Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 111

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Answered

 – . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

In the PETA Article Talk page (and archives) there have been countless discussions of adding a "controversy" section either at the bottom of the page or a link in the "further reading" section to one. Countless discussions have seemingly ended in hard pressed supporters of PETA either removing any changes, continuing to dispute them after a decision has been reached, or ignorance that such a talk has happened at all.

All that I ask is that an unbiased third party with standing in the community and power to enforce a decision be brought in to try to assess keep the neutrality and fairness of this article, whatever the decision that is reached.

Thank you for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.135.189 (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This forum is for editing assistance. Please consider posting at WP:3O. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Answered

 – Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 16:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone i have just edited a page thinking i was on sand box mode but i wasnt no my ip address is on the edit page i have undone the changes but my ip still remains does anyone know how to delete the whole edit so no one can see my ip. thanks for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reptileman467 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

You can't delete entries in the history. Which page is it? (or how about you just don't tell us and no-one will notice) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

See WP:LOGGEDOUT for some other options. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Answered

 – . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I create a sinhala page for "Eric Bana". But I cannot change its title or the main heading to sinhala. Please, help me to do that. I want it to translate as "එරික් බැනා". The page link is "http://si.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Bana" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rab632 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

To do this you must move the page to its new title. To see the "move" link you need to click on the little triangle at the top of the page, next to the "Search" box. If you can't find it then try this direct link: Move. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Being very new to Wikipedia content I noted that the following page has been recently edited... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outplacement The update is an addition regarding 'Outplacement companies' and containing backlinks to those companies. Is this allowed and on what grounds has someone established that Penna (Outplacement) are the largest in the UK? If this is allowed, can I add my own company to this area? Although not the largest, we very much sit as a leader in this field. Thank you in advance. Mark Edwards --Markinsurrey (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You are right to question that. The paragraph you are asking about has been removed as promotional. The articles in wikipedia should not be used to promote businesses. GB fan 16:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Can Amazon.com (or other online publishers) be cited as a source for information on books, music albums, etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.204.206 (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This search might be able to provide some past input on the subject. But as far as I am aware it is considered a situational source rather than a truly reliable one. It can be used for some facts on released (rather than future/un-released) media such as release dates, track listings, album length, page counts, ISBN etc etc and just showing it exists - dry facts only. This should only apply to items listed by Amazon themselves rather than their affiliates. And either way it'd have to be used with extreme care like any situational source. It cannot be used to show any notability. Яehevkor ✉ 18:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

By and large, I'd not regard it as a reliable source; you're better off going to the actual publishers themselves. I'd also not consider it reliable for things like genre classifications and the like. What is absolutely never a reliable source is reviews on amazon and similar websites, which are notoriously venues for vandalism, spamming, and PR of the clumsiest sorts. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. What I missed from my comments is that Amazon shouldn't be used as long as other sources, even primary sources, exist for the information. Яehevkor ✉ 21:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking, publication details (distinct from reviews, which are no better than blogs) ought to be obtained from the publisher. (Or some place like WorldCat.org that focuses on collecting that kind of information.) So if Amazon itself publishes a book (etc.), sure. But I rather suspect that the use of Amazon (and similarly for Google) is more usually a sign of editors being too superficial in their searches, and ought to be (at the least) not encouraged. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Answered

 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am objecting to the many references to Hinduism and Hindu religious teachings as mythology or legends. It is the oldest religion in the world and the 3rd largest religion. It is also the only religion on the religious portals page that has a section for mythology. No one refers to Christian or Islamic or Judaic religious stories as legends or mythology. Why is Hinduism singled out as legend or myths or mythology or stories?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Hindu_Mythology

I can list many Hindu articles that are referred to as legends or myths. I can also list many Christian and Islamic and Judaic articles that list content as factual, rather than as a legend. E.g. No one refers to the Christian myth of Jesus turning water to wine, or the myth of Noah's ark.

Please eliminate any references to Hinduism as a myth or legend.

Sincerely, Geeta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.90.73 (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You're looking in the wrong places. The article for Hinduism is Hinduism, and we have articles on Christian mythology, Jewish mythology, and Islamic mythology, and those other articles refer to their sacred stories as mythology, because mythology refers to "sacred stories," not "false stories." Ian.thomson (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Answered

 – . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if you can help me -- but here goes. Someone using the name "TomBrennan06413" posted a libelous statement about me in the first paragraph of my Wikipedia biography. Although an editor removed it, it is still listed at "history". Someone using the same name but without the 06413 (which is my zip code) posted a number of similar, libelous statements at the Internet newspaper ClintonPatch.com -- where currently, anyone can post anything, anonymously. Those posts were subsequently removed, because at least three different people clicked on a tab reporting the posts as inappropriate. There is only one registered voter in my small town of Clinton, CT by the name of Tom Brennan. He is also the only property owner in town with that name -- as well as the only Tom Brennan with a listed phone number. He says he is not responsible for the postings and that his identity has been stolen and his name defamed. My town's police department went to see an Assistant State's Attorney to find out if she would prosecute if a search warrant were obtained to learn the URL - and eventually the identity - of the person who posted the libelous statements at ClintonPatch.com. She said she would not, because as a Police Commissioner, all-be-it an unpaid/volunteer in my community, I am an elected official and therefore a "public figure". Recently I discussed this with Dick Blumenthal, who is one of our Senator's and he was shocked at the response of the State's Attorney and is planning on having someone from his office contact me because he is currently working on legislation to protect people from this form of atrocity. Without a search warrant, ClintonPatch.com will not assist me in learning the identity of the person who libeled me using a name other than their own. And so I was hoping that you might be able to provide me with enough information so that I could try to find out who did the same, against me, at my Wikipedia biography. Regards, Peggy Adler Bxzooo 18:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

If you feel that you are the subject of a libellous or untrue statement in a Wikipedia biography about you, please go to Wikipedia:Libel and follow the instructions there. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!!

Bxzooo 18:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This minor degradation popped up on my watchlist. I fixed it and then looked at some of the other recent contributions by this IP. They're mild degradations, sometimes then fixed immediately, changes from one unsourced assertion about some matter of which I have no knowledge to a different unsourced assertion, plus oddities such as a set of stylistic fixes to another editor's user page. It's my bedtime; can a couple of other people please take a look? (A knowledge of India might help.)

NB At this point I am asking about the (very diverse) edits, not the editor. -- Hoary (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

These edits are things you can easily fix yourself. The IP may well be used by multiple anon users, but please feel free to leave a message on its page. If India specific articles are concerned, please also consider expressing your concern at WT:INB. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, thank you; and indeed I fixed a couple myself before posting the above (whereupon I went to bed). Well, some person or persons seems to have done something to most of the IP's edits. Good. -- Hoary (talk) 12:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 09:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Basically need advice with Emotional Freedom Techniques, an article in need of much improvement especially POV. There are 2 primary sources, zero secondary or tertiary sources and a bunch of articles in low-status journals and media. WP policy is less clear about what to do when you have few reliable sources. Particularly need help with WP:V, WP:DUE and WP:SPS. Mindjuicer (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You could try asking at the project talk pages, also perhaps WikiProject Psychology. I see eight or nine RS , a few dubious sources and one dead link. I suggest you stick with the discussion on the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, the topic is fringe but the article does a pretty good job of treating it as such. North8000 (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Fringe science does not mean either that the study is wrong or even that bad science is involved. It simply means that an area of research is outside the area of existing research.

As the introduction claims EFT is probably nonsense based on a favourable review by a Guardian columnist and that it's a pseudoscience based on questionable logic by a skeptic magazine, I'm guessing fringe science articles are outside of your area of expertise. Mindjuicer (talk) 03:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I'm not asking for help editing the article but I really need help with clarification of WP policy.

As you've done some research, I'll give you a deeper explanation. There are 3 articles from low-status journals and an open letter from the creator of EFT which credibly & strongly criticise one of the primary sources ie Waite.

The other 'resident' editors of the article over the last 9+ months are all anti-EFT. They have ruled that the open letter cannot even be linked to (although the EFT manual is apparently fine). The most reasonable of such asked for help . There was an ad hominem attack on myself by one of the least reasonable editors but no input re: WP:SPS. A few more editors have appeared recently either due to this request or to the significant unreverted edits I made recently (3rd Dec).

