Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 73

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Does this picture violate copyright?

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

As I was working today, I noticed File:MayesColin CPC.jpg. In the section regarding the summary and permissions of the file, it was put down as the "Government of Canada".

In previous discussions, there has been some confusion on the policy regarding pictures of MPs and whether pictures from the Parliamentary website and copyright protected or public domain.

Would it be possible for an editor to help sort this out, and delete the file above if it violates the policy?

Bkissin (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't find that picture via google image search for Colin Mayes. Photos on the government website are copyright. For example his government profile (here) says "© Members photographs. The House of Commons holds the copyright on official photographs of Members, including those reproduced in composite photographs. Reproduction of the images is for non-commercial use only and images must be credited as House of Commons, following receipt of written permission." - Pointillist (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

File:MayesColin CPC.jpg is very similar to the image at The Parliament of Canada website, which is marked copyright. I have found only one other web instance of this picture on 123people.com, where it is attributed to Wikipedia. You could ask about it at WP:Copyright questions or nominate it at WP:Possibly unfree files. I have left a note on the uploader's talk page, but they haven't edited since September 2008. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Digital video history

Resolved

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The history section of Digital video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) had been entirely overwritten by what seems to be a version from 2007, based on a comment from that time on the discussion page that pointed out several factual errors I had also noticed. Given the inaccuracy of the edit and that it removed all the information and edits spanning a number of years, I reverted the section and noted my reasons on the discussion page. My reversion was reverted, with no comment in the edit history or discussion as to why. I'm not much schooled in the ways of Wikipedia, but recognized the futility of trying to revert again, and thus this request for assistance. 98.202.51.77 (talk) 04:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted and placed a warning on the IP's talk page. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories Please Help!!

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Greetings! I have been having a lengthy debate in the discussion page for 9/11 conspiracy theories. I have been having troubles gaining any sort of consensus or agreement with the editor OpenFuture. It is really a simple edit that I want to do. I will try to make the argument simple.

In the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, in the section titled World Trade Center Collapse, I found a portion of text that I believed to be biased. The paragraph is the third in the section and goes like this: "The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has rejected the theory and the NIST and many mainstream scientists refuse to debate conspiracy theorists to avoid giving them unwarranted credibility.^[1] Specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering generally accept the model of a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.^[2]^[3]^[4]

The first statement is a cherry picked statement from the source. If you actually click the source and read the article, the article is about contrasting the mainstream POV with the group scholars for 9/11 truth, which goes on to state that they are a tiny majority of scientists who consider it the job of the scholar to always question that which has been told to us.

I wanted to include that text, which would balance out the idea that the mainstream scientists/NIST refuse to debate the 'conspiracy theorists' by mentioning that there is a minority of scientists who question the official findings (this is a minority viewpoint article, so it is not undue to give the minority viewpoint).

This suggestion was shot down repeatedly by OpenFuture. Every single possible reason that you can imagine was given.

To make things absolutely simple, here is the text as is:

"The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has rejected the theory and the NIST and many mainstream scientists refuse to debate conspiracy theorists to avoid giving them unwarranted credibility.^[5] Specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering generally accept the model of a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.^[2]^[3]^[4]

And here is what I want to change it to so as to enhance neutrality:

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Popular Mechanics have examined and rejected the theory. Specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering generally accept the model of a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.^[2]^[6]^[7] However, a current petition signed by more than a 1,000 architects and engineers states that they question the results of NIST investigation, and calls for a new investigation.^[8]^[9]^[10] Mojokabobo (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

So you can ask for a WP:Third opinion or raise a request for comment - however this whole subject is so emotive that it is likely that would attract lots of people who want to post their POV. I am sorry but I don't have a neat answer for you. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, but I believe the third opinion option isn't applicable in this situation, as there are multiple editors involved, and is not between merely two editors. Mojokabobo (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

So try an WP:RfC, I see a lot of point of view pushing there and little rational argument. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Image upload assistance

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

CAN SOMEONE RECOMEND A GOOD WIKI EDITER TO HELP WITH MY BIO- OF A LIVING PERSON DJFLASH I WOULD LIKE TO ADD SOME PHOTOS...THANKS.. DJ FLASH —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflash1957 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you and the subject of the article the same person? You might want to give a quick look at the conflict of interest guidelines! JohnInDC (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

And there is no need to SHOUT! – ukexpat (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is a correct link to the article in question: DJ Flash. Astronaut (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Uploading an image is the least of the problems. The article suffers from a lack of reliable sourcing. Despite claims of notability, the provided external links and listed references are on unreliable sites like blogs, youtube, and social networking sites. I suggest you address that problem as a matter of urgency, before seeking to add an image and before the article is listed at Articles for Deletion. Astronaut (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Jajce & Alija Izetbegovic

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I would like an experienced editor or admin to see the pages Jajce and Alija Izetbegović and judge whether the sourced information that was removed by user Rochass is justified.

On the Jajce article, he removed a cited statement about a church being destroyed even though it is cited and there is even a picture of the demolished church. He claims it is irrelevant information while it is very much relevant: there is a paragraph on the Bosnian War and this very much falls into that category.

As for the Izetbegovic article, he: 1) removed historical information (the original birth country), 2) changed "Bosnian mujahideen" for "Arab Volunteers" when there is already an article on the former, 3) removed two "citation needed" notices, 4) removed a quote by Richard Holbrooke, US Envoy, about the issue of the aforementionned Bosnian mujahideen, 5) Added "Serb Nationalists" as those who petitioned the ICTY to indict Izetbegovic so as to make it seem unjustified when in reality he died before the investigation ended.

I have tried to discuss these issues on his talk page but he does not wish to participate in a dialogue and simply reverts my edits. I don't wish to get into a full fledged edit war and that is why I would like an administrator to take a look at the issue. Thank you in advance for your help! :) Paperoverman (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the article name above, you appear to have missed the accents in the name Izetbegović. I see that you have not used the talk pages of the articles as pointed out by User:Rochass. That is the first and best place to discuss article content. I note that the source you used in Jajce, The Information Service of the Serbian Orthodox Church [1], appears to not be a reliable source. Your additions to the articles appear to be written from a very one-sided perspective, not from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not a place to fight over the ethnic and religious wars of the 1990s. I note that User:Rochass has also apparently edited in a less than neutral manner. Both of you are edit warring and both are likely to get blocked if this carries on. I really don't see what the point of this type of behaviour is. I have advised User:Rochass of this discussion. I would say to both of your, please stop using Wikipedia to push points of view. Discussing by using edit summaries is not good practice. Please lay out concerns that you have with content in a calm and neutral manner, assume good faith and work with other editors to achive consensus. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

As you might have seen on his talk page, I stopped editing both pages at one moment because I want to avoid an edit war and tried to talk to him on his talk page but he has not responded. I am not pushing my point of view. The statement about the church in Jajce precedes me and was removed by Rochass for no apparent reason, and I simply thought it best to just leave it (I didn't edit that statement in any way). If there is a paragraph on the Bosnian war, that is relevant. As for the source, although it is Serbian, it remains an official organization and more importantly, there is a clear picture of the sight.

