamanic practitioner and psychic reader, I-universe, 2008, (ISBN 978-0595512034); and My Sweet Wild Dance, Dog Ear Publishing, 2009, (ISBN 978-1608440702). The latter won a 2010 Golden Crown Literary Award (www.goldencrown.org) [www.mikayaheart.org Author site] Everseek (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Everseek, thank you for coming here to get some help. In general, in order to have an article at Wikipedia, a person must meet certain criteria to be judged notable enough for an entry. Mikaya Heart, as an author, would need to meet the criteria laid out in WP:AUTHOR. For ease of discussion, this states:

• Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. 3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. 4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

She may perhaps qualify under criteria #4, for "significant critical attention," although I must confess I don't know how significant an award from the Golden Crown Literary Society is. Has this award or any of her works been covered in any reliable third-party news outlets or sources? — e. ripley\^talk 17:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The baseline for articles to appear in Wikipedia is that the subject of the article has recieved "significant coverage in reliable third party sources." Providing links within the article to show that the subject meets that criteria will be required. Also the content must be presented in a neutral point of view and not as an advertisement for the authors. See also the potential conflict of interest and note that each individual editor must have their own account. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 17:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Since the society itself is not notable, the odds that winning an award from your society would make an author notable are pretty much nil. I suggest you work on more notable authors (such as the many winners of the Naoki Prize who currently do not have articles about them here) first, so as to get a feel for what is needed in an author article. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Mahin Tahsin is a inspiring girl who grew up in Dhaka, Bangladesh. She is very talented and has a lot planned for her future. Being a little kid she performed. She started performing since she was 3yrs old in her school. Every year she has attended school concerts and is still continueong to do so. She has quite some experiece in Sports as well. In her young years she has played both basketball and handball. Mahin Tahsin also was an straight A student throughout her life. Many say she has talent and some say she is a GIFT. She plans on proceeding with life in an amazing way and hopes to become one to remember and look up to one day. Mahin Tahsin said " One day I want to make the world a better place to be in". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojum (talk • contribs) 19:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

So, the question is: Does she meet the notability guidelines for Wikipedia? Answer: Sorry, no she does not at present. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear editor, I wrote the following biography and can send you links to verify who I am. Will that be okay? Here are my references... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Jacobs_(talent_agent) http://www.classicbands.com/JayJacobsInterview.html TalentAgentAdvisor.com http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jay-jacobs/11/293/30 http://encore.celebrityaccess.com/index.php?encoreId=97&articleId=23207

http://books.google.com/books?id=Siv6ht0GmBQC&pg=PA120&lpg=PA120&dq=Jay+Jacobs+William+Morris&source=bl&ots=r6ERWI1Spj&sig=xC32LmSXGQKoJqWFSORg6RVeizo&hl=en&ei=Dyd8TOesMo6asAOH3OCCBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CDEQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Jay%20Jacobs%20William%20Morris&f=false

http://www.nationalpublicist.com/id2.html

Jay Jacobs - Born 1942, Philadelphia, Pa. Talent agent and Vice President, William Morris Agency, Inc. in New York 1961 until 1979 and 1979 - 2001 in Beverly Hills office. Represented music artists, i.e. The Beach Boys, Simon & Garfunkel, Al Jarreau, George Benson, Teddy Pendergrass, Ashford & Simpson, Melissa Manchester, Michael Feinstein, The Lettermen, The Association, Todd Rundgren, David Sanborn, Joe Sample, Jackson Browne, Van Morrison, Albert Brooks, Dory Previn, Thelma Houston, Melba Moore, The Temptations, Dionne Warwick, Diana Ross, Smokey Robinson, etc. Retired after three years as VP at International Creative Management in Beverly Hills, 1991-1994.

www.talentagentadvisor.com

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Jacobs_(talent_agent)"

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR HELP. JAY JACOBS ... <redact email addresses>—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.150.88.187 (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2010

Well, the article has been tagged for deletion as an unreferenced BLP created since March 2010. It would appear that it does not satisfy the guidelines for notability and you also obviously have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is a not a trade directory, it is an encyclopaedia of notable people, events and subjects. I have redacted your email addresses as this is a highly visible site. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Article has now been deleted as unambiguous advertising or promotion. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ed, Well I would most respectfully disagree. The link to my website was ONLY included so as to offer additional PROOF that I am who I said I am. That can be easily remedied by removing the link. In actual fact, I am not interested in promoting my web business or anyone else's web site. I am only interested in having my name and profession listed on WIKIPEDIA just as so many other talent agent associates do. There is a long list of talent agents on your website and I do not see why I am being discriminated against if it is only with respect to the website. Mentioning the names of the artists I represented over my 35 years in the entertainment industry is in keeping with other like agents listed on your site. Thank you and I trust this resolves the matter ammicably and on my behalf. One might argue the point that listing the employer of any agent is promoting themselves and their employer. I am not doing that once the link to my website is removed. To reiterate, it was ONLY included to offer additional background information that was missing that you requested in order to satisfy certain administrative requirements. Moreover, with respect to "guidlines for notability", I feel justified that my career and the caliber of artists I represented exclusively fall within those guidelines, just as many, many other talent agents listed on your websit do. Kindly re address this situation at your earliest convenience. THANK YOU! Jay Jacobs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konaface (talk • contribs) 05:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I posted a graph that I made a few months back onto the Tax Increment Financing page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_increment_financing

It had a small graph to click at the top of the front page, to go to this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:TIF_graph.pdf&page=1

The front page graph and link is now gone.

Now I am very experienced in this arena of Tax Increment Financing and how municipalities use it.

I would like to know why the graph was removed and who did the removing or who demanded it be removed.

I perfected that graph with help from many people including lawyers with expertise in TIF. It was 100% accurate.

Steve S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.233.117 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 31 August 2010

Right you added the graph with this edit[1], logged in as User:Graphman. And it was removed in this edit[2] by User:Doc Quintana. This is all evident from the edit history which you can see by clicking on history at the top of the page. You should ask about this on the artcile talk page and contact the editor who removed it directly on their talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It was removed in this edit by Doc Quintana. The best course of action is to ask Doc Quintana why they removed it. Also you can discuss it on the talk page of Tax increment financing. If you need anything else come back and ask. ~~ GB fan ~~ 15:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Please delete my account David Thunder Cummings it keeps getting hikacked with misinformation. <redact email> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundercummings (talk • contribs) 15:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You can't delete an account as such, see Wikipedia:Delete account#Deleting an account. You could change your password if it has been compromised and use the secure server to sign in, see Wikipedia:Security. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the poster may be referring to the article David Cummings (martial artist) - I cleaned it up a little and removed some vandalism. – ukexpat (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Jezhotwells (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I probably should have made this post here but I didn't. I made it at the Content Noticeboard but its attracted no attention as of yet. So the jist of the issue is that artist Kelly Rowland confirmed her album to be self-titled. Now she has said she's undecided over the title. Please head over to Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#Kelly Rowland (album) was confirmed but now untitled. and comment what should be done next. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 16:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well if you have reliable sources for the original statement and then her revision you can put that in the article. Otherwise just put it on the article talk page until something is confirmed by reliable sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Using the sir name Sclimenti makes this article inacurate. Someone is using Wikipedia to slander the sir name Sclimenti.

