Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 70

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

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Dordevic milan (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Kiril_Peychinovich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dear Wikipedia Editor-Assistance-Team,

I am a doctorate student on the Thomas Institute for Medieval Philosophy on the University of Cologne (Germany) and a demonstrator on the Faculty of Theology in Skopje (Macedonia). Today I tried to edit the article abut the Christian Theologian Fr. Kiril Peychinovich (18-19 Century). Few times my comments were deleted, as I could notice, from a moderator of one of the local Wikipedia sites.

When asking what is the reason for that - he answered only that he deleted my posts because I was quoting myself. First, I quoted my original published works, based on my researches in the period between 2005 and 2010. Second, these quotes were only a part of the sources I quoted - and all was deleted!

The comments were written from a neutral point of view and scientifically and politically correct. There was a debate on the same topic on the question are the works of Fr. Kiril Peychinovich written on macedonian or on bulgarian (in that time both of this languages didn't exist as official and standardized languages, so I find the question in general "a little bit unusual"). I tried to present a scientific point of view about the problem, different from the nationalistic and the ideological one, after what my comments were erased and I was warned not to post texts any more.

I posted also two minor corrections (in italic below), that were deleted as well: 1) a serbian transcription of the name of Fr. Kiril (he used this transcription himself in his original publications) and 2) correction in the existing text, that one quotation reflects only a position of a group of Bulgarian researchers (and not of all researchers of Fr. Kiril's life and work).

In addition I paste the erased texts:

Kiril Peychinovich or Kiril Pejčinoviḱ ((Macedonian: Кирил Пејчиновиќ, Bulgarian: Кирил Пейчинович, [Кирил Пеjчиновић] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help))) (c. 1770 — 7 March 1865) was a cleric, writer and enlightener. According to the bulgarian researchers he is considered as one of the first supporters of literature in modern Bulgarian (as opposed to Church Slavonic) and one of the early figures of the Bulgarian National Revival. (...)

However, his life-mission overcomes in all aspects the contemporary national debates generated around his person and his work. His model of enlightenment was based on the hagioretic Eucharistic movement, which was fighting for a liturgical and not a national revival. He used the regional dialects in the writing, and the terminology of his time. According to this terminology the Bulgarian language was his own, as much as the Serbian ruler Milos Obrenovic and the Kingdom of Serbia were his own ruler and kingdom. In this context, he writes about "the spiritual love towards the Serbian ruler, and towards his Serbian fatherland" . From one different scientific perspektive (not the theological one) Blaze Koneski concludes that in Kiril Peychinovich's time in Macedonia there wasn't any strictly defined sense for national identity. In other words, the national Ideas and tendencies which were already present in other parts of the Balkans, were still very weak in the world, in which Kiril Peychinovich, the great orthodox-christian enlighter and preacher, lived and worked.

PS. Only on few places I see I could make some changes, generally in the formulations, but not in the content (for example, I would remove "the great orthodox-christian enlighter and preacher" from the last sentence, or I would insert "according to (...source quote...) seems to contradict" instead of "overcomes" in the first sentence of the second paragraph). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.195.2 (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, you may have a conflict of interest when adding references to your own works, it is probably best to discuss propsed changes on the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I am requesting assistance regarding a dispute between me R-41 and another user, Caremerger. We have engaged in discussions and bitter arguments over content in the article about Corporatism. He has repeatedly engaged in ad hominem attacks against me, accusing me of being "authoritarian", of deliberately trying to distort the article, and for the material I have contributed as being "absurd". It is my belief that he wants to make the article an attack page to disparage the topic of the article, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Furthermore, he appears to be using original research by using U.S. Supreme Court cases and material related to Adam Smith to make arguments about corporatism when I do not think these sources say anything about corporatism. I have informed him about this and he does not seem to understand. Lastly, I admit that I have been very frustrated and at times aggressive with this user, which is not acceptable: I will accept any reasonable reprimand on me for behaving poorly to the user. He is right to claim that in the earlier phases of our discussions I was very frustrated and angry with some of the claims he made that I did not deem to be legitimate, but I have tried to ameliorate it through negotiation, the frustration remains with me however. But I must stress that I cannot seem to be able solve this dispute on my own, as he seems to be highly reluctant to cooperate with me. I REALLY need assistance here and am requesting mediation.--R-41 (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that you have been answered at your talk page, if you wish to take if further consider taking it to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Chronic cerebro-spinal venous insufficiency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

CCSVI and external links require closer scrutiny. I edited the title of one before registering here. I placed a links to multiplesclerosissurgery.com. If people feel it is not relevant, fine. The findings of CCSVI is significant whether it is connected to MS or not, this is the fact that must be highlighted. It has already benefit people, bracketed as having MS related symptoms. Coincidence? Possibly, but there is no doubt CCSVI needs urgent attention.

I was wanting to remove the 4th (last) external link but figured, if you review it, you will see for yourself why. Misleading propaganda is what's delaying action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MremMac (talk • contribs) 18:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you discuss things on the article talk page. I have placed some useful links on your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Davison, Michigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On the Wikipedia page for Davison MI I revised the Notable residents to include the 50th House District Jim Slezak that lives there owns a business there and is the State Representative for that area. An anonymous person removed this noting to "Check Wikipedia's rules on notability". I even linked the entry to the Reps state web site. Please stop further vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.40.8.80 (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Slezak meets the notability requirements, I have left notes on the article talk page and the other editor's talk page, which is the usual procedure in cases such as this. BTW, please do not blank article talk pages, this could well be considered as vandalism. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess you could start a list page, " notable people from Davison" LOL. At some point you could edit for promience , this isn't like "notable people from NYC". Not sure what the big deal is about this single entry however. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have added the state rep for the city of Davison and the local area to the Davison Wikipedia page and for some reason it keeps getting removed. I have even provided a footnote with the entry for further info on the Rep Jim Slezak and also show the relevance of the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.95.12 (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I moved this into the original thread. Why don't you try discussing this with the reverting editor who seems to have valid reasons for their reversions. Use the article talk (discussion) page, that is what it is there for. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

My subsequent attempts to improve the lead section of Ignatius of Loyola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) were reverted under various pretexts including "sigh" as the last. My opponent(s) stated "that the lead needs rewording" in Talk:Ignatius of Loyola#The lead inconsistent with WP:LEAD, but have continued reverting. In short, I try to replace:

with

--71.247.231.74 (talk) 01:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not particluarly helpful to describe other editors as your "opponents". You need to try to work with others to improve articles. I am not going to make a judgement on which text is "better" but the diffrences are extremely minor. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstood the request. It is not about your help with editing, but to stop reverting my edits. If the changes are minor then my edits are acceptable. Hence, the reverting is unjustified. Please, help to stop unjustified reverting. --71.247.231.74 (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well on re-reading the talk page and looking at your suggestions, I have to agree with the other editors taht you proposed additions were ungrammatical and not helping improve the artcile. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

My goodness...and you consider yourself to be an English grammar authority judging by the phrase you have written just above: "taht you proposed additions were ungrammatical"?--71.247.231.74 (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I made some typos whilst typing. Please read and consider WP:CIVIL. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

So, maybe you also misread my last suggestion considering your initial opinion stated above that "diffrences are extremely minor" or maybe you cannot see the differences (correct speling) at all, so now you conveniently agree with my opponents... please?--71.247.231.74 (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SEQUENQUEEN/Sequen&oldid=342849082

How do I get help editing a page?