As for the Izetbegovic article, I simply added material that was relevant to the presidency. For me, Wikipedia should be transparent as can be and nobody should have special treatment. As I pointed out to Rochass, if Tudjman's and Milosevic's page are going to talk about their screw ups, so should Izetbegovic's. My source was from a show on PBS and it comes directly from Richard Holbrooke. Rochass changed Bosnian mujahideen for "Arab volunteers" even though there is an article on the former. He also happens to remove historically important facts such as the country of birth of Izetbegovic.

Like I mentionned, I stopped editing these articles after Rochass' last edits and tried to discuss it with him on his talk page but he has not gotten back. My attempt at dialogue was rejected and therefore, I came here to discuss the situation. Thank you in advance to those who take a look at the issue. Paperoverman (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said above try using the article talk page for a discussion, that is better than individual talk pages. This in fact was suggested by User:Rochass when you posted on their talkp page. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but it seems that Paperoverman had no valid argument for destroying structure of well-written article, so he didn't use talk page of those articles. Rochass (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Have I provided reasonable advice here?

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I came across the controversy surrounding Dov Lior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). In particular, I was concerned about the neutrality and verifiability of the article's controversies section and the suggestions of "Zionist pressure to hide the truth" on the talk page. I hope I have struck a reasonable balance in the guidance I provided on the talk page, and hopefully this has resulted in balance in the article's controversies section. Any additional guidance would be appreciated. Astronaut (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like very good advice to me. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Chelo61

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Chelo61 has been editing Wikipedia since 2008. However, he/she seems to have a terrible habit of recreating articles that have been deleted through consensus. He seems to either not know/ignoring the multiple notices on his page. He has also been banned on several occasions. I bring this to the attention of other editors because I am unable to begin an RfC without a secondary editor to help talk to Chelo. I've already tried twice to talk with him. But to no avail. Phearson (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It is difficult trying to have a discussion with someone who doesn't respond. I have added a note to User talk:Chelo61. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

towns and villages names

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Rokarudi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) insist to change the name of the town adding the name in Hungarian even if this action is wrong. He modify the right panel from where some sites use the name of the villages and towns (eg. http://wikimapia.org ) and so misinform people. User:Rokarudi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) say that his modifications are based on Romanian law which say that villages and towns with a population of other nationalities more than 20% have to type on the local entrance sign under the Romanian name the name of village or town in the language of that nationality. But this law do not modify the name of village or town. The law don't change even one document of that village or town.

In entire Wikipedia the other names of villages and towns are written in the first paragraph of the article in brackets and not in the right panel. In the Romanian Version of the article, the name of the town is written in right panel as Sărmaşu. Please verify.

To reinforce my idea I give the example of London. In Romanian the name for London is Londra. I think that no one pretend to write London-Londra in the main article of London.

More than that, in Romania, especial in Transylvania, the relation between Romanians and Hungarians who live here is a delicate subject because of their attempts to obtain an autonomous region in the current territory of Romania and because recent Student Union of Hungarians in Cluj-Napoca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has requested that street names in Cluj-Napoca to be written both in Romanian and Hungarian. These things create dissension.

Dicocodino (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me that the use of the other name in the infobox as

|official_name=Sărmaşu

|other_name=Nagysármás

is fine. Lots of on-line sources give the Hungarian name as well as the Romanian name, this is common in countries with more than one language, e.g. Cardiff also given as Caerdydd; Bilbao also known as Bilbo; Kiev also Kyiv; Dublin, also known as Baile Átha Cliath. I don't see what the problem is. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that Romania have a single language: Romanian. And no, not many on-line sources give the Hungarian name as well as the Romanian name. Everywhere in Romania the names of the places have just Romanian name, except the situation of law that I explained above which is valid just for the Signboard and for nothing else. Please verify this. Thank you! Dicocodino (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia and it is not governed by Romanian law. I see no problem with giving alternate names which are in common usage [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. I suggest that you stop trying to push your WP:POV on this article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that is not governed by a Country law. Please give me more example from Romanian Press, Romanian Official documents and more others. Here is the town hall web page and I think that it say much more than yours examples: [8]. There is no English version, but you could use Google Translate even if it's not very good. Your first two examples are from a University Website. There are many Universities in Romania that have sections for Hungarian, French and English people. It's fine to have a dedicated part in Website. The third do not even have a Romanian page, the fourth is a association (it's like a Romanian would go in Great Britain and he make there a association to promote London), the fifth is the same as the third, and the last one it's probably a personal page without Romanian words (I can make a domain domain.nl and write on it's page in any language about any country). What you don't understand is that there are between 20% and 30% Hungarian population in Transylvania, but they do not have the right to change places name. The problem with what I came was that someone add the other name in the Infobox knowing that if the name is added there, it will appear on every site which use that informations. I will give you more example: [9] (Cluj-Napoca Hall website, Cluj-Napoca is the main city of Transylvania; Please be patient and see that is no other name in the Cluj-Napoca's Infobox, just in the first paragraph of the article), [10] (Romanian Guvernment page have no Hungarian section), [11] (Romanian Parliament Website have Romanian, English and French sections), [12] (Evenimentul_Zilei which is one of the most read newspaper in Romania have no Hungarian translation). Even Cluj-Napoca Hungarian Opera seem to not have an Hungarian translation: [13]. To be more clearly, I'm repeating me: The problem is that through Infobox it's easy to misinform if someone want this. I ask that names in other languages to be written just in the first paragraph where can be clearly specified that the name is in another language. It does not look creep that just small articles about Romanian villages and towns have the name in Hungarian written in Infobox and that a single user do this? Dicocodino (talk) 02:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's common practice that relevant alternative names (and as 24% of the population of Sărmaşu, the village Dicocodino referred to, is Hungarian speaking, that's relevant by WP:NCGN standards) are mentioned in the first line of the article, and also in the infobox. See for instance Woluwe-Saint-Pierre, Aosta, Montreal, Leeuwarden, Bautzen. I don't think the names Wikimapia uses are related to Wikipedia articles. See for instance the name Wikimapia uses for Mediaş: "Mediaş - Mediasch". The German name Mediasch is not in the infobox of the Wikipedia article. Markussep ^Talk 08:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. But it's no longer valid what you've said here: User_talk:Rokarudi#Hungarian_names? I refer to the third paragraph; more exactly this statement: "only for places with a large minority and not in the infobox". Dicocodino (talk) 10:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That remark was about towns named in the article about the river Mureş, see Rokarudi's version, not about what names to use in articles about those towns. Markussep ^Talk 11:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, which bit of Infoboxes should generally be headed with the article title, and include these alternate names. The formal version of a name (Republic of Montenegro at Montenegro for a header) can be substituted for it; extensive historic names are often better in a second infobox, as at Augsburg., from WP:NCGN are you not clear about? –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

One more question and then the problem is solved. It wouldn't be better if the language of the name would be specified in Infobox as in the article Woluwe-Saint-Pierre? Jezhotwells what you do not understand is that the alternate name is neither a formal version nor a historical one. It is just the name in another language as Londra (Romanian) is for London (English) or Lisbon (English) is for Lisboa (Portuguese). I apologize if I seemed aggressive to you. Markussep know the problem about what I talked. Dicocodino (talk) 12:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