Jsclimenti (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have concerns about this article please report them at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Material about Sclimenti has been removed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

We could use some more eyes/opinions at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sudhirneuro.org if anyone has time to kill, thanks in advance. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

Need your help with a certain article which is full of crap and without citations History of Kashmir. Please look at the part which talks about Hari Singh... I've written the following in the discussion forum of the article:

1)

I object to the following lines about Hari Singh

--Amartya ray2001 (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The Maharajah Hari Singh never represented the will of his subjects, creating tension between the Hindu rulers and the Muslim population of Kashmir. Muslims in Kashmir detested him, as they were heavily taxed and had grown tired of his insensitivity to their religious concerns. The Dogra rule (the name of the municipal governments) had excluded Muslims from the civil service and the armed services. Islamic religious ceremonies were taxed. Historically, Muslims were banned from organizing politically, which would only be tolerated beginning in the 1930s. In 1931, in response to a sermon that had tones of opposition to the government, the villages of Jandial, Makila, and Dana were ransacked and destroyed by the Dogra army, with their inhabitants burned alive.

Excuse me! How can you write such things about the former head of a state without any citation? I think and am convinced that this section has been written by an radical person with mere colloquial knowledge about the subject! I this matter needs to be escalated with immediate effect. I shall also remove that part of it! --Amartya ray2001 (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

2)

Why not forced conversation of Hindus? --Amartya ray2001 (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I draw the attention of the Mods and Admins to the following article: Persecution of Hindus ... It's a well written article and has has citations in proper places. That passage needs to be re-established. I shall escalated this matter to the Mods immediately but not edit it yet!

--Amartya ray2001 (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone needs to intervene immediately and rectify those errors! I'll scan through the entire site (whenever I've the time)to try and bring such issues to your...

Regards,... Amartya ray2001 (talk) 01:05, 1 September 201

Well, you are an editor, so you could clean this article up yourself. I would suggest that you first start a discussion on the article talk page, listing in detail the faults that you have found. then invite other editors to the discussion. There are no moderators here and admins are editors with access to sysop tools to perform maintenance task and act on vandalism, etc. If you look at the article history you can see those who have been actively editing the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Administrator,

I have been working on publishing an article for an assignment given to me. I am totally confused as to how to get confirmed so that I might be able to contribute this article. I know that I need to either be auto-confirmed by wikepdia or send a request to move the article into the mainspace. As of right, my article exists only as this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wadhat/Enter_your_new_article_name_here and I am not sure how to either change the title or publish the article. I desperately need help and do not want to fail at this assignment. I have been searching and searching on your help pages and seem to be going in circles. Any help at all would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

-Will (Wadhat) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadhat (talk • contribs) 20:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You are correct - in order to move the draft it must be moved and you must be autoconfirmed to be able to move articles. I can move it for you, but at the moment, it would probably be swiftly tagged for deletion as it does not sufficiently indicate, with references to reliable sources how or why the subject is notable per WP:NMUSIC. – ukexpat (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Is need information in Wikiepedia about Perfect Bible - Najnowsze Pismo Święte publik in www.unibook.com in polish language [polski język]. Internet page www.bible.info.pl, www.święte.pl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.29.142.3 (talk) 08:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I cannot understand your question, but I am guessing that you want an article in Polish about a certain subject. Please request it at the Polish Wikipedia, this way. We do not provide answers by email, so to protect you from spamming I have removed your email address. Thank you. sonia♫ 08:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the OP is asking if we want an article on [Perfect Bible. To which the reply is yes, so long as it comes with notability. SpinningSpark 17:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Regulate (song) has been turned into a joke article, featuring a long, "synopsis" of the story being told by the song and or video...basically as if a college English professor were describing a rap video about a couple of guys out to get laid. This "synopsis" has been deleted several times but is consistently replaced, and (based on reading the "discussion" page) it has a huge fan base that thinks it's hilarious..."just perfect for Wikipedia"...and must be preserved. There are also many comments to the effect that the comedy angle is appropriate because it's a rap song...anything goes in rap, and it's all about slang, so therefore it should be anything goes in the wikipedia article. And of course there are comments about disliking the page as-is or wanting to change it is racist, that it shows no respect to African-American culture, etc. I've been a proud Wikipedian for years and don't want to see people turning certain sections into parody sites. Thanks for any advice.PurpleChez (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Rather than just deleting the whole section, which is turning the whole thing into an unproductive edit war, why don't you instead edit down the synopsis, a piece at a time, into something more acceptable. I would also suggest that the talk page discussion be kept calm: using terms lime "pathetic" and "it's all BS" is inflamatory and is unlikey to provoke a collegial discussion arriving at a consensus; more likely to get the opposition to simply dig in their heels. Keep the discussion focused on policy, and by that I don't mean just bandying around policy links - explain in detail why a specific sentence is against a specific policy line. Administrative action can be taken against those who repeatedly breach policies and guidelines, but administrators first need to be sure that the editor fully understands what they are doing and are being deliberately disruptive. First try working with the other editors. SpinningSpark 18:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Spinningspark is 100% technically correct; that is how WP is set up to deal with "editing disputes". However, this is very close to the Peloponnesian skeletons parable; Wikipedia is currently set up so you are expected to expend tremendous time and energy calmly and politely quoting, and explaining (in as much detail as the other party wants to force you to go into), a policy reason to remove every sentence you think doesn't belong, to people who ultimately don't care about policy because they think something is funny, who are willing to outnumber and outlast you, have access to the undo button and dynamic IP addresses, and who will probably soon start complaining about incivility if you call the synopsis "BS".

Look at the edit history of Emu War and its talk page if you want to see an example of how much time and energy can be expended on removing jokes from an article.

This state of affairs is not even really anyone's fault; in a semi-pseudo-anarchy intentionally set up so "everyone can edit" (on the assumption that the positives in this approach outweigh the negatives), there really isn't a better way to deal with people, especially a group of people, who are willing to spend more energy than you to get their way. Happens in real life too, but by it's very nature Wikipedia will always be this way.

