Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 72

Archive 65

←

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

I have an old photo of Leo Laliman, Bordeaux, France

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Leo Laliman was a known person during the winecrisis in 1869 -1880. On Wikipedia there is only a cartoon drawing of Leo Laliman. The history deserves better. I have an old photo of him. But do not know how to replace the cartoon with this picture. To whom can I send this picture, so it can be installed on Wikipedia? Best regards S Erik Hansen Norway

E-mail : <email redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.189.51.228 (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here. I removed your email address as this is a highly visible page and we answer queries here, not by email. If you wish to upload an image you need to look at Wikipedia:Files for upload. As you don't appear to have an account, you can submit a request there. As the picture is likely to be out of copyright it probably qualifies. If you get an account and make some edits, you will be able to upload it yourself. I have put some links on your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, he probably needs some direction in how to convert the photo into an image, like scanning it. With the ubiquity of scanners nowadays there is most likely someone local who can help with that. (Good luck!) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party movement dispute

Discussion moved

 – to WP:WQA#User:Malke2010 Jezhotwells (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, two editors of the Tea Party movement article got into a disagreement (or a series of disagreements) on Tuesday, March 2nd. This escalated until one editor (I'll call him editor A) reported the other editor (B) here for a 3RR-vio at about 0900 (UTC) on Wednesday, March 3rd. I became involved in the dispute at 1730 and attempted to mediate. The 3RR-notice was resolved at 2200 on March 4th with a No violation finding.

Since then, these two editors have made voluminous edits to the article on top of each other and produced many screenfulls of disagreements on the article's talk page. This includes the following sections:

1. Fox>Problem sentence? (the latter part)
2. No violation.
3. Remaining Fox fixes (if any) and no squabbling
4. background
5. Too much for me

Now (according to editor A's user talk page), editor B is preparing a notice of edit warring against editor A. I have just heard that another editor (neither A nor B) has accused editor B of a Wikiquette violation here. Both editors A and B claim that there is nothing personal involved. I have tried to calm things down but, so far, I've been unsuccessful.

I believe this dispute is damaging the development of the Tea Party movement article and inhibiting other editors from participating. If you look at the article's history, you'll see that virtually all edits made since March 5 are by the these two. I also don't want to edit the article under these conditions because (a) I may be accused of bias, no matter what I edit, and (2) I'm afraid that anything I do will be reverted (I think innocently) in the clash between these quarrelsome editors.

Although this conversation is supposed to be private, I'm almost certain that one or both of the editors in question are monitoring my contributions and probably will read this (and possibly object). I have decided to take a break from Tea Party affairs over the weekend. Is there anything else I can do when I return on Monday? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I am puzzled by your reference to "this conversation is supposed to be private". This is a publicly visible request page. It is usual and courteous practice to notify other editors when you bring things to a board like this. As the primary discussion is taking place at WP:WQA#User:Malke2010, I am marking this discussion moved. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Verification

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Wiki editor/whoever gets this,

I wrote a biography of Irving Stowe, which Wiki accepted and posted.

Some months later, I saw that someone had posted a notice asking for further verification where I had written that he "has been called the father of Greenpeace". I had cited a source originally to verify this, found another one, and added it. However, I decided the Wiki article on Jim Bohlen, another co-founder, which states that probably about six persons could be considered founders, is more accurate, and changed my wording to align with this. I replaced "father of Greenpeace" with "a key founder of Greenpeace" (which I doubt ANYONE would dispute, particularly Greenpeace itself, makes numerous references to Irving Stowe as a key founder, on various websites around the world).

What I want to know is, when will someone recheck the bio, and...if this change of wording is accepted...remove the "citation needed" note?

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauriebreathe (talk • contribs) 02:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If you added or changed the citation, you should remove the {{citation needed}} template/tag yourself. This is a quote from Template:citation needed: "Please remove the template when you add a citation for a statement". After the tag is removed, visit the page in a two days and then again in two weeks. If in two weeks there is no change, you can be fairly certain that your modification has been accepted.

If you did not add or change the citation, please do so, removing the citation-needed tag. See here if you need instructions on constructing the reference.

If the tag is re-entered, you should not simply remove it again. Instead, go to the talk page and start a new section (after first finding out if a section on your change exists already). Explain what you've done and ask the other editors why the cn-tag has been re-applied. Again, wait for 2 days and 2 weeks before you expect an answer. If the tag reappears again without a talk page explanation, you'll have to go into the History to determine who re-entered it. Hope this helps. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 05:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Assistance requested on Sumedh Singh Saini article to prevent edit warring and preventing violation of WP:BLP

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I request editorial supervision on the article Sumedh Singh Saini. There are egregious violations of WP: BLP guidelines. This article is about a serving police officer in India.

A content dispute is being sought to be passed off as vandalism. Wikipedia editorial guidelines are being gamed to present an extremely lopsided view of this person't biography. All negative references have been quoted over and over again and any positive reference , however well sourced, is deleted on flimsly ground by the user Dawn of the Blood who joined on Feb 20 only. Previously, he has used his ip socks to give the appearance of consensus for his controversial edits.

Not only this , he has issued me an unauthorized "Final Warning" over a content dispute.

Admin assistance is requested for the above reasons. Some response on my user talk page or the discussion page of the Sumedh Singh Saini article would be very much appreciated. Thanks--History Sleuth (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Respected wikipedia community, I am open to any discussion on this matter. Here are some of the details.

• Since it is a wp:BLP hence respected editor User:History Sleuth was requested to use duly referenced text only. His text is not supported by his own references. Please see the points I raised here
• He/she has been encouraged several times edit 1, edit 2 but he did not address the issues, please see his reply. I again encouraged his to address the issues
• Instead of answering my points, he used the rollback feature which per Wikipedia:Rollback can only be used to protect an article from vandalism. Please see here and here.

Again, this user is trying to pass off a legitimate content dispute as vandalism. Infact he is the one who vandalized the artcile by removing well sourced edits and then making token attempt at discussion to hide the liberties that he took with the rules and etiquette.--History Sleuth (talk) 04:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Then he was duly warned and again requested to address the issues. but he changed the warning text by saying an editor (me) can not warn him.

An unauthorized threat of blocking was to intimidate another editor over a content dispute. You don't express "desire to discuss" by issuing a "final warning" and threat of blocking which you are neither empowered nor authorized to issue in first place. The issue should have been referred to Admin for resolution if there was any sincere attempt to comply with Wiki guidelines in proper spirit. Thanks. --History Sleuth (talk) 04:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• I am willing to work with him, but strictly under wikipedia policies only so I adviced him to get familiar with wikipedia policies but he is not willing to follow my advice.
• Regarding me and my IP 24.5.208.21, there is no violation of any wiki policies because I duly documented my association with my IP which I used in the past when I did not have wiki account (please read the edit summary of this edit as well).

Please note that this user joined wikipedia only on Feb 20 and is showing uncanny ease with the use of Wiki tags and hyperlinks. There is a good reason to suspect that he has other accounts on wikipedia and he is much older user who has created this new account for a special purpose to avoid scrutiny. Thanks --History Sleuth (talk) 04:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

How come all the IP addresses on that article trace back to California?--History Sleuth (talk) 04:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Addendum: I stand corrected on this part. Only two IP addresses trace back to Californial. --History Sleuth (talk) 04:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Anyways, I believe that wiki policies are there to improve this great pedia, I would again advice the respected editor to get familiar with wiki policies while editing wiki articles.
• I am willing to work with him as my edits indicate here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here.
• Kind Regards --DawnOfTheBlood (talk) 04:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

--History Sleuth (talk) 04:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It is probably best to take this to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Dr Andrew Wakefield and General Medical Council

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I am a doctor wo specializes in autism spectrum disorders. I looked up Dr Andrew Wakefield and found the GMC propoganda, with NIL balancing advocacy, - (as is usual in these cases I must add). I signed-in & made some changes a la instructions. Spent quite some time, and added very appropriate references that had been completely ignored by the GMC, because they efficiently countered their accusations. I then closed down, and re-opened to see my work. It was not there. It also contained a very well written letter to the GMC, by many ASD USA doctors. Can you tell me what may have happened? I am willing and ready to do this this again. There are now 1 in 36 boys with autism in the UK (Cambridge Study, Prof Baron-Cohen Jan 2009 ).

AutismTruth —Preceding unsigned comment added by AutismTruth (talk • contribs) 07:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

According to your contributions history, you have not made any prior edits under this ID. I see some edits to Andrew Wakefield were made from an un-signed-in editor on March 2. The article before and after these edits has serious BLP issues, and should probably be brought to the attention of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Need more eyes at Emotion-based therapy vs. Emotionally-based therapy

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Emotion-Focused Therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Emotionally focused therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A concern has been raised regarding the recent redirection involved here. We need a few more eyes looking at this as I posted to WP:PSYCH a few days ago and no one has commented at all. This is an OTRS issue. Please see Talk:Emotion-Focused Therapy for details. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried approaching the editors who performed the redirect directly, asking them to comment at the talk pages? Jezhotwells (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Or you could raise a request for comment. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

There's been some automated concern about copyright, as well as other issues I've written about here: Talk:Emotion-Focused_Therapy, with some suggestions for moving forward. Best, Trev M (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I need a hand on Sarah Palin

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

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

There is an editor who is trying to add a Huffington Post source to the infobox. I thought it was vandalism at first, but apparently this person is serious.Jarhed (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion about this. The article is under probation because of edit-warring. Generally the Huffington Post is considered unreliable, except for the opinions of notable writers. See the RSN archives. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Editor's constant rewrite to POV version of article

Answered

 – but edit warring continues, advice given Jezhotwells (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Since last month one editor has been rewriting Libertarianism, charging ahead despite objections from a couple editors, including a threat diff to make some questionable complaint against one editor who merely suggested mediation. He keeps making so many changes, dismissing, deleting any WP:RS that disagrees with his view (that one brand of libertarianism is dominant and others barely worth mentioning). While the February version of article did need some paring down, and had a few new POV issues that needed correcting, it did no deserve this kind of POV gutting. I've complained about his multiple edits discouraging other editors and outpacing any objections. (I guess I can go back to look for any 3RR.)