In a way the Hungarian name is a historical one, as it used to be part of the Kingdom of Hungary. Anyway, if you read WP:NCGN completely, you'll see that general guideline nr. 2, second bullet explains what are relevant foreign names. Adding the languages like in the Woluwe example wouldn't be my preference, IMO it's clear from the lead which language is which. Markussep ^Talk 12:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

OK. I just want to say for general knowledge that current Hungarian name is not a historical one. I remember that I read a billboard exposed in local high school where were all names from 1329 to today and there wasn't typed Nagisarmas. I'll try to make a picture if I'll be allowed. The first name of the town was Terra nobilium de Swk Sarmas in the time of Louis_I_of_Hungary. The problem is solved. Thank you for your patience. Dicocodino (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

See this map from around 1910, when the area was part of Hungary: Kolozs county. Nagysármás is in the brown area in the eastern part of the county. Markussep ^Talk 14:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The map is a Hungarian source. Do you think that Romania write the names of places in other language than Romanian? Or Greece, or Germany or any other country? Do you think that Romanians write Budapest (Hungarian name) in change of Budapesta (Romanian name)? Wikipedia is a Hungarian encyclopedia or a World encyclopedia?! (rhetorical question) What about this map then: [14]? But I don't want to continue. I see that you can't gives other examples than from Hungarian sources. I'm sorry for this try and thank you again for your patience. Have a nice wiki. :) Dicocodino (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Please accept that your point of view is not shared by other editors. Obviously the addition of the Hungarian name in the infobox upsets you. I ask you to consider whether this is worth having a row about - it would be, in my opinion, a good idea to assume good faith and focus on adding information about the history of the town, geography, trade, etc. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a map made for the Hungarian government in 1910, that might be a reliable source for a Hungarian name, right? You claimed that Nagysármás was not a historical name, this map shows that the Hungarian government, that ruled this part of the world in 1910, called it Nagysármás then. Case closed. Markussep ^Talk 19:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Matthew Arnold

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Biographies addition, insert in order of publication date

Matthew Arnold : Poet and Prophet, A.L.Rowse, pub.Thames and Hudson, London (1976)

aromagAromag (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Umm, you could add the information yourself, or place it on the article talk page. I have placed some links about editing Wikipedia on your talk page. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Chinese Overseas Movement of Advanced Culture

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sir's/Madam's

It has recently come to my attention that the page I had put up several years ago has been removed due to what is called (disambiguation). My page was there for several years prior to the new page, how does this work can I challenge this decision, what do I need to do if my page was there before others came along.

Regards Gordon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Critical1 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 19 March 2010

This page has been deleted twice, in April 2007 and April 2009, as something that did not indicate the notability of the subject - it is a little late to challenge this now! If you wish the content from the latest deletion moved to your user space, please contact the deleting administrator User:KillerChihuahua. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is my edit?

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Why was my edit to the article "Race Against Time: Searching for Hope in AIDS-Ravaged Africa" deleted and where is it if

Do not despair: none of the information on a "deleted" page has actually been lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.171.119.133 (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hungary–Slovakia_relations

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Can some editor have a look at the above page and decide whether or not a POV tag is warranted. See also the discussion page and especially the last items, and the reactions of some Hungarian nationalists/extremists. Several times a tag was added, the article is absolutely not encycopaedic, but written very accusingly in many parts, so far from neutral and many parts should not be there at all, but should be in the page of the (Slovak) extremist Jan Slota and not copied there. Any POV or Bias tag has been added, it has been immediately removed by Hungarian nationalists. I understand that they are angry on Slota, but Wikipedia is not the place to fight such wars ! Knorrepoes (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

What a mess. I have posted on WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Hungary–Slovakia relations which may be the best venue to raise concerns. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Aga Twyford

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

How on earth can I talk to the editor who seems to think my pefectly reasoable insert into an affilated company website should not be included ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iannorman (talk • contribs) 19:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You have talked to me already on my talk page? Teapotgeorge^Talk 19:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::As you appear to have a conflict of interest you should read those guidelines (follow the blue link) before adding material to the article. Continual additions of the link may be considered as edit warring and may result in a report to admins. I have posted links to this discussion on the article talk page and on User talk:Teapotgeorge. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Article: U.S. Air Force Aircraft Control & Warning Squadrons

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I wish too make an addition to the list of the subject squadrons, as one very important one has been omitted from the list; that being the 683rd AC&W Squadron located at Avenger Field in Sweetwater, Texas. During World War two Avenger Field was the Headquarters of the Women's Auxiliary Service Pilots (WASP) training division. The 683rd AC&W Squadron began operation in early 1956 and continued in service until 1962. It was instrumental in assisting a badly disabled U.S. Air Force B-47 Bomber by guiding it to a safe landing at Dyess AFB, Abilene Texas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harkie37 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I found a reference and added the 683rd to the article List of United States Air Force aircraft control and warning squadrons. I have also left some useful information about editing Wikipedia on your talk page. If you have veriable information about the 683rd, you may want to consider creating an article on them. Check out the links on your talk page to see how to go about doing this. You could start an article in your WP:user space and then ask for someone to review it. Welcome to Wikipedia. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

How to correct an article title?

Resolved

– – ukexpat (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Where the title of an article is the name of a person, and it is found to be incorrect, how can the title be fixed? WCCasey (talk) 07:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

If the title of an article needs to be changed, it can be moved. Please note that any move should be discussed for a reasonable period on the article talk page. If you are a new user and have not made many edits, you can request a move at WP:Requested moves. Or if you post the article name here, I can have a look. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I should add that in the case of names of people, some reference to verifiable reliable sources would be needed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Try reading WP:TITLE for some general guidelines that will, hopefully, help you.--Supertouch (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm following the advice of Jezhotwells. I placed a comment on the talk page for the article, explaining that the article will eventually be moved/renamed. Thanks for the help. WCCasey (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

please delete defamatory term about me from bio

Resolved

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Done no idea how that could stay there for so long. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It happens. – ukexpat (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

STOPzilla - Requesting an editor's help in dealing with listing

Answered

– – ukexpat (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I am a representative of STOPzilla, and I need help working with the information that is being displayed on the Wikipedia page about our product.

Currently there are lies about the product being a "rogue" application, that is being backed up by forums that have been seeded with negative entries.

I need to find out how to lock the page down, with a neutral entry.

Thanks

Jim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Is3-stopzilla (talk • contribs) 16:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The page will not be "locked down" unless there is clear evidence of current and continuing vandalism. This does not appear to be vandalism, but a content dispute that should be discussed on the article's talk page. Note that "discussion" does not mean blanking the talk page as you have previously done. You should also read WP:COI before you go any further. And please note that your user name is in breach of the user name policy. – ukexpat (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is my edit? [2]

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hare Kṛṣṇa. Can you offer me an answer to why was my edit to the article "Race Against Time: Searching for Hope in AIDS-Ravaged Africa" deleted and where is it if the statement on "Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?" which says '...Do not despair: none of the information on a "deleted" page has actually been lost....' is true? ( Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can you tell me where it is, so I can post it separately. I have considered that someone may have objected to my edit's relevence to the subject specifically referred to by the title of the article.

My edit is an important post and is an offer to Kṛṣṇa, and addresses the issue the article's content discusses; it is a solution to that issue.