I have posted some links on your talk page, but please note that your username appears to be against wikipedia policy and you will need to change it. Information about this has been left on your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

there is a rumor,that fredrick william iv of prussia and his queen,had children.(it would be strange at the time for them not too,somehow)it has been told that his brother william(who succeeded him)possibly killed, disowned or even controlled elisabeth ludovika of bavaria(fredrich william's queen)and her family friends in sweden/finland or even her twin sister queen amalia of saxony(who had 9 children)saved fredrick william's children and they were erased from history,possibly for royal politics or religious ones,at that time.could there be any truth to this???????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.46.90 (talk) 08:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi - this page is for asking for assistance in editing Wikipedia. You enquiry is probably better directed to WP:Reference desk/Humanities. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have a question that is more general than a specific editor request, and I thought it should go on the Village pump. I was curious why the help contents template above does not have a link to the pump. I know I can search for it, but IMHO I think it should be an option. What can I do to affect this? Auntie E. (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I would guess that it is not linked because its more for editors with experience. Although all are welcome to comment i see it more as a place to discuss user friendly changes that can only really be talked about by editors with knowledge off wiki ways....just my opinion have no clue really y..just noone answered you for some time here...Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There are links to the Pump on the main page. Also, if you have several favourite pages you check regularly, you can put them on your user page. My user page has a copy of a box of discussion page links called template:editabuselinks, which includes this page, and a box of links to the various village pump pages, which I copied from the main page. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Korea Environment Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I recently wrote a page for the Korea Environment Institute, a scientific institute funded by the Korean government that performs research on water quality, climate change, and greenhouse gas reduction etc, and with about 100 or so Ph.Ds in various disciplines. (Full disclosure- I work there, but I am NOT a publicity officer, and my employer did not ask me to write a page here)

The page was deleted by Tnxman307 for being "advertising," "conflict of interest," "shared account" etc. I attempted to discuss it with him largely to no avail (discussion here). I believe that the page was written in good faith and that the deletion was unwarranted, and I would like to restore the page in a manner that reasonably satisfies Wikipedia's guidelines.

Thank you

Korenvit (talk) 02:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for coming here for help. I'm glad that you discussed this with tnxman307. "I would suggest writing it in a sandbox first and asking another editor to review the article before moving it to the mainspace". This seems like a good suggestion to me. Have you considered it? If you need help using your sandbox I can help. Remember, however, that the article is probably going to be ignored/deleted for being not notable and a conflict of interest. If you didn't save the content of the article, you can sometimes ask an administrator to restore content to your sandbox. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 02:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for replying so quickly. As I have said, it employs 100 or so Ph.Ds, has staff exchanges with international organizations like the OECD etc.; participates in international projects to contain global warming, and accordingly, IMO, and within a specialized field and region, meets notability criteria. I think "conflict of interest," again is a moot point, as the page was written in good faith on an uncontroversial issue, there is no campaigning or POV pushing on my part, and no attempt has been made to attain commercial gain. Whether the article is ignored by the vast majority of non-specialist people is also not really an issue to me either, I just do not believe that there is any good reason to delete an article about a reasonably sized research institution that performs internationally published scientific research. Korenvit (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia policies on the notability of organisations and honestly ask yourself whether you can find sufficent reliable third party sources that can verify the notability. On the face of it you should be able to do so. Create the article in your user space, usually as a subpage, e.g. User:Korenvit/Korean Environment Institute. Please consider whether your username might be considered in violation of our user name policy, as it appears to be an abbreviation or acronym of the organisation. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

....Gads, I went "so around-and-around" to just find this, that I won't be able to make 'the entry' myself, but feel that such, in "clarifying 'some misunderstanding'", really SHOULD BE MADE. In any event, I ran across something once in 'WIsconsin' that I come-to-realize is "a Europeanism": this is that 'the word Jew' is sometimes employed to mean "Banker", which role in Europe, most because of 'Church-strictures' re 'usury' restricted 'that trade' thereto. In any event, listing of such [as] 'Disambiguation' would, I think, clarify both "'Wilhelm II's' post-WWI employ of the term" (but, of course, 'the Rothschilds' [but for 'a lass' who married 'a [VERY-distant] Relative'], WERE 'Jewish'), as too "a relative of 'my Grandmothers family' who was 'a [German Democratic Party] Reichstadt-member'". Could someone make such addition for me, as, though an engineer' I can't really "understand how to do that myself". Thank you...... <email redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.244.22 (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry this is a an encyclopaedia where articles are backed up by reliable third party sources, it is not a place for posting contentious racist materila. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

How do I flag an editor experienced in sports articles that the Hooverball entry is in need of attention? There is already some sort of notice on the top of the page .Is there something more that can be done? Is there a list somewhere? Or is this page that list? Thanks.

Mineralgift (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have added the {{expert-subject|Games}} tag and will post a request for review at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Games. – ukexpat (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Throughout, the article on "aliyah" speaks of "Jews returning to Israel." However, the author is referring to persons who had never previously been in Israel. Their parents had not been in Israel, nor their grandparents or even their great grandparents. This phraseology, "returning to Israel" is intended to convey an unproven assertion or point of view, i.e. that all Europeans who claim Jewish ethnicity are biological descendants of ancient Jews, specifically the Jews referred to in the Hebrew Bible, and thus that any Russian Jew lured into Israel by offers of free land is simply "going home." Until this assertion is proven in accordance with normal standards of proof, Wikipedia should not allow itself to be made a tool of what is actually Zionist propaganda.

What is known by the whole world to be true is that large numbers of Europeans claiming to be Jews entered Palestine following WWII, led by men who had received military training from members of the British military forces who were still in Europe following WWII and with guns provided by the US military forces. These Europeans carried out a plan, formulated in advance, to force Palestinian families to abandon homes which they owned and to which they had deeds and to kill those who refused. Entire villages and towns who resisted were murdered by these armed invaders. I am referring to families who had lived in their homes and on their lands in Palestine for centuries, many for 1,000 years of more. I am referring to families that included elderly persons who died on this forced exit, as well as pregnant young women who miscarried during the forced exit. (Note that I am using the name that the ancient Romans gave to the land, which modern Israel was built on during the 20th century. For thousands of years the land has been and still is Palestine.) [For scholarly support of my position, see the book, "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine," by the Israeli historian, Ilan Pappe, which is available from Amazon.com.]

Claims to be descendants of the Jews named in the Bible do not authenticate facts worthy of acceptance by humankind. Suppose I publicize a portable library of documents that I describe as ancient religious literature stating that God gave the land now referred to by the public at large as northwest USA to my ancestor and his descendants to possess forever and stating further that the person I name as my ancestor and his colleagues were instructed by God to eat crops that they had not planted and, in general, to take ownership of anything on this land that may be of value. Suppose my portable religious library provides numerous stories of a people, descended from my alleged ancestor who lived on the land, after slaughtering those already living there, including "every man, woman, and child" (to borrow language from the Bible). Suppose I, in the 21st century, invade the headquarters of Microsoft Corporation and the home of its founder. Suppose I and a large number of my kinsmen enter northwest USA with very advanced weapons and take possession of much of it and declare it to be our new nation. Suppose I am successful in persuading the United Nations to accept my claims and grant me 50% of the land in four states in northwest USA, but then I and my kinsmen drive out the international observers, accuse them of racist prejudice against us, and seize all of the land in these states. I submit this would be a reasonably accurate analogy with the history of Israel.

No less an author that Arthur Koestler, the Jewish European journalist and novelist who wrote that powerful anti-soviet novel, "Darkness at Noon," also wrote an essay stating that the Jews of Europe were descendants, not from Biblical Jews, but from a warlike European people called the Kozars, who were converted to Judaism during the ninth century. One need not be an "anti-semite" to object to the creation of modern Israel in the name of God. [I am using quotation marks because the term, once meaningful in the context of traditional Europe where Jews were the only Semites, has become a propaganda term. The real Semites were ancient peoples of the fertile crescent, including Arabs, Hebrews, Phoenicians, and others. Surely it is time to stop using such propaganda language as "Arab anti-semitism."]