He has one supporter who evidently shares his POV who says we should just let him make all his changes and then go back and "correct" them. But I'm sure they'll fight any such thing. This is the kind of thing that makes one want to throw up ones hands on editing wikipedia. Any advice besides to stop watching the article?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Mmmm, difficult. You could consider an RfC on the editor's conduct, or you could report at WP:3RR or you could invite comment on the article via RfC. Walking away is another option, but not very satisfactory. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

T Table

Answered

 – –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

How would I go about making a table like this: [1]?174.3.110.108 (talk) 08:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The documentation at Help:Table may guide you or you could ask at WP:Help desk. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Use of user sub-pages for attempted neutral analysis of another editor's contributions

Resolved

 – –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate some feedback on whether my sub-page User:Ash/analysis may contravene the guidance of USER. I am responding to threats of action with regard to this page existing. If the opinion is to delete from Wikipedia then I would re-create off-wiki to help with likely problems of having to track and deal with ongoing ANI's from Delicious carbuncle. By including the information in userspace, the subject of the analysis is welcome to critique it for accuracy, this would not happen off-wiki.

I believe the section in UP#NOT stating "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided the dispute resolution process is started in a timely manner" applies to this sub-page. Ash (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, you have quoted WP:USER but seem to have missed the fact that you are quoting from the section about what not to have on user pages. The sentence immediately before the one you quote forbids "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws". If you were gathering diffs for some form of dispute resolution that you intend to start in the very near future, I would have no complaint, but that is not what you are doing. Your comments about off-wiki recreation might be mistaken for threats and you should probably be careful about recreating this in a public place. Please have the page deleted. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The subpage is not an attack page and it is not about your "perceived" flaws, it factually lists the ANI's by you or about you. I am unclear of the reasons why you think I have no plans to go to dispute resolution. I stated that I have not raised any ANI about you to date. I have made no statement about my intentions for the future.

As you are forcing me to do so, I shall make a statement about my plans, but I have no intention of making threats. I plan to use a dispute resolution process to help ensure that your disruptive behaviour stops unless your behaviour improves in the near future. Examples of your disruptive editing can be clearly seen at Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films#RFC Proposal to drop footnotes for unambiguous articles where, ignoring complaints, you made repeated unsubstantiated allegations of personal attack and trolling against other editors with the apparent intention of disrupting a consensus building process. Ash (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, I am not "forcing" you to do anything. If you're counting on my behaviour changing please go ahead and start whatever action you wish to, but have that subpage deleted until such time as you do. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

"Ash, you have 15 minutes" (diff) seems slightly hostile. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Does seem hostile; I had missed that edit comment. I note that pages such as User:Delicious_carbuncle/Mark_Bellinghaus seem rather obvious violations of USER compared to my overtly neutral analysis page. Ash (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it does, taken out of the context of the earlier discussion. It was not meant to be hostile. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. You asked for feedback and the feedback you got was to take down the page. It doesn't need to exist online because it's obviously going to piss off anger DC whether or not it's allowed. If this were a page about a persistent vandal, or if this were part of dispute resolution, then things would be different. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll copy it off-line. Please note that though I would describe DC's tone as hostile and edit history as apparently disruptive, I would not have described him/her as "pissed off". Such language may add colourful emphasis but can often be interpreted as uncivil. Ash (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. It is fixed. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for coming here for help. The easiest solution is to remove the page and keep the information on your own machine (off-wiki and off the internet). Not because you need to, but because you should. That is my suggestion. There is no reason for you to make this public and starting dispute resolution sounds like a great plan. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately DC has raised the page for deletion before I copied it off-line or could take any action or properly complete this discussion by explaining the steps I was taking next. It is unfortunate that DC believes that such bullying behaviour is an appropriate way to "win" an argument. Ash (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, I made a polite request for you to have the page deleted on your own. I gave you a reasonable amount of time to get an answer from the admin you claim to have contacted and suggested that you could recreate the page later if the admin agreed with your interpretation. As I told you I would, I took action. MfD is the appropriate action for such a user page. Nothing is preventing you from copying the page. Please stop characterizing my behaviour as "bullying" or anything else. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Not only do I see nothing wrong with this page, but I think having it is actually to Delicious carbuncle's advantage. The alternative is to have it invisible, off wiki, so that Delicious carbuncle could not see what evidence was being assembled against him/her. If Ash wishes to move the information offline then that is fine, but I see no reason why he/she should do so: I completely disagree with Arichnad (who signs "~a") in that respect. The page contains only (1) links to factual information and (2) the statement that these links are being assembled because Ash is considering a possible dispute resolution process. Neither of those is in any way offensive, and putting them in a visible on-wiki page is both more civil and potentially more helpful to others than keeping them hidden. JamesBWatson (talk)

I'm all for open process. But if, hypothetically, I created a page that listed my perceptions of your faults, wouldn't you be a little irritated if it included things you thought were very subjective, biased, and libelous perceptions? Regardless, you're missing the reason this all started. You're saying it's to DC's advantage. However, DC asked, politely, for this page to be removed and Ash (initially) refused. If DC specifically asked for its removal I doubt he thinks it is in his best interests. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I have no problem with Ash compiling diffs of my edits to use in a dispute resolution to be started in the near future, in fact I would much rather they do that than continue to lob unsubstantiated accusations at me. But that page is a collection of links to ANI threads (not diffs of anything specific) which is laughably labelled "an attempt at a neutral analysis". WP:USER is quite clear on what is and isn't acceptable. This is the latter. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Although I didn't notice it at the time, Ash has added the statement that the page is preparation for a dispute resolution action, so I have withdrawn the MfD and I think this can safely be closed as well. Thanks for the comments. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Removing caution box

Resolved

 – –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

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

This page contains a caution box stating that the article is inadequately documented. Documentation has now been provided, but I don't know how to remove the box.

Dogsoldier96 00:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that references have been added, I will leave article assessment to others. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done - assessed as "start" for now. – ukexpat (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

LumenVox

Resolved

 – as per requestor –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I am an employee of a company that I believe deserves an article on Wikipedia, but I am reluctant to post the article myself due to my obvious conflict of interest (I believe in the past my company had some employees post articles which were then deleted). I have written a draft of the article at User:Stephen_Keller/LumenVox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and would like feedback on whether it is sufficiently NPOV, researched, and if it meets the notability guidelines. Any help is appreciated. Stephen Keller (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you demonstrate that your company meets the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)? Jezhotwells (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe so. I have attempted to do so via a number of independent references to what I feel are reliable secondary sources. I would love to have the thoughts of any other editors as to the quantity and quality of sources. Stephen Keller (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks reasonable enough - do you want me to move it into main space? Jezhotwells (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think you can safely mark this as resolved. Stephen Keller (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Article moved into mainspace. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"Climatic Research Unit hacking incident" talk pages

Answered

 – debate continues on article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit hacking incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi there.

I've been trying to discuss what I view as a problematic title for the "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident" article. I made my first comment on 11:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC) and my last comment at 00:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC). In that time span, the discussion was archived twice in what appears to be an effort to stifle debate. I am finding that the discussion threads are being aggressively archived such that a proper discussion lasting more than 12-20 hours is impossible. One of the editors also promptly accused me of sock puppetry. He later apologized, but the fact that he did so without evidence was off-putting. Is this standard procedure? It sure doesn't make me want to contribute anything more. --Chadhoward (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is the subject of much dispute and the question of the name has been discussed ad nauseam. Having said that, I don't think the other editor's response was all that helpful. You could take it to Wikiquette alerts to get comments on this. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Scott (Kadlec) Allen

Answered

 – –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

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

This article needs to be deleted. The information provided is not factual. Upon further research, Scott Allen Kadlec born in Minneapolis, MN on August 30, 1967 never attended University of Minnesota thus did not play college football at the University of Minnesota.

The Minnesota Fighting Pike only played in the 1996 season. There is no evidence of Scott on the roster for this team or for the Grand Rapids Rampage (Grand Rapids MI) which began playing under this name in 1998.

There also is no evidence that Scott played for the NFL during the 1987 strike season. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forevermn (talk • contribs) 04:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You can nominate the article for deletion at WP:AfD, instructions at that page. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Artcile has been nominated both at Afd and CsD. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Redirected to Scott Allan. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Scott Allan Kadlec

There are two entries for Scott Allan Kadlec born in Minneapolis, MN on August 30, 1967(One for this name and one for Scott Allen Kadlec).

There is also no evidence that he tried out or played for the Miami Dolphins or the Minnesota Vikings. Neither organization has record of Scott in any capacity.

The research done for the posting for Scott Allen Kadlec would also apply to this post (He did not attend thus did not play for the University of Minnesota.)

This posting also needs to be removed immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forevermn (talk • contribs) 04:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Scott Allan Prodded. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

User with large number of unscaled images on his page

Answered

 – –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

JB50000 (talk · contribs) was recently blocked and during that time has started putting large numbers of full-size images on his talk page. My browser doesn't have a problem with it, but another user complained that the images are giving his browser problems, and tried to add 200px to them to make them manageable. JB has reverted him repeatedly, though:

• 1st edit
• JB's revert
• 2nd edit
• JB's revert

I don't know if there are specific guidelines about this, which is why I'm posting here. I know normally a user's talkpage is his own domain (and, for example, I've never seen a user get in trouble for not archiving a talk page even if it's so long it causes load time problems), but in this case are there any grounds for doing something so that his talk page isn't inaccessible? Or should we just let it alone? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Between the enormous pictures, the huge expanse of empty spaces this editor left between his pictures and his block notice, and the messages he's left telling people to be kind to him, I get the feeling this editor is just trying to distance himself from his current block. As I told him on his page, images like that are really more suited to his user page than his talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 05:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Editor warned about pictures and currently the subject of an SPI. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Violation of the neutrality policy and insults against editors

Answered

 – –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

1. I am experiencing violation of the neutrality policy on the pages on Macedonia (designation of the Alexander The Great as a "Greek king" (ethnic designation), when he was simply Macedonian king, designation of Cyril and Methodius as Greeks (ethnic designation) when it is only certain that they were Byzantines.