Hare bol

bhakta Giridhari —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.171.252.133 (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2010

Well,I have looked through the article history and cannot identify an edit by your IP address 58.171.119.133. This may be because you didn't actually save the edit. The only edit you have made as 58.171.119.133 is the first post above and this post, as 58.171.252.133. You appear to be using a dynamic IP address so, it is hard to keep track of edits. Also please note that the main page article is subject to heavy vandalism so anything that looks like vandalism is reverted very quickly. You might like to consider getting an account and reading up on Wikipedia policies before rushing in to edit something. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

`

One-word translation guess needed

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't found an appropriate place to post this question. I just Englishified an already-translated article, but one word used by the translator doesn't make sense to me and I can't figure out the correct English word. Probably from German, is my guess. If someone is fluent in German, could you take a look at Talk:Shooting_Star_(Modern_Talking_song)#Help_translating.3F; thanks! (OR suggest a better place to post this; the big translation assistance pages didn't seem appropriate). (sorry, if not too much trouble, could you add a note to my talk page if you respond here? My watchlist is too full--) Elf | Talk 16:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I think taht you would be best off asking one of the editors listed at WP:Translators available#German-to-English. I have placed a talkback on your page, note that requests are answered here for the benefit of all. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Aid in resolving possible edit war

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Them Crooked Vultures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The fundamental argument is over what defines an 'Associated Act' on wikipedia. Numerous edits have been made by myself and several other users (the principal opposer being User:Koavf) and I believe I've broken the 3RR rule over the course of the dispute. I've made two posts in Talk:Them Crooked Vultures#Associated Acts section expressing my understanding of the situation which I'll briefly go through here.

The initial two Associated Acts, as maintained by User:Koavf are Queens of the Stone Age and Eagles of Death Metal, with the following Infobox added:-

This field is for professional relationships with other musicians or bands that are significant and notable to this artist's career. The following uses of this field should be avoided: * Groups with only one member in common. Please do not add Led Zeppelin, Foo Fighters, Scream, Kyuss, Probot, or Nirvana. Homme and Grohl have participated in QOTSA and Homme and Johannes were in Eagles of Death Metal.

The first issue I took with this is that band member Alain Johannes has never participated in Eagles of Death Metal 'proper', thus removing their notability from the Associated Acts in that aspect (though arguments could be made for other reasoning). This isn't my major issue, though.

In the rules over at {{Infobox musical artist}}, it states This field is for professional relationships with other musicians or bands that are significant and notable to this artist's career. It's suitably vague and lists only examples after it. Hence the basic opposing views myself and User:Koavf have; I state that there would be no Them Crooked Vultures without Led Zeppelin and Foo Fighters. It was band member John Paul Jones' presence in Zeppelin that is of influence to fellow Them Crooked Vultures' participant Dave Grohl. To use an example, it'd be like not mentioning The Beatles in the Associated Acts section for Wings. As such Led Zeppelin are infinitely more significant to the formation of Them Crooked Vultures than Eagles of Death Metal. Likewise, Foo Fighters also earn their place for their notable involvement in the creation of this band. Not only is it the most well known band of Dave Grohl's career, with them he's collaborated with John Paul Jones on several occasions culminating in them both forming this seperate band.

It's the rigidity with which User:Koavf is comprehending the rules for Associated Acts that I'm taking issue with, as the initial infobox should never have been added. Red1 5 7 20:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Well you have been discussing on the talk page, which is good. I suggest that you could ask for input from WT:WikiProject Rock music and / or raise a WP:RfC. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

BENLD, IL

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This question is about a town in Illinois, called Benld.

The explanation for the strange name as given in Wikipedia is that one Ben L Dorsey used his furst name and the initials to name the town.

I had been to this town and learnt the following genesis of the name. In earlier days there used to be a railroad passing through this town. Ben L Dorsey was the station superintendent and had a board standing at the station

BEN L DORSEY STATION SUPERINETENDENT

During a storm the board got cracked in such a way that the fault went between D and O in the first line and between two words (Station and Siperintendent)in the seonc line. That board stood for quite some time and travellers read it as

BEN L D STATION

and then all thought that the name of the station was BENLD and that name stuck to the place.

I thouhgt that this explanation suits more for the name of the place and is quite interesting.

Would it be possible to confirm this one way or the other and if story as told me is correct, the correction be introduced?

Skelkar2105 (talk) 08:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Shriniwas Kelkar, Pune, India

Hi, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous is the best place to ask about this. As for the article we only use verifiable information from reliable sources. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Removing hold and Uploading Professor Ayysawmy's profile/article onto wikipedia

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam: Professor Ayysawamy is renowned expert in the areas of fluid mechanics and heat transfer. He has won several national and international level awards. In particular, he has won Heat Transfer Memorial Award from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) the highest award ASME bestows on individual for his/her contributions in the area of heat transfer. If you need third party reference you can contact Dean Vijay K. Dhir at UCLA and Dr. Arunava Mazumdar Director ARPA-E. Both are on the list of notable Indian academicians. Other names include Professor Avedsian at Cornell University.

About My self: I am Dr. N. K. Anand, Professor and Interim Executive Associate Dean of Engineering at Texas A&M University. I am an ASME Fellow and has served as an Associate Editor ASME Journal of Heat Transfer. I can be contacted at <contact details redacted>. My accomplishments can be found at: http://www2.mengr.tamu.edu/FacultyProfiles/facultyinformation.asp?LastName=nkAnand I request you to remove hold on my article on Professor Ayyssawamy and upload onto Wikipedia.

Editor's name who has put a hold is: Bradjamesbrown

Thank you in advance for your consideration. NK —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkanand (talk • contribs) 19:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The notice at the top of the submitted article at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/P.S. Ayyaswamy reads:

Review is On Hold.

A reviewer has looked at this submission, but input from the contributor and/or other editors is needed before this article can be created. Visit our live chat for assistance with your article! The reviewer left the following comment:

I'd like some third-party (independent) sources, but he does appear to meet WP:PROF.

If the issues are not resolved within 24 hours, this request may be declined. If this happens the request can be resubmitted later.

So you need to either use the live chat facility or contact User talk:Bradjamesbrown. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have used Wikipedia as a reference tool for years. Last night I thought I would like to add to the Wikipedia page on the area that I live Llanrumney.

It contained a sub-headed passage on School Reorganisation.

It incorrectly stated that Llanrumney High School would close in 2014.

I then edited the piece with neutrality written text that was referenced by 11 references from sources such as the BBC Wales News Online, The South Wales Echo and Cardiff Council.

Almost immediately Welshleprechaun edited what I had written and he openly questioned whether what I had written was notable or had any relevance.

Throughout today we have gone back and for and they have stated that I must move the text from the Llanrumney page.

The factual correct information that I wrote about included details about refurbishing Llanrumney's Eastern Leisure Centre, the building on parkland, Llanrumney's first ever local community poll held under the provisions of the 1972 Local Government Act

I fear that Welshleprechaun is seeking to censor coverage of these obvious important and historic events in the life of the Llanrumney community.

I have sought, as befits an Encyclopedia, to write without a trace of bias even though Welshleprechaun has accussed me of this.

Please will you offer me some advice. I feel as though, as a new user, I am being intimidated by somebody who does not want me posting text on the Llanrumney page.