My advice: of course it's BS, of course it's ridiculous, but unless you're really into the artists in question, just leave it alone, because it isn't worth your time and aggravation to battle with a group of Randys in Boise. You'll end up pissed off, demoralized, and your desire for quality will be rewarded with incivility templates showing up on your talk page. All over one backwater article out of 6,930,523. Your life is relatively short; make sure you're spending time fighting for things worth fighting for. Regulate (song) probably isn't it. If it is, then you're doing this right; your best hope is coming here, recruiting others to go to the talk page and tag-team revert the article, outvoting them (this is called "consensus building"), and after months of back and forth discussion, the article will eventually be semi-protected, most likely in your favor. But you won't have enjoyed the experience, and meanwhile there are thousands of similar articles out there you just haven't found yet. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I would question the description of even "technically" correct. It is completely 100% the reponsibility of the people who want "funny" or any other content in the article to actually supply the reliable sources that support the content and claims. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 19:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

All very helpful comments. I heard about this article because Facebook friends were posting links about the hilarious Wikipedia article someone had found. I love using and helping in my own small way to build Wikipedia, and I really, really hate the idea of people forwarding links to hilarious wikipedia articles.PurpleChez (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Surely the short and curly answer is that the spoof text is vandalism. You can remove it, people who keep adding it can be blocked by admins like Floquenbeam (if they could stop wringing their hands long enough to find the block button). Simples. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I notice that the article has both been subject to pending changes, and is currently semi-protected to prevent vandalism. That would have been a far more helpful answer than any of the ones that the OP received (other than from Active Banana - who may indeed be the one who added the semi-protection). Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I want to add many change reguests to a talk/discussion page. Do I add all my comments in one section or do I split them up in several sections?

kofod (talk)

How about one section with subsections, using level 2 and level 3 headings? – ukexpat (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be a good solution. I'm just afraid it will be very messy if each subsection gets a lot of comments? kofod (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

But at least it will have some semblance of organisation. Until we get liquid threads implemented it's the best we can do. – ukexpat (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

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

On Jane Pitfield's Wiki, there's an article that's not quite correct. Jane Pitfield has repeatedly and clearly said that she did not support incineration - however, there is a reference to an incorrect news report that someone's using to back up an incorrect claim to the contrary.

My problem is that the report - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Pitfield#cite_note-8 - is cut and pasted. It is NOT an official news article, and it is appearing in support of a multiple re-edit that claims Pitfield supports incineration, when she does NOT.

Please help us resolve this - the person editing Jane's wiki is not only mistaken, but obviously trying to make some political gains by smearing Pitfield's image.

Markdewdney (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, you are suggesting that CTV News Channel (Canada) is not a reliable source. Can you provide WP:RS that demonstrate this, or that demonstrate that the artcile subject actually said something different? If so, then place them on the article talk page and start a discussion there. I see nothing to suggest that this is not a reliable source. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Also note that there is no such object (as far as we are aware) as "Jane Pitfield's Wiki". This discussion is about the Wikipedia article about Jane Pitfield, which is not hers: (nobody owns an article in Wikipedia, least of all the subject thereof). A wiki is a website using software such as that which powers Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

In the article Munich (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

there is the following sentence : "Palestinian terrorists and the Mossad agents" . My objection against this is that this movie is not judging what happened from a single point of view, it is about making the two sides morally equivalent because they both killed people. So putting the serious word terrorists before Palestinians does not go with the whole point of view of the movie at all and makes it an opinion of the writer which violates NPOV. In the talk page myself and another wiki user agreed on that this word should be replaced by something that fits the filmmaker neutral point of view. When I made a change to this word after discussing that in the talk the coordinator (Dinkytown) use all what he had in power to change it back to he likes it to be and what reflects his point of view and that is clear in his discussion in the talk page. I am a new wiki user by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaboha (talk • contribs) 06:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is unlikely that any articles related to the Palestinian / Israel conflict will ever be free of bias, POV pushing, etc. That is a sad fact of life, these articles tend to attract people with strong opinions and biases. Keep talking, raise requests for comment if that seems appropriate, work to achive consensus on the talk page. It may take a long time and a lot of effort. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. At Talk:Timeline of aviation, a new editor has inquired about repercussions/sanctions for insults/libelous comments, amongst other queries. I'm not sure how the WP:NPA rules are applied to comments on talkpages, about non-contributors. (WP:NPA seems to be entirely focused on comments about editors). Please advise, or assist. Much thanks. (Possibly an admin/editor from WP:AVIATION would be best pulled in to this, I'll leave a note at the wikiproject page, pointing here. Admin User:Rmhermen was active at the timeline, but hasn't edited in a couple of weeks, otherwise I'd just ask hir). -- Quiddity (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPA very much applies to talk pages, this is specifically stated at WP:TALK. If Peter Jakab is still alive, this is also a breach of WP:BLP. "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" (original emphasis). Personal attacks can, and should, be removed from talk pages. SpinningSpark 17:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've replaced a few sentences there with {{RPA}}, and replied to the thread there, explaining my actions. Hopefully that is all correctly done. (please confirm, then mark resolved)

I just noticed there is a lot more argument at Talk:Gustave Whitehead, which I have no background expertise in, hence will stay out of altogether. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is Jeff Chandler not mentioned in your new listing? Harvey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.61.18.18 (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Because you haven't put him in yet? SpinningSpark 16:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Remember that wikipedia is the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. You see something lacking, WP:SOFIXIT. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi: Wikipedia has a website called List of German Jews. I am a Jew who was born in Berlin, Germany, in 1928, of Polish parents. I left in 1933, came to the US in 1934, and became one of the founders of the second wave of the women's movement in 1966 and thereafter. My website is at http://www.erraticimpact.com/fuentes Perhaps I could be included on this website.

My e-mail address is <redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.58.10.209 (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The best thing to do is to make the suggestion on the article's talk page and let editors there decide whether to include you. SpinningSpark 22:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

HI, HOW DO I GET AN E-MAIL ADRESS FOR PRESIDENT JACOB ZUMA TO WRITE HIM A LETTER? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.30.31.182 (talk) 09:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Miscellaneous reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Someguy1221 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 5 September 2010

I would imagine that a search of the South African government web site would give you the answer you require. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Not long ago, I searched and found a wiki article for "The Media Monopoly." This is a standard textbook for many journalism classes. This book is VERY famous. It's been in print since the 80's. I found the wiki article to be very informative and helpful. I just went back to "The Media Monopoly" wiki article, and found that it was deleted. One reason listed by an editor was that it was "nonsense" and another said "talks about encounters with gay sex." these are complete lies. It appears that two right-wing people have censored wikipedia for political reasons. It is not "nonsense," as Rush Limbough would say, and it has nothing to do with gay anything. I would suggest that the person who said it was "nonsense" edited it to include something about gay sex, and had a right-wing buddy report it. This is wrong! Please review this listing.