The other resident editors also interpreted RS (narrowly?) to exclude any sources which they don't like ie primary sources only (in spite of the two prominent references each to a Guardian columnist & the Skeptical Enquirer).

So my questions revolve around how significantly the other sources should contribute to the article? What should be the due weight of favourable vs criticism? Mindjuicer (talk) 03:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

That is not something that you can get a ruling on here. Every article achieves its own balance. You need to work to achieve WP:CONSENSUS on the article talk page, as I said the projects may be able to help if you post neutral requests on their talk pages. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again, but this would seem to be a major flaw in Wikiedia. With no obvious rule structure or place to ask for help... instant reversion, hostile group action and mis-statement of the rules from a camping POV group of editors will drive away any threat to their consensus. Mindjuicer (talk) 02:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW, Wikipedia source requirements are about what is required to consider a statement to be sourced/sourcable, not about what sources are allowed to be in the article. So, it does not prohibit presence of sources that are "too weak", it merely says that they are insufficient to be considered a sourcing for a statement. North8000 (talk) 10:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Very valuable contribution, contrary to what the other ediotrs have led me to believe. Thank you. Mindjuicer (talk) 02:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Answered

 – Foo. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

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

This original contributor, someone with the name MelbourneStar, will not allow me to modify information that he/she has entered. I entered inormation about my city, I was born and raised there, and my father was born, grandfather etc. I know much more about my city than Melbournestar, that I have no idea who's agenda he/she is protecting. I have revised more than 10 times the information about this city but MelbourneStar has flagged it. Who the hell gives this person the right to block information about my town when he is not even from this city ? I want to enrich the history and truth about this city. Also there is innacurate information about my city and Albania........a lot!! I want the owners of this site to allow me to edit this information. If not then I call this website then "infromation manipulator", because you do not report the truth and twist the truth in the interest of some people, who post an article and do not let others change it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johny1005 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Your edits were reverted because you did no provide any reliable sources for the material that you added. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 09:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi -

I posted an article on Pictures From History today and it has apparently been deleted, I presume because in some way it did not meet Wikipedia requirements.

Is there some way I can be informed what was wrong, please?

Dru2 (talk) 06:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking into this for you. If you need help again from a Wikipedia help desk, please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The article was deleted because it did not comply with Wikipedia requirements or policy per the following deletion log which you would have seen when attempting to access the page: ‎ (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (web content). It was not referenced - external links were to exhibits on that website. For more information on this policy, please see WP:A7. Please also follow the links in the welcome message on your talk page and consider contacting the deleting admin (Toddst1) as requested. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Article under development with editing help from Kudpung. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I wish to add images of the front cover and page 1 of the first edition of my old school's (annual) magazine from 1930 to the article I have prepared. The school was disestablished in 1972 and I am uncertain who holds copyright in this instance. The person who has the magazine (not me) is willing for the images to be included, but does he actually have "ownership"? If the school does not exist now does the copyright rest with the local education authority? Or is this an instance where I may add the images with the magazine holder signing Wikipedia's declaration of consent? Or can these images be uploaded freely without any consent being needed? I would be grateful for your advice or assistance.LenF54 (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

For starters, we need to know where the school was, since these laws vary by country! --Orange Mike | Talk 18:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that we are talking about the article at User:LenF54/sandbox which is about Plaistow Grammar School a redirect to Newham Sixth Form College, then the copyright of the images under UK law belongs to the creator of the images, whther a photograph or artwork. The images will be copyright until 70 years after the death of the creator, so they would not qualify for use on Wikipedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The page you need is Wikipedia:Non-US_copyrights - which says (for UK) "copyright ends 70 years after the last surviving author dies or if unknown, 70 years after creation or publication." So if there is no way you can work out the creator, then a 1930 magazine cover should be OK, and you can use {{PD-UK-unknown}}.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll help Len develop this article. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Apologies to Orange Mike for my omission. From what Ron and Jezhotwells are saying I believe the creator is the editorial committe of the school. The magazine continued until 1972, when the school was disestablished and merged to create a comprehensive. Whether you say the school continued in existence (albeit under a different name) or not, I feel that the copyright does not run for 70 years from 1930 but for 70 years from the end of the school, which would not be at least until 2042. I will discuss this further with Kudpung. Thank you to everybody. LenF54 (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Answered

 – . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting interference from an editor who has not read up on the complex subject of the Bourke Engine. I seek some assistance because the subject is drastically misunderstood, involves some very subtle and highly inter-dependent physics (mechanics) and chemistry, and has the rather unfortunate additional down-side that everyone in the world fully understands Otto Cycle Engines and genuinely believe that there is literally no better alternative in existence, neither mechanically nor chemically.

Whilst the interference continues, I'm going to have to revert all modifications made by this under-informed editor and then examine what it was that was made, to see if there is any beneficial input. I've twice found the "undo" process to fail, and, as the interference is so comprehensive, it's taking considerable time to revert the damage caused: thus it is simpler to revert to a prior revision and begin again.

I would welcome discussion by this individual who is interfering, with a view to contribution to improvement of this article, but not if they are going to make comments such as "do you actually understand any of this stuff" as revision commits, effectively being both an insult and categorising their modification as vandalism.

greatly appreciated. Lkcl (talk) 12:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Greglocock#Bourke_Engine - reading of the world's only authoritative material on this subject (Bourke's life-works Documentation) is being described by this user as "fairy tales": this is personal insult, as well as psychological justification for continued interference (vandalism) of the article. Lkcl (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

There has been no discussion on the article talk page for one and a half years. Please begin a discussion there. You may wish to invite the other editor(s) to take part. Please remember also that edit summaries are for describing the edit, not for carrying out some obscure indirect conversation, and that you'll not foster good collaboration by simply threatening to get editors 'banned'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Kudpung, thanks for the advice. if you look at the interactions that Greglocock has with other users (see user talk page), you'll see that there is a pattern of... well... it's like there's something missing. i can't quite put my finger on it, but a good first approximation - a summary if you will of the contributions and interactions that i've seen him have with others including myself, is that he is "resentful" - it is as if he is upset about something, and is determined to take that out on others. now, if he had begun by entering into a discussion (as you advised me, also) i would have no problem with him. if he had begun by doing what he is partially beginning to do which is to add "dubious" categorisation on appropriate phrases, thus encouraging me to do further research instead of being forced to undo the vandalism and _then_ work out what it was he is objecting to, i would have no problem with him. it was the fact that he went straight, directly and without discussion, directly into insults, vandalism, derision, dismissal and more, is what *immediately* - and justifiably - raised reasonable defenses to preserve the integrity of the material which is under development. the key problem is that he is making assumptions that "the material is somehow wrong as compared to {insert information that quotes everybody quotes knows}, thus the material must be quotes ridiculous quotes" but is failing to provide references or evidence to **support** that very same "ridicule". now, regarding the discussion: there is now some discussion. as i was the only person editing the page in 1.5 years i saw no reason to warrant use of the discussion page, because it was entirely empty. now there are other people involved, there is something to discuss. unfortunately, 85% of that discussion now revolves around Greglocock. i would much rather have a discussion that is 85% revolving around the exciting topic of this historic and very much misunderstood engine. your assistance to help address the balance, and to preserve the spirit of wikipedia collaboration, greatly appreciated. Lkcl (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

This is unfortunately not strictly within our remit here at EAR. Two noticeboards specialised in this kind of thing are WP:3O and WP:DR - take your pick, but I would suggest going down the least inflammatory route first, and that would begin with a talk page discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Answered

 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The following quote was in the Quantitative Easing article in the printing money section:

Richard W. Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, has said that the US is monetizing debt through QE, referencing the additional $600 billion created for QE2, "For the next eight months, the nation's central bank will be monetizing the federal debt." ref:http://dallasfed.org/news/speeches/fisher/2010/fs101108.cfm This was placed in a suitable section. It was then removed by Lawrencekhoo (talk and he has been involved in edit warring since then. His motive seems to be to prevent anything going in the article that shows quantitative easing can cause inflation devaluation and can be used to monetize debt. His latest edit he has removed the reference to the speech and picked out a different quote that is different from the point that was meant to be made. Prior to this he made excuses that the quote is "out of context" and is not in the right section of the wikipedia article, basically any excuse he can think of to remove it.--Caparn (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