(Bluebirds27 (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC))

A third opinion request is listed at Wikipedia:Third opinion, so see who turns up at the article talk page. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Power abuse

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This wikipedia user Daydreamer198 thought she owns every articles related to kpop fandom. She even uploaded illegal images and keeps editing articles according to her preferences. Please warning her. Thanks. --87.192.101.246 (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to report another editor you should first try talking directly to them on their talk (discussion) page or on the article talk page. If you believe that they have uploaded copyrighted images without the correct licensing then you could ask them about it, and if you receive no satisfactory response, then you can initiate a discussion at WP:Possibly unfree files. All of this is a lot easier if you get an account. I have placed some useful links on your IP talk page. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

deletion of islandinfo article

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I posted an article a few days ago named as "islandinfo". I want to create the article again but without any errors so that my article doesn't get deleted again. What should I do? Thanks for helping.

Mauritius in your hands (talk) 11:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Create it in your WP:user space as a sub-page of User:Abhikerl, such as User:Abhikerl/Island Info - but, now I see you have put it onto your user page already.

Well, unless you can find some veriable and reliable third party sources. I wouldn't bother. The tone of your draft is not neutral, it appears to be very promotional. Try reading What Wikipedia is not. The publication does not appear to meet our notability guidelines and if you put it into mainspace, it will surely be swiftly deleted. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Appearance of Wikipedia on screen

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I have had this problem for some time now, when using WikiEd, the edit summary field appears to the far right necessitating that scroll over several screen widths to enter a summary and then scroll back to press save. This is also a problem with HotCat—almost always, at least one of the "add" buttons appears to the far right of the screen along with some of the listed categories making it difficult the gadget. My screen resolution is 1280 by 800 on a MacBook. I contacted the user who maintained WikiEd but he could not re-create the problem. Thanks in advance. (I cut and pasted this from Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2010 March 18 as no one responded.)--Supertouch (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't help as I am not a Mac user. Perhaps if you choose editors from the Category:Wikipedians who use wikEd lists you may find some help. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality issue...

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Studios Architecture

After seeing this page have a neutrality dispute for over 2 years I decided to rewrite the text completely and accurately. I see nothing in the description that is biased or inaccurate especially after extensively reviewing other comparable architect's pages.

Thank you for your review. Archifrench (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It is better now, certainly, still doesn't actually say much about the firm, just lists the awards, however. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this page "blatant advertising"?

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I've been a loyal user of Wikipedia for years, but a "new" user who just began to create pages here. I added an article on Mar.22 which was deleted soon for the reason "Speedy deleted per CSD G11, was blatant advertising, used only to promote someone or something." Actually, I checked similar articles and was very careful to make my edition unbiased. So I was a little confused now.

Jolykay

There is nothing there to establish the notability of this software. That is probably why it was deleted. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Extracts from deletion log:

11:15, March 22, 2010 Ckatz (talk | contribs) deleted "WinX DVD Ripper Platinum" ‎ (Speedy deleted per CSD G11, was blatant advertising, used only to promote someone or something.)
02:09, December 23, 2009 Ckatz (talk | contribs) deleted "WinX DVD Ripper Platinum" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

– ukexpat (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Jake Bernstein edit war

Jake Bernstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There seems to be an edit war going on on the Jake Bernstein article. This was, originally, a long article that seemed to be primarily self-promotion of Bernstein. A few paragraphs were added citing some of the critics of Bernsteins methods, including an article in Forbes and a link to a circuit court opinion, and deletion of most of the self promotional material from the article. These changes, including the citations to Forbes and the circuit court, have been deleted. In one case, not only were the changes in the article itself deleted, but all references to these changes were deleted from the talk page as well. The "POV" tag was also removed. I've been editing on the side of deleting the self-promotional material, and keeping in the citations critical of Bernstein. I'm about to drop out of this edit war, though; I think it's getting tedious. Maybe the whole article should just be deleted; the main reason this guy is notable seems to be that an article in Forbes was written about him. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I have added some tags to point up the most obvious shortcomings. I suggest WP:Afd it if nothing much happens in the next two weeks. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Posting this complaint at the WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard might get results. The COIN editors are familiar with this type of issue. The article is highly over-promotional as it stands now. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

What a mess. I would suggest that it be taken back to a one short paragraph stub and start over. – ukexpat (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Following the removal of a WP:PROD placed by me after cleanup tags were removed, I have nominated for AfD at WP:Articles for deletion/Jake Bernstein. It appears that the primary editor, User:Thor1964 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has a conflict of interest. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

need help to understand what I did

Answered

– I think –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I was reading abt College Hill Ohio and there was a red link to Ohio Military Institute . I got a user account So I tried to add a bit of history to this page with a link to the the Ohio Military Institute page I created . Now there is no red on the college hill page to my pagwhat did I do wrong ??? thanks Evan Evietheham (talk) 02:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You must have been reading College Hill, Cincinnati to which College Hill, Ohio is a redirect. This page has not been edited since February 10 so apparently you did not do anything to the page. I did not a page for the Ohio Military Institute, are you sure you created a page with that exact title?--Supertouch (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you did, you created the page on your user page. You can click on the red link in my previous post to create the page and then cut-and-paste the article from your userpage to that new page. In-line citation would improve the article...--Supertouch (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I don t know

I tried to make the page but I musta done something wrong as I said I guess I will have to learn more about editing It was red now its not with no link from one to the other Evietheham (talk) 03:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean Ohio Military Institute? – ukexpat (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No Article on Gerald Wealesq

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a frequent wikipedia user and I am having alot of trouble figuring out how or where to put a request for an article on Gerald Weales. He is an author. I stumbled upon him looking for information on plays so I assume he was a theater critic, during the sixties. Thanks! -Riley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.249.107.38 (talk) 10:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You can put in a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles. --Beloved Freak 14:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Bondurant's Pharmacy

Resolved

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I own Bondurant's Pharmacy in Lexington, KY. You can see a picture of my unique building on the Wiki page for Lexington, KY. There used to be a Wiki entry on my building but I recently noticed it had been removed. No explanation. An Administrator named The JPS removed it. I don't use Wiki much and am having a hard time figuring out how to contact someone about this. I hope you are able to assist me. I'd like my Bondurant's Pharmacy entry to be reinstated.

Thank you very much.

Ickyma (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It hasn't gone anywhere, I have placed a link to the artcile above. It could do with some referencing. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't this just be Bondurant Pharmacy? I don't see any need for the disambiguating parentheses. – ukexpat (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I have moved it to Bondurant's Pharmacy which is the correct name and added references. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive Edit War

Resolved

– page protected –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I have been having some trouble editing Dalit Voice. My edits are being reverted by an IP user 59.160.210.68. I asked him to discuss on the talk page before he makes any further edits.(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:59.160.210.68&oldid=351430006)

He responded by blanking my comments and reverting my edit using another IP. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dalit_Voice&oldid=351458152

I warned him that this is not a constructive approach. But he ignored the request to discuss before making any reverts.

It seems that this user was involved in a number of previous violations, and I suspect it is User:Hkelkar. Can the IP be blocked?