2. In addition even the administrators accepts the explicit propaganda material which is compiled from the nationalist sites, in spite of my warnings and full information.

3. And, unfortunately, I have been exposed to insults from GK1973 in various forms in the last 3 months. The person has not been even warned by the administrator.

4. That person dumps on my talk 30 sides of material and dumps similar quantity of unreferenced affirmations on the discussion pages.

This obstruct the discussion and the insult offend me so that i would greatly appreciate your help. I already asked for help and I WAS blocked instead for a week! Therefore, I would prefer an independent (who is not active on the pages on Greek history, and, this may be strange, non-Greek, non-Macedonian and non-Bulgarian - since they are all susceptible to be subjective) Administrator to look into the matter.

Discussion Pages: Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom), Talk:Alexander the Great, Talk:Cyril and Methodius

Thank you very much indeed. Sincerely.17:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Draganparis (talk • contribs)

Oh please stop trolling wikipedia. Isn't one block and several banned sock-puppets enough already? And when you make accusations give references, your "word" is not evidence. Simanos (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you don't make it clear - to disinterested parties like me, anyway - what page you are working on. You don't even say who you are. There's 18 pages on Macedonia, although I guess you're not working on the food page.... OK – Now I've come to edit this page, I notice what was in the middle of the line, unlinked and diffficult to see, the pages you are discussing on. First, I've made your point clearer to read by spacing it all out and linkifying the talk page refs. I note one is a red link. If you make your own communication clearer and more pleasant, maybe others might pay more attention.

If you each have to write or cite six hefty pages to define why your position is neutral, and don't read each others, where will this go? If you could state your point in just a line or two, refering only to acredited (on-line, preferably) published sources and use care in your composition of your posts here, I'll offer you my opinion without any prejudgement. In the meantime I'll have a look at the discussion pages. I shall only read comments that are written politely. All the best, Trev M (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The suspected sock-puppets “Simanos” (not official, I suspect him) from Thessaloniki should restrain from commenting here. I am asking an Administrator (and not suspected stock-pippeters) to look into the matter. An Administrator can identify me easily (I am draganparis). I gave the pages where discussion is. Discussion Pages: Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom), Talk:Alexander the Great, Talk:Cyril and MethodiusOn these pages I already complain abou the followingt:

1. I am experiencing violation of the neutrality policy on the pages on Macedonia (designation of the Alexander The Great as a "Greek king" (ethnic designation), when he was simply Macedonian king (state - political designation which is accepted as neutral!!!), designation of Cyril and Methodius as Greeks (ethnic designation) when it is only certain that they were Byzantines (again belonging to a state is neutral). (This is self evident from the discussion.)

2. In addition the problem is that even the administrators accepts the explicit propaganda material which is compiled from the nationalist sites (which I cited in Cyril and Methodius tal pages), in spite of my warnings and full information where they certainly were copy-pasted from. This propaganda material has been used by “Anothroskon” and “GK1973” on many occasions. The persons hav not been even warned by the administrator who ACCEPTED the propaganda material as valid!!!. The administrator is Tom Harrison who said: “Wherever the collection of references came from, they are individually reliable sources. They say "Greek." Tom Harrison Talk 19:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)”. I offered 600 references (on 8 March) that say Byzantine (and there are equally numerous that do not state anything at all – what I endorese also), and of course there are about 600 that state “Greek”, but as I mentioned, references of lower quality. To mention “Byzantine” is only certain (they were citizens of Byzantium) and neutral (ethnic denomination is avoided).

3. And, unfortunately, I have been exposed to insults from GK1973 in various forms in the last 3 months. He/she was calling me all sorts of names, ignorant, copy paster, false intellectual, he/she was responding with “.blah blah, blah blah...” or similar insulting mockery. The person has not been even warned by the administrator Tom Harrison.

4. That person dumps on my Talk 30 pages of material and dumps similar quantity of unreferenced affirmations on the discussion pages. I refer to GK1973.

5. I suspect sock-puppeting on the part of Simanos, GK1973, Ptolion, Antipastor, Athenean, Taivo and may be couple of others. They ALWAYS agree on pushing Greekness of everything what happens on Balkan Peninsula (this is even Greek peninsula for them, even when talking about central Balkan regions!!) but they regularly dissimulate slight and insignificant disagreements. For example I offered the most reputable references (Encyclopedia Britannica 2010, the most reputable linguist, Byzantine Historian, recent medieval encyclopaedia, stressed the neutrality (to state the citizenship and not ethnic belonging). The response was refusal in concert without sources and backed by the propaganda material which I showed to be 20% false, and in general of low scientific value as compared to the references that I offered repeatedly. And this has been all the time. So, sock-puppeting is obvious.Draganparis (talk) 09:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Both Draganparis and Simanos have enough experience to know that arguing here is not very useful or productive. Which parts of the notice that is above the edit window here did you not read?

For best results when posting here:

• Summarize your concerns concisely and neutrally
• Provide a link to the article in question at the top of your request using {{La|article title goes here}}
• Avoid copying large quantities of text (over 2 paragraphs) in a request
• Remember to sign your posts using ~~~~
• Read the editor assistance FAQ and the dispute resolution policy (if applicable)
• Do not post issues here that are posted on another noticeboard — it causes confusion and may be considered disruptive

If you can't agree to work together to achieve consensus, then kindly refrain from posting here and consider walking away. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for some confusion. I thought that my demand was clear: I suggested that the Administrator should warn the editor GK1973 not to offend the other editors (I indicated where the insult happened), of course not be too harsh and block him only temporarily (for a day or week) and may be warn the other editors to try to respect neutrality and avoid discrete but still visible nationalistic bias (if there is one), and stop concealed sock-puppeting (I gave the list of the suspect editors, I must ask for excuses if I am wrong, please.) Their collective action, if there is one, is diffuse and on the pages indicated above. I thought that it was clear which articles are in question, I cited them. However, I renounced temporarily to the material dispute (my last comment on the "Talk Saint Cyril and Methodius" page), giving the primate to the moral problem and the problems of direct insults that I suffered. Not acting on the part of the Administrator (not against me! of course) and letting involved editors to disturb the decisions even here (ah Simanos, Simanos!) is a kind of violation of the neutrality principle, I would think. Thanks for the suggestions anyway. Giving useful lessons is useful, solving problems is better. Please try to solve the problem if you can and if you are an administrator. I would greatly appreciate this. Thank you.Draganparis (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

MIght I suggest that you think about whatyou are going to post before you actually commit it to cyberspace? "Demand" - this is Editor Assistance/Requests! If you feel youi have been insulted got to Wikiquette Alerts. If you want to warn an ediotr about breaching policies or guidelines.please do so yourself. Administrators are not policemne with batons to hot "bad" editots with. I am not an admin, some of the assistants here are. The solution to your problems almost certainly lies in your hands and in your behaviour. Think about that. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I probably misunderstood the instructions. But why all of this with so much - pressure, so much, well, how to say, almost "aggression"? You gave me a friendly advice, I am very grateful to you. Why this does not finish there? You say behaviour? Don't you think this couldn't be said in a slightly friendlier, normal way? I think you have zero reason to "behave" as you do. Why are the people here on Wikipedia so often so aggressive, what do you think? Are all just jobless free time frustrated unfulfilled "scientists"? "Show to a scientist how WRONG he is in his illusion of knowledge"! Is this that drive? Is longing to be a scientist so painful and so, so sad? Or this is just "anonymity effect": If nobody knows who you are, show immediately how cleverer you are and how preemptively aggressive you can be. Amazing.Draganparis (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

One editor against "all other" on which picture to use - how to proceed

Answered

 – –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

On the article Larry_Craig, Soupysoap wants the main picture changed from the official portrait of Larry Craig to his mugshot.

As you can see in the history he's been reverted three times (once by me).

How should I/we proceed to achieve consensus? Algotr (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you considered talking? I see User:Soupysoap's talk page is blank. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I feel that would be like me forcing my opinions on him. I was thinking more in the line of voting. I mean, maybe HE is right and all others are wrong.

Maybe put up something on the discussion of the article...

Is there any clear policy on which picture to use on ex politicians? Algotr (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Voting doesn't achieve consensus, it just tends to polarise opinion. Talking and trying to see and understand other points of view is a more practical route to consensus. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I've put up a new topic on the discussion page titled "Which picture to use" and wrote on Soupysoap's talk page. I hope that will do. Algotr (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have posted the archive Biography-living-person discussion about a similar topic on the talk page. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive51#Mug_shots. Btw, the arguments raised there have little to do with photo quality, and much more with putting undue attention to the fact someone has been arrested, and I think that holds here too. Hope this helps. Arnoutf (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Number of successor states in an infobox

Answered

 – –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there a limit to the number of successor states which can appear in an infobox ? I'm trying to fit all the successor of the Ottoman Empire (there's quite a lot of them) but the last three (Yemen, Hejaz, Kars Republic), while included, do not appear. Could anyone give me a hand of this ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, perhaps you should ask at WP:Help desk. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll ask, thanks. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible Conflict of Interest

Answered

 – –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Annerp1 (edit | [[Talk:User:Annerp1|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have written an article for The Massachusetts Bible Society, a 200-year-old non-profit of which I am the Executive Director. When I began working on the article I asked whether it was notable enough and was assured that it was. I was told I should ask to have it reviewed when I finished the article, however, because I am the paid executive of the organization.