Now, should the managers of an online user-generated encyclopedia permit me to publish articles, in the name of history, regarding those of my people who are now "returning" to our sacred land? Think about this: even it should be true, by some twist of fate, that I and my kinsmen are descendants, from, among others, an ancient people who lived in what is now northwest USA and that my portable religious literature describes a promise by God to my ancestors, should this sacred literature accepted as proof of my land claim? The correct answer is obviously no, because every human being has the right to his/her own conception of God and of God's intentions.

In Anglo-American law, ownership of land is proven by deeds, going back to documented land grants from European kings, or bills of sale agreed to by Native American leaders (or, in some cases, stolen from the Native Americans), not by the religious literature basing ownership on gifts from God. The Bible is everything except objective evidence that God gave Palestine to the ancient Hebrews and their descendants. The Zionist Jews can hardly be accepted as objective experts as to the question of to whom Palestine belongs. Have you noticed the Bible's presentation of Abraham (who was apparently the progenitor of many nations) as owning no land at all, stating explicitly that, when he decided that he should have a burial plot, he bought land for his plot, having none of his own. How can we believe, then, that God gave Abraham land, and how, then can the Jewish people have inherited lands from him?

The Europeans who created concentration camps with gas ovens for killing Jews should have been punished by confiscation of European lands to be offered as a home for European Jews. To say that Lord Balfour or the United Nations made them owners of lands that actually belonged to Middle Easterners is a mere fantasy. A gift by me of something that is not mine does not convey ownership. Nor do Germany's guilt-ridden gifts of money to the lands that Germany seized from Jews. Every piece of land is legally unique. The USA should have permitted the ship, St. Louis, and other ships bringing Jews to our shores, to land in our ports instead of turning them away, to be killed by the Nazi regime in Europe.

European Jews have been very good citizens of the United States, from the Jews who helped the USA get started by lending money to the Continental Congress down to and including such wonderful human beings as Albert Einstein. However, I no longer believe the Jews to be "God's chosen people," even though the Bible, which was written by Jews, claims that they are. Such a belief is very dangerous because it can be used to justify conduct that would be condemned if others engaged in it. A belief that one specific people have a divine pedigree is an exceedingly dangerous idea. The traditional Japanese religion, Shinto, teaches that the Japanese people are descended from a goddess. During WWII, the rulers of the Japanese Empire used that religious heritage to persuade the Japanese people that killing other peoples in order to get their land was a totally justifiable idea. This is eerily familiar.

The Palestinian Arabs of the Middle East did not carry out the Holocaust, but the Holocaust and the need to avoid further Holocausts are often cited to defend crimes committed against the Palestinians. In Israel today, advocacy is frequently heard for a final solution against the Palestinians, i.e. total exclusion or death, even those most of the land is really theirs. In reality, the Palestinians are forced to live under an illegal Israeli military occupation, or confined in a tiny strip of land and denied the right to engage in international trade or even to receive internationally donated relief supplies of food or building materials, without the approval of the Israeli military. Israel claims to be "the only democracy in the Middle East," but democracies do arrest thousands without charge and hold them for years without access to legal counsel or even to see their families. However, the European Jews who drove Palestinians off their lands committed ethnic cleansing, a crime against humanity, and are not the true owners of the land on which Israel was subsequently created. (C.F. Ilan Pappe.) Wikipedia should eliminate the articles referring to Jews who had never previously been in Israel "returning" to Israel. Those who believe in the teaching of Zionism certainly have the right to publish their own literature. For such teachings to be done in the name of objective truth is merely an attempt to cover up the real history of modern Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.32.29 (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, this request noticeboard really isn't the place to post your own point of view on this somewhat emotive issue. Wikipedia is about editors working together to produce good artciles. If you feel an article is unbalanced or biased please discuss on the article talk (discussion) page, but please don't just assert your own point of view without reliable sourcing. Thanks. I have posted some useful links about Wikipedia on your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Rosehill Secondary College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) link added --antilived^{T | C | G} 00:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Re page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosehill_Secondary_College

I recently requested to be given access rights to edit our schools wiki entry. When i first tried access to editing was bloced. I was granted access to edit and made several minor factual changes. I appears that someone else (i assume) has requested and been given editing rights. This user added a derogetory comment at the bottom of the page after the name of our assistant principal. I have subsequently removed the offending text. My question is: How can we a)block unauthorised editing for our schools entry on wikipedia and

possibly b) find out who edited the page and block them?

regards Dccoppin (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)David Copping Dccoppin (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)dccoppin

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. One does not need special permission to edit pages, as anonymous addition and collaboration is the foundation of Wikipedia. With such freedom comes people who abuse its use; these are called vandalisms. You were blocked from editing at first probably because you were editing from your school's IP, which was blocked due to previous vandalisms. When vandalism happens, a simple undo is all that it takes to remove it. Unless it is a persistent vandal we do not usually block people for small acts of vandalism such as this. If it does get out of control though you should warn the user on his/her talk page and notify one of the admins at WP:AIV. One thing to be aware of though, is that you do not own your school's entry; other users are free to add contents that you may not like but are nonetheless compliant with our policies. --antilived^{T | C | G} 00:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• I am requesting a review and outside consultation of the AfD for the Miss Grays Harbor entry due to disputes over neutrality. The article was meant as a source of information for historical reference and is being questioned for notability. Our argument is that due to the social impact of the Miss America system and the evidence provided it should be deemed acceptable after editing to suit Wikipedia standards. Please view this AfD and provide unbiased input on whether or not this entry provides adequate information to be published on Wikipedia.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Miss_Grays_Harbor

AlistairBooya (talk) 06:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment is there someone who could do a better job than me at explaining the WP:NOTE policy to this new Wikipedian? I readily admit I've done a bad job but I'm at the point where I'm so frustrated that any further intervention from me will hinder rather than help this discussion. I think AlistairBooya deserves someone setting out the reasons for inclusion/non inclusion of articles in full so he understands it for the future... but as I said I'm getting nowhere. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 06:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have looked at the article, the AfD discussion, web pages linked from that discussion, etc, and I shall make a response to this at User talk:PageantUpdater User talk:AlistairBooya. (Sorry: wrong link copied and pasted.) 79.123.75.8 (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have now made the promised response, and I hope it is of help to AlistairBooya. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

How do we take control and put a password/block on others editing the page?

We are a radio station, whose page is constantly being edited, with incorrect information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imnotthere07 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sadly you cannot password protect an article or block others from editing the page. However, there are other things you can do. Can you provide a little more context? Which radio station? Which article? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::The simple answer is that you can't. Biographies of living people may be protected so that only established editors can edit them, but only if there isevidence of vandalism or libellous postings. This is Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. If unsourced information is added then the editor who adds it should be asked (via the talk pages) to provide reliable third party sources that verify the information. If they don't respond within a reasonable time, then the material should be removed. If the information is correctly sourced and you don't like it, then that is just how it is. If you have information to add, then you will need to provde verifiable relaible sourcing - it is just not good enough to say I know the truth. Also please read our conflict of interest policy. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

you cannot "take control" of an article. You do not own the article, and any Wikipedia editor can contribute to it. In fact if you are owners or employees of the radio station then you are strongly discouraged from editing the article under Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline. However, if you can indicate which article it is, and what is wrong with the editing which you object to, then we can consider whether there is any basis for taking any action to stop the changes. Without that information there is nothing we can do. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered

 – User referred to Refdesk. – ukexpat (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

why do touch pads work well with fingers and not any other round headed object? is there any logic behind the skin or what? please i request you to help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.108.254.83 (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing is the place to ask. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The capacitance of the skin would be my uneducated guess. – ukexpat (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking for an admin who can undo some wholesale vandalism - User:12.164.63.4 has apparently taken the broad list of articles I've worked on from my user page and done an undo against each (40 or so), with edit summary 'conflict of interest'. Thanks, CliffC (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks to Jac16888 who has blocked and undone the work of a vandal apparently staying at the Cleveland Marriot. I haven't ever been in Cleveland, so it must be something I did here. Thanks again, CliffC (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – reverted. – ukexpat (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone please edit the first paragraph for wikis "dea" definition. IM sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.105.236 (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It's been reverted and please don't vandalise again. – ukexpat (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion moved