Thanks. ManasShaikh (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

(Update) The same IP was used to revert my edits of Kancha Iliah. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kancha_Ilaiah&action=historysubmit&diff=351338262&oldid=351267269

Also please pay attention to the edit summary, which has nothing to do with this article. ManasShaikh (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that you have reverted and warned, which is the correct procedure. If this continues then consider reporting the vandals at WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism and / or seeking page protection at WP:Requests for page protection. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This issue has already been raised in the talk page before. The fanatics have been trying to whitewash the Dalit Voice and it's endorsers for years (see Talk:Dalit_Voice#Category:Anti-semitic_publications). ManasSheikh is just the latest shill of Dalit Voice sent to pulverize the article. Next, he will target the Institute for Historical Review, a publication with views similar to Dalit Voice.117.194.197.31 (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

May I remind everyone of the neutral point of view, assume good faith and no personal attacks policies and guidelines. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jehtowells. Others involved, please follow the rules. If you think the edits are unjustified, discuss on the talk page. A request will be placed to semi-protect the page as the IPs involved are behind a DHCP. ManasShaikh (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations (album)

Answered

– notices placed, reverts of unsourced information continue –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This page was only recently semi-protected, and even since then, there have been numerous edits I have reverted, this is concerning the length of the songs. This album was not even released legit yet, and I've heard that people are getting this album information from torrents, but I refuse to take illegal action to confirm the information.

There are other arguments from the whoismgmt.com page where you can stream the album from there, but I do not see any time lengths attached to these songs, which leaves me to believe they are counting up these times themselves as original information. Why I have been reverting all this time, lengths actually differ from each other sometimes between edits.

I need an assistant to watch this page, or come up with a conclusion if possible. Thank You.--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 21:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It might help a little if you put a notice about this on the article talk page. Until release you could put notices on the talk pages of those who continually post timings, pointing out the WP:OR policy. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Violation of my article biography content

Discussion moved

– to WP:BLPN#Harry Bloomfield by –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

To whom it may concern,

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

In the past 2 years I have been using Wikipedia to refer people to see my wiki page.

My profile has been edited several time in a defamatory way and even erased completely in the past few weeks by a user named “Thebattlebgins”. This is possibly an act of criminal defamation of character in my biography placed in your prestigious application on the Web.

Please feel free to check the edit history on my profile to verify the various attacks by the user “Thebattlebegins”.

I kindly ask you therefore to reveal the user’s IP address to locate and stop him from further damage to my reputation as lawyer and business man. Is there a way to block or restrict posts to my page for a certain user who is not acting according to the standards of Wikipedia?

Thank you very much for looking into this urgent matter and I look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Harry Bloomfield —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fieldbloom (talk • contribs) 15:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

A few points: First it is not "your profile", it is a biographical article in a an encyclopedia that anyone can edit (subject to certain rules). Second, obviously vandalism is inappropriate and we take it very seriously, particularly when it concerns biographes of living people and it is usually quickly reverted. Third, as the subject of the article, you should not be editing it except to remove obvious vandalism. If you have concerns about other content you should discuss such concerns on the article's talk page. Fourth, the article as it is now is, frankly, a mess and I have added maintenance tags accordingly. The layout needs fixing per WP:LAYOUT and WP:MOSBIO, but above all it needs multiple, cited, non-trivial references to reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of the subject per the guidelines at WP:BIO. Hope all this helps. We are happy to help you with this, but conversely you have to understand that Wikipedia has inclusion criteria and its own ways of doing things. – ukexpat (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I concur with hwat ukexpat says above. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

vendetta

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I am being subjected to a vendetta by a former friend,who is constantly editing and disputing a page about myself.

I was surprised I was added on wikipedia and I admit I have enjoyed the infamy and have made edits to the page myself.

I dont know what to do with the page:when its about oneself its quite strange to have someone actually bothered to tamper with it.

Please can you advise?I am not bothered if it is deleted,but it seems a shame when someone has actually bothered to create it.

karl lucas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.7.191 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 15 March 2010

Looking at the article's talk page, it appears there are other issues. If you are the subject of the article, you should not be contributing to it (I'm not referring to reverts of vandalism), as you have a conflict of interest. The best solution may be to protect the page from editing by users not signed in, as this is where all the problematic editing is coming from. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Pointers left on User talk:91.108.7.191. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Dipsute on removal of references

Answered

– things seem quiet now, some discussion on talk page. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Nobility (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I have a dispute over the content of the wikipedia entry on Nobility. I found this article to stress undue bias (i.e. not NPOV) toward a heraldica.org article referenced. This was present prior to my edits of 18th March. The article stated 'scholars' (plural) when only one scholar is referenced. Also, it was set against the position of Innes of Learney as though it is corrective of the same.

I have tried to add confirmation that Innes of Learney's position is the confirmed position in Scottish law, however any attempt to confirm this is being removed. I then added the alternative structure of commenting that his perspective is accepted in the Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia, but then any comment on the legitimate status of the Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia has been removed. The Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia is quoted as a legal authority in the House of Lords, the UK's highest court of law (a quick search will confirm this). The individual, FactStraight (talk), describes themselves as being in North America, whereas I am in Scotland. I am aware of the position in Scots law of this legal authority, but the editor concerned appears not to be, or simply denies the same. I then added references to confirm its status, but these were deleted too.

Please look into this and see if you feel a referenced comment on the legal status of the Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia is fair. Thank you. Editor8888 (talk) 11:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to have had any discussions on the article talk page about this. That would be yoru best first step. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Now I seem to be suffering from Cyberbullying! I have reported the other editor 3RR only to get a buddy of his warn me the same. Not going too well! At least I have been honest. Editor8888 (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

liabel

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Has anyone ever been sued in relation to information they have posted on wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starbrite61 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous is probably the best place to ask. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 04:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

School Improvement Grants

Resolved

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I am an editor at Temple University's Institute for Schools and Society, and after a friend of mine expressed some concern that few educators were familiar with the U.S. Government's School Improvement Grants (SIGs), she wrote an article and I edited it online, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_Improvement_Grants_(SIGs).

Teapotgeorge flagged this as a possible copyright violation (which it most definitely IS NOT), claiming "A lot of this article is copied and pasted from http://www.eed.state.ak.us/stim/pdf/SIG_Overview_AK_Presentation_February_2010.pdf." He also claimed it "is NOT encyclopedic" and that "there is also a clear conflict of interest with certain 'professional' editors" (whatever THAT means).

TexasAndroid wrote, "I thought it looked like it had come from somewhere else, but I had been unsuccessful in Googling the source. Thanks. I've tagged it as a possible copyvio. It's possible that it is not, as I'm not familiar with the copyright status of state-produced documents. So I'll let someone from the copyvio team who knows what the law may be deal with it."

I posted on the discussion page: "PLEASE NOTE: This article most definitely is NOT a copyright infringement! It was written by Dr. Lauren Morando Rhim with LMR Consulting. Dr. Morando Rhim is a faculty research associate in the Department of Special Education at the University of Maryland. Prior to joining LMR Consulting, Morando Rhim was an independent consultant specializing in charter school research and evaluation. Her primary areas of research are market-based reforms, school choice, and the inclusion of children with disabilities in these reform initiatives. She has conducted substantial work on two projects investigating issues related to special education in charter schools. She was part of SPEDTACS, a federally funded technical assistance project designed to assist charter schools increase their capacity to deliver special education. She was previously a part of Project SEARCH and directed the UMD subcontract during years two and three of the study. As a member of the Project SEARCH team, Morando Rhim conducted state-, district-, and school-level research. She has published numerous articles about charter schools and spoken at national and state level conferences about charter schools. And she ASSURES me that 'I wrote the article and it draws very heavily--and references--the language in the U.S. Department of Education regulations.' I have looked at the article that is supposedly infringed, and none of the language is identical, or even too similar. Of course some of the language is SOMEWHAT similar, because they both deal with the same thing. To say this is copyright infringement is like saying an article about the U.S. Constitution that mentions 'certain inalienable rights' infringes another article that says the same thing."