I would like editorial feedback on whether the article as written fits the objectivity (and other) standards for Wikipedia, and if it does, I would like it moved to the mainspace.

Annerp1 (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for your asking about this as obviously you do have a conflict of interest. I have made some suggestions on your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Bellator Fighting Championships: Season Two

Answered

 – –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Bellator Fighting Championships: Season Two (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There appears to be some content dispute between User:Mollica93 and User:Trunks8719 (and latter user's IP). Both are reverting each other's changes regarding the setup of a tournament bracket and seems to take up the majority of this page's edits. I believe it needs some dispute res between the two of them to sort it out and neither has really taken any steps to take the dispute to the article's discussion page. Paralympiakos (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have placed 3RR warnings on their talk pages and asked them to discuss at the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

need a cool-headed perspective

Answered

 – –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please take a look at the the talk pages at talk:Ghost, talk:Alternative medicine, and the mess at Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#RfC:_Using_the_National_Science_Foundation_as_a_reference? The content dispute is one thing, and I can handle that end of it analytically (I'm pretty sure I'm right, but I could deal with being wrong), but I'm having problems knowing how to deal with BullRangifer (talk · contribs). if you glance through his posts you'll see that the vast majority of the text he writes has nothing directly to do with the issue - he basically spends most of his time insulting me directly, threatening me with non-specific sanctions, or trying to claim that I'm working against a pre-decided consensus, and he's even gone to the extent of clouding the issue by opening two off-topic RfC's. I am beginning to lose my temper with him, and I don't want this to break down into a complete waste, so I need to know if there's a better approach to dealing with this (expletive deleted). You might also check his user page, where he's been discussing with other editors how to deal with me - it gives some insight into his mindset.

Let me add that I'm happy to accept any criticisms you want to level at me - I can't claim to be the most pleasant person in the world to deal with - but I happen to be a great believer in reason, and I never back in front of this kind of political bull-crap. since brangifer doesn't seem to be able to stop doing it on his end, I need a different approach that will pull this back to reasoned discussion (or maybe put it there for the first time - though I will confess that BR has moments of clarity where we engage in decent discourse). and help you can offer is welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 10 March 2010 {UTC)

Well, a brief glance shows a general lack of assuming good faith, profound disagreement, etc. Personally, I might be inclined to walk away. The only thing I can suggest is enlisting a mediator from the WP:Mediation Cabal. I have found them helpful in the past. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Airtrain JFK

Answered

 – –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

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

I made a bunch of revisions to this entry, correcting errors and adding significant (and well documented) factual matter and analysis of the financing of the operation only to find it changed back to the original text a day or two later.

Airtrain is owned by a government agency, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. It has an extensive Public Relations and Media operation. I don't know for certain, but it may be behind the reversion, for its own reasons. I do know that the building of the project was very controversial, and not subject to public referendum.

Could we have my changes restored and have the entry locked? It makes no sense to permit the Port Authority or any one else censor the entries after the fact.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.168.22 (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like User:Jfruh reverted your edits with the edit summary: "rv npov hatchet job. no transportation project pays for itself with user fees."[2]. Your additions do indeed seem to be very POV and uncited. Why don't you discuss things with the other editor? Jezhotwells (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Groundbreaking destroyers

Answered

 – –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

An IP user is repeatedly removing two of the entries from this list, namely Type 45 and Iroquois, just saying that they should not be included. This has been reverted by other users.

Yesterday (10th March 2010) this happened again, so I reverted the change and asked that this be raised on the talk page first. The IP user has removed them several times since then. He has added a line on the talk page but it again just says that they should not be included.

I have no particular axe to grind in this matter. I spotted an error in this page last November, fixed it and then (as I usually do) added the page to my Watchlist in case anyone had any comments about my change.

However I want there to be a consensus about what should and should not be included. Any suggestions as to how best to take this forward?

FerdinandFrog (talk) 12:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Talking? User:84.156.253.142 has left a comment on the template talk page, but no one has responded so far? All the reversions have edit summaries, but that is no substitute for talking, and no one has left a message on their talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"has left a comment on the template talk page", true but all it says is that these should not be included w/o any reasons and he has removed them w/o waiting for any comments or a consensus.

Also I see that User:MrGRA has now responded to him.

"no one has left a message on their talk page", I don't understand what you are getting at.

FerdinandFrog (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hav you tried talking directly to User:84.156.253.142? Jezhotwells (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Rescue of Gravikord

Resolved

 – –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone care to try to find sources demonstrating Gravikord is notable, prior to my starting an AfD? --Ronz (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I have placed them on the talk page for you. User:Nicolas1981/Wikipedia Reference Search is a useful tool. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

pls complete the afd process

Resolved

 – AfD completed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I marked an unreferenced bio on a nn subject afd but can't complete the process. The bio is Sindhu Joy. The reason is given at the talk page. Can somebody help complete the process?--117.204.89.8 (talk) 11:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have completed the nomination. You can find the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sindhu Joy. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

There was one more step in the nomination. I have added it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 March 13. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ooops, I forgot that! I'm used to using Twinkle to do it. Thanks, PrimeHunter –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Template states

Resolved

 – on this page at least. – ukexpat (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have a navigation template, {{modelling ecosystems}}, which contains two sections. The first section defaults to "autocollapse" and the second section defaults to "collapsed". On some articles, such as photosynthesis, there is already a navigation template which should take precedence, and I want to collapse both sections on my template. On other articles I want to reverse the states, so the first section is collapsed and the second section is expanded. How can I pass parameters which achieve this? --Epipelagic (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, have you checked out m:Help:Advanced templates? If that doesn't help, try Wikipedia:Help desk. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Criminal Investigation

Resolved

 – MG has made contact. – ukexpat (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Good morning.

I am a Lieutenant with the Stanford Department of Public Safety located in Palo Alto, CA. I supervise the detective bureau and I need someone from your staff to contact me @ 650-725-4881 regarding an ongoing investigation involving Palo Alto Wiki and a cyber stalking individual. Thank you for your assistance.

3-16-10 @ 0958hrs

Lt. Grant Cunningham Stanford Dept of Public Safety 711 Serra Street, Stanford CA 650-725-4881 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.64.230.163 (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Please contact the Foundation's legal counsel, Mike Godwin, (User:MGodwin, foundation:User:Mikegodwin) via foundation:Contact us. I have e-mailed him about your message. – ukexpat (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Mike has replied that he has contacted Lt Cunningham. Marking this as resolved here. – ukexpat (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Article: Terrorfakt

Stale

 – editing seems quiet now. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Article about the band Terrorfakt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is obviously being edited by the band, who are attempting to use it as a source of biased promotion. Article content is sloppy, not concise, and contains randomly inserted images, with no text or captions. My attempts to clean the article up are being countered by the members of the band, one of which has messaged asking me to stop editing "his" page. I lack the time or ability to ensure that the article is properly formatted. Thanks for any assistance! Rivetheadx 20:17, 3 March 2010 (EST)

• Comment Article has been nominated for deletion at WP:Articles for deletion/Terrorfakt (2nd nomination). Jezhotwells (talk) 03:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Update: Article kept, no recent editing activity. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

need help editing and posting article

Answered

 – –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

National church residences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) It was suggested that I add more sources/references, which has been done. Need help posting. Ncr09 (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look like the subject of the article at User:Ncr09/Seniorhousing meets the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. Also you need to find a source for reference one, and it would be better to make the other three references into WP:inline citations. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No change to article, Ncr09 has placed a {{move draft}} notice on the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Dictatorship of Battlezone II

Answered

 – –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The article about the Activision game Battlezone II is being controlled by a few people who think it should not be changed while plenty of others agree that it lacks lots of information, such as major mods, forums, and expansions to the game.

Clavin12 (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, you could consider a third opinion, or raise a request for comment or ultimately call in the the Mediation Cabal. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

There

are plenty of third opinions out there but no one can free the page. Whatever changes we make that they don't like are changed back. The existence of forums is verifiable is it not? 74.192.234.42 (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:EL#Restrictions on linking

says:"Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists." should not be linked. I have put some useful links to Wikipedia policies and guidelines on your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Newspaper clippings Fair Use rationale

Answered

 – –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I am working on an article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Belleami/Sandbox, for which I have a few newspaper articles pertinent to the subject, that I cannot find published on the internet. I would like to include these. These clippings are 47 years old and pertain to my family directly and represent the history of this article. I have been adopted by Swarm, who recommended I contact you to request assistance in writing a fair use rationale. As a newbie, I haven't a clue where to begin. Thank you very much for your assistance.Belleami (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC) 19:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Those articles are still under copyright. There is no

requirement that sources cited be available online, you know. Simply cite the original article in its original appearance, using whichever citation style you favor. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)You can use these as sources, using the Template:Cite news. Basically you need to provide the title of the article, the publication date, the name of the newspaper, the author if a byline is attached, the newspaper publisher and the newspaper location. Essential are the title, name of newspaper and publication date. You can quote part of the article as long as it it is attributed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Right,

right. I was just clarifying that you can't link to a scan of the articles hosted somewhere else (we had a question on that recently) to avoid copyright issues. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

But

you can link to an official archive like Google News or Lexis Nexis or the Times Digital Archive. I have formatted a couple of the cites for you so that you can see how it is done. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...thank

you for all the input, when I have a chance to turn around (maybe this weekend?), I'll work on getting the references prepared properly...there were so many articles I reviewed and wanted to link them for anyone who may be interested and had to have a place to store them until I had a chance to correct...that's why all is still in my sandbox. While I realise anyone can see the page, I didn't think it was officially "published" until I moved it...am I confused? Plus, they were located as a result of a Google News search...does this change anything? A question: what about the articles that have photos of my family? I spoke to The Mother and she said no-one asked for (or received) signed releases...can I publish those? Actually, there's only one I'd really like to use: StrandedonLordHoweIs.jpg. My biggest concern is that all this documentation will disappear, when I fall off the perch. I am the last Fenton, with no offspring... O. while I'm on the subject, there's a scan, which I made, from a document in my possession, to which I own all rights...someone keeps deleting it...I published with the release to public domain "(File:LogBook1.jpg This file is a candidate for speedy deletion. It may be deleted after seven days from the date of nomination)". Can you help? Belleami (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you found the articles using a Google News source doesn't change things as far as I am aware.