 – to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mserard313 Jezhotwells (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

User TIAYN has attempted to re-write the entire Socialist Party USA article with a highly inaccurate and personally written new one. The prior content of the article represented the long-standing and well-cited collaborative work of numerous Wikipedians. TIAYN has repeatedly ignored requests to raise whatever objections he may hold to the content and/or citations in the existing article and is attempting to force an edit war. Mserard313 (talk) 08:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)mserard313

Why are you lying, when have i ever said that. The old one is not well referenced, when article only use first-published (with the exception of one) it is not well-referenced. Just a note, the old one only uses references from the SPUSA homepage. It was classed as a stub and start-class. The new one, which Mserard is again, has been certified GA-class, i didn't write the article alone, i collaborated with other editors on the article. Mserard is reverting a community certified WP:GA-article, because he dislikes it. Please stop edit warring Mserard and discuss your edits.

I've been trying to stop the edit warring and discuss what he thinks is wrong with the article, he instead accusses me of being bias. It seems to me that Mserard does not want to follow WP guidelines, and therefor should be blocked. --TIAYN (talk) 09:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've left a note on both users' pages warning them about the three-revert rule, much less the ten-revert rule. Dayewalker (talk) 09:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for warning us, instead of blocking us. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --TIAYN (talk) 09:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Request unclear

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

plz help me for the data sheet

Hi what do you need help with? Your question is unclear to me? Jezhotwells (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Living Next Door to Alice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Referred here as per [1]

Rapido (talk) 09:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have posted a long message concerning this at Talk:Living Next Door to Alice. Whether it will help remains to be seen. Also relevant is this edit to Cexycy's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Cexycy has been around [2], but hasn't addressed his edits to this article. Therefore I reverted his edits, except I left in the spelling of "neighbour" (I disputed this on the basis of retaining the existing variety, however I see your point). Cexycy does appear to change other articles to British spelling, even when there is no basis to (e.g. [3] is an American rapper, spelling changed to British; [4] is a Polish radio station, and comes under retaining the existing variety). Rapido (talk) 09:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Editors may sometimes change spelling to/from American without realizing it's one of those words spelled different ways in various countries. In their own country, the spelling used elsewhere is regarded as a "common mistake" and they may just think they are doing a correction. One of the changes you complained about is fall vs. autumn; I'm not aware of either being incorrect in any English speaking country, so I'm not sure this change falls under the same category. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

"Autumn" is more common in British English, and "fall" is more common in American English, but they are both perfectly correct in either variety. Cexycy changes from "fall" to "autumn" on the basis that it's a more internationally understood word, however the original editor that started the article and included the word "fall" is Polish [5]. Rapido (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any Brits (in the UK) would refer to Autumn as "Fall", whereas the two terms do seem to be used in the US, with Fall much more common... – ukexpat (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The use of "fall" is probably restricted to poetic literature in the UK, and use of it in ordinary speech would be old fashioned. Regardless, I would be surprised if any English speakers around the world did not understand the term. Rapido (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I always liked Season of mists and mellow fruitfulness... – ukexpat (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The review of this film gives everything away. It is ridiculous and will ruin the film for any viewer: no surprises are left. Is there a rule you can set for film (and book) reviews that stops people putting in so much detail? I have seen the film but I would NEVER recommend someone reads about a film on this website before going to the cinema as the reviewers would ruin the experience. Jashx (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't do spoiler warnings. – ukexpat (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a reference work, not a compilation of reviews. You are complaining about an article in an encyclopedia, not a "review of this film". Like any critical publication or other reference work, we do not have "spoiler alerts" or anything like it. Indeed, it has been argued that this is one of the important differences between actual criticism and mere reviewing: that the readers are presumed to have already encountered the work for themselves, and need not be "protected" from spoiling the surprises of which they should already be aware. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC) P.S.: it was his childhood sled; the doctor did it himself; "she" is actually a pre-operative TG; her husband actually hated his previous wife and loves the narrator

You forgot to mention: It's People! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Amadeus IT Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) An edit war is going on this article. Arguably, this article is not the cutest Wikipedia has, and at one point in time deserved unquestionably the "advert" tag, being the copy paste of some marketing material. I've tried repeatedly to remove any track of bias, and offered to discuss NPOV on the discussion page. Unfortunately, a dispute is ongoing, and I am facing a user not willing to respond to the discussion invitation, initially reinserting the "ad" tag without justification and more recently making drastic changes to the article without accepting to enter a debate. The discussion page and the edit history are quite clear. Sadly, I am afraid assistance is now required. Vincent Lextrait (talk) 06:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well the article does read like an advert and completely lacks any reliable third party references, so I agree with the tag and have added an unreferenced tag. It needs cutting down in size and rewriting in an encyclopaedic style. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Blimey, you got that right! From the very first sentence: specialises in travel technology solutions - that's Marketing 101 language right there. Maybe reducing it to a stub would be the place to start. – ukexpat (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

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

I have been having an edit war with some contributors who have been removing a valid external link to the Internet Movie Database that accounts for Judge Sotomayor's media appearances. I have added IMDB links for many politicians for many American and foreign politicians, and no one has ever complained, and actually thanked me for it. I am an editor for both sites and take pride for my work. Many of the editors removing the link have a long history of right wing article edits. As both a Latino and Puerto Rican male, I feel that Judge Sotomayor's media appearances as listed on the IMDB have a valid reason to be included in the article. Archive footage of many politicians are used in films throughout history. They are listed on IMDB. Some have made appearances on talk shows (e.g. Gov. Schwarzenager on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno; President Bill Clinton on the "Arsenio Hall Show"; President George W. Bush on "Oprah"). All of these mentions have IMDb links in their articles. The removal of the link fron Judge Sotomayor's article can be labeled as sexist, racist, and biased (due to her liberal leaning). Why are they targeting Judge Sotomayor? Please respond and assist.--XLR8TION (talk) 08:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes that is a dispute alright. I suggest 3rd opinion or WP:RfC. Good luck. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Searching wikipedia on the name "Donna Marie" reveals only a porn star, albeit one who has a couple of awards and has appeared in 106 films.

There is also the British Reggae artist "Donna Marie" - who has been in the business since the 1980s. I don't know very much about her, other than that she was big in "lovers rock" and specialized in reggae cover versions of country and western songs. If you read http://www.reggaerunnins.com/donna_marie.htm she claims to have 13 CDs - which would get her past the notability hurdle. She is/was hugely popular amongst the west indian community in the UK with her main exposure on pirate/community stations in urban areas. Interest in her in the mainstream music media has been next to non-existant... a pity.