Amazon states that this book is referenced in 19 books. It's a popular journalism text book. It's had several editions printed.

This is the link to the author of "the media monopoly," ben bagdikian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Bagdikian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancin dan (talk • contribs) 19:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The page has been deleted twice. The first page was unfathomable nonsense, the second page had "talks about encounters with gay sex" as the entire content. I am not sure which of those you found "very informative and helpful", but neither seems to be about the book you describe. There were no previous versions. I don't know whether this book deserves an article, but I am pretty sure that this is not the article that it deserves. Are you sure you read the article on Wikipedia and not somewhere else? SpinningSpark 20:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

By all means create an encyclopaedic article about the book, and keep an eye on it so that you can be aware when it is vandalized, which is probably what happened and it went un-noticed, degenerating into a joke. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No it didn't. There was never, at any stage, a meaningful article at that page. The person who deleted the page quite correctly deleted it as nonsense. The implications that s/he did not check properly, or worse, deliberately inserted lies into the article in order to get it deleted is untrue, unfair to the deleting admin, and a gross breach of our WP:AGF guideline. SpinningSpark 20:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Wooh! Hold on! You are reading all sorts of stuff into an innocent comment. Implications are in your mind, not mine. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Am I? Dancin dan said "I would suggest that the person who said it was "nonsense" edited it to include something about gay sex, and had a right-wing buddy report it", a clear accusation of underhand actions against the deleting admin. You said "...when it is vandalized, which is probably what happened and it went un-noticed" which at the very least must mean that the deleting admin had not checked to see if there was a previous unvandalised version, and by the way, that I did not check either before I made the reply to the OP. That is a failure of AGF against me as well. SpinningSpark 21:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry if your sensibilities were offended. That was not my intent. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that User:Dancin dan meant to post this here, but he instead created a new section on this page. Dan -- please refrain from creating entirely new sections on this same topic and instead keep it all here. Here is your post from below. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 02:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone put "gay sex" in the article, or made up that offensive material was in the article, so it was vandalized. No doubt about it. The fact that someone called the college text "nonsense" shows that they personally did not agree with the content. Did this person have a "nonsense meter" from the Bureau of Truth and Censorship? The book is used in college journalism classes. The book does not mention sex, much less gs. I'm sure the original story was fair, accurate, and not out-of-bounds. I read it. Clearly, someone added irrelevant and offensive material. This is a very important text that has been in print since the 80's. I can not believe that someone would manipulate wiki for political reasons, and/or to keep the truth from people. How would I go about making a request to undelete the original story? Dancin dan (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:DRV is the place to get deletions reviewed. But you would be wasting your time (and theirs), I am telling you the truth about the content of the original article. SpinningSpark 17:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

As SpinningSpark notes, there are a total of three edits that have been made at The Media Monopoly; one is a SubGenius-esque block of nonsense, followed by a quite correct deletion request, and the other is the aforementioned gay sex statement. Is it possible that the article was under another name? Because it wasn't at the correct name. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Dan: other than the gibberish and the sex nonsense, there has never been another article under this name, under The New Media Monopoly, or under Media Monopoly without the 'The'. There is no "original story" to undelete!!!! --Orange Mike | Talk 20:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I recently received a note that our product, Safe Eyes, was removed from the Accountability Software page by Falcon8765 and he gave the reason that links to products and advertising are inappropriate for Wikipedia. I then visited the page and found that there are several products listed at the end of the article.

I feel that if any products are included all products should be included, and our is widely used and recommended by several accountability ministries.

Here is a link to the talk page where I outlined the basis of my disagreement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Falcon8765#Hi.2C_wondering_about_why_my_product_was_singled_out

Thanks, Stanley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.118.50 (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You probably shouldnt be creating or editing an article about "our product". See our conflict of interest guidelines: WP:COI Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 16:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Only Falcon8765 can explain to you why they reverted your edit. The usual story in these cases is that an addition to an article is noticed because the article is on the editor's watchlist. The watchlist is only triggered when a change is made to an article, so anything that was there before tends not to get noticed. It is a waste of effort complaining that other stuff exists, this is not accepted as a valid argument on Wikipedia for the simple reason that with millions of articles and tens of thousands of edits every day it is a near certainty that one will be able to find numerous examples of any particular editing sin that can be thought of. It is impossible for all of this to be fixed at once - but someone will get around to it eventually. External links to products are generally not acceptable. The main exception here is a link to the official site in an article about that product. See the external links guideline for more details. SpinningSpark 18:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It's even easier than that: you added an external link, whereas the existing ones are to wikipedia articles. That's a world of difference! See WP:NLIST. DMacks (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This. I removed the link because it was commercial, whereas the others are notable enough to have their own article. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 18:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Twoan aka Murk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm an Artist and I wrote two different pages after both were deleted "speedy" I also read how can i improve and why was the pages deleted and still been deleted so im asking for help. please someone be kind to help edit my page. Twoan aka Murk 18:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Twoan aka Murk (talk • contribs) — Twoan aka Murk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

First of all, note our policy of conflict of interest WP:COI and/or our username policy WP:USERNAME. Either you shouldnt be creating articles about yourself, or you should not have a username that implies that you are someone you are not. Second, articles need to meet our notability requirements - that the subject has been the subject of more than trivial coverage by third party reliable sources. I am not finding any such coverage[3]Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 18:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Another editor and I are having a dispute regarding the following edit:

However, the New York Times refers to Bernanke "a student if not necessarily a devotee of the British economist John Maynard Keynes", while Bloomberg News writes he is "siding with John Maynard Keynes against Milton Friedman by flooding the financial system with money".[ref]http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/business/20bernanke.html[/ref][ref]http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a8tjEzB.d.kU[/ref]

I changed the edit to:

However, Bloomberg News writes he is "siding with John Maynard Keynes against Milton Friedman by flooding the financial system with money".[ref]http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/business/20bernanke.html[/ref][ref]http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a8tjEzB.d.kU[/ref]

I have three objections to the original edit:

1. I think the statement is too broad to be useful because all economists study Keynesian economics,
2. The information is being used to establish a dichotomy which is not in the NYT article (specifically the edit contrasts Keynesian economics to Monetarism which is not done in the NYT article), so I think it's a WP:SYNTHESIS
3. I think that edit is a violation of the WP:POV policy in general, which say "...the article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue," which I don't think is satisfied by a journalist making a distinction between economic fields.