If

a newspaper has photos of your family then the presumption would be that the newspaper holds the copyright, but you can't upload those to Wikipedia or Wiki Commons unless you can prove that you hold the copyright or that they are public domain.

File:StrandedonLordHoweIs.jpg has been uploaded with a fair use rationale, I see, so that may be used (but not in your sandbox - only in main space). The usage in the article may determine whether or not its use is allowable in the article. WP:Media copyright questions would be the place to ask.

File:LogBook1.jpg

was deleted as no proper fair use rationale was provided, just because you own the document does not necessarily mean that you own the copyright. again the copyright policy page may be able to help. Also please note that fair use images which are not linked to articles may be deleted. Hope this ahelps. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I want to revert a major rewrite, but I know that this will set off a dispute.

Answered

 – –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone made a "major rewrite" the the English Conjugation Tables page. I would like to change it back for now, and put the other person's rewrite at the top, and then continue from there. But I know that this will create problems, and I want to avoid a reverting controversy. I left my comments on the talk page, under the other person's comments under "Total rewrite". The link to the article is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjugation_tables bruvensky (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that you ask Irbisgreif to join the discussion, but I notice that they announced their retirement from Wikipedia on 8 November 2009.[3]

Perhaps see if anyone else comments before making any changes and perhaps ask at the languages project talk page. I have placed their banner o n the talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

bad communication, poor reading

Answered

 – –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

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

I'm getting some very inappropriate, personally insulting communication from a purported Wikipedia volunteer editor by the name of Uxepat. I don't think he or she should be working with Wikipedia any more, and I would appreciate getting some help from someone else who is familiar with literary biography. Thanks, Jim --James Cihlar (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

OK

first of all I object to the tone and content of your request. I have bent over backwards to help you with this article and explained on your talk page and at your prior request at the New contributors' help page (see the article's talk page for links) how the article should be improved to bring it into line with our policies and guidelines. Second, I have not insulted you in any way, but tried to explain how things work round here, so please assume good faith and retract the ad hominem comments. – ukexpat (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a "battle of the resumés" here but this is laughable. – ukexpat (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)

Hello Jim, thank you for coming here for help. For starters, can you please point me to the personally insulting communication you received? I looked at your user talk page but maybe you're referring to something else. Regarding "George Rabasa", you have to admit that "an American writer whose novels and stories plumb the eerie corners of domestic lives in cosmopolitan settings" is a little flowery for something you would expect to read in (hypothetically) the World Book Encyclopedia. Thoughts? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 23:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The

lead contains some appallingly promotional language. The issues tagged on the artcile are still there. Please read the guidelines that have been helpfully placed on your talk page by ukexpat. As to your accusations of incivility by that editor, I see no evidence of that. Rather I see that your comments on ukexpat's talk page are uncivil, demanding and aggressive in tone. Please learn to adopt a less confrontational attitude in your delaings with other Wikipedia editors. we are all volunteers here. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Everyone,

please keep a civil tone here. This is a brand new editor who has no idea what is normal and what is acceptable, and apparently comes from an editorial background vastly different from this one. Use good faith, take it easy on him, and help him develop the article in a constructive way. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Minor edit war at Rouzbeh Rashidi

Resolved

 – –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

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

When I came in to add refs and move this page, I didn't know what I was getting into. The creator, User:John Smith Green, seemed nice and cooperative. Then there was some IP edits, and an account called User: Js green72, obviously was him with a new account. I AGF that he forgot his password. After a few IP edits from the same IP before came User:KindofU, who made one edit pertaining to format. User:Arturobandini changed the format back to the original with an edit summary stating why. Then about a day after the format cahnge, along came User:KindofU3, who linked avant garde. I them came along and took out a reference to facebook and links to commons and wikiquote, which did not have any. KindofU3 undid both of my edits and then continued via an IP adress that was also used during the hiatus between the two John Smith Green accounts to move inappropriate refs like Rashidi's blog and youtube link to the External Links cat, which were reverted by a bot, and subsequently placed back into the ex links cat by KindofU3. I follow the 1RR out of general precaution so as not to get involved in an edit war, but I would like some help. Technically, the Js Green accounts and KindofU accounts can be considered as SPA's, but I don't want to jump in and create an even bigger mess. Any help? Buggie111 (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

OK,

I have cleaned up the article somewhat, tagged some issues and left a message on the article talk page, also on the various editor's talk pages. Let us see what happens. Remember to use the talk page when trying to deal with difficult behaviour. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to post on the talk page, but FYI, Kind ofU has reverted your edits. Buggie111 (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted and am now having a discussion with User:KindofU3

at their talk page. The reversions and warnings seem to have had some effect. The main problem is that the artcile subject is not notable. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"Coldo" page deleted

Answered

 – –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I wrote an article for something called a "coldo"

Where I live this is a slang term for a beer and it has a detailed history surrounding it and other terms effected by it. In no ways is this a hoax yet the article was removed citing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by McLeanium (talk • contribs) 20:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was deleted as a hoax as per this notice: 20:31, 14 March 2010 Nihonjoe (talk | contribs) deleted "Coldo" ‎ (G3: Blatant hoax). Articles in Wikipedia need to be cited to reliable sources.

Looking at Google, I can see the first few lines, which read: "Coldo refers to cold enjoyable beer. The term was coined by Al McLean in 2007. It is the drink of choice of the legendary group known as "The Nutty Buddies" ..." Take a look at WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Would you happen to be the person who coined the term? –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for data dump: audiobook authors and readers

Answered

 – –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I know this is probably not the right place to post this - but I could not figure out a better place to send my request. This is my first post, so please for give any breaches of protocol.

We're compiling a large list of audiobook authors and readers (narrators) here at the Books In Schools Charitable Trust (in New Zealand). We hope ultimately to provide biographies and to categorize both authors and readers in ways that will useful to our users. We were recently advised that you make a variety of data dumps available to the public. We'd be very grateful if you found yourselves able to help us help others by providing us with a dump of any data relating to audiobooks, their authors and their readers.

Many, many thanks in excited anticipation.

Kind regards,

Jim Harland <contact details redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimharland (talk • contribs) 22:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you are better off asking at the the Reference Desk, the regulars there specialise in questions like this. I have redacted your contact details from your message -

Wikipedia is highly visible on the internet and you are inviting spam, or worse, posting them here. We can only respond to your question on Wikipedia. Hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Robert Fraser (writer)

Answered

 – –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Robert Fraser (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am a first time editor for an article about the notable author and biographer, Professor Robert Fraser of the Open University. I would have expected his name to show up as a Wikipedia entry if it were to be keyed in on Wikipedia or Googlesearch as just 'fraser' but this doesn't happen, although there is another 'robert fraser' who is flagged when searching the name Fraser & clicking on the initial "R". In order for someone searching for the Wikipedia entry for my Robert Fraser on Google it seems to be necessary to key in his full name as Robert Fraser - few people may do this and many may not have enough information about him to do this. He has requested that I correct his entry to avoid confusion with the other (older) entry of the same name. I have attempted to do this, but it has not been successful. I have tried everyhting I can find on your information sites, and would be very appreciative of any assistance you can give me, as I wish to finalise the entry as soon as possible. Or am I being impatient and the matter will be corrected over time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenningham (talk • contribs) 16:01, 14 March 2010

I added Robert Fraser (writer) to Fraser (surname), which is linked from the disambiguation page Fraser. I have fixed some references, removed external links which are used as references as per that policy. You say the article subject has asked you to correct the entry. This represents a clear conflict of interest, please read that policy. You say that you wish to finalise the entry. Wikipedi entries are never finalised, they are continually edited in order to improve the encyclopaedia. as they say when asked "When will Wikipedia be ready?" - answer: "Sometime soon" That is the theory, of course sometimes there are vandals, sometimes there are disagreements between editors. The article needs cleaning up, it reads more like a CV than an article in an encyclopaedia. I have placed some useful links about Wikipedia style, policies and guidelines on you talk page. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally "Welcome to Wikipedia"> –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Nazi General is your Featured Article

Resolved

 – requestor has intitiated discussions at WT:Main page –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Kesselring

Wikipedia Editors,

I opened up Wikipedia today and noticed that your featured article for March 14th is about Luftwaffe General Field Marshal Albert Kesselring. As a person of Jewish descent, I found this choice to be somewhat troubling. Field Marshal Kesselring was found guilty of war crimes by a British Military Court and sentenced to death for his role in the massacre of 335 Italians during the war. He was later pardoned and then released from prison for medical reasons, afterwards becoming the leader of the neonazi organization Stahlhelm Bund der Frontsoldaten. He kept this position until his death in 1960. As an unrepentant supporter of the Nazi regime, I have nothing but contempt for him.

I think this is a very strange choice for your featured article, especially since it lies on the anniversary of Anschluss and the liquidation of the Krakow Ghetto. I would like you to remove the page and post something else. I would also like an apology posted. I'm not sure who is posting these featured articles, but this one is in bad taste.