But no action has been taken regarding my comments, the site threatens to delete the entire article after seven days, and meanwhile schools across the country are in desperate need of guidance concerning School Improvement Grants. If one of your editors doesn't like certain legislation, I don't see where it is up to him to censor an objective factual article about something that is currently the law of the land.

155.247.237.33 (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Robert Sullivan <e-mail redacted>

User:TexasAndroid listed the copyvio nomination at WP:Copyright problems/2010 March 22, and it would be best if you respond there, I think. I have also left a note on the article talk page as I can see no copyvio myself. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorted, I think, for now, TeaPotGeorge agrees there is no copyvio, the document is a State of Alalska document, ther may be some conflict of interest at the article author is involved in the program. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Help!

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I want to edit the article on Pokemon, but its semi-protected, so i have to be an accomplished editor. What does that mean? Does it concern the amount of time you've had an account? How many edits you have made? Please tell me, because i really want to edit the article. And, contrary to what you may think because of my eagerness to edit and the vulnerability of the page, i am NOT, i repeat, NOT vandalising it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TVtriviagirl (talk • contribs) 09:13, 25 March 2010 TVtriviagirl (talk) 09:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Protection policy, explains how various levels of protection work. Until you are an autoconfirmed user, you will not be able to edit that page. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Dispute over section "Motive" in Asexuality article

Answered

– but no discussion at project talk page –– Jezhotwells (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have had a long discussion with another editor regarding a new section he added to the above article- this section is not currently present as it was reverted. (Discussion is here). My greatest concern is that the content he wishes to introduce is OR/original synthesis, in my opinion, and I have said so. I think there are also problems regarding a conflict of interest (initially, the only citation for the section was a paper written by him) and TLDR on the talk page (which is making it very difficult for me to respond to his arguments).

Initially my arguments were weak; I'm not an experienced editor and this has been a steep learning curve for me. I am not sure what to do next- whether to continue with the discussion on the talk page (but it feels like he is not willing to listen to me or acknowledge my points) or to ask for a third opinion or request for comment. I have read through the process for resolving disputes but I don't know the best course of action to take and would welcome some advice. Orientalmoons (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest inviting input at WP:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. I have placed some useful links on your talk page. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

To whom it may concern,

I am currently busy with a major edit of the article "Heat sinks" in wikipedia. I have asked comments about my proposed changes but no replies. Anyhow, not the topic of my question.

I would like to use images of the e-magazine Qpedia. However, the copyright on the document goes something like this: "All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, or stored in a retrieval system of any nature, without prior permission of the publishers (expect in accordance with the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988)".

My question is with regard to the "expect" in the above paragraph. What does that mean if I want to use the images in Wikipedia? What does the Act mentioned say? Do I still need to get written permission for each image from articles that I want to get? I have tried to get information about the act but it is not clear FOR ME what I can and can not do.

Any assistance would be appreciated.

With best regards, DtC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtc5341 (talk • contribs)

It's hard for me to say, but the "Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988" looks to be the UK's main copyright law. I haven't read it of course but I doubt there's anything in there that would abridge a private publisher's right to prevent its images from being republished, which they are clearly seeking to do. My guess is that these images would be a copyright violation, but it's great that you sought advice here before going ahead. — e. ripley\^talk 14:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

For an image to be considered "free" under Wikipedia's image use policy, the license must permit both commercial reuse and derivative works. Realistically, you are not going to get that from Qpedia. You may be able to use a low resolution screen shot of a magazine cover under the fair use guidelines. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. I will look into the fair use guidelines. And if that does not work, I guess I'll that I will have to contact the publisher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtc5341 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Fresh opinion needed on spam/COI issue

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't seem to be getting anywhere with a discussion at Talk:Great Ayton. MikeeNewton (talk · contribs) is, in my opinion, a single purpose editor whose only contributions have been to add external links to Wikipedia articles, other than one where he added a link to his own book in the further reading section of an article (which was subsequently removed). All of these links have been to websites or youtube photo slideshow content that he has created and are therefore COI. One website created by the editor - Great Ayton's Shops, Pubs & Restaurants - is nothing but a shopping/business directory for the village, but it does have photographs for sale by the editor. Try as I might I cannot get this editor to understand WP:ELNO and WP:COI. Another editor Dano'sullivan (talk · contribs) chimed into the discussion to say he sees nothing wrong with the links, but that again is clear COI because he is an associate of the first editor (evidence). I have tried to explain and made suggestions on how he can contribute to Wikipedia and Commons instead of spamming links, but I don't think I'm being heard/understood. I have even improved the article slightly by adding a dmoz link, a commons category link and a couple of images to show what the article needs. What I'd like is for someone here to join the discussion, or go direct to the editor's own talk page, and set things straight. I think 3rd party opinions might help sort things out. --Simple Bob (talk) 11:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added my tuppence worth. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to take a step back and let others have their say. His latest comments show that he clearly isn't getting the message from me. At least he isn't actually adding any links, just talking about them. --Simple Bob (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

A couple of you have weighed in, but he just doesn't get it. His latest post is to say that there are similar links in other articles, which is justification for having his links in this article. Sheesh.... Of course, I did thank him for pointing out the spam links in the other article and duly cleaned them up. --Simple Bob (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Help us choose the best images for the 20th century montages

Stale

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Please participate in the following discussion pages and help us choose the best images for montages in the decade articles of the 20th century.

TheCuriousGnome (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Disciple whom Jesus loved

Stale

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Greetings.

In the article Disciple whom Jesus loved (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a poster has posted a section titled "Homo eroticism" as a suggestive theme to the article's primary subject. However, even the section itself mentions the "lack of scriptural basis" for the claim, and tells how "some" have lent weight to the idea. Some of the claims are mentioned with names of people, but this does not make an article noteworthy or encyclopedic by nature. There must be healthy discourse, I understand, and dissent should definitely be part of an unbiased article, but one or two people does not constitute noteworthy dissent. The claims are also supported by story-telling (e.g., "someone was put on trial for this accusation"). Such stories should be in a different wikipedia article with their own subjects, and, at most, mentioned briefly by this article.

The entire subject of homo-eroticism is, in this instance although related, entirely and unbelievably dubious to the subject of the Disciple whom Jesus loved. The obvious intention of this section is to smear and slander a person who is worshiped by millions around the world for reasons entirely opposite to what the article is suggesting. The slanderous nature is not why I am objecting to it, but it is rather evidence of an ulterior motive by the author for writing it. Also worth mentioning is the author's seemingly "vested interest in including LGBT information every/anywhere" as described on his own user-talk page User talk:Contaldo80 (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Contaldo80|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), under section #10 titled "LGBT".