I have a suspicion that half of this article is about someone else: -http://www.last.fm/music/Donna+Marie/+wiki?ver=5

http://www.radicalsound.nl/html/donna_marie_-_marvelous.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.6.162 (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that having 13 CDs gets one past the "notability hurdle"; self-publishing (for example) does not make one notable, even self-publishing in quantity. See Wikipedia:Notability (music) for the guideline. Be that as it may, if she was popular in the West Indian community in the UK, I'll bet she has been reviewed in some publications, even if they aren't mainstream. Since you seem to know a few things about her, you may be able to find references to establish notability. They don't need to be accessed online. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 03:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I agree entirely that 13CDs self published doesn't count. But this woman was published by Pama-Jetstar and Londisc, commercial reggae labels - and with the intention that they made money from selling the records. They presumably did so. I think she is notable following the guideline. I'm inclined to start by putting a disambiguation page with a link to the pornstar and to a stub for the reggae singer, then work from there as and if I find more detail. But I'm unsure how I build the disambiguation page. help on doing this would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.5.7 (talk) 10:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I have placed some useful hints and tips on yoru current talk page. You won't be able to create a new page until you register for an account. I recommend that you get an account and build the disambiguation page in your user space and then ask here for someone to look it over. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Comparing Hatshepsut to other female rulers has no relevance. If this section was applied to any other group of people it would be revered as very offensive. Why should she be compared to other rulers on the sole reason that she has ovaries?Fizzstorm (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)fizzstorm

Hello there..Not sure what article your talking about ...could you be more specific!! And Opps i see its Hatshepsut... have you talk about this on the articles talk page yet???..Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

please help me to bring attention to the methane generated carbon created by the practice of industrail livestock farming, there are many good articals out about this practice that creates more carbon emissions than cars furthering global warming and depleating the earths ozone layer but no one is taking a serious look at this problem. everyone seems to have been exposed to "carbon footprint" while "carbon hoofprint" remains to be somewhat obscure, but in many ways just as relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.148.123 (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. I have placed some links on your talk page about how to get an account and a guide to editing. The best thing is to register an account and work on articles in your user space. Then you can ask other editors to review them and se if they are suitable for the the encyclopaedia. There are already lots of articles that you may be interested in such as Carbon footprint. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please advise. I am an amateur mathematician who has written a computer program, plus comprehensive user notes, by which university-level students and amateurs can teach themselves mathematical group theory. It is currently hosted on my personal web site, but I think it could be made available to a wider audience through Wikipedia. How should I go about this, please? e.g. place reference to my web site on the Group Theory page of WikiP? or upload the programs plus notes to a maths project which WikiP controls? JMC 81.99.43.188 (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

None of the above, I am sorry. Wikipedia is not a promotional tool, it is an encyclopaedia. When your program has become sufficiently notable, through mentions in reliable sources I expect someone will cerate an article about it. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion moved

 – to WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#John F. Kennedy assassination - title of article misleading Jezhotwells (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I tried to add referenced material to the John F. Kennedy assassination (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, but it was removed because it challenged the official version of events as determined by some of the other editors. I moved the challenged material to the "Conspiracy" section of the article, because the other editors claimed it was conspiracy material, but it was removed again, and I was told "THE PAGE IS CHIEFLY THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AS PER THE OFFICIAL INVESTIGATIONS". Editors and readers are currently unaware of this restriction, and will assume it is a neutral, wide-ranging article that covers the topic broadly, based on the title of the article. This has been discussed extensively on the discussion page of the article. I suggested renaming the article to reflect this restriction, to "John F. Kennedy assassination U.S. government investigation findings" but that was rejected by the other editors. I just suggested placing a disclaimer at the top of the article so readers and editors will know about the editor-imposed limits, but I see now that disclaimers are against Wikipedia policy. I think the current title of the article is misleading. Please see the last three discussion sections "Carcano / Mauser rifle", "Rename article proposal" and "Proposal to add disclaimer at top of article". Thank you.Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The edits are being discussed adequately on the talk page. As was said many times there, this particular article is one of many highly edited and reverted pages, and virtually all possible controversies have been discussed over and over in the past. Posting here is forum shopping, unless the talk page is getting neglected, or the discussion is taking a strange turn. Nothing along those lines is happening. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the parties involved all feel the discussion is going nowhere and that we are at an impasse. It also appears to me that the editors who oppose renaming the article are not being neutral, because it has been clearly stated that the article is limited in scope in a way that is not reflected by the title of the article. That is why I appealed for help. The message I am getting is that I should just give up, which is what I feel is the desired outcome, so that the article will continue to mislead the public to believe that there is only one, objective, government-approved version of events. This is not NPOV!Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a recent comment by one of the other editors: "Instead of continuing a dispute which has likely gone as far as it can - since we've had adequate discussion and ghost has received no consensus for his proposed changes - perhaps I can reiterate what I and others have suggested here. Ghost, why not focus on the conspiracy page and other relevant pages and help improve those pages?" The intent is to preserve the official story and channel all conflicting evidence into another article. The result is an article that gives the appearance of neutrality, but which is, behind the scenes, limited to the official government version of events.Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to post this dispute on the Neutrality Noticeboard. What do you think? Would I be accused, in an absence of good-faith, of "forum shopping" or do you think that would be the logical next step?Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You can if you want to. But really, everyone has heard of the conpiracy theories, and it's unlikely that an article on the accepted version of events is going to be viewed as an attempt to mislead the public into thinking there are no other theories. The article's lede section says "polls conducted from 1966 on show as many as 80% of the American public have held beliefs contrary to these findiings" and the next sentence links to the conspiracies article, so there is no attempt to hide it. It is clearly presented as a related topic. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

My point is that the article is not NPOV because it excludes not just "conspiracy theories" but anything that challenges the official investigation findings. But the readers and editors don't know that, because the title of the article is "JFK assassination" not "JFK assassination - U.S. government investigation findings". People assume the article includes a wide range of material about the assassination, but some of the editors have chosen to exclude anything that challenges the official story line. They say including different possible versions of events, conflicting witness testimony, conflicting evidence, and so on will make the article unwieldy and too large. I understand their point. But it's misleading to have the article titled the way it is now. I'm NOT saying they are covering up the existence of conspiracy theories, I'm saying they are manipulating the article to give one version of events, under the guise that there is one agreed upon version of events, which there is not. Their position is that anything that doesn't agree with THEIR INTERPRETATION of the government investigations is a conspiracy theory and thus not within the scope of the article. You can either have one article that includes many points of view, or you can have separate articles that give different points of view, but you can't call one article "The Truth" and another "Everything else that isn't the truth". If you call one article "U.S. government investigation findings" and the other "Cover-up and conspiracy theories" there will be less behind-the-scenes censorship going on to protect the "truth" and no implication that the other article is material that is "untruth".Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me put it more simply. Now we have article "A" (the Truth) and article "A - excluded (presumably false) points of view". Under my scheme we'd have article "A - government investigations" and article "A - other points of view".Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, it would all be in one article, but for some reason, presumably due to size, it has been split out into two articles.Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This has all been discussed countless times on the article talk page. If you want to raise it again on that talk page, go ahead, but don't be surprised if you get shot down in flames. There is nothing that assistants here can do about changing the consensus at that page and why should we. If you want to start a wider discussion, try a request for comment. My advice would be to find something a little more productive to do. There are tens of thousands of articles that need improving. There are some good suggestions at the community portal. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the parties involved all feel the discussion is going nowhere and that we are at an impasse. The editors on the page - with the lone exception of the person posting this dispute to this page - are in accord with keeping the page as it is and have failed to see the bias or misleading text which supposedly suggests to the casual reader that only official conclusions are valid, a main deficiency that the poster here sees.