Sincerely,

Eric Verner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.6.252 (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The main page FAQ gives some information about how the main page is selected, see WP:Main Page FAQ#I think that the articles listed on the Main Page are awful and much more important articles should be there instead. Isn't the Main Page biased towards certain topics? What can be done about it?. If you wish to raise a discussion about why Albert Kesselring was chosen, then Wikipedia talk:Village pump (policy) might be an appropriate venue. The Wikipedia:Contact us page gives details of how to contact Wikipedia, including Jimmy Wales. Remember that Wikipedia has no editorial board and that main page featured article are chosen on article quality rather than the specific subject. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I should have added that User talk:Raul654/Featured article thoughts might be a place to ask, as well. Raul654 is the featured article director. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Request to add an entry to a category

Answered

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I am unsure how to do this, even after reading help pages on the topic, so I am punting.

The entry is huperzine A Huperzine A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and the category which I suspect it can be added to is Category:NMDA receptor antagonists NMDA receptor antagonists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

I hope I am helping a little by my suggestion, even though I know I'm asking someone else to do the work. Thank you. 96.42.229.75 (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have added the cat (on good faith that it is appropriate) by inserting the code [[Category:NMDA receptor antagonists]] in the category section. – ukexpat (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Canadian Medical Protective Association

Answered

 – but not necessarily to the satisfaction of all. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The article located at Canadian Medical Protective Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems to be rather biased and has been repeatedly reformatted by several individuals making it less factual and rather either completely anti CMPA (in its present form) or completely pro CMPA. I think people are reluctant to even attempt editing this article now. Like other articles any controversy should be kept to a "controversy" section. I'm not a very active member but throught that this should be brought to somebody's attention

Koppertone (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no discussion on the article talk page, which is the place to start a discussion and work with other editors to attempt to achieve WP:CONSENSUS. If that fails then it may be worth taking things further. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have tagged some obvious issues in the article and started a discussion on the talk page. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

New Question 1 - I spent considerable time today on the Discussion Page, reading and replying to the comments from Koppertone. That user offered some good pointers, but I also feel uncomfortable. The reasons for my concern: (1) Koppertone cites one and only one source for all topics regarding the CMPA. That source is always some page from the CMPA's own website. (2) Koppertone shows clear resentment of any data which is negative to the CMPA. (3) Koppertone states that "whether any of the information presented is true or false" is not an issue for an encyclopedia. I wonder if this student doctor plans to write up his future clinical charts without regard to truth. Yes, I said doctor. On his user page, Koppertone says he is a "medical resident." That means he is a member of the Canadian Medical Protective Association. Any doctor who practices on patients can potentially be sued, thus even trainees (residents) must join the CMPA. Is this the struggle with Corporate Vanity that is discussed on http://old.nabble.com/Corporate-vanity-policy-enforcement-to6585535.html#a6585535  ? Medical Rights (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Medical Rights

Please note that only article content should be discussed rather than ad hominem attacks on the presumed future ethical decision making of an individual editor as per the No Personal Attacks policy. Also note that all of your information in the article was retained in my revision (which was reverted), I have made no edits to the article with any references to the CMPA site (which are currently referenced in other edits that I have had no involvement in) and I have made no edits to the article since it was reverted. Lastly you have quoted me out of context; the full quotation was "The issue is not that any of the information presented is either true or false, it is that it does not fit the format of an encyclopedic entry." In your original response you stated that all of your contributions were referenced; this was not the issue, it was that the article reads more like an editorial piece. Hope that is helpful. Koppertone (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply - I posted on this page, rather than on the Discussion page, so that editor Jezhotwells would answer. I inquired about a potential conflict of interest by Koppertone, and I stated the reasons for my concern. That is legitimate according to the the WIkipedia guidelines for conflict of interest. That is also legitimate according to common sense. User Koppertone replied, but he did not answer the question, he instead deflected it with inflammatory words. That only reinforces my concern. Senior editor Jezhotwells is the person who should answer: Is Koppertone in a conflict of interest position, due to his apparent membership in the Canadian Medical Protective Association? A conflict of interest occurs when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in the other. Further: When the CMPA page was repeatedly vandalized, this refers to users Babixg, Papertiger99, and IP Address 207.35.222.3 as described in my first posts. One episode was caught and labeled as vandalism by Wiki's own robot, ClueBot (date March 5/10). User Koppertone may not have deleted my text, but he did relegate it to secondary status in various ways, and from there is trying to erode important points. In any event, the reason I reverted his page was that it looked at first to be the same (exhausting) vandalism as before. I am a novice to Wiki, and didn't know to check the Discussion page. Medical Rights (talk) 08:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

As a medical resident I am protected by the CMPA, which is essentially a medicolegal trade union consisting of over 70,000 members. It is a conflict of interest in the same way that being a member of the United Steelworkers Union is a conflict of interest; are all 700,000+ members of the United Steelworkers Union prohibited from editing that page? Regardless even people who are on the board of directors of the CMPA would be permitted to edit the article if the edits were not contentious. If somebody is reading the article, such as somebody in school researching the topic, and knows absolutely nothing about the CMPA the article does not provide adequate information to learn about it. I think it is obvious to anybody reading the article that it does not retain a neutral point of view. Many of the suggestions I have made are not contentious (ie. More information on founding of the CMPA, more information and editing of the history section which at present consists of three hand picked quotations from a CMPA published historical document (a document which Medical Rights cites him/herself but criticizes others for citing), the legal section contains a quotation from CMAJ, a CMA journal which medical rights has chastised other users for citing, the CMPA Financial Sources section is heavily editorialized (I have no concerns with providing the information but the writing itself should maintain a neutral POV), the Freedom of Information Request section should be a subheading under legal cases, the legal cases contain prominent cases but tend to be extremely quotation heavy and some of them are editorialized, the CBC news heading should be placed under a "In the Media" heading, and the No Fault Medical Compensation is largely editorialized and should be placed under a Criticism heading. I think all of these suggestions are reasonable. It is concerning when a single user retains editorial control over a single article and reverts edits made by anybody as "conflict of interest" or "bias" even when those edits are completely reasonable. If a person wants to have sole editorial control of an article they should refer to Wikiversity or Wikibooks. Koppertone (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

New Question 2 - The Talk Page for my IP address shows an entry from March 2008. But I was not the owner of the IP address on that date. I did not move into my current residence, or sign up for an internet connection, until the end of 2008. Is there any way to clear the slate for that Talk Page, so it only contains my own work? Medical Rights (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Medical Rights

No, that is the nature of dynamic IP addressing and why we encourage editors to get an account and log in. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 04:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply Please use the Talk Page for my user name Medical Rights. I expect to log in for all my posts. Once I did forget to log in, so that particular contribution appeared under my IP Address. Regarding the Talk Page for my IP Address, I used the edit function to clear the material from the previous owner. But that previous page of course stays in the history. Medical Rights (talk) 09:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I generally reply to whoever posted, IP or logged in user. Don't expect me to try and work out who an IP is. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

User Medical Rights - All, and I mean all, statements about the CMPA are verified. References are given for every item of data, whether it is contentious or not. Apparently users Koppertone and Jezhotwells did not actually read the References. Although there are many References, it is important to know their content before commenting. If you follow the links and read the References, you will find that all the material on the CMPA page is derived from those References. Note:

The References are placed sometimes at the end of a sentence, and sometimes at the end of a paragraph. My citation method was to place a footnote at the end of a single sentence, or at the end of a series of sentences, if that specific Reference verified all those sentences. For example, readers would not want footnote [N] appearing six times, at the end six separate sentences in a row, if footnote [N] applies to and verifies the entire segment. For a block-quote, the footnote appears either at the end of the preceding intro, or at the end of the quote.

The CMPA page is not as contentious as you might think. The References are all from authoritative sources such as peer-reviewed academic medical journals, the Library of Congress, and major Canadian newspapers (including The Medical Post, which exists to give priority to doctors). The finances of the CMPA are no longer in dispute or doubt, thanks to disclosure obtained through a 2008 Freedom of Information court case; the actual FOI legal decision is cited, as well as numerous newspaper reports on the topic. Further, the CMPA organization is represented fairly: I provided three links to the CMPA's own website (one is an External link and two are References, all to separate pages of course). From one of those website pages, I quoted re the CMPA's own written history and their attitude toward negligence claims; note the three block-quotes in the History section are all verified with footnote [3]. I quoted that material verbatim; I decided not to paraphrase, for the reason that the CMPA's own words are shocking and brutal. The CMPA itself said the words "sinews of war" in 1919, and they have carried on in that vein for a century. I repeat: Read the actual References. Have some respect for the investigative journalists who had the courage to report honestly on this corporation.

The CMPA page suffers repeated vandalism. Two users, Babixg and Papertiger99, want to remove all the References and the objective facts, and replace it with material promoting the CMPA's public image and nothing else. Wiki calls this 'Corporate Vanity,' and according to Wiki guidelines, a firm stand should be taken to prevent any large corporation from using an encyclopedia page for self-serving purposes. Another user, with IP Address 207.35.222.3, also vandalizes the page, deleting all the carefully researched facts and replacing it again with vague self-promotional material from the CMPA. This user is in a clear Conflict of Interest -- A 'Whois' search shows this IP Address to belong to the Canadian Medical Protective Association itself. Check it.

Medical Rights - My background: I have two university degrees in Physics, and worked as a research scientist. The CMPA page is my first Wiki contribution. I realize that academic journals have different style requirements than internet publishing, especially re citations. If there are specific Wiki guidelines you would like me to review, please advise.Medical Rights (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Update: Post signed.