I attempted to edit the article myself by removing the section, but a vandalism tracker thwarted my attempts within minutes. I know the Wikipedia community typically looks down upon unregistered users, but honestly I am unregistered because Wikipedia is very well maintained and 99% of the time, the information I would be competent enough to add has already been added by another. Thus there has been no need to register. However, this article is so outrageously un-encyclopedic, I could not resist to edit.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.77.95 (talk • contribs)

In your edit summary, you state that " An abundance of sources does not not justify something as being encyclopedic or noteworthy". You may wish to review our policies on notability and encyclopedic significance. These are both established, in fact, by an abundance of reliable sources, so that we keep our personal biases out as much as possible. A possible standpoint from which to argue is that the sources used are, in fact, unreliable, or that the viewpoint is fringe (i.e. held as plausible by few or no reliable sources). If you would like to make either of these arguments, please use the steps outlined at dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As creator of this section I find these comments by Someguy1221 helpful. I am certainly happy to discuss whether the sources are unreliable or that the viewpoint is held as plausible by few or no reliable sources; and would welcome that. However, I do not think it is right to proceed on the basis of the argument that the text is "slanderous" or an "attempt to smear". No one is challenging individual personal religious beliefs, but these are not sufficient in themselves to prevent others from presenting arguments that may prove counter to those beliefs (no matter how dearly held). To do so is a form of censorship. I accept, however, that such arguments need to be respectful, balanced and evidenced. For the record I myself am Christian and do not think that suggesting a homoerotic interpretation of a relationship between Christ and the Beloved Disciple would be at all slanderous. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Request editor review of major update to Heat sink article

Resolved

To whom it may concern,

I have just uploaded a major revision of the heat sinks article. I would like an editor or editors to review the changes made.

I have had the proposed changes in the discussion board but have not had any comments on it. See the articles discussion board. And I did not sign it so I do not have proof of when the put the proposed changes up, but I know that it was at least two months ago.

From my contributions: "# 10:35, 20 January 2010 (hist | diff) Talk:Heat sink ‎ (→Major revision of article: new section) "

Dtc5341 (talk) 05:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you would be best off rewuesting a WP:Peer review. A quick look at it showed no major problems. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've made a peer review request. Dtc5341 (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

First Post

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Can I have someone look at my post to see if I did it correctly. I tried to reference all my info but it is saying Cite error: There are ref tags on this page, but the references will not show without a references tag. and I cant figure out why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronp2098 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You didn't add a <references /> tag that would generate the references list. I've fixed up the article a bit but removed the mention of the airplane which seemed a bit trivial. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I refined the stub tag and added a few categories and a defaultsort - in the absence of anything in the article to the contrary, I have assumed he still alive. I also added some project templates to the talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

adding page for

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Constance Cappel listed in Who's Who in America, Who's Who in American Women, Who's Who in Finance,etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otherworld24 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested articles/Culture and fine arts/Literature is the place to make such a request, assuming that you mean the author? You will need to state why you think the subject is notable and a brief description so as to help those who want to create an article, along with links to some reliable sources. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

^ "9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Thriving". CBS News. August 6, 2006. Retrieved July 12, 2009.
^ ^a ^b ^c Bažant, Zdeněk P. (March 2007). "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" (PDF). J Engrg Mech. 133 (3): 308–319. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2007)133:3(308). Retrieved August 22, 2007. As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows [...] {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Cite error: The named reference "bazant07" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b Gravois, John (June 23, 2006). "Professors of Paranoia?". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved September 26, 2009.
^ ^a ^b Asquith, Christina (September 7, 2006). "Conspiracies continue to abound surrounding 9/11: on the eve of the fifth anniversary, a group of professors say the attacks were an "inside job."". Diverse Issues in Higher Education: 12. Retrieved October 9, 2008.
^ "9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Thriving". CBS News. August 6, 2006. Retrieved July 12, 2009.
^ Cite error: The named reference Chronicle was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Asquith, Christina (2006-09-07). "Conspiracies continue to abound surrounding 9/11: on the eve of the fifth anniversary, a group of professors say the attacks were an "inside job."". Diverse Issues in Higher Education: 12. Retrieved 2008-10-09.
^ Jennifer Harper (February 22, 2010). "Inside the Beltway: Explosive News". The Washington Times.
^ "The AE911 Truth Petition". Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth.
^ "Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth home page". Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth. Retrieved March 10, 2010.

[1] "9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Thriving". CBS News. August 6, 2006. Retrieved July 12, 2009.

[bazant07-2] Bažant, Zdeněk P. (March 2007). "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" (PDF). J Engrg Mech. 133 (3): 308–319. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2007)133:3(308). Retrieved August 22, 2007. As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows [...] {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Cite error: The named reference "bazant07" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

[ProfessorsOfParanoia-3] Gravois, John (June 23, 2006). "Professors of Paranoia?". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved September 26, 2009.

[conspiraciesContinueToAbound-4] Asquith, Christina (September 7, 2006). "Conspiracies continue to abound surrounding 9/11: on the eve of the fifth anniversary, a group of professors say the attacks were an "inside job."". Diverse Issues in Higher Education: 12. Retrieved October 9, 2008.

[5] "9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Thriving". CBS News. August 6, 2006. Retrieved July 12, 2009.

[Chronicle-6] Cite error: The named reference Chronicle was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[7] Asquith, Christina (2006-09-07). "Conspiracies continue to abound surrounding 9/11: on the eve of the fifth anniversary, a group of professors say the attacks were an "inside job."". Diverse Issues in Higher Education: 12. Retrieved 2008-10-09.

[8] Jennifer Harper (February 22, 2010). "Inside the Beltway: Explosive News". The Washington Times.

[9] "The AE911 Truth Petition". Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth.

[10] "Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth home page". Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth. Retrieved March 10, 2010.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

Does this picture violate copyright?

Digital video history

9/11 conspiracy theories Please Help!!

Image upload assistance

Jajce & Alija Izetbegovic

Have I provided reasonable advice here?

Chelo61

towns and villages names

Matthew Arnold

Chinese Overseas Movement of Advanced Culture

Where is my edit?

Hungary–Slovakia_relations

Aga Twyford

Article: U.S. Air Force Aircraft Control & Warning Squadrons

How to correct an article title?

please delete defamatory term about me from bio

STOPzilla - Requesting an editor's help in dealing with listing

Where is my edit? [2]

One-word translation guess needed

Aid in resolving possible edit war

BENLD, IL

Removing hold and Uploading Professor Ayysawmy's profile/article onto wikipedia

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

Power abuse

deletion of islandinfo article

Appearance of Wikipedia on screen

Neutrality issue...

Is this page "blatant advertising"?

Jake Bernstein edit war

need help to understand what I did

Well I don t know

No Article on Gerald Wealesq

Bondurant's Pharmacy

Disruptive Edit War

Congratulations (album)

Violation of my article biography content

vendetta

Dipsute on removal of references

liabel

School Improvement Grants

Help!

Dispute over section "Motive" in Asexuality article

Image use under "Copyright designs and patents act 1998"

Fresh opinion needed on spam/COI issue

Help us choose the best images for the 20th century montages

Disciple whom Jesus loved

Request editor review of major update to Heat sink article

First Post

adding page for