You are all experienced editors and you know that constantly reverting each other like you are doing here is not going to help; all that will happen is that either someone will eventually end up being blocked for WP:3RR or the page will be locked so that only admins can edit it. I suggest you all take a calm approach and discuss it on the article's talk page. If that doesn't work, take the matter to the dispute resolution noticeboard. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Answered

 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I started correcting an article which had said "30 - 40 US Gallons (98 - 110 liter)", but didn't know if I should just correct the conversion, change to soft metric: "113 - 151 liter (30 - 40 US Gallon)", or change to hard metric: "110 - 150 liter (29 - 40 US Gallon)" <rounded, in article context exact volume isn't critical>. What is Wikipedia's policy on SI versus US/Imperial units of measurement? 213.112.194.98 (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

there must be a template somewhere which reacts to user-preferences. Hold on. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

there we go: {{convert}} ...by the way, if the article says gallons (liter), leave it that way (don't change it to (liter (gallons))Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Also please bear in mind that the units should follow those in the sources and the convention is to follow the standard practice in the country or region of the article's subject. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

See also WP:UNIT. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Common sense should also be applied when interpreting the guidelines. en;Wiki is focused on an essentially English speaking audience, for example, in the US, motorists drive for miles and tank with (US) gallons, the Brits cover a lot of miles too but since recently tank their petrol in litres while when they go to the continent with their cars as they often do, they have to start thinking in kilometres, their gallon is also much larger than a US gallon. Some English speaking countries such as Ireland and Australia converted from miles to kilometres and it may be of interest for them to see the conversions. Many US liquid products, such as for example swimming pool chemicals, are exported packed in quantities of US gallons to countries that use the metric system. Here in Thailand there is a mess of confusion between imperial measure, metric measure, especially in the construction industry, and their own system for some things, such as rai instead of acres or hectares. When countries adopt a new system, people still continue to think in the old methods for generations. When the French franc was changed in 1960 many people still continued to express some monetary values in old francs right up until the Euro was introduced in 2002, 42 years later. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The article on "The Hamburg Rules" needs to be edited because it contains a statement which, while purporting to be of a factual nature, is only an opinion. The statement in question is that "[T]he conventions governing the Hague-Visby Rules should be denounced." The Hague-Visby Rules are set of legal rules established by convention. Whether they should be renounced or not is a matter of opinion. When I sought to edit the article on December 20, 2011, so as to reflect this, another person (perhaps the author of the article) undid the edit, claiming that the disputed statement came right out of the Hamburg Rules themselves. This answer is unavailing for two reasons. First, even if what the person who undid my edit is correct, the disputed statement is without citation. It is therefore unacceptable as it stands. Secondly, if the disputed statement comes right out of the Hamburg Rules, that fact should be noted, along with the fact that the signatories who signed this statement were expressing their opinions as interested parties. It should also be pointed out that several major maritime nations --- the United States, Spain, the UK, China, Japan, Germany, and others --- are NOT signatories.

I have no axe to grind whatsoever. I am a lawyer trying to learn about the Hamburg Rules. I do not find it helpful to see a naked opinion about the wisdom of legislation. At the very least, the source of the author's opinion should be cited, as well as the fact that the opinion is expressly stated in the Hamburg Rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.241.251 (talk) 05:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Please begin a discussion on the as yet blank article talk page at Talk:Hamburg Rules. You may wish to invite the other contributor(s) to the discussion by placing a message on their talk page(s). You can locate the other editor(s) from this page where you can click directly on a link to their talk pages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Could anybody please help me with this article? Thank you, --Nicola54 (talk) 11:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Notability (people) in order to address the issues with the article. You may find help from other editors by asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I want to know why my books "Captain Bartholomew Roberts, A Pyrates Journal" IBSN: ISBN-13: 978-1450264303 & "The True & Complete Memoirs of Pirate Captain Bartholomew Roberts aka Black Bart" ISBN-13: 978-1599719399 were deleted from the list.

Second: Why was the correction regarding his place of death removed. It says: At sea off Cape Lopez, Gabon but this is an error. He died just after the battle ended off Parrot Island which lies within an estuary at Nigeria. The battle ended some 2 hours later off the coast of Gabon.

Unlike most of the authors at this page, I am one of the few who actually did my own research (as opposed to just reading someone elses book & reiterating what they had already said.) I am also the one who raised the count on the number of ships from 400 to nigh on 500. I am the one whose research provided the date of his birth as opposed to just the year. I am also the one whose book contained copies of the formal documents including his brother William's Last Will & Testament (in both Welsh & the translated verion into English. I am the one who got untangled his timeline & got the places, dates & happenings in the correct order.

Yet my books are not good enough to be here at wikipedia.

V'léOnica Roberts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.23.241 (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Your referenced contributions to Wikipedia are certainly appreciated. However it appears your books are self published. Generally self published books art not appropriate as references or further readings as their accuracy and reliability is difficult to determine. The relevant policies in this case are WP:RS and WP:V. You should also take a look at WP:COI our conflict of interest policy, personally I don't feel it is appropriate to add links to your own work to articles. --Daniel 17:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I will second what Daniel has said, and also refer you to our "no original research" policy. If your works had been published by a reputable maritime press or university press, they might be more suitable for use here; but as it is, we have no evidence as to the reliability of your research. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

All the places where my work (info I researched & provided) is present, like the other's, should be sited. If my work (many years worth) is not going to be cited simply because it's not published by some BIG publisher, then the info I provided needs to be removed. After all, you're stating that it's NOT true or Can't be verified simply because some BIG publisher did not publish it. NOR, do to my health, DID I ATTEMPT (never expecting to make it to 50, I'm the first in my famliy with my illness to live this long) to do so. The important thing to me, was to get the work done & out where it could be seen.

Next, how about asking the other author's what their sources were beyond just collection of books. Meaning just to rewrite what others already whote.

Who says that just because a book is published by some BIG publisher that the content is better. Those publishers do not research the content.

As for self-published. Then how come you have a page on Dianetics which was also self published (in the beginning at least,) orignally sold out of the trunk of the author's car. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.23.241 (talk • contribs)

Just trying to navigate back to this page was a nightmare.

Now to continue: All the places where my work (info I researched & provided) is present, like the other's, should be cited. If my work (many years worth) is not going to be cited simply because it's not published by some BIG publisher, then the info I provided needs to be removed. After all, you're stating that it's NOT true or Can't be verified simply because some BIG publisher did not publish it. NOR, do to my health, DID I ATTEMPT (never expecting to make it to 50, I'm the first in my famliy with my illness to live this long) to do so. The important thing to me, was to get the work done & out where it could be seen.

Next, how about asking the other author's what their sources were beyond just collection of books. Meaning just to rewrite what others already whote.

Moreover, who says that just because a book is published by some BIG publisher that the content is better. Those publishers do not research the content.

As for self-published. Then how come you have a page on Dianetics which was also self published (in the beginning at least,) orignally sold out of the trunk of the author's car. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.23.241 (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You're reason for not allowing my (books) & research is because of Wikipedia's "no original research" policy. Excuse me, but are you now disputing the documents located at the PRO in Kew, England, the Newspapers & of letters of the period, as well as the PRO in Haverfordwest, Wales, because that's where the majority of my research was done. By original research, I mean that I personally went to these places & scoured Their records & documents. I did not simply cite places found in the pages of other author's books who took their information from the books of others.

No we aren't disputing documents at the PRO. We are pointing out that self-published books (with very few exceptions - a self-published work by an author with an established academic reputation in the subject matter might be acceptable, for example) don't qualify as reliable sources, according to our agreed policy. And we are pointing out that we don't accept original research done by contributors either, per policy. That is the way it is. This isn't a reflection on the quality of your work. It is a reflection on the fact that we aren't able to assess the quality of such work. If we were to allow original research, and self-published sources, we'd be snowed under in all sorts of nonsense. That our policies may on occasion exclude material that might actually be useful is unfortunate, but in the circumstances unavoidable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Such being the case, demonstrates a total lack of concern for what's true. I am only convinced that this website is more concerned about BIG Publishers who, who not having researched themselves or otherwise verified the content personally, know zilch about the books they publish. And since that seems to be the limit of what can be found here, seeing I know that many of the facts concerning Captain Roberts are in error & have attempted to rectify the situation to no avail, I shan't being giving any further credence to the information located at Wikipedia & shall, at every opportunity state such.