I started a conversation on the talk page, but the other editor in the dispute has not responded (nor has anyone else). Thanks.--Dark Charles (talk) 02:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it might be a good idea to ask for input from WP:WikiProject Economics. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there a place where I can post the complaint? No offense, but I'd actually prefer to ask people in the Economics project; I just don't know how. Anyway, the other user has stopped reverting my changes (though now WP:CON allows him to revert my edit because another editor from here agrees with him despite my objections), so the issue is more or less resolved.--Dark Charles (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Every project has a talk page - that for WP:WikiProject Economics would be WT:WikiProject Economics. Your (and the other editors') understanding of consensus is faulty. It is not a majority "vote" sort of thing. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. I don't think I'll mention this one, because--like I said before--the other user has stopped reverting my edit. But I'll keep this in mind.--Dark Charles (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article that I contributed to has been deleted. I want to know how I can contest this, and what is the process for restoring it to Wikipedia.

I recently visited a Wikipedia article about a software product that I used and noted that it was marked for deletion (the product name is "extremeDB" and the article was at www.wikipedia.org/Extremedb.

In order to prevent its deletion, I put considerable effort into adding the references that the deletion-seeker stated were missing. As a result, he withdrew the request for deletion. See the conversation here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EXtremeDB

That occurred in mid-August. I understood the deletion-seeker's rationale of wanting references. However, his targeting of this article seemed extremely arbitrary in many ways. For example, he seemed to be using Google as a benchmark of the topic's notability, as evidence by his initial justification for deletion: "A google search reveals that there are no sources to back up the claims of notability." I pointed out to him that the Google search, in fact, turned up many articles in established software journals about myriad aspects of this technology. The publications included EE Times, Dr. Dobb's Journal, and others. He seemed to discount these entirely because the creators of the eXtremeDB technology had written some of the articles (in other cases they were written by magazine staff).

He never responded to my question, what would you have NEEDED to see in Google results, in order to convince you of the topic's notability?

While using Wikipedia today, I found that the article had in fact been deleted. The discussion surrounding its deletion went as follows:

   * Comment - One of the best written software ads I recall having seen on WP. Carrite (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
   * Delete. Spam, spam, spam, spam.... 18:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
   * The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I object to this. No justification was given to support the contention of "spam, spam, spam"; no challenge was made to my supporting evidence (on the page cited above) for the article topic's notability.

In all, it appears that the article is being held to an entirely higher standard than other articles about other technology that is roughly in the same technology category (but which often seem to be much less "established" products).

For example, see the page that lists "in memory database" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_memory_database

Under the "Products" section there are many technologies that are virtual non-players in this particular corner of the software world, and whose articles lack references entirely! Yet eXtremeDB was singled out for deletion.

How do I go about re-establishing the eXtremeDB article on this Wikipedia?

Do the individuals who accomplished the deletion -- Cirt and Carrite -- have any "special standing" as editors on Wikipedia that makes their judgment outweigh my own? Welllstein (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Your best bet here is to take this to deletion review - I'd question the decision to relist the deletion discussion, personally, since the nominator did withdraw it. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I did go to the Deletion Review page that you linked, and entered a request for review. However, when I revisit that page, I do not see my inquiry reflected in the text. Also, I realized that I did not follow the instructions by including the "skeleton" or framework as specified at the top of my post. Would this result in my post being ignored, and should I go back and do a better job of submitting it? Or is there just a waiting period between the user such as myself making the post, and it appearing in the log?

Also -- the instructions state to post a particular tag in the Talk of the administrator involved in making the deletion. I see two usernames associated with the deletion that I am questioning. I need to do that, as well.

Do you recommend that I re-post, or wait for what I already posted to appear on the Deletion Review page? Welllstein (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Your deletion review request ended up in a very strange place where it would not be seen, so I have removed it. Please try again, carefully following the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Steps to list a new deletion review. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.Welllstein (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I want to be sure I submit this correctly. Can you confirm, in the "skeleton", for the page and xfd, I do not include entire URLS for the pages; instead, for the page, I would just include the article title ("EXtremeDB" in this case - so "page=EXtremeDB") and the xfd in the form, "xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EXtremeDB". Is this correct

I am also trying to determine whether proper Wikipedia procedure was followed in deleting this article. An individual marked it for deletion on 8/13, but later withdrew that on 8/15, following my statement that I planned to add references (a plan I followed through with). I also responded rather thoroughly the the original claim that the topic was not notable.

Then a different individual "relisted" it on 8/20. Is a different editor allowed to re-list, or must it be done by the original (for lack of a better term) complainant?

Second, is a "re-listed" or a new "marked for deletion" notice required to appear on the page after it has been re-listed for deletion? I ask, because I did visit that page after the date on which it was re-listed, and saw no such notice. I also failed to receive any notification (via this page's inclusion on my watch list) that it had been re-listed. If I had seen the notice or been notified the debate had resumed, I certainly would have participated in the discussion.Welllstein (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually I see that the first step in a deletion review is to talk to the editor who closed the Afd discussion. Since you haven't done this yet, I have left a message for Cirt (talk · contribs) pointing to the discussion here.

For general information on relisting see WP:RELIST. This is one of the options available to the editor who is about to close an AfD discussion and assess the points raised there. I think it would be very unusual for this to be done by the editor who proposed an article for deletion. Nothing is posted to the article when the discussion is re-listed; the assumption is that anyone interested in the article will have added the AfD page to their watchlist. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

To take this any further, Wellstein (talk · contribs) needs to talk to Cirt (talk · contribs) on that editor's talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a dispute as to whether or not to include the photo of ballot-qualified candidate Tom Clements in the infobox for the article United States Senate election in South Carolina, 2010.

Comments by the editor Toa Nidhiki05 have been argumentative, impolite, and seem to presume bad faith on the part of editors seeking inclusion of Clements in the infobox. It also appears from discussions below that some editors are presuming a 5% polling threshold for inclusion in infoboxes, when no such rule has been formally codified. So I'm requesting mediation to determine whether or not the photograph of Clements should be included in the infobox.