IOW, the only reason "the discussion is going nowhere" is because he can't accept the unanimous opinion from the editors in question (six disagreed with him, none agreed) that his arguments are invalid and that the consensus from the editors, and indeed the consensus which resulted in the page reaching the form it is in now, does not match the consensus he sought. Canada Jack (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the comment about "discussion is going nowhere" is limited to the one editor who requested assistance here. Consensus at the article talk page is clearly against that editor's wish to open the article up to alternate viewpoints. Binksternet (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Not true! CanadaJack said, and this is quoted just a few lines above, "Instead of continuing a dispute which has likely gone as far as it can - since we've had adequate discussion and ghost has received no consensus for his proposed changes - perhaps I can reiterate what I and others have suggested here." I am going to suggest on the article discussion page that we submit this as a NPOV issue on the Neutrality Noticeboard.Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Posting here is forum shopping, unless the talk page is getting neglected, or the discussion is taking a strange turn. Nothing along those lines is happening. What the multi-headed knight said above applies to your actions here, ghost. Canada Jack (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You said (see above) that the the discussion was at an impasse, and still is. I think this is actually a neutrality issue, and since Editor Assistance has not helped, I've moved this to the NPOV Neutrality Notice board here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#John_F._Kennedy_assassination_-_title_of_article_misleading 114.161.229.100 (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Ibox added. – ukexpat (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thompson Ramo Woolridge Low-Maintenance Rifle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hello. I'm sorry to bother you. I have a lot of data and sources on this. I would be happy to provide them in an infobox, but no matter how hard I try, I can't understand how to create the necessary infobox. I understand about citations. I can provide them. I hope that you will not find it annoying, please understand that I have a nonverbal learning disability and my eyes don't track very well at all when I try to understand how to type in these templates, even after I look right at the relevant help page. It would be very kind if someone would start the box for me, then I will finish and fine-tune it. Also, I don't know wether tlines within infoboxes themselves can have bracketed citations on them. By the way, the article title should have said Wooldridge -- the d is missing. I am really sorry. I feel very frustrated.

SithiR (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have added the ibox and made a start filling it in. If you have more details about the weapon, please flesh out the article as well as the ibox. I also moved it to the correct title, with the "d", and added a stub template. Please do not hesitate to ask again here or on my talk page if you need further help. – ukexpat (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

is the version of ennio morricone's "the big gundown" la resa dei conti,used in some episodes of top gear,available to download? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.18.27 (talk) 10:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment is probably the best place to ask. Or you could just do a Google search. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It is available from Amazon. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Mitchkoi blocked (spam username) Jezhotwells (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you please review the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mitchkoi/mitchkoi and give me advice on how to get it fit for publishing without retribution Thanks please reply on my talk page as I am a new Wikipedian and will struggle to find this page again! --Mitchkoi (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well your username appears to be against our username policy as a promotional name as per WP:Username policy#Company/group names. None of your references are to reliable sources. There is nothing to support the notability of your company, so as far as surviving in Wikipedia main space, I would expect that it will be deleted very quickly. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia so article subjects need to demonstrate their notability which can be established by verifiable reliable sources. I have placed a talk-back on your user page, along with some useful helps and tips about Wikipedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey all, sorry if this is in the wrong place, but I'm having difficulty finding what I think I'm looking for. I remember reading ages ago about a way to have a more experienced editor go over your contributions in general (rather than to a specific article) and make suggestions. I'd be interested in that if that's a real thing, and not something I thought I read about but actually made up. The Fwanksta (talk) 06:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor review is what you are looking for. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Sorry to have had to post here. The Fwanksta (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem, happy to be of assistance. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered

 – TimothyJacobson (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

:

If a website (which is cited in a reference on a wikipedia page) is found to no longer exist, is the reference no longer valid? Or does it not matter, as the citation is dated--TimothyJacobson (talk) 11:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Not neccesarily if someone checked it at the time it should be assumed to be OK. The reference can be tagged with the {{dead link}} tag. Sometimes an archived version may be available at the Internet Archive. Good practice would be to try and find a replacment. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Very helpful. Quick additional (irrelevent) question. What do I do (and please don't do it for me, so I can learn and know for future use) to get an "answered" box next to my question? --TimothyJacobson (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Generally one of the assistants here puts answered, resolved, stale, stuck, moved, etc. after five days of inactivity on the thread here.Thene after another five days or so, it gets archived. The symbols are cerated by templates. Ours are at User:Mendaliv/ear. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I was wondering whether any wikipedians are interested in joining Appropedia; we currently need someone with experience in the wiki-software; see http://www.appropedia.org/User_talk:Chriswaterguy#Members More precisely, we need to add some extensions/semantic updates to automate a few things (ie member listing, ...). Let me/us know if you're intrested or if you know someone that might be intrested. User talk:KVDP 10:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Would it be possible to revert all the edits made by IP 174.96.140.72, such as [(06:00, 20 February 2010 174.96.140.72 (talk) (4,317 bytes) (→History: aesthetics) (undo)], to my user name Grancafé? Sometimes I forget to log in and sometimes my computer logs me out without I noticing it. Thanks, --Grancafé (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You mean attribute the IP's edits to your username? This is no longer possible. See Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit. If you want, you could mention on your userpage that the IP is yours. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 06:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I did see your prompt response first thing this morning. I apologize for my belated reply. Thank you very much, --Grancafé (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if i can put this here..maybe should be on admin page,. but never the less. I would like some more eyes to look at this debate/situation. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes/10th discussion.....Buzzzsherman (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I have commented at the RfC. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered

 – images nominated for deletion. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

User ALR refuses to allow information on to pages relating to miluitary bases such as my personal area of interst a place known as RAF Rudloe Manor.

I can update perfectly useful information and add further reading resources and links all of which are valid and useful. ALR will remove them again and again.

ALR has a bee in his bonnet about not liking UFO researchers of which I am one, and has called them "Nutters and Idiots" on WIKI pages.

When I am putting information which it factual and cited with references to documents which are available to view at the public records office (government) in Kew. These documents relate to the factual involvement of RAF Rudloe Manor in UFO investigations which even involved officers from said depts going out to interview witnesses at the homes.

When I represent this information ALR reduces it to "Conspiracy Theory". Its not a theory its a historical FACT.

User ALR is unreasonable and just doesnt like UFO researchers and treats the military pages he gloats over as if they his personal property and nobody can write anything without being edited down by him. I think this situation needs to be investigated and addressed as I am fed up of wasting my time trying to put things on WIKI only to have this person ruin the work.

ALR even arranged for me to be banned because I kept on putting the links back up. These were to books available on Amazon which discuss the RAF base in great detail. Why is he removing references to books for sale. They are not my books, they are nothing to do with me. Why redact this information... just because it comes from me. This man has a problem. Can you please sort this out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseekers666 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Well looking at RAF Rudloe Manor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) the latest edit by ALR [6] merely re-worded a paragraph, possibly in a POV manner. As neither of you are adding inline citations to support edits it doesn't really help. Obviously there is a POV clash here, ALR is dismissive of they deem as conspiracy theorists, whilst Truthseekers666 is interested in UFO cover-ups. I recommend that both editors assume good faith, provide references and work together to achieve consensus. The image File:PROVOST.gif is not a good reference, the assertion that it is public domain is incorrect, the National Archives website asserts Crown copyright here. This image does not have a correct attribution. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

NotedALR (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC

I agree the picture is Crown Copyright but is in the public domain of being freed for the 30 year rule and is 48 years old. Are you aware of any reason that it would not be allowed for use on WIKI given the National Records Office allowance for research purposes for non-profit organisations of which Wiki meets both criteria as it is a research tool and is non-profit. If you would prefer me to get clearance from National Archives to clear up this matter I am happy to do so but suggest that you make this known to me. I have never heard of anyone who publishes such materials being informed they were not allowed to do so. I suggest simple change of status of picture to crown Copyright - it is not clear how this is done to me. Can you advise. Truthseekers666 (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read the copyright notice. You will have to apply to the image-library@nationalarchives.gov.uk to get permission to use this image on Wikipedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Image quality is appaling and I'd question whether it would survive a deletion request based on that, it also doesn't actually tell us anything other than in one instance a policeman interviewed the individual who reported a potential criminal incident. fwiw Low flying events are disciplinary offences with the sanction threshold ranging from summary punishment to Court Martial.

The more useful of the two images that Mr Williams has provided is the partial letter to one of his colleagues referring to process. That identifies that low flying complaints that cannot be explained were then passed to MoD. That's now referred to in the article.