Moreover, I insist that the info listed here which was supplied due to MY research, be deleted. It comes from my work & to have it here without acquiring either my permission or giving proper credit is unlawful. These include any mention of his date of birth, the will written by his brother William, and the fact all information previous to my research stated 400 ships/vessels. My book, containing, this particular info, was first published in book form in 2005 (CD book) 2006 (traditional paper book) & the information containing, this particular info, was first published online in 2004. And I have all the records, including first drafts, support that this is My work.

What I am stating is plain. You can not publish my findings without also citing that to be the case. Seems that others want to use (& publish in their books MY findings) my info but not give me the credit that is my due.

I wrote this book to set the record straight. Not just so a few others could gleam more info for their own writings. That's called stealing. It's also copyright infringement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.23.241 (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:NLT. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I will also point out that facts cannot be copyrighted; your assertions about "stealing" are nonsense. With genuine regret (I really can see your point of view here, you know), I've also blocked you until you withdraw your implicit threat of legal action against us. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

There was a recent set of moves that established:

1. Tablet computer as a main article
2. Early tablet computers as a sub-article (formerly named Tablet personal computer)
3. Microsoft Tablet PC as another sub-article, and
4. Tablet PC as a disambiguation page (formerly a redirect to Tablet personal computer).

Since then the interwiki links have changed multiple times. They're being added and removed en masse across multiple of those articles. For example, this edit today removed ca:Tablet PC. My Catalan isn't any good, but it's still clear to me that Tablet computer was the correct, corresponding article, and it's now disconnected from the English Wikipedia.

I'd like someone to set these links correctly and get the bots to leave them alone. Help:Interwiki links didn't suggest a place to go for help, but if you can't solve the problem, maybe you can point me to the right place. Thanks! – Pnm (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

If these edits are being done by bots, please consider discussing with the bot handlers direct on their talk pages. You may also wish to leave a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing. If you are certain that the edits were incorrect, please feel free to revert them yourself. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Answered

 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Rather than file this as a content dispute, or get into edit wars, I'm asking someone else to take a look at their edits and perhaps explain Wikipedia [1]; they seem intelligent, and determined to add what they want, with or without valid sources, and quite unmindful of my explanations. Thanks, 76.248.147.199 (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The place to discuss this of course is at Talk:Wop where there have been no recent discussions for nearly 6 months. You've taken the initiative in one edit summary to suggest discussion, and you have left some relatively calm messages on Asails' talk page. I think you should wait for some conversation to develop. One area of research that does not appear to have been fully exploited, are the definitions in many dictionaries. I'm thinking here of the quality reference works such as, for example, the OED, Webster, American Heritage, Collins, Duden, Langenschiedt, Larousse, Random House Dictionary, etc. Don't place your trust in on-line collaborative dicos such as the Urban Dictionary. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Good advice, and thank you. I know not to touch Urban Dictionary, but the online dictionary I used drew its information from Random House. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

[[RFC/Error noted for the definition stated in italics, below. The definition (by its wording) seems to be speaking of physics --- not psychiatry. General rule of thumb is that there are three (3) natural sciences known -- physics, and biology. Most other science fields --- including any applied science --- are subsets, adjuncts and derivatives of those three natural sciences (e.g., botany and zoology as the only subdivisions of biology). Applied sciences related to the physical world or to humankind (e.g., medicine, dentistry, psychiatry, and other human health specialties) are man-made and governed by human and civil parameters --- including that of being subject to legislation and law enforcement --- and are not themselves deemed "natural sciences".]]

Nature of psychiatry (content found on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_psychiatry).....NOTE TO EDITOR: Although the general policy is for open edit, the error noted above is significant enough to raise the types of ethics issues related to scientific content released for general use. Blurbzone (talk) 07:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC) Blurbzone.]]

Psychiatry can be described as all of the following: Academic discipline – field of study with academic departments, curricula and degrees; national and international societies; and specialized journals. Scientific field (a branch of science) – widely-recognized category of specialized expertise within science, and typically embodies its own terminology and nomenclature. Such a field will usually be represented by one or more scientific journals, where peer reviewed research is published. A natural science – field that seeks to elucidate the rules that govern the natural world using empirical and scientific methods. A biological science – a branch of biology, which is concerned with the study of life and living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, origin, evolution, distribution, and taxonomy.[1] A medical specialty – branch of medical science. After completing medical school, physicians or surgeons usually further their medical education in a specific specialty of medicine by completing a multiple year residency to become a medical specialist.

Hi. This help desk is for asking/answering questions on editing issues. Please consider starting a discussion on the talk pages of any affected articles, or leaving a message for the folks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry task force. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I am the user on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ipodvideo6

However, I forgot my password and it says there is no e-mail account associated with the account. Is there a way I can delete this page?

Thanks, 50.96.8.32 (talk) 07:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

No, there isn't, because there is no way of proving that it's you. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you've found your password. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Deryck C. 18:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Apologies if this is a tedious request for help, I couldn't easily see how to deal with it from the FAQs.

There is an article for International Power that describes a UK-based FTSE company, "International Power Plc". At the same time, a redirection was set up some years ago for the phrase "International Power" and this redirects to Power in international relations. I am suggesting this redirect be removed and instead, a dismabiguation page for the various possibilities for "International Power" be added to the header of the company article. What is the correct way to go about deleting a redirection please? Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I changed the target of International power to International Power, and added a headnote on the article about the power company explaining that the article about political power exists. I think changing the target is better than deleting the redirect altogether. Deryck C. 18:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks, but can you explain please to assist me in learning? I am not quite clear why the redirection should be left - do we have redirections for something when an article with that exact name actually exists? Wouldn't it be better in that case to simply remove the redirection altogether? Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Short answer: English Wikipedia page names are case-sensitive, except for the first character. Deryck C. 18:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh. Sound of penny dropping. Thanks! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

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

I published a page on the Bourne Society that was promptly deleted because of copyright infringement. This was unintended but I understand why the deletion was made so have now recreated the page afresh in my user space doing my utmost to avoid any copyright infringement and my best to adhere generally to other guidance on first article creation. I have received some feedback on styling of this new draft and make relevant corrections. I now realise that I have a potential COI on this topic so have put a "Declaration of Interest" statement on both my user page and on the talk page of the article itself. Should I now seek further independent review of the article via WP:Editor_assistance or just submit to WP:Articles_for_creation? Inspeximus (talk) 11:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

 Checking... --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I have reviewed this article and examined the referenced sources. (I've placed an analysis of the sources on your talk page). It's never easy to establish notability for a local interest group, and while their work may be noble, it must nevertheless be sufficiently documented in order to assert notability for Wikipedia per our general notability guidelines, and criteria for organisations. In short, the problem here is not one of COI or COPYVIO, but one of notability, and unless articles in established media about the organsation can be sourced, I fear there is little chance at this time for the article to pass muster in mainspace. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your very prompt and considered reply - I understand both the principle and (from your analysis) the detail of your points which I'm afraid cannot be challenged. Thanks also for the links to the WP: policies that you give. I've removed primary sources and the society's own publications but I'll leave the article resident in my user space for now - assuming that's OK - pending further independent sources materialising.Inspeximus (talk) 13:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Answered

