Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Defunct Company with new user of name

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

How do I deal with a current company article, Duracraft, that does not discuss the now defunct former TM holder that was Duracraft (70s-80s) tool maker. I would have enough for a whole entry based on my research. I already have some real source documents and photos, but as there is little on the internet about the company from then, it is hard to piece it all together, and this seems like the best place to do it. --Pdlewis (talk) 12:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Is the new duracraft a completely new company? In that case you should start another Duracraft (70s-80s company) article. Or did it take over some assets of the old Duracraft. In that case I would suggest starting the history of new duracraft with some reference to that (but still consider creating an article on old duracraft). Alitalia may be one example of doing it. Arnoutf (talk) 13:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If your local library has a LexisNexus subscription, you'll probably find some good information there. A college or university library would be a better bet for access to such services. You'll probably be able to find out if the newer company is significantly related to the older one. LexisNexus has been my favorite resource for finding info on companies prior to 1990. Some other sources exist for even older companies, which you might find via Google Books. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Dispute regarding federal reserve introduction

Federal Reserve System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are a couple editors here who have a dispute which I have tried to resolve amicably.

The copy:

It was conceived by several of the world's leading bankers in 1910 an enacted in 1913 with the passing of the Federal Reserve Act. The passing was largely response to a series of financial panics, particularly a severe panic in 1907. Over time, the roles and responsibilities of the Federal Reserve System have expanded and its structure has evolved.

was live from feb - june without complaint until it was removed in a complex/deceptive edit and missed. another editor is now reverting my edits and the article now stands as so:

It was created in 1913 with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, and was largely a response to a series of financial panics, particularly a severe panic in 1907. Over time, the roles and responsibilities of the Federal Reserve System have expanded and its structure has evolved.

The claim by a couple other editors is not to include the information regarding the conception. I am confident that this is important,relevant,verified information regarding the origination of the federal reserve... and it is (as far as i can tell) undisputed historical fact. of course much of history does have some gray, however it seems to me that removing this information would be similar to removing references to slavery as the origins for the american civil war.

I have made quite an effort to bring the other editor to provide any source of any kind that disputes the four published works and a reference from the federal reserve itself... however they have provided none. i don't know any other way to find a resolution —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourmanstan (talk • contribs) 05:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Please remember to sign your posts using 4 tildes (~). You could consider opening a request for comment. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I've replied to the talk page after glancing at the dispute, giving kind of a 3rd opinion, hopefully to take the discussion in another direction. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Problem with list of BPMN tools

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I'm new to wikipedia. I've been doing a list of BPMN tools as approved by Object Management Group. I've tried to do a similar article that already exists for UML. But there seems to be a problem. I've edited URL addresses according to Wiki as suggested, but the problem seems to be about the content also. Can you please suggest me, how to improve the article so it won't get deleted?

What I've done so far for BPMN: Comparison of Business Process Modeling Notation tools. What already exists for UML and is approved: List of UML tools.

Student-sl (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

List of UML tools is a mess as well, it's not a good example to follow. Look at something like Comparison of project management software instead - note how it doesn't have external links to the vendor's sites and limits itself to software which has had notability established in the form of a Wikipedia article. - MrOllie (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Please note, that tools I've added are officially approved by Object Management Group. Some tools are very known and established in BPMN community yet lack a Wikipedia article. I will try to edit the list according to your proposal. Is there a way to get my article out of "to be deleted" list? Student-sl (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Not at the moment. As none of the tools listed has a Wikipedia article, the list is basically a list of external links in violation of WP:EL. I suggest that the list be "userfied" (moved to a user subpage) pending creation of some relevant articles. – ukexpat (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

So if I link some of the creators to existing Wikipedia articles and add some additional informations (i.e. if it supports BPMN 2.0) I can keep the article? - Student-sl (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks as if you have already removed the PROD template. There was however no edit summary to this effect - which is also a violation of Wiskipedia editing guideline. At least all the external links appear to have been removed,--Kudpung (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Kudpung. Thank you for your reply. I'm not sure exactly what do you mean by "there was no edit summary". I've explained my actions (removal of PROD template) in discussion part of the article Talk:Comparison_of_Business_Process_Modeling_Notation_tools. I hope this was enough. Student-sl (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Student. See the message on your talk page concerning the use of edit summaries.--Kudpung (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for detailed explanation. I will remember to always fill this textbox in the future, unfortunately I don't think that I can do that for the past changes - Student-sl (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually there may be. I ran across something about "Dummy edits" to correct something not added in the edit summary but it warned that something said that was possibly wrong could not be retracted. I am not familar with this but someone will be. Otr500 (talk) 03:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think dummy edits is a good idea just to add an edit summary for past edits. If you failed to leave edit summaries in the past, it's OK. It's not a best practice, but it's not a big deal. With respect to the article under discussion, I agree that external links isn't a hot idea. If the piece of software belongs in the list, it should have a red link to the ideal title of an article about the software. It's perfectly normal to have items not notable enough for an article in list articles (for example, List of Pokémon (461–480)). As to whether the list article itself should exist, I have no opinion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for help with user Areaseven