ALR (talk) 09:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Presumably this doesn't reflect just prominence or wording but source reliability and merit. Reputation for fact checking relates to a community- if farmer joe is known to always check his facts before spouting off at the local diner in the morning, then if he says he saw a UFO he is probably reliable to at least the people who know him. However, this doesn't impress the person who knows UFO's can't exist and of course the event in question is not testable. You probably have to go more with prominence than merit and try to just state attributed facts rather than conclusions as facts. Having not looked at the specifics here, I'm not sure if that helps but I'm always interested in these issues. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 02:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you put up some diffs of the alledged behaviour please "Truthseeker". Ryan4314 (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ryan and Jezhowells: Although I have stated that the inlcusion of P&SS UFO investigation scan and the letter from MOD to C Fowler relating to P&SS UFO file handling of a more recent date are important as they are direct evidence which shows the working status of P&SS in the UFO debate which up until I gave these ref was classed as "Conspiracy Theory" by user ALR. Now that these scans are in place so user ALR can no longer make the claim that these things are "Theory" but are actually FACT, user ALR keeps removing the link to ref 2 scanned document saying that "This has been referred to enough." Where? We are talking about the media link on the end of the ref 2 being just the following two words "PHOTO HERE"... which ALR keeps removing. He says that the words are "cluttering up" the page. Two words! "Photo here" Cluttering? Yet again I am asking for this ALR and his motives to be looked at. I am very unhappy that I got banned from this page last year for much much less than ALR is up to now. I was banned from wiki by IP because I put the said same information on the page, by ALR. Now I am a user of some standing ALR cannot ban me. Now he is just choosing to keep removing this information. The words censorship and pride come to mind. I am just interested in accurate portrayal of facts which is what citing refs is all about. I am properly citing refs not only by saying them, by providing the actual documents to cite them with. ALR what is your excuse. Remove refs, remove evidence... alter facts! I am wishing this to be looked at again please, its like daily tennis, he removes, I put back up, he removes, i put back up... day after day!

I must state that to an outsidef the importance of the information in these two scans is not readily apparent. If one is trying to state factually that Rudloe Manor, which is home to P&SS dept, was investigating UFOs - doc one shows P&SS did engage in investigations as this is a investigation report itself. Ref 2 presents the information that P&SS at Rudloe, not P&SS Acton London, was dealing with these matters. Without the two refs the clear picture cannot be proved. He is happy for the first ref to remin which makes the reader think P&SS in Acton, which is incorrect. When user ALR claims this is clutter it is simply refs to what he seems to be happy to allow to stay in terms of P&SS now investigated UFOs as FACT... not theory as ALR previously claimed. I think this is petty jealousy by the user ALR and I request someone to look at this matter to ascertain is these refs are infact not cluttering and therefore user ALR is being petty on this matter. I would note whilst I have attempted to provde refs to back up my research, ALR does not. I do not wish to keep having the modify the page daily against ALRs edits. Truthseekers666 (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you post some diffs please, I haven't been able to find all the stuff you've mentioned. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not out of the question that he may be referring to this and this.

ALR (talk) 09:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The ELs removed in the second edit were very dubious and correctly removed in my opinion. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there any standard action to do about links to a site which has become compromised so the browser warns you not to visit it? I guess quite a few sites become infected at some stage or other. Dmcq (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Usually the best course of action is to remove the link with your reasoning in your edit summary. WP:ELNO point 3 applies here. ThemFromSpace 19:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay have removed the various external links. They were nice but not a great loss. I think perhaps if it is a site that would be loss to an article I'll leave it in but just as text and with a warning and the date. Dmcq (talk) 13:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – see artcile talk page Jezhotwells (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

In reference to: Shaheera Asante (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am editing a living persons biography for the named person. A notice has been placed on the person's wikipedia page that some of the information needs to have inline citiations. I have tried several times to do this but the draft article keeps coming up with a citiations error. All reliable sources have been listed in the references and notes at the bottom of the page.

It seems Wikipedia has become more confusing to edit and add information, even if it is referenced in the notes of the page.

Please take a look at the named person site and advise.

Josephine Carter JC & Associates Talent Services Please email: <email redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephine Carter (talk • contribs) 20:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't post your email address here, this is a highly visible page and doing so may result in lots of spam mail. Requests made here will be responded to here. I note that your Wikipedia user name would seem to be against our WP:Username policy#Company/group names. I have placed a note about this on your talk page. With regard to the referencing, please note that other wikipedia pages are not reliable sources. The best way of referencing is using inline citations - following this link will explain how. However as you are the artiste's agent you have a serious conflict of interest and should be very careful about editing this artcile. It would be best to post information and reliable sources on the artcile talk page and let other neutral editiors decide how to use them. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion moved

 – to WT:V#Can a cite be in the history Jezhotwells (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Perhaps the proper places to ask things can be centralized to avoid this sort of thing?Mzk1 (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I asked a question on the help page, but did not receive an answer. (I hope this does not break the two noticeboard rule.) Here it is:

WP:Help desk#Say Where You Got It - can you put citations that you haven't seen?

Basically, an editor insists on using citations he hasn't seen, claiming they are "wikified" quotes from other sources, which I am supposed to get from the revision history (!), if he has not put them on the page. Among other things, it means that I cannot put "citation needed", because no-one will accept such a notice next to a footnote, even though the citation is virtual. The citations are from primary sources, and the actual sources are certain encyclopedias (I think - this is part of the problem, there is no way to be sure which are which). Part of his excuse is that primary sources should not be used, and encyclopedias are secondary sources, which is a simplification of the rules. Basicially, He Knows the Truth, and will not accept other POV, especially about Wikipedia rules.

I am getting very frustrated, as he is making a joke of Verifiability, and it makes it quite difficult to improve his edits. (It does not help that he does not appear to understand the subject he is editing, resulting in occasional "gibberish".)

I think I need to register some sort of complaint, but I am new to this, and need to know what to do, as well as if my premises are correct.Mzk1 (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, you don't know whether or not another editor has seen sources. But any citations should contain sufficient information for other editors to be able to check them. Usually this is publisher, journal or book title, isbn, author, publication date, etc. What artcile are we talking about? Jezhotwells (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misunderstood me. Perhaps you could check the link here to my original request? I would really appreciate it.Mzk1 (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please let usknow which article you are talking about. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not want to get into that; I would have to refer you to earlier revisions and the user's own comments in someone else's aFd.

Let me ask simply:

Is it legitimate to have the only citation is the revision log?

If the only citations are Biblical and Talmudic quotes that the editor himself states are taken not from the original, but from another source, and the other source is somewhere else in the article or missing altogether (perhaps someone deleted the paragraph contaning it), is the article Verifiable? And it not, what can I do about it - no-one will believe a "citation needed" next to a citation?

Am I obligated to check sources that the author himself does not claim to be quoting directly? Mzk1 (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but I can't really help if I don't know which article you are talking about. If you wish to query a source or mark it unreliable then suitable tags may be found at WP:Template messages/Cleanup. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

O.K. Can I ask a really simple question, then? If the citation is not found near the text, but is instead in the revision notes on the history page, is Verifiability kept? And if the article has since been moved to another page and the original cite is somewhere in the edit history notes of the original page, must the next editor hunt it down, or can it be removed as unverifiable?Mzk1 (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand the problem. As far as I can see, either there is a verifiable source cited or there isn't. If it is verifiable then how the original editor found it is irrelevant. If it is not verifiable then how the original editor found it is irrelevant. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying that if the author has not seen the source, he can still use it, because he found it in another source that he did not cite there? I am obligated to look up an obscure book that the author has never seen? Or to put it another way, Say Where You Found It is not important? Mzk1 (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: I have asked this question again at Talk: Verifiability, and I have received some response. I include this note to alleviate forum shopping issues. You have to admit, it is kind of hard to find the right place to ask a given question.Mzk1 (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – -SusanLesch (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I nominated Jeannette Piccard for FA, and am now in the middle of FAC. An adminstrator has taken a liking to this article. He contributed an improved graphic which I appreciate. But constant editing is driving me nuts. In particular, he is adding a nb about the Concorde with less than acceptable sources (see talk page). I don't own this article but is there any way to ask him to please lay off? -SusanLesch (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Mmmm, difficult one. You refer to a nasty exchange on your talk page, would WP:WQA be a venue for that. But I am sorry, I can't really think of a way of stopping this sort of over-enthusiastic participation. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I have left a note at the the admin's talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You guys are great. Thank you, Jezhotwells. I found a book source that replaced about four websites for the nb. So marking this resolved. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – RfC has apparently been closed. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Could someone lend a hand and summarize the result of Talk:Steve Shnider#RfC Using citation totals in articles on academics? I was involved in the discussion and the result may require changes to the current article. Ash (talk) 10:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion moved