 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

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

I am have been trying to make Hedge fund#Systemic risk more NPOV. Another user, Bryant Park Fifth, is arguing on the talk page at Talk:Hedge fund#Systemic risk that I am exaggerating the risk that the hedge fund industry could bring about a major financial crisis sometime. This user admits freely to a possible conflict of interest, in having a connection to the Managed Funds Association, an advocacy etc outfit for the hedge funds etc industry. I am asking this person what exactly his/her status is, and whether he/she is a paid advocate. We are trying to resolve our differences in the talk page, and no intervention is necessary as yet – but I would just like to know if a person with a conflict of interest of this sort should be allowed to edit in what I think is a non-NPOV fashion? AWhiteC (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is a COI per se. The problem is: do hedge funds pose a systemic risk? What you do have is an editor who has a professional knowledge of the subject matter, and although that's not a bad thing, it could eventually lead to him/her making edits that express his/her own opinion. This therefore does not escape the fact that what anyone writes in the article must be sourced if it makes claims, and that the tone should be neutral - an encyclopedia article is not for discussing the merits of a topic, but accurately reporting what reliable sources have said about it. The conversation on the article talk page seems to be making progress, and I think you should wait for an answer to your latest post. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that. I'll try and resolve it amicably. This person does disclose a potential COI in their user page (Bryant Park Fifth) though. Watch this space. AWhiteC (talk) 11:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Answered

 – Danger ^{High voltage!} 16:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

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

My name is chloe nicholle, and there are some slanderous and false statements made about me under the Chloe Nicholle search findings. I have tried to remove them, but they keep coming back up. One dangerous piece of info is the california license plate number and the make and model of the car i drive being available to all who see it. I have two previous stalker issues arising from this post. Also, the false information about std's, which is a misquote of an interview i did with martin amis in early 2000. I do not have herpes, did not contract that virus from co-workers in my industry, nor believe everyone has the herpes virus. The info reproduced here and posted is a grossly taken out of context misquote, and is slanderous and unjust, not to mention hurtful and misleading. I am hoping someone will respond to this email to tell me how i can take this information off the wikipedia page that bears my name. Please let me know how to fix this false info. Please. Chloe nicholle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.47.97.211 (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, yeah, that license-plate thing is beyond wrong. Besides that, no-one seems to have put the herpes story back either, it's still gone. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

If you feel that you are the subject of a libellous or untrue statement in a Wikipedia biography about you, please go to Wikipedia:Libel and follow the instructions there. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I have temporarily protected the page from editing by anonymous and new users. Changes to the article must be requested on the article talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

In general, any independent editor is allowed to remove any unsourced statement from a biography at the request of the subject of the biography without going through any formal process, which seems to be the case here. It's only if the alleged false statement is cited from an external source that a more complicated process via WP:Libel is needed. Deryck C. 18:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Answered

 – Danger ^{High voltage!} 16:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe that "The Save The Children Film Fund" is important to the integrity of our world. In 1971, this organization attempted to remove the documentary from our hands. It was released in 2011 by BFI and is now being "removed" from Wikipedia every time I try to add it. This is obviously a marketing tactic by Save the Children and has no place on this website. Please consider my edits as they are important to the integrity of information abroad. In order to create transparency, a "controversies" section of Save the Children's page must be allowed.

Sincerely, TWillisJr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twillisjr (talk • contribs) 16:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC) — Twillisjr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Material making controversial claims such as this must be supported by information from neutral, reliable sources. Instead, your only "source" has been an IMDb listing. The IMDb, while it has its uses, is not considered a reliable source. If this information is true, you must back it up with references to press articles, articles in books, and the like; not to claims made by the makers of the film.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs)

I am doing my best to locate sources and create a better page/article. This is why I have so far: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Save_the_Children_Fund_Film_%281971%29

The information I've accumulated is supported by Guardian.co.uk articles. Perhaps I can be assisted? I apologize in advance for my lack of know-how.

-TWillisJr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twillisjr (talk • contribs) 17:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggest that you start by readiing the links that have been placed on your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I will try to make this as concise as possible:

• I researched controversies and scandals pertaining to Save the Children
• Valid sources can be easily found to support the information provided in the article
• OrangeMike (administrator) assisted in the clarification of the information submitted
• Information was removed on the basis that 3 pieces of information pertained to their subsidiary (RBreen)
• Article sections were edited with "subsidiary title in beginning of section"
• Removed a 2nd time (RBreen) using the same argument

Question: Should this research be removed from Wikipedia on this basis? The quantity of subsidiaries is significant, USA, SWEDEN, ... , ..., and I thought it should remain where it is. Also, wouldn't a creation of a "Save the Children USA" page require this main page to be renamed to "Save the Children UK?"

-TWillisJr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twillisjr (talk • contribs) 04:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

This is an ideal situation for a discussion on the article talk page which hasn't been touched for months. I see you have left a message on RBreen's talk page, but rather than start a conversation there, perhaps you should both discuss this openly on the article talk page where other contributors can add their comments. And please remember to sign your posts everywhere, and please post new messages at the bottom of all talk pages, otherwise they are all likely to be ignored. See WP:TPG for help on talk page use. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Answered

 – Danger ^{High voltage!} 16:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I am concerned that as an orginization that wants its readers to consider its content factual some of its content can be seen as bias and opinion based. Point in fact ; the segment titled: 2011 Norway Attacks in the article about Glenn Beck. Most of the article I believe was fact based but I detected a hint of bias against Mr. Beck and his views. Some editing should be done to remove said bias. Are the articles not read before they are posted ? I would not like to think that this is nothing more than a "Blog sight". T Hardesty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.243.121 (talk) 19:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• This should probably be dealt with at Talk:Glenn Beck. You can discuss your proposed changes to the article there, and if other people have suggestions or comments they should be taken into consideration. The Glenn Beck article is currently semi-protected which means that it can be edited only by logged-in users, and they must have been registered for at least four days and made at least 10 edits before. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Glenn_Beck/Archive_16#Comments_by_Glenn_Beck_about_the_Utoya_Island_massacre_in_Norway - this question was discussed, and sources noting the controversy over what Beck said were cited. The conclusion arrived at was that it was appropriate to refer to the matter. Beck said something offensive, which he and his supporters no doubt regret, but this regret is no justification for ignoring the issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Answered

 – Danger ^{High voltage!} 16:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you please create a Wikipedia Page for Late Maulana Tahir Husain Jarwali, renowned shia scholar, there is a page for his close friend Maulana Mirza Mohammad Athar but not for his late friend as he was and is one of the famous scholar of his time and till now he is remembered and missed by all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.97.21.246 (talk) 14:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

A better place to ask for this would be, Wikipedia:Requested articles. You can also create the article yourself at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. The second one is probably the quicker option. GB fan 14:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Answered

 – Danger ^{High voltage!} 16:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

i want to post a bio of recently deceased african=american author henry van dyke. you already have a henry van dyke, an entirely different white author. can i/how do i do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fieldinski (talk • contribs) 22:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The existing Henry van Dyke and your subject are both American writers so the article name is tricky. Per WP:QUALIFIER I would call the new article Henry Van Dyke (writer born 1928), and place hatnotes on both articles linking to the other. If you create the article and want help with the hatnotes then post again. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking at Steve Smith (wide receiver, born 1979), it would be "writer, born 1928". Buggie111 (talk) 01:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

None of the guideline examples at WP:QUALIFIER have a comma. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Answered

 – Danger ^{High voltage!} 16:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed the search results for Cipriano Reyes is not available.. yet when I search it on a search engine, a Wikipedia page comes up in a different language (Spanish). Is this a glitch of some kind?

-TWillisJr Twillisjr (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

No it's not a glitch, it's intentional. On the English Wikipedia you can only search for articles written in the English language. In this case, the article does not have an English edition, so it doesn't come up in the search results. For articles written in Spanish, you need to search the Spanish Wikipedia. Of course, you're always welcome to create an article on the English Wikipedia by translating the Spanish article into English! Deryck C. 18:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify the difference further, the English Wikipedia is at http://en.wikipedia.org while the Spanish Wikipedia is at http://es.wikipedia.org. There are more than 200 language editions and Wikipedia's own search function can only search the language you are currently at. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Answered

 – Danger ^{High voltage!} 16:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello

I am trying to find out the name of the music that is being played in the movie, BAND OF BROTHERS, can you please help me out,

Thank You

Roy C. Carruth

^{[details removed]} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.217.176.198 (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

A google search threw up this page with a track listing of the Soundtrack CD. If that's not enough then I suggest you ask this question at the Entertainment reference desk, where it will be seen by some movie experts. (I have removed your email address to protect your privacy) -- John of Reading (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Answered

 – Danger ^{High voltage!} 00:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your assistance.