Editor Jerzeykydd has posited a rule in at least 5 election pages setting a 5% polling threshold for candidates to appear in the election page's info box. The rule is formulated as follows, here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jerzeykydd#Infobox:

• The way it is in every single election article is that a candidate must have at least 5% or more in one pre-election poll. After the election, a candidate needs to have obtained at least 5% of the electorate. The reason why this rule is in place is because if we didn't, the infobox could include more than 10 candidates and would look horrible. The point of the infobox is summerize the results of the article. This is due process and the way it always has been. I have edited hundreds of election articles (presidential, senate, gubernatorial, etc.). I'm a veteran editor.

Toa Nidhiki05 appears to reference this rule, or some similar formulation, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_Senate_election_in_South_Carolina,_2010#Cowards quoted below.

• I demand consensus because you have none to change it. Consensus is that a candidate must reach 5% to be added; currently, he has not. You cannot demand me get consensus to revert consunsus-violating material; that is a fallacy. I have direct knowledge of it, because I live in it's border state, North Carolina; I'm about two and a half counties above the border, and they report S.C. news quite frequently on local news. I don't rule this page; consensus and wiki policy does. Toa Nidhiki05

When I restored the photo to the infobox, I referenced my arguments in support of inclusion on the Talk page for the article, found here [4].

Editor Toa Nidhiki05 reverted my changes without discussion, marking the edit "I have read them, and they are wrong. You can't add a candidate until he reaches 5%; also, I never credited Jersykidd for anything.)" see [5]. In doing so Toa Nidhiki05 also deleted referenced material on Democratic Party support for the Tom Clements, material which would tend to support the argument that he is a significant candidate.

The proposal of a 5% threshold has been picked up in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums. These discussion are preliminary and no consensus has emerged.

I'm seeking help in mediating a resolution to the dispute of whether adopting a 5% should be avoided both generally and particularly in the case of case. My arguments for inclusion are as follows.

Generally:

• Setting a 5% polling threshold for ballot qualified candidates is arbitrary.
• A 5% polling threshold for inclusion in an infobox would be a higher threshold than the ballot qualifications of any state except Oklahoma. See Ballot Access.
• Polling agencies routinely exclude Independent and minor party candidates from polling, making the question of any polling threshold moot.
• Infoboxes for parliamentary elections in Canada the EU and elsewhere routinely contain three or more candidates without complaint. See: Canadian federal election, 2008

Specifically to Talk:United States Senate election in South Carolina, 2010:

• There are only three ballot qualified candidates. There is no crowding, which is the primary objection given in the formulation of the rule.
• Rasmussen, which is the only poll we have references for, generally only includes Democratic Party and Republican Party candidates in its polling, even when Independents or other party candidates are ballot qualified.
• Rasmussen does include an option to prefer "Some Other Candidate" in its poll question, which is 8% in the poll released August 28. ^[1]
• Despite the exclusion of Clements by name from the polling, the volunteered "other candidate" response is high and consistently above 5%.
• The Clements campaign has garnered the support of organizations like the Columbia AFL-CIO and several Democratic Party organizations, such as the Irmo Democratic Club (representing a large suburb of Columbia) have invited Clements to speak. ^[2]
• The Clements campaign may have raised more money than the Greene campaign and is arguably better organized. [6].
• South Carolina media and the Associated Press are giving the Clements campaign significant coverage. Clements has been interviewed by The State, the Charleston Post & Courier, the Aiken Standard, the Florence Morning news, WIS, WLOS and SCETV Radio, among others. AP routinely mentions him in their stories on the race. [7],[8],[9], [10], [11]. SCETV Radio interview: [12] (opens audio).

Notwithstanding Rasmussen's refusal to include Clements in its polling, Clements' picture should appear on the Wikipedia page for this race. DJ Silverfish (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This is probably best discussed at project level, specifically WT:WikiProject U.S. Congress. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFCAUTO {{rfctag|category1|category2} Dr._Leigh-Davis RE: Dr. Leigh-Davis-White Professor O.K.; Black Professor: No Way! I just read the press release and I easily found numerous instances where people were blocked from presenting third-party links as references, on Dr. Leigh-Davis. How do I complain to Wikipedia's legal department about this racist attack? Where do I challenge the deletion decision? http://www.prlog.org/10920757-wikipedia-may-face-criminal-charges-for-its-racial-attacks.html 67.102.213.115 (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Kim

This would be a Wikipedia:Help desk question, I believe. Your answer: Wikipedia:Contact us. Please review Wikipedia:No legal threats. If you intend to take legal action, you will need to stay away from Wikipedia in the meantime. As for challenging deletion decisions, should you choose not to pursue legal action, see Wikipedia:Deletion. The policy contains an overview of our approach to deletions and your options for challening deletion of content. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

For the curious, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Leigh-Davis. Pix at http://www.drleigh-davis.co.uk/. No indication of a first name, but I'm not an admin so I can't see the deleted article. Seems to be a heavy user of the prlog.org free-press-release site. --CliffC (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, socks aplenty at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 8. --CliffC (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I can see the article, and it was properly deleted from everything I can see. Not much to do here anyway, the editor in question has been blocked for legal threats. It's not "racism" to enforce our policies and guidelines. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

When working on the page for a fictional character, can I cite a Dorling Kindersley Guide book that talks about the character for a couple paragraphs to help establish notability? Mathewignash (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Depends a lot on how the guide covers it. If the guide gives it an "in-universe" treatment, that establishes no notability—that is, in that case, basically just an extension of the fiction itself. If it treats it in a manner that gives rise to notability in the real world, however, it may work for that. Writing about fiction and the fiction notability guidelines may help, but the general thrust is that a fictional character must be notable in the real world, not just in its fictional universe, to quality for a standalone article. If it doesn't, WAF contains some alternative mechanisms, such as inclusion in the main article or a character list. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

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

I really hoped we could resolve this without it coming to seeking an outside review. It wasn't to be.

Background: I've been working to create a compromise merger between three articles -- a proposal which has gotten more support than opposition. This is taking a middle ground between those who want them deleted entirely and those who want multiple articles on a single obscure theory. I'm anonymous for reasons of personal privacy (more on that later). This apparently bothered HFarmer, who has begun what I can't find any other words to describe than "a witch hunt" to unmask me. HFarmer now has convinced herself that I am someone named Katrina Rose, simply because I sometimes use an IP address in the University of Iowa blockspace (a Big Ten school with over 30,000 students), and is getting aggressive. You can follow the progression up through the conclusion here:

[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]

Unfortunately, after being accused of "malevolent motives" and hearing HFarmer refer to "learning tactics" to use against other users from a third party, I think I've exhausted my ability to deal with this problem on my own. I would like outside input. I will abide by whatever is decided. Thank you.