 – discussiona at WP:RSN#Is James Miller reliable on Michel Foucault? Jezhotwells (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Michel Foucault (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hello. I am seeking advice on whether I am handling a dispute appropriately. The dispute is here. I have now made a notice on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I am just trying to get a sense of whether I am being unreasonable or reasonable, because I do not yet fully grasp the norms and expectations of Wikipedia (though overall it seems rational and straightforward). Thank you. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep talking on the article talk page, see what they say at WP:RSN. If you wish to pursue further you might want to consider asking for a third opinion or opening a request for comment. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Excellent, thanks. I will come here in future if I run into something I'm not sure about how to handle. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Wiktoryn and User:Leinad are removing information on Hubner background from her article. It's normal to mention similar information, look Madonna_(entertainer)#1958.E2.80.931981:_Early_life_and_beginnings or Julia_Roberts#Early_life. Slijk (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that nobody, including you, has used the article's talk page at all. That is the place to discuss edits where there is controversy. I see you have been using edit summaries, and have presumably seen the edit summary replies from editors who reverted your changes, but that is a poor method of discussion. You may find that when discussion begins, problems get resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Give it a try at Talk:Danuta Hübner. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Look at talk page, they don't want to talk! Slijk (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

And the discussion has shown that the deletions were of trivia and unsourced information. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sourced. And if this is trivia, why its used in any articles? Slijk (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you read WP:RS and understand why those sources are not reliable for Wikipedia articles. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

Ive just been looking at the wiki page about me (DJ Fresh), is there a way i can replace the rather shoddy old photo with a proper press picture? Not very fluent with Wiki, but ive discovered that ill not be able to upload a photo myself, but i cant work out who has admin privelledges that i could contact to upload something, would be great if someone could please contact me? Thanks

Dan Stein DJ Fresh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshbadco (talk • contribs) 00:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The information you want may be found at WP:Contact us/Photo submission. When you get an OTRS ticket let me or another editor know and the image can be uploaded. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone invested a lot of time and effort into create the following Chilean Ministry articles, including a table of names and images. The lists are very outdated and the image gaps in between some of them disruptive. I was thinking of not only polishing the article content, but recreating these tables, limiting them to names, dates, and presidency; similar to Ministry of Education (Chile). IOW, removing all images. Please give me feedback on this.

• Ministry of the Interior (Chile)
• Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Chile)
• Ministry of National Defense (Chile)
• Ministry of Finance (Chile)
• Ministry General Secretariat of the Presidency (Chile)
• Ministry General Secretariat of Government (Chile)
• Ministry of Public Works (Chile)
• Ministry of Health (Chile)

Thank you, --Soy Rebelde (talk) 02:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the best place to discuss would be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chile. – ukexpat (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Although I can see where you are coming from, my concerns are in regards to formatting and readability. Thus, this section is really the most appropriate. I know there is a section on formatting that discourages using tables or lists that are too complex. I'm hoping someone who is "well-read" in the subject can advise. Not to mention, the activity in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chile is extremely low.

Again, I hope someone here can be encouraged to help with info regarding formatting and style (not the subject itself *sigh). --Soy Rebelde (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you discuss this with User:Melromero who seems to have had most input into the articles? For help with list and tables see Help:Table and Help:List. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Jezhotwells (talk) 09:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion moved

 – to WP:RSN#Disputed Source: Dog Whisperer Jezhotwells (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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

User:842U continues to delete this material from the section "Criticism and responses" as 'not being neutral' I began a discussion, Talk:Dog Whisperer, and I referred the matter to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard but the user just keeps deleting without regard to other opinions.

In 2009, Lisa Jackson Schebetta, a Ph.D. candidate in Theatre History, Theory and Criticism at the University of Washington[31] published an article in the journal of the Institute for Critical Animal Studies (ICAS), established for the purpose of fostering academic study of critical animal issues in contemporary society and promoting animal liberation. Analysing the first season of Dog Whisperer on DVD, Jackson concluded that the goal of the program is always a product, a dog that behaves according to its owners' desires, however illogical [32] She describes the program format as following a formula. Millan meets the dog, the dog submits to him, and the owners celebrate, often voicing their amazement in referring to the miracle they have witnessed. This formula — problem dog meets Millan, dog submits, and owners are overjoyed — was followed in every episode of the season analysed. Jackson Schebetta also commented that, while the footage is clearly edited to construct the predictable story, each episode presents itself as natural and spontaneous.[32]

Jackson-Schebetta, Lisa (2009). "Mythologies and Commodifications of Dominion in The Dog Whisperer with Cesar Millan". Journal for Critical Animal Studies (Institute for Critical Animal Studies) 7 (1): 137—161. http://www.criticalanimalstudies.org/JCAS/Journal_Articles_download/issue_9/JCAS%20VII%20Issue%201%20MAY%20ISSUE%20Mythologies%20and%20Commodifications%20pgs%20137-161.pdf. Marj (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You could try opening a request for comment on the editor's behaviour. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with most of the critique section in the article, though I will research the other criticisms -- besides the Jackson-Schebetta section -- that have been added, to flush out the nature of the sources there, too. The discussion on the subject started not with User MDk572 flushing out the qualifications of her source, but like this. For an editor that ostensibly is interested in "objectivity," the nature of the Jackson-Schebetta criticism was cloaked at first by a footnote that did not link directly to the original source, did not disclose the qualifications of it's author, nor the nature of the organization that published the journal — all of which reveal a very strongly biased source.

I found the article in an academic database and referenced it as such. When it was questioned I investigated further, and added details on the source. The original objections to this article were not the politics of the journal editorial team, but the fact that the author was in a Theatre Department. Quote: "The problem is this: what qualifications does Lisa Jackson-Schebetta, a Ph.D. candidate in Theatre History, Theory and Criticism, have... to critique a show about dogs? It's clear that the others mentioned in this critique section of the Dog Whisperer that they have expert qualifications in the field of dogs. What should we look for next, people who wash windows to critique Dog Whisperer... so the article is "objective and scientific?" 842U (talk) 03:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)" Marj (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

On the issue of Lisa Jackson-Schebetta, the edit record shows that when I did delete information, it was subsequent to discussion and apparent consensus. I did not continue to delete information; I continued to add two tags to the section, to flush out the source's true qualifications, to isolate the questionable information under its own section — as well as a link to a Wikipedia article about the source (rather than an external link of an obviously biased nature). This follows my starting an article at the RS Noticeboard. I was not under the impression that a firm consensus had been made, as to the whether the source was NPOV or RS. The discussion has continued diligently. My sense is that the Jackson-Schebetta is very close to stabilizing. 842U (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

User:842U did not start an article at the RS Noticeboard. I started that discussion. Marj (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

User:842U repeatedly changed the citation for the article from Cite:journal to Cite:web and added other qualifiers such as that the author was a 'theatre major' - an undergraduate student, which she is not - to inappropriately discredit the information. Marj (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like forum shopping is going on here. Please confine the discussion to the RSN board. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)