Clearly I am making a mistake on the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina_Department_of_Natural_Resources

All the images have been cleared for use.

Yes, there are a lot of phone numbers and links to outside pages (all public domain government websites), but as a government agency we want to get information to folks looking for it.

This page has been repeatedly reverted to the intial page someone created. The initial page is chock full of incorrect info.

Any help on this matter would greatly be appreciated.

Scdnr (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it yet again. None of this content is appropriate for an encyclopedia, it belongs on your website. Wikipedia is not a directory, we do not have lists of telephone numbers and webpages. Since you are obviously connected to the SC DNR, I suggest you read our conflict of interest guidelines--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Answered

 – Danger ^{High voltage!} 00:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Need my text description for the article titled Enchanted Fairytale Parties and Enchanted Fairytale Parties LLC. Both were created 12/27/11 and were deleted speedy deletion. How can I get access to the text? 04:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.234.137 (talk)

Short answer is: you can't. You are not the creator of the article, and if you were, (User:Enchantedfp) as a blocked user, you might find your IP address also being shortly blocked for block evasion. If Enchantedfp wishes to continue editing, they should please consider making an unblock request per the instructions at User talk:Enchantedfp. FYI, both articles were deleted as blatant advertising - I have reviewed the deleted material and the deletions and the subsequent user block were procedurally correct. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion moved

 – To AN/I. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

hi if someone posts onto a talk page and then someone else says something, on there or somewhere else, and then the first person goes back and changes what they originally said, is that against policy or is it neutral or is it encouraged? thanks. Bouket (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Such changes are generally discouraged, for reasons given at the talk-page guidelines; here's a link. Haploidavey (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It depends. If you're talking about making a change that clarifies things without changing the meaning, it's not an issue, for example, if someone posted User_talk:Aditya_Kabir, then clarified it to User_talk:Aditya_Kabir#December_2011, it isn't necessarily a bad thing as in [2]. Toddst1 (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

i was more bothered by this [3] because i said that the original comment was not helpful and then you changed it to look like you were more helpful. Bouket (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

thank you very much. does it matter if its an admin who did it? Bouket (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

No. It doesn't matter. If an admin disrupted wikipedia by materially changing their comment, the correct thing to do if discussion isn't fruitful is to take the issue to ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Be sure to start new issues at the bottom of the ANI page. Toddst1 (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

can someone whos not the person who redacted their comments (Toddst1) please comment instead? Bouket (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you read the talk page guidelines? Do you think that the edits in question didn't comply with the guidelines? If the answer to both questions is 'yes' then let us know what the edit was, and why you consider it was incorrect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) Oh dear. Look, all this is in the guidelines. Like Toddst1 says, "who done it" makes no difference at all. "Why they done it" can make all the difference. A constructive, helpful change is, um, constructive and helpful. No big deal. So I'm not too sure what the problem here is. Could you be more specific? Haploidavey (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Ani#Redact. Toddst1 (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Sheesh. That's a problem? Bouket, if this horse ever had life, it seems well dead now, and needs nothing more than decent decay. Let if pass on, please do. Haploidavey (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

sorry i just wanted to know policy but then toddsp1 kept making more changes to my talk page and also joined this conversation so i thought i had to mention it now since he wouldnt leave me alone we can stop now Bouket (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

sorry i guess you missed by update above, i was more bothered by this [4] because i said that the original comment was not helpful and then you changed it to look like you were more helpful. Bouket (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Bouket (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything in the examples so far that have anything particularly wrong with them, even if they're technical violations of some guideline (I dunno if they are). Best advice at this point for Mr Bouket would be to get on with your life and don't make a mountain out of a mole hill. Яehevkor ✉ 22:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

thats what i wanted to do but toddsp1 kept making more changes to my talk page so every time i went to some other page i got a new orange box. i thought i was done with the whole thing and wasnt going to bring it up until he kept editing it. ill forget it since its not important i just wanted to know what policies were about it Bouket (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

the reason i didnt like it was because it looks like he did it afterwards so his comments wouldnt look bad. he knows i already know what hes talking about because i had to figure it out so changing his comments afterwards is not helpful and it just makes it look like he was more helpful than he was. sorry if this seems whiny or something. Bouket (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Your talk page is read by more than just you. It is a permanent record and often things are put there for more than just your benefit as was in the case here. Toddst1 (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

yes but the change makes it seem like you were a lot more helpful than you were. so its historically inaccurate. Bouket (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

toddsp1 why whenever i want to end something you keep bringing it up anyway? you just did it again. Bouket (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Bouket, this page here is the wrong forum for your dispute (please read the instructions on the page top), and continuing to post here will not make things better. Please take some of the advice that some of our most experienced administrators have posted to your talk page, and if it's still not clear you will certainly understand WP:BOOMERANG. The vast majority of your edits appear to be complaints about other editors and admins - please remember that our only goal here is to build an encyclopedia, and that it's probably better to leave some aspects of the work here to editors who have have been around a lot longer. Do consider concentrating for a while on building articles; there is plenty of help available, and if you have any questions, you are most welcome to ask me on my talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

hi kudpung. if this page is the wrong forum for this then why are you continuing to discuss it here, and not in some more appropriate forum? also the discussion was done and i thought it was over until you updated this AND notified me of this on my talk page which means i should respond right? i asked a simple question here and its only because toddsp1 decided to bring the dispute to this page that it continued here at all. i also dont like your accusation that the majority of my edits are complains about other editors. according to [5] more than half of my edits are to articles. only in the past few days have i even gone into this area of wikipedia where users seem to interact more. the same cant be said of you [6], so if youre going to tell someone to build articles, maybe it should be someone who has less article edits percentage than you? im sorry but your response seems to ill-enformed and inflammatory that i had to respond to it. please let this all stop now. i am going to copy this to your talk page please respond there since as you say this is not the appropriate place for this discussion. Bouket (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page. Now for the last time, please give it a rest here. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Answered

 – Danger ^{High voltage!} 05:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I have a question that I've posted regarding Walt Disney's Fun-to-Read Library. I've posted the question in its talk page. Basically, I'm torn between providing separate articles for each book in the series, or whether a Template:Book list is sufficient. Any advice? -- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 19:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

THe individual books clearly lack any notability, they fail WP:NBOOK. It is likely that that appklies to the series as well. I see nothing in the list to assert any sort of notability. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Answered

 – Danger ^{High voltage!} 05:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

User talk:76.204.148.47 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search [edit] January 2009 Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Raphael Lemkin, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. FaceVC3 (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC) The recent edit you made to Raphael Lemkin constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Catgut (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC) ________________________________________ I just started receiving a message above Wikipedia articles that I consult. This message is dated January 2009. It states that this writer (self or husband) posted an edit which constituted vandalism. I looked up the subject in question and found that part (or all) of the edit included the use of the word "f*cking". Neither of us use this type of language, nor have we posted any edits to any of your articles. It disturbs me to wonder where this information came from, and whether something worse may occur in the future. By the way, my husband recently made a donation to your fund drive. Could there be a connection? Also, no one else ever has access to our computers, and we don't use AOL. I have the impression that anyone could hit me with this sort of accusation, perhaps someone who doesn't like me in my personal life? Sorry I don't have hours right now to go through all the relevant material. Further, I can't engage in a dispute with some unknown person! I think we deserve an explanation for this case of mistaken identity. Our reputations are valuable, and we don't appreciate being accused of this kind of behavior! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.148.47 (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The edit in question was indeed made by your IP in 2009, but as you say, it probably wasn't done by you, so don't worry about it. If you have only just received the notification (I admit I don't really know how IP message notification works) then you may have just been the first people to use that IP since then. You should keep in mind that IP addresses don't usually belong to users but the ISPs they use or the institutions they access the internet from. It's likely you're on a dynamic IP internet connection so you are [regularity] reassigned addresses. It's just in this case the IP had previously been used for vandalism - that message was meant for them rather than you. Яehevkor ✉ 22:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, the best way to avoid messages like this is the future is to create an account, even if you don't plan to edit. When you're signed on, you won't receive messages intended for other people who have used your IP address. Danger ^{High voltage!} 23:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 03:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

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

I am trying to edit the article Aziz Shavershian in a manner that is objective and more fitting for an encyclopedia article, rather than the current fan boy-ish, one-sided article that it is.