Firstly, it is best to remember to login when you post here. And please remember to use four (~}s when you are signing posts. It makes it easier to keep track of who said what. You have had guidelines posted on your talk page and now your IP talk page. These contain links to Wikipedia policies and guidelines which are very different from those of academic journals, I advise you to read them. I don't necessarily have problems with the references, but the language of the Wikipedia article must be neutral, with no weasel words. All facts which are likely to be challenged should be cited with inline citations. Both sides of any disagreements in the press, etc. must be presented. Sometimes it might be better to over-cite, rther than under-cite. More experienced editors may be able to help adise on this. I have placed the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine banner on the talk page. You may find that a useful placve to ask for advice on specific article issues. You will also find guidance on article style there.

Secondly, if you wish to discuss artcile issues, doyoru best to discuss with other editors inviting them to join discussions on the artcile talk page. If those efforts prove fruitless then come back here. But allow time. It may take a month or two.

Thirdly, thank you for the information about User:207.35.222.3, I have left a warning about conflict of interest on that talk page.

Fourthly, we welcome contributions from all types of editors. Whilst the expertise of those with specific qualifications are welcome, please remember that Wikipiedia is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit and tend to be inclusive rather than exclusive. That does mean that many article suffer vandalism and point of view pushing. We aim to deal with this by engaging in constructive discussion on talk pages to try and reach WP:consensus. It takes some time to get the hang of all of this.

I hope that this helps. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Medical Rights - I will visit my Talk Page and read the guidelines you recommend. It does take time to learn this. I will use the Discussion Page, but add one note here. Comparison of corporations: The CMPA is not like an oil company whose oil spills damage marine life in the sea. The Oil Company has a small "bad" side (the oil spill) and a large "good" side (drilling for oil and providing light, heat and car fuel for an entire nation). The negative info is limited, and can be set apart in a Criticism section on the Wiki page. What the CMPA does resemble is a Tobacco Company whose actions benefit a very tiny self-interested segment of society (the company owners), but cause misery for the majority of citizens in the nation. I checked the Wiki tobacco page: There is no Criticism section. There is a Contemporary section which begins: "Following the scientific revelations of the mid-1990s, tobacco became condemned as a health hazard." That is the closest comparison I can make to the status of the CMPA: Their actions are so negative to the general populace, that no other realistic information exists. My search for references showed that all newspaper reports are critical of the CMPA. No newspaper articles exist which praise the CMPA. The only pro-CMPA info which exists is published by the CMPA itself, and by other medical organizations such as the Canadian Medical Association. Note some provincial-level organizations (e.g. the Ontario Medical Association) are starting to circulate petitions on-line, written by doctors, which represent disillusioned MDs who ask to opt out of the CMPA so they can hire their own attorneys. In summary: The only positive info is from the CMPA itself. By now, journalists have uncovered such overwhelming negative info that it cannot be contained within a small Criticism section. On the Wiki page, I carried on with the Criticism section simply as a formality, because it was already on the page. -- Medical Rights (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Medical Rights

Consider adding Wikipedia:Other stuff exists and reflect on your own point of view which is hardly neutral. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Medical Rights - I conducted an extensive search for references to the CMPA. For months I searched the web for CMPA material for my own website, then realized this is a serious issue, and as a public service decided to donate my time by educating the public via WIkipedia. My research showed that all newspaper reports and other public documents are critical of the CMPA. No public documents or academic articles exist which praise the CMPA. The only pro-CMPA information which exists is published by the CMPA itself, and by other medical organizations such as the Canadian Medical Association. The CMPA website is corporate vanity, and is biased. My computer has huge files containing the downloads of every major item I encountered on the CMPA. The assertion that the the CMPA website is biased did not originate with me. Far from it. Asertion of bias was made by the CBC News program, by academic journals, by judges in court cases, by major Canadian newspapers, and by a former CMPA insider with first-hand material knowledge who became a whistle blower. That does indeed mean that bias is present, when the only countering material is from the CMPA itself.

Koppertone said the issue is not whether any of the information presented is true or not. But truth is the mainstay of an encyclopedia. If information is true, then it can be verified independently, and by definition belongs on the Wiki page (if relevant to the topic). If information is false, or vague, or self-promotional, then no sources will exist to verify it. Verification is the key point. The actions, methods, and finances of the CMPA are reported by the independent sources listed above. The ratio of information about the CMPA which exists in public documents is certainly weighted to the negative. The WIki page should reflect the same ratio, in order to be realistic.

Koppertone said none of my original writing was ever deleted or changed. Actually, it was. Repeated vandalism occurred, with my entire contribution being completely deleted and over-written with self-promoting hype lifted wholesale from the CMPA website. First, that is copyright infringement. Second, the vandals provided no independent References. Their only listed source was the CMPA website. That fits the definition of Corporate Vanity. Refer to the WIki guidelines "Category: Articles with a promotional tone." User Babixg once left my text intact, but deleted important links, claiming they didn't function. In fact, the links did function and were current, and I had to undo the vandalism. In a more recent edit, Koppertone placed "verification needed" after almost every sentence on the WIki page, but if he had consulted any of the 45 References I provided, he would have known that all statements on the page were verified (when applicable, I used one footnote for a series of sentences, see post above). Please remember, I never said or felt the page was finished. Development of the page stopped when I had to deal with weeks of steady vandalism. If you read the Discussion page, you will see I have listed many new materials and ideas that can be added to the CMPA page. To write accurately, however, a person must read that material first, which takes time.

Note that the "verification needed" was not added by myself; this was done by another user. I reorganized what was already there Koppertone (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Note some provincial-level organizations (e.g. the Ontario Medical Association) are starting to circulate petitions on-line, written by doctors, which represent disillusioned MDs who ask to opt out of the CMPA so they can hire their own attorneys. In summary: The only positive info is from the CMPA itself. By now, journalists have uncovered such overwhelming negative info that it cannot be contained within a small Criticism section. It is similar to Big Tobacco in the 1950s -- the public is aware now and there is no turning back the clock. Regarding WIkipedia: Two editors have been caught in a frank conflict of interest. One of them, IP Address 207.35.222.3, did not work for Wiki. But the other, Koppertone, set himself up as the supervisor of the CMPA page; he did so through this Editor Assistance page which proclaims itself neutral. Medical Rights (talk) 03:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth is what applies here. There is discussion ongoing on the talk page, please work with other editors and assume good faith. If others remove valid links to reliable sources, revert them, ask them why on the article talk page and their personal talk pages and, if they persist, consider reporting at the edit warrring notice board. If you see clear copyrighjt violation, then follow the procedures laid down at Wikipedia:Copyvio. Please read the neutral point of view guidelines again, I think that you may have missed the idea of that. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Please cite where I set myself up as the "supervisor". Second, having medical liability insurance provided by the CMPA is not a conflict of interest; having it makes you a consumer of a product. It does not mean that one is either producing nor selling it. It is akin to having automotive insurance and contributing to an article about said company, or being a paid member of the United Steel Workers Union without being on the board and contributing to that article. If I was employed by the CMPA that would be a different story. Obviously we do not agree on multiple issues in the article, but the way to solve this is not to silence all opposing views. I do believe that much of what you have written is valid and should be contained in the article, but both myself and other users have noted it should be written in a more neutral fashion and the article is in need of some reorganization. Koppertone (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually forget about it. I'm done with this article and withdraw any further input.Koppertone (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Article: Maurice_Strong

Answered

 – –– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The Oil for Food Scandal was allowed. Can this be cleaned up to meet the proper standards? It was removed for "remove unsourced section that contravenes BLP" However, it appears well-sourced.

Here is the article before this section was deleted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maurice_Strong&oldid=348257920

Carbon Taxation Involvement Jesse Ventura cited Maurice Strong as being a primary developer of global warming [16], with the goal of creating a global carbon credit taxation. Additionally, there are numerous claims that that the Edmund de Rothschild, a member of the well-known Rothschild family, was working with Strong as well. In essence, Strong has been promoting global warming since the 1980's with the long term goal of helping the United Nations create a carbon tax [17] [18], potentially a trillion dollar business, mainly via carbon credit trading. In 1987, Strong, Rothschild, and presented the Brundtland Commission at the 4th World Wilderness Congress for a World Conservation Bank (or Global Environment Facility) which would provide a banking system for carbon taxation [19]. The Global Environment Facility (or GEF) is an existing multi-billion dollar fund through which green projects are created in 3rd world countries (the largest of its kind), while keeping a portion of the funds for management and administrative fees. Additionally, it hopes to trade the world's debt for wilderness lands as collateral. As of 2010, Strong is believed to be actively working with China on their government carbon credit trading, as well as with attempting to produce the Chinese owned Chery Automobile in/for the United States market. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.35.223 (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Article discussion (talk0 pages are the best place to discuss chnages to an artcile. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Biography

Resolved

 – –– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Chuck Fries would like to upload his completely factual bio to his own page. We submitted a form from the Caucus website, where the bio was previously published, to okay the addition to wikipedia. Why hasn't it been published yet? is it in line? Since I'm new to this, i'm a little confused on what to do next.

Thank you

Norm Asst to Chuck Fries —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckfries (talk • contribs) 19:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure whether wholesale copying of any text fits well with the idea of Wikipedia. I would suggest to create an article that follow biography guidelines of Wikipedia, rather than copying a text prepared for another purpose.

As there is nobody in charge of Wikipedia, nothing tends to happen unless someone does it themselves.