As for who I am: If anyone unrelated to the subject matter, with an established history on Wikipedia, would be interested, give me an email address or phone number and I'll provide proof of my identity and discuss why I need to remain anonymous. And I've just recently gotten a second reason: I'm starting to become concerned about my personal safety after running into this:

(Reference to Hfarmer's concerning offline behavior toward her critics; removed at request of user)

So let's just say that I have absolutely no intent to publicly disclose my identity to her or anyone who may be connected to her. I don't need that sort of stuff in my life just because I wanted to help improve a Wikipedia article. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Firstly this is not the place to request mediation of any sort. The place would be Wikipedia:Mediation Committee--Hfarmer (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Second Wikipedia has a progression of conflict resolution. First their is the talk pages and disucssions between editors, then their are the various notice boards, then their is mediation by the voluntary mediation cabal, then by the mediation committee, then arbitration. Mediation is not yet called for or proper. The pertinent issue is the Conflict of interest of this IP editor I have laid it all out here Noticeboard#Autogynephilia.2C_IP_users_User:70.57.222.103_and_User:128.255.252.253--Hfarmer (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoa! HFarmer, you do not edit another person's posts! -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 17:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

(Also, just to make clear -- I'm the same person as 70.57.222.103). As for resolving user conflicts: I am following the guidelines of WP:DR. All of the "Avoiding Disputes" methods have been attempted. The next step was to choose one of a list of options. I thought Editor Assistance sounded the least confrontational. However, if you would rather take it to mediation, I will do that. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, apparently anons cannot make mediation requests. So I guess we're here for now. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

One more thing: I'll note that while you've become obsessed with attempting to out me (incorrectly)[[23], the above is not outing you, as you outright state who you are in your bio (I wouldn't have posted it if you hadn't). I just had never bothered to check your bio until I ran into that article. Can you understand why having a background like that, combined with your attempts to out me, would be more than a little concerning to someone? I have a family. I don't need this. They don't need this. I just want to improve the articles -- something that almost everyone but you seems to recognize is needed. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Pusuant to WP:RPA clear cut personal attacks like anything related to that webpage you cited can be removed. That's also a WP policy. --Hfarmer (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack; it's me explaining why I am uncomfortable providing personal information to you. I would have had no need to post it had you not forced me to explain why I did not want to out myself to you. Now please cease editing my posts and changing their meaning.

To be fair, given the COI ruling, if you plan to abide by it, then I don't think this section is needed anymore. If that's the case, there would be no need for me to explain why I'm uncomfortable giving you my personal identifying information. Would you be amenable to the removal of this section? -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: In deference to you, I changed the above text to a more vague, non-linked version, but left a general sense in there so that the meaning of the above post is not compromised. Again, this entire section may not even be needed anymore, but I want to show my goodwill. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) 70.57, please do not post that link again, I see no justification in posting an attack piece on another editor here. If the editor had not already revealed their indentity on-wiki it could be considered outing which would be seriously bad for you. If you are worried about being located, I suggest you open an account. While you are editing from an IP you can be geo-located and your institution identified. This information is not available if you edit from an account and has many other benefits. There would also be no confusion when you edit from different IPs, they would all show as the same username. SpinningSpark 20:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Understood and already independently removed, above. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear editors, in February 2010 I was blocked for 6 months because of my [[24]] below average English. I fully admit the fact that my English is far from perfection, but unfortunately, also, my edits - based almost exclusively on highest grade WP:RS - like publications of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine - deemed as persistent tendentious editing and soapboxing - [25].

I apply for assistance in the way like this [26] - e.g. copyedit of my texts (unfortunately most of sources used are not given in English - so cross German/Ukrainian/Russian/Polish translation into plain is English difficult for me).

Also I would be greatifull if someone advice me - is it possible to rehabilitate mine user account from past allegations in WP:TE - on demand I can provide references to any my edits which deemed as tendentious editing or soapboxing relied to National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine or similar level of scholar works publication(s) which provide quite similar wording and suggestions. Regards Jo0doe (talk) 04:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You were caught misusing sources; this was part of why you were banned for a year. A taste of what you had been up to inyour disruptive approach to the project: [27]. Rather than admit you were wrong and move on, now that the admin who banned you seems to have left wiki you are trying to pretend that what you did, didn't happen. This lack of remorse or acknowledgement of what you did is troubling.Faustian (talk) 05:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I've forgot to mention here your past help [28] also. But it does not deserve to do in a way like above. I apologies for this and ask you for same assistance elsewhere. Thank you Jo0doe (talk) 05:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

There is a dispute over a section of the article. this is the section] at the center of the dispute. Also read these talk page discussions:

1) Famines in India and 2) Famine, starvation deaths during British era

A neutral intervention is needed to resolve the dispute ASAP.

Regards,...Amartya ray2001 (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you work with other editors to achieve consensus. You appear to be pushing one point of view. I have left comments to that effect at the article talk page, which is where you should continue discussions and assume good faith on the part of other editors. The featured article status of the article could well be endangered by edit-warring. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what's the proper way to tag and set up a picture taken from a US patent. I'm sure I got it wrong, but can anyone tell me what's right? (I put a picture here: File:Optimusprime.png ) Thanks Mathewignash (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you need to say where you got it, by filling out a summary, just like you were asked to do when you uploaded the image:

Specifically, you need the URL on the US patent office site where you got it from, the names of the patent authors, the patent nymber, the date of the patent filing, etc.

The correct license tag is {{PD-US-patent}}. Further information at Wikipedia:Uploading images. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I kept looking and couldn't find that info on the pic upload page, but I figured it must be somewhere. Am I missing the permission in the text here, or does it not exist? http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F4516948 Mathewignash (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Like the template says, if there's no explicit copyright notice in the patent document, all included photos are public domain. (That's in opposition to how it generally works, but it is that way for patents specifically). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Should add that, if it is public domain, it's preferred to upload it to Wikimedia Commons, since that acts as a central repository for free images to be used on all Wikimedia projects. If it does include a copyright notice, it would have to pass all of the nonfree image criteria to be allowed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I would like to have more detials on why the article I submit is declined once more and who and how should I contact to get some help on it. It is about Yvan Arpa and my username is Salocin123. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salocin123 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