There is a lot of evidence that suggests that Aziz abused steroids, which I feel is necessary to note, given that the main reason people idolized him was because he looked so muscular. However, the page keeps getting reverted by user:MelbourneStar, back to a previous, highly subjective edit.

I am not saying whether he did or didn't do steroids. I'm only saying that there is evidence that suggested it, which user:MelbourneStar vehemently refuses to admit.

I request that a block be placed on MelbourneStar for this article.

Can an editor please take a look at the complaintants edits on the article, see how they are worded. Esp. The death section, which has leade to my revert(s). Also, please take a look at the user's talk page, prior latest blanking. P.S., I'm off, will discuss tommorow morning. Thank you, -- MST☆R ^{(Happy New Year!)} 15:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has policies in place to protect living and recently deceased people from improperly sourced negative claims. MelbourneStar is acting to enforce those policies. The material you have added is partly improperly sourced. Zzyzzcentral.com is not a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes because it does not have editorial oversight. The fact that it appears in the article already is not an argument for its reliability. Also, you should not add your own commentary and analysis to articles, like "there is a multitude of evidence that suggests..." and similar.

Please remember to sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~). Danger ^{High voltage!} 16:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Zoolon, making threats such as you did with If you continue arguing with the facts I will have you banned. My roomate is an administrator on Wikipedia is not the way we do things here. I strongly suggest that you read up on some our policies here before continuing to edit the encyclopedia, and if you don't understand them - ask your 'room mate'. Here's a start: WP:CIVIL, and WP:BOOMERANG. Happy new year to you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

List begins BELOW this line -->

• Donnabalancia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Troll --—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I began the conversation by sending a nice, random note to an intelligent person. As you can see via the history, I said "You have an interesting background and I am learning patience from you." My daughter is interested in science and I saw the impressive credentials of this editor.

The immediate retort was to speedily delete request all my pages. Weird!!

I am thoroughly depressed and will not use Wikipedia again. It was a terrible experience and I am very sad about this person.

Goodbye— Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnabalancia (talk • contribs) 07:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Donnabalancia has been a member of this site since mid 2008. She is most definitely not a "new user". She came unannounced to my talk page with this cryptic message and then for some odd reason gave me a New Years message. When I investigated her edits, I discovered that she created several articles that are not worthy for inclusion on this project, and I went out and took care of them as I see fit.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

{E/c}I could be mistaken, but I believe this is exactly the kind of case I was referring to on Jimbo's talk page earlier this evening. (See my three comments there.) It seems to be a very inexperienced user who three times in the past wrote what we consider spam but she considers worthy business articles. No one caught those other articles so she had no way of knowing they weren't acceptable. Check out her contribs. Now she does it again in good faith and--SNAP!--Bite the newbie! She is obviously who she says she is. Why not cut her some slack, explain the rules, and reread her posts as being from an ingenuous, well-intentioned newbie. Yopienso (talk) 08:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read my previous posting. sorry about no signature and I am not a "troll" as called by Rylong -- I am someone who is going to disconnect from Wikipedia permanently. Thanks

I was just trying to be a nice friendly person on the last day of the year. While I have been a Wikipedia person for a while, I have not been exposed to true editing and issues like these ever before. I am appalled by this. My "cryptic" message was an attempt to be friendly to another Florida person. I was just outreaching for friendship. Will go elsewhere, it was a dumb idea to make friends with anyone here!

Donnabalancia (talk) 08:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Editor Yopienso, I appreciate that you understood I was coming from a good place. I did not know I was supposed to receive some kind of invite to a person's talk page to post a greeting or a friendly comment. That is probably what started all of this. Then when I did post something nice, the speedy deletion requests really confused me. I thought I was actually fine with the articles that had been up for so long without any action. It is not the reaction I expected as we enter a happy and healthy new year. I am very sad about this and particularly about being referenced as someone who lives under a bridge...(?) I see that on my welcome page there are notes that were added a little while ago on how to proceed on a how to post an article. I will not be contributing again. But thanks for this:

{E/c}I could be mistaken, but I believe this is exactly the kind of case I was referring to on Jimbo's talk page earlier this evening. (See my three comments there.) It seems to be a very inexperienced user who three times in the past wrote what we consider spam but she considers worthy business articles. No one caught those other articles so she had no way of knowing they weren't acceptable. Check out her contribs. Now she does it again in good faith and--SNAP!--Bite the newbie! She is obviously who she says she is. Why not cut her some slack, explain the rules, and reread her posts as being from an ingenuous, well-intentioned newbie. Yopienso (talk) 08:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnabalancia (talk • contribs)

You're welcome, and please hang around! Friendly editors have helped me through many misunderstandings; they will help you, too. I've taken the liberty of backspacing your quote to get rid of that box, and of downsizing the font since the message is posted just above. Happy New Year! Yopienso (talk) 08:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I ignored the questionable actions of a strange user who doesn't know anything about the site, and discovered two crappy articles and one she blanked herself that wasn't very good to begin with. I don't care what happens to her, because she is violating one of our core policies by writing about things she is directly involved with.—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

And as far as I am aware this is not something that is relevant to this board. And I am sorry if I was suspicious of this person, because frankly I've pissed off some number of people offsite and god only knows who this one person might be who came out of nowhere to my talk page.—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Bed tax requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. —Ryulong (竜龙) 09:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC) Listen to me. Stop making pages. You do not know our internal rules and the more you break them the more I lose my patience in dealing with you.—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnabalancia (talk • contribs)

MEAN PERSON VERY MEAN

Please delete all my pages. I don't want to be involved at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnabalancia (talk • contribs) 09:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Stop making new sections every time you want to complain about me. You are acting wrong, and I am trying to fix things.—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. —Ryulong (竜龙) 07:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC) You have added this information only after I asked for an editor's intervention. I do not appreciate what you called me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnabalancia (talk • contribs) I'm not here to hold your hand. These articles are not appropriate for Wikipedia.—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnabalancia (talk • contribs)

Stop that.—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not even going to waste my time investigating this. Donna and Ryulong either sort out your differences on your talk pages with some seasonal goodwill, one of you read the policies, and the other don't bite noobs, OK? Or go to the WP:DR forum, but not here. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It need not be investigated, and she is not a newb. She's just simply someone who's been here for 3 years and has no idea how anything is supposed to work, particularly this page when she made 4 different topics on this one incident that she has totally blown out of proportion.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The length of tenure since first registration is of no consequence, a user with only 69 edits is still a newcomer, and does not have the same experience as someone with 161,754 edits and a long block log. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

What the hell does my block log have to do with this mess?—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Ryulong, you commented that she "has no idea how anything is supposed to work", and yet brandished her as a troll at the top of this thread. I do hope an editor with 150000+ edits will understand how to help other editors and collaborate in good faith better than that. --Deryck C. 16:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The article Strath-Taieri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) should be changed to Strath Taieri, i.e. no hyphen. I have removed the hyphens in the actual article. There has never been a hyphen in this place name. Aemiddlemarch (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a matter to be discussed among the contributors to the article (and anyone else who drops by) at Talk:Strath-Taieri. Please start your discussion on that page, and if there is little reposnse after a while, you may wish to consider making a neutrally worded invitation to the other contributors on their talk pages to take part in the discussion. You can find out who they are here --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

A quick Google search would seem to support the OP's position that the title should be Strath Taieri, so I am tempted to move the page back there. If there is any opposition the move can be reverted and a Requested move discussion opened on the talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done – ukexpat (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Answered

 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I am having trouble if any experienced editor with airports, airlines, and aviation on how to list London Southend Airport as a destination in airport articles. The dispute is whether or not Southend Airport is considered a London airport (i.e. Gatwick, Stansted, Luton, Heathrow, and City Airport) eventhough most of these airports are about 30 or 40 miles away from London itself and located in the suburbs....also a couple of IPs are listing it as Southend-on-the-Sea (which I believe is part of London). I have started a discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#London_Southend_Airport but only 2 editors replied. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