Regarding Chuck Fries, I would suggest to be very careful there as you appear to have a conflict of interest in that case by being his assistant and I suggest to treat this as an autobiography, with all discouragement and guidelines Wikipedia attaches to it. Arnoutf (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Chuckfries has been blocked. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Dubai British School Article Vandalism

Resolved

 – –– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The article page Dubai British School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been subject to repeated acts of vandalism. Suggest that either the article is deleted or reverted to an older version, locked and offending accounts removed. Steventee (talk) 10:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I have removed the obvious vandalism and warned the obvious vandals. These are actions you can take yourself. WP:Cleaning up vandalism gives some pointers. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

dear editor

Answered

 – –– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

more than a few years ago I wrote asking your company why I was not listed as an artist at that time I was known for drawing huge works of art in public at large events in front of 100,000's of people from all over the globe yet at the time I did not even own a computer I didn't feel I needed to assimilate to the media form at this time i would request a reply that acknowledges the fact that I am a world famous individual in the art's {per your 1998 reply that stated my fame was doubtful} I ran across this reply while over looking somethings with my name attached to them wish you all the best in 2010 the world famous artist tommy pavletic famous quotes "every woman is beautiful because she is a woman", "hit the books stay from crook's" ,and "if they are touched bad they should tell" its hard when every one feels they know you every where you go thousands of people point you out when you walk down the street tour buses point you out crowds to over mega phones please write r.s.v.p. as to why I do not have a page within your service which I have been told has been so helpful to so many people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.192.64 (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia not a yellow pages. I quote the reply given you before:

There is no article on you because you are not notable. You don't get an article simply because you exist, or even because you and one of your friends thinks you're world famous, which is doubtful given that your name produces only 25 unique google hits. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, we don't reply to requests for help via email. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I might add that I can't find any reliable sources where there is any substantial coverage of you. In fact the most substantial thing was:

"The cost for actually getting to and from work has doubled. It's just not going to stop," said driver Tommy Pavletic."Record gas prices prompt deception concerns". Chicago News. ABC News. February 6, 2008. Retrieved March 16, 2010.

–– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

List of The Adventures of Tintin characters

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

A week ago, I started a discussion on the List of The Adventures of Tintin characters talk page suggesting that several articles about individual characters be merged into the list. Three other editors have since joined the discussion. The first, an IP user, opposed the suggestion, stating that "restricting the number of articles on a subject in this manner is appropriate only in printed encyclopedia where they consume paper." I responded, stating that "In order to justify an article's existence on Wikipedia, the topic must pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines." The second user, Fram, then agreed that the characters were not individually notable and should be merged into the list. The third user, Marktreut, responded opposing the merge and reiterating the IP user's arguments. The conversation has gone on at some length since then, however the discussion has ceased to be productive because whenever Fram or I quote guidelines to explain why we believe that this merge should take place, Marktreut responds stating explicitly his disregard for the guidelines. I am unsure how to proceed. There are no grounds on which I can base my argument other than guidelines, and yet these grounds are not regarded as binding by Marktreut; if I continue the discussion, therefore, it can only be to repeat what has already been said only to have it dismissed in the same manner as previously. If I complete the merge, Marktreut is likely to revert my edits. Any advice on what to do in this situation would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 03:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You could try raising a request for comment and notifying appropriate projects. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 06:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised that I've never come across that process before. Thank you for telling me about it; I have raised an RfC as you suggested. Neelix (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Citations and divisions in Visionary art

Answered

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been attempting to weed out uncited organizations in the Visionary art article, and have met with passionate resistance from one editor. I can't find these organizations mentioned in third-party sources, but they keep returning to the article. Somewhat less troublesome is the division between "old masters" and just plain artists. This seems like original research as well, but I've only tagged the issue, and haven't begun to actually address it.

Thanks - JeffJonez (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You might want to try and get some input from WT:WikiProject Visual arts. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a great lead... thanks! I've posted my request there. - JeffJonez (talk) 02:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I've put some feelers out for help, and now watching the page ;-> (note, edited this section title ...Visionary Art to ...Visionary art - as that detail got me sent me back to the search page just now!) Trev M ~  23:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Napoleon and Tabitha D'umo

Discussion moved

 – WT:Good article nominations#Napoleon and Tabitha D'umo –– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I listed this article on the Good Article nominations page and the reviewer has yet to promote it (or even respond to the changes I made that he/she suggested). The last comments he/she made were on March 2. It's now the 20th. I left a message on their talk page but I never got a response. I then contacted an administrator who responded on my talk page and told me to wait a little longer. It's been a week and still no response from the nominator. Do I need to renominate this article for someone else to pass it or is there some other protocol for this kind of problem? It's just frustrating waiting this long because I nominated this article in January. What do I do in order to get this officially listed as a good article? // Gbern3 (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, WT:GAN is the best place for this. I have copied the above to WT:Good article nominations#Napoleon and Tabitha D'umo. I have left a talkback on the reviewer's talk page directing them to that discussion.

Sex segregation

Discussion moved

 – to WT:WikiProject Gender Studies#sex segregation –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Sex segregation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This request for dispute regards the article Sex segregation. An editor has taken a recent version and reverted the article back to an earlier version written three months ago without consensus. I discussed this on the discussion page and reverted back to the version that was the article beforehand so that discussion could commence. I disagreed with this editors reversion. The other editor again reverted the article back to the one from three months ago, without discussion or consensus. Please help! Marshallsumter (talk) 03:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, Marshallsumter added a whole lot of material which is nothing to do with sex segregation, and then complained when it was removed. Additional editors would be very welcome. I have already asked for assistance from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender Studies. DJ Clayworth (talk) 03:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool! Why didn't you discuss your ideas for cutting first? Marshallsumter (talk) 04:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I have commented on the article talk page and suggested that if the editors cannot achieve WP:Consensus there, they enlist help from WT:WikiProject Gender Studies or rais a WP:RfC. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for stopping by! Like DJ Clayworth (talk) I've also left some comments at WT:WikiProject Gender Studies. I'm not sure if NPOV is the problem but I have looked at WP:RfC. If experts text can be cut arbitrarily perhaps the problem is closer to that which Melchoir had to deal with. But, I am puzzled. DJ Clayworth (talk) has performed many edits and apparently added text to a number of articles as have I, and we both left our four ~, unlike the previous similar problem. So, if appropriate, and for the purpose of attempting to reach a consensus rather than allowing the latest reversion to stand, let me ask: what is it DJ Clayworth (talk) doesn't understand about sex segregation that creates the conclusion that text from experts on sex segregation and its origins and occurrences has nothing to do with sex segregation? Or, should we continue our reversion war? Marshallsumter (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

If you start a reversion war, you will get blocked. If you wish to know what DJ Clayworth doesn't understand, then ask them on the article talk page. I'm not a mind reader, so I can't help with that. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. I do not wish the reversion war to continue (I didn't start it either.) but leaving the current version suggests agreement which is clearly not there. Also, I am puzzled by something else. There is a web site http://www.dweec.com/dweecs.htm which lists DJ Clayworth. While I only know what I just read, and cannot attest to its objectivity, may I suggest that you revert the article and lock it and if need be block both of us until discussion begins. I will copy my comments above to the discussion page. Locking in the current version may also be unjustified and not NPOV, while blocking either of us may also not be NPOV. A bit of a dilemma. Marshallsumter (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, a discussion has started at WT:WikiProject Gender Studies#sex segregation, so this request can be closed as moved. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Losing

Resolved

 – –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The article Losing has been vandalised; it needs to be reverted to the 18 December 2009 version. I don't know the best way to do this. John of Reading (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted and warned the vandal. You can find out more about fighting vandalism at Wikipedia:Vandalism. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I see it now - view the old version, then click "Edit page" to see that version's source, then save. John of Reading (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal Policy

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Shall I go ahead and be bold and remove unreliable sources, or should I consult first on the talk page?

Thanks. ManasShaikh (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The best policy, in my opinion, is to tag them, {{Dubious}} is good for unreliable sources, start a discussion on the talk page. If you can work out from the article history who added them, leave a note on their talk page, stating your concerns in a neutral manner, and invite them to discuss on the article talk page. WP:Template messages/Cleanup has a selection of templates, both in-line and messages for sections or whole articles. Inline are best to note specific problems. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a ton. Especially for the template page.ManasShaikh (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Entry on Wikipedia - who did it

Answered

 – –– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Hi,

Above is a link that we got a Google Alert for. Apparently someone entered a Wikipedia page on our company without our knowledge or permission - we did not do it. Wikipedia deleted it as advertisement, which is understandable - we only found out about with a Google Alert regarding the deletion.

We would like to know if there is a way that we can find out who posted this?!?! When was it posted?

Can you take this page down altogether? This was copyright information.

Or do you suggest that we edit it to say that the original post was done without our permission?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjhelms (talk • contribs) 18:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You've raised two or three issues. I'll address the couple I'm comfortable with and let someone else cover the others, or fill in details on what will be a detail-free comment. First - you should understand that (for better or for worse), you haven't got much say in whether there is a Wikipedia article about you or your company. If your company is sufficiently "notable" - a Wikipedia term of art meaning, roughly, that you've been the subject of a good bit of third party coverage - then that coverage may form the basis of an article here. Further, *all* information in the article needs to come from third party sources like that. It can get a little sticky when third parties consistently report something that you, on the inside, are not really in agreement with - but it makes more sense when you realize that in its way, Wikipedia is just a distillation of what reliable sources say on a subject. Okay, that's one. Two - an exception to the foregoing is if copyrighted material is involved. Wikipedia is very, very strict about not reproducing copyrighted material. It can be, should be, removed on sight. All of this may be moot, at least for now, because the article about your company has been deleted - it can't be viewed publicly and for all practical purposes it is now as though it was never there. There's nothing for you to do and nothing for you to worry about (as to that deleted article anyhow). Finally, as to who posted it - I think that's available, but it would take some nosing around, and at the end of the day you might not have anything to identify the author but a cryptic user name or an IP address. JohnInDC (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)To be honest, I would do nothing. No one needs permission from anyone to post an article on Wikipedia - if the subject meets the inclusion criteria (WP:CORP in this case) and doesn't violate any other policy or guideline (WP:SPAM or WP:COPYVIO for example), it will stay. However if the article doesn't establish notability or does violate a policy or guideline, it will be deleted sooner or later, that's the way Wikipedia works. – ukexpat (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)