As stated in the notice on your article request page [29] "We cannot accept unsourced suggestions or sources that are not reliable per the verifiability policy. Please provide reputable, third-party sources with your suggestions. Third party sources are needed both to establish the verifiability of the submission as well as its notability." Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 14:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The only news hits [[30]] for this term are blogs, which are generally unsuitable. And there are only trivial mentions found in a book search [31]. You would need to provide some other evidence that third parties have found the individual worthy of writing about. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 14:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Hamas article dispute between Haberstr and Wikifan12345 has devolved into the two most recent reverts as of 13:16, September 12. I (Haberstr) have tried to resolve the dispute civilly and with great specificity with Wikifan, as you can see in this talkpage section -- [32] -- but have received no response. My concerns about the excessive size of the article and my efforts to prune are here: [33]. Finally, it may unfortunately be relevant that Wikifan12345 simply has very strong negative feelings toward Palestinian leaders (as evidenced by this direct quote -- 'Palestinian leaders are habitual liars" -- from here [34], and I believe he may think he may have decided I am his 'pro-Hamas' enemy when in fact my main concern is creating a less bloated article (145,000 bytes is too long) that reads more like a good and balanced mainstream international encyclopedia article on Hamas.Haberstr (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you can't get anywhere in this dispute you could consider enlisting the help of the relevant projects, or asking for a third opinion or raising a request for comment. Another option is submitting the article for WP:Peer review. Editing in this area is fraught with possible contention and POV pushing as you know. With regard to the size of the article, perhaps splitting into separate articles is an option. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is fantastic. Reading through the list of victims of the NAZIS at Ploentsee Prison I see that the name of a criminal, Paul Ogorzow, is included. Could his name be removed as a victim? thank you, Gerry Buy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerrybuy (talk • contribs) 18:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have sources for this allegation? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Wikipedia article Paul Ogorzow describes him as a "serial killer and rapist" who was "executed at Plotzensee prison". So Ogorzow was executed there, but is rather different from the resistance fighters who make up most of the list. (Though Ogorzow isn't the only exception -- I also see Benita von Falkenhayn and Renate von Natzmer, pre-war Polish spies.) Personally, I think the name should be left in but perhaps the list could be relabelled (really, it's a list of prominent people who were executed there). At any rate the discussion should probably go on at the talk page for the article, Talk:Plötzensee Prison, instead of here at WP:EAR. -- Why Not A Duck 00:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

For the page Melbourne Rectangular Stadium, the last sentence there says "They lost 0-2 to Perth, meaning that every single team that uses the stadium as a home ground lost their first match there." I origninally wrote it as "They lost 0-2 to Perth, meaning that every single team that uses the stadium as a home ground lose their first match there." I feel as it is past tense, it should be lose, not lost. Another editor, HiLo48 has consistently changed it to lost. I tried to accomodate him/her as putting it as "every team has lost", but he/her will not listen and are convinced they are right. I feel the sentence is incorrect and looks silly. I will ignore the numerous rude insults this person has made at me on his/her editing reverts and just want this resolved into proper English. 60.224.3.243 (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I was looking at the article, and it appears the statement about everyone losing their first match is WP:Original research and should just go unless there is a source to back it up that I missed. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

At the History section there is a statement about Melbourne Storm and Melbourne Heart losing their first games there. It's common knowledge in Australia, but citations are easily avaliable, if you like. The Melbourne Victory loss there is citated, which completes the trifecta. That makes every team that plays there lose their first game. And my question about the grammar still hasn't been answered. 60.224.3.243 (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping that the third-party sources talking about the teams losing their first game there might suggest some appropriate grammar to discuss it. Would it be possible to rewrite the sentence based on such sources? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Here are some citations for Hearts and Storm's loss http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/new-boys-melbourne-heart-finally-open-a-league-account/story-e6frf9if-1225914240786 http://www.leagueunlimited.com/article.php?newsid=19234 60.224.3.243 (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, let me clarify. I'm not looking for sources that a particular team lost, I'm looking for a source that all teams have lost, which is the statement in the article. Such a statement without a source has the appearance of WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS and may be inappropriate, which renders the grammar question moot. If there is a source discussing it, you'll have a defendable grammar example. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

lose is present tense, lost is simple past. Your original sentence combines past and present tense and is ungrammatical. Better would be something like "They lost 0-2 to Perth, meaning that every single team that has used the stadium as a home ground has lost their first match there." Jezhotwells (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

There being no third party sources to verify that claim / analysis, the content has been removed. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 20:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If you look at what I ogiginally wrote here, I did try to compromise by using has lost and was simply reverted then insulted. And I gave 3 citation. Each one for the each club losing there first game there. Put them together and you have each club losing their first game there. 60.224.3.243 (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Taking three citations and putting them together to source a claim not one of them actually makes is WP:SYN and not allowed. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 20:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine, I don't care anymore. Just as long as that false grammar is gone 60.224.3.243 (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me defend myself. The sentence was ""They lost 0-2 to Perth, meaning that every single team that uses the stadium as a home ground lost their first match there." I see absolutely no reason why the usage of lost at the end of the sentence needed to be any different from its use in the first two words. Both were simple past tense. HiLo48 (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

However uses is present tense which makes the whole ungrammatical. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. I can see uses' being valid in the sense of present and ongoing. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The "History" section begins with the text: On February 777, 1968

Sorry, I don't have time to look into it further.

--Smithfarm (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I undid it. Smithfarm - it's pretty easy to undo or revert recent vandalism. You should learn how to look at a page's edit history. Once you learn this skill, the fixes can take just seconds. Less time than an entry here, for sure! JohnInDC (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The vandalism has been reverted. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what is going on here but I asked very specifically for very specific help regarding verifiable information I have provided regarding Jan Brewer and someone came back talking about Alveda King?! I have no choice but to conclude that for political reasons, the power players who own Wikipedia get to pick and choose what gets published and what does not. If any one has any integrity at all please read my post above regarding Jan Brewer and asking for help your help. Don't fuss at me at me about questioning integrity and don't try to make it come out of left field about Alveda King. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RealNaturopath (talk • contribs) 23:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

So how can we help you? Please make your request clear. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I see the links that you're using as reference in the Jan Brewer article are behind a pay wall making them difficult to verify. Is the information you're trying to include available in another location? Have you tried google news?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 04:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The image is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William_Shockley,_Stanford_University.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikmfi (talk • contribs) 18:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The .jpg image of William Shockley disappeared when I added 'Jr.' to his image name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikmfi (talk • contribs) 18:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you changed the name of the image, so naturallyit disappered as there is no image named File:William Shockley Jr., Stanford University.jpg, it is named File:William Shockley, Stanford University.jpg. I have fixed it. There is no need to change the name of the image as it (the name of the image) is not displayed in the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

They are true and verifiable, even though they are unpublicized anywhere else. In time, people will see they are the facts of the matter. They deserve to be in your encyclopedia. And it's an atrocity to simply wipe them out, because help in placing the footnotes was requested. Pls reinstate them for awhile at least. (immigration & religion)