There's not much we can do here at EAR to resolve any such dispute. You have already started discussions in the two most logical places and I fear that you'll just have to wait for more participation. WP:Airports is a fairly active project, but you could consider also leaving a message at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation and with one or two of its more active members . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Southend-on-Sea is **not** part of London. It's part of Essex. The name 'London Southend Airport' is because of its private owner's branding, not location. Regional Airports Ltd (RAL) has a tendency to put 'London' on every commercial venture they acquired. Such as renaming 'Biggin Hill Airport' as 'London Biggin Hill Airport', 'Southend Airport' as 'London Southend Airport' and so on. LSA is now owned by a different company, but the name remains the same. I personally do not consider LSA as a 'London airport'. We don't even consider Luton (Bedfordshire) and Stansted (Essex), in spite of the use of 'London' in their current names, as London airports either. The only "real" London airport is London City Airport (please note that there are more than one English airport with 'City Airport' as a name). Heathrow and Gatwick are part of Greater London while City Airport is part of London (as it's in Newham Borough). For what it's worth, anyhow. 0zero9nine (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Now that would be an excellent addition to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Gatwick isn't in London either - it's in West Sussex! Deryck C. 16:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Answered

 – OP informed on their tp. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Periyar_(river) origin dispute. The reference's are being removed continuously without valid reasons, Also people fail to discuss the edit's in most cases. Please assist me on how to resolve this. I have earlier applied for the article protection but have failed to achieve one. Thanks. Pearll's Sun^TALK 09:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I see that the page is protected until tomorrow, if edit warring recommences, you could consider making reports at WP:3RR, especially if the other edits refuse to engage in discussion. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance, i wasn't active recently hence missed the WP:3RR, will sure report to WP:3RR if they keep editing without discussing. Pearll's Sun^TALK 08:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Answered

 – OP notified on tp. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

Since I don't know where else to ask this, I'll just do it here. On my Watchlist, the following entry appeared: "(Deletion log); 01:53 . . (Username or IP removed)‎ (log action removed) (edit summary removed)". Note that my timezone settings are CET. I was wondering... what can be *so* secret that we can't even know which admin performed this deletion or what log entry was given? Or which page it was all about? (which was on my watchlist, so it can't have been thát bad...) Any help in shedding light on this issue would be appreciated. effeietsanders 09:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Very sorry, really can't help you there - not enough to go on. I'll do one qiuck check and let you now what I find that might help you locate it so you know what the article was, but it must have been pretty bad to have been revdel'd and oversighted. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry, I can't even find anything in your deleted pages that correlates. You'll just have to forget about it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that is exactly why I worry about it - and why it shouldn't happen this way :P Maybe in the deletion log, at 00:53 UTC ? You can find it on this page between "Yamamoto Ichiro (talk | contribs) (log action removed) ‎ (test)" and "Nyttend (talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Floydian/Archive 1" ‎ (U1: User request to delete page in own userspace: G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup)". effeietsanders 10:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

If you can't find it there, neither can I. If it's been oversighted even I can't see it. If it's not a page you created, I shouldn't worry about it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no real way to be able to find it. I guess you could look over WP:OVERSIGHT to see what the oversight policy is. Other than that, there's no real way to know.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 15:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure why you're pointing to that policy page. I am aware of oversight, but I simply see no reason why the oversighter should be hidden as well. Now it suggests that the oversighter tries to hide his action - and very effectively because people tell me basically "don't bother". effeietsanders 14:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 03:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I have been explaining these policies regarding my recent reverts (see second one re: WP:Coi and WP:RS problems here) of User talk:Marc R M Gauvin's material at his talk page. I tell him to read the policies but I don't think he has. He just keeps disagreeing with me. I think he needs to hear it from another editor so it doesn't seem like I'm just some ill informed person biting a newbie. CarolMooreDC 16:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks as if an editor has already chimed in on the lines you suggested. I don't think there's any need to escalate right now, but if the issue persists, the best venue would be WP:DR. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Answered

 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Quite a few months back Wikipedia editor Mike Rosoft left a comment on the Six Million Crucifixions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) page regarding references to sources affiliated with the subject, rather than references from independent authors and third-party publications. I made a couple of attempts to contact him both on the article's Talk page and his own Talk page, to no avail.

The question is, what if some of the third party remarks in the article were written directly to the author by all those scholars in the field of the book, none of whom are affiliated with the author? They are very relevant, very significant and independent, but they were never published in an independent publication. It seems to me those are valid references. Thanks! Esautomatix (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a matter to be discussed among the contributors to the article (and anyone else who drops by) at Talk:Six Million Crucifixions. As there has been no reponse as yet, you may wish to consider making a neutrally worded invitation to the other contributors on their talk pages to take part in the discussion. You can find out who they are here where there are also direct links to their talk pages. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Answered

 – OP notified on tp. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Article in Dispute: Afghan National Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Point of Dispute: Size of the Army.

The US Army officer responsible for the success of the program, General Caldwell, has now assigned an Army officer at the program headquarters in Kabul full-time responsibility to propagandize this entry. The correct numbers were provided by statisitcal analysis from the US Army's own "Military Review" magazine. However, the U.S. Army continues to propagandize this page with numbers the Globe and Mail has shown to be false. The correct information in the U.S. Army's own magazine may be found here: http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/MilitaryReview/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20091231_art004.pdf

Noted Afghan scholars Professor Thomas Johnson (Naval Postgraduate School) and Professor M. Chris Mason (Center for Advanced Defense Studies) have attempted repeatedly to post accurate force size numbers using the U.S. Army's own statisitical analysis.

Attempts to resolve this by compromise have failed. Entries which noted the size was "disputed by experts" have been erased by General Caldwell's staff and replaced with the falsified numbers, as reported by the Globe and Mail.

This is essentially a repeat of the Pentagon Papers, in which the U.S. military deliberately publishes falsehoods which it knows from its own sources to be false, in order to mislead the public on important matters of public policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.3.231 (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

We really only handle editing enquiries here. The place for disputes is the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. That said, this issue can be resolved through normal discussion on an article talk page. Please join the conversation at Talk:Afghan National Army #Size of the Army is Disputed and General Caldwell's numbers alone are not acceptable that you have not yet contributed to. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Answered

 – User welcomed by Ukexpat at User talk:Tazm123. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hiya.

eCan I make new pages for people and how do you make a new page?

Tazm123

See WP:Your first article. – ukexpat (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion moved

 – To Talk:Francis Hastings, 2nd Earl of Huntingdon. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia editor,

I have made the contribution currently listed for this entry in Wikipedia. I copied the entry from "Word" I had created to find that it has been word-wrapped. Is it possible to correct this?

sincerely, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.123.148.195 (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

There are multiple serious issues with this article. I will make some fixes for your and explain the rest on your talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: In spite of your brave efforts, the article was in such a mess from previous edits, after an hour I gave up and reverted it to the last coherent version. I have started a discussion on the article talk page and will be notifying have notified all the recent contributors. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

On Arain Foster has 2 born dates — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.32.193.200 (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You mean Arian Foster. Thanks. I have fixed it.[7] PrimeHunter (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Good to know. Thanks for looking. Danger ^{High voltage!} 00:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi folks, sorry for the lame request but I can't find the template for adding potentially useful sources to a talkpage (the one that goes near the top with the wikiproject banners). Can anyone point it out for me please? Someoneanother 21:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean {{Find sources}}? PrimeHunter (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

No, there's one where you can drop a source you've already found onto the talk page to give future editors a heads-up, I'm forever seeing interesting sources I don't have time to use. Thanks for responding though. Someoneanother 00:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure such a thing exists, but can't seem to find it. Should be in Category:Talk header templates. Closest I can find is Template:To do. Яehevkor ✉ 00:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look through the category, thanks for the link, but nothing resembling it is in there. I'll have another look around some talk pages, it would be a good template to spread around a bit. Someoneanother 13:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Found it :) It was on the talkpage of Mario 64 - {{Refideas}}. Thanks for the input, this can be marked as resolved. Someoneanother 00:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)