While this user has been helpful in updating many Transformers articles, he's also been very insulting his is edit summaries. Just this month he's refered to other editors as "Nazis" for correcting his mistakes in formatting, said people much have "failed grammer school" and calling other editors "wankers". He seems to have a problem with me and I didn't want to piss him off, but if some neutral person could politely explain to him what the edit summary is for, and what it's NOT for, it would help. Thanks in advance. Mathewignash (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mathewignas. If you would like us to follow up on your request, we must investigate first. Please provide the links to the alleged offending articles or talk pages, and diffs for the edit summaries. Thanks--Kudpung (talk) 03:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The editor in question has been reminded of the use of editing tools by placing standard template messages on his/her talk page.--Kudpung (talk) 04:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What other editors are you talking about? - Areaseven (talk) 05:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Areaseven, only one editor is referred to in this enquiry. You have removed the messages from your talk page, but they have not been deleted. If you follow the text of the messages, there should be no more problems.--Kudpung (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure who Areaseven was saying "must have failed grammar school" when he posted this edit - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ironhide&diff=prev&oldid=374985939 - but the fact is this was beyond the normal use of an the edit summary. You shouldn't call people names or question their education when making a grammar correction. Just make the correction, and if you want, summarize that fix in the edit summary. Do not use it as a place to INSULT other editors. Mathewignash (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette alerts is the best forum for this. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Areaseven has been warned (see above 25 July), and has removed the multiple warnings from his/her talk page which presupposes that he has read and understood them, and the fact that one more single violation will result in a block.--Kudpung (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocking isn't the solution here. Areaseven appears to be a knowledgeable editor in the Transformers field. Not to minimize Mathewignash's concerns, but I think the bigger issue is general non-use of edit summaries. A better approach to this might be through WP:WQA, but a friendly non-templated explanation of why helpful edit summaries are important might give better results. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I left Areaseven a user talk message about edit summaries. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Help with conflict of interest at Talk:HealthLink BC

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello all..I am currently helping a new editor that is affiliated with the organization of the article in question HealthLink BC . The editor is aware of the conflict of interest and has been posting on the talk page what they would like added to the article and there has been no problems. What is am asking is that a few editors read the text that is being asked to be added to the article - in hopes that it is not an ad and neutral etc etc... Pls leave comments as to its state.00:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Looking into this for you, but please remember to sign your posts - it's a required Wikipedia policy, and also, somteimes we reply direct to users' talk pages. Thanks--Kudpung (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

sorry about that forgot a ~... Moxy (talk) 00:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No probs. I have added a comment to the artice's talk page at Talk:HealthLink_BC. Hope it helps. I'll have another read through when the refs have been :::added.--Kudpung (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and comments ....if anyone else has a comments pls add them..Moxy (talk) 01:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Maulana

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Editor, I have contributed two successive notes in this topic which have been listed under "SEE ALSO". Please note that the second notes is just an improved version of the first note (I have just improved the grammar). I request you to delete the first note and retain the second since both say the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehter allam (talk • contribs) 08:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, are you talking about this article: Mawlānā (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? I have deleted both your insertions as they are un-cited and in inappropriate sections. I have placed some useful links on your talk page. Best to read those and study carefully before making further edits. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 08:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone else using my account

A guy I'm working with thought it would be funny to vandalise with my account while I was making coffee. I've already reverted his edit, and he won't do it again, but is there anything else I need to do? Really sorry this happened. Cod Lover Oil (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If he doesn't know your password there is little he can do. To be on the safe side however, change your password. You can do this in the my preferences tab. You can also disable the 'remember me' or the 'remember this password' features in your browser. And of course, remember to log out when you go for a coffee!--Kudpung (talk) 01:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess your main concern is whether you should do more at Wikipedia to explain this. No, you shouldn't. You reverted it before it was noticed so you didn't even get a warning on your record. Good for you. If you should choose to run for adminship within the next few months then somebody might raise a concern but there is nothing else to worry about. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, you might be interested in establishing a committed identity in the event your account really does get compromised. This provides a means by which an administrator can verify your identity and help you re-establish control. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crude_stuff/ETX_Capital article

Hi, this is my first article. Can someone please review and highlight any issues for me as I would like to make this article live? I have obtained the image from ETX Capital and they have emailed giving permission for me to use the image on wikipedia. Also can someone please tell me how to make this article live? Much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crude stuff (talk • contribs) 11:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

For the image, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission as the email to you is not sufficient. Right now the article reads very much like an advertisement, eg " The view is taken as an exciting move forward for the company ". The section 'Regulation' probably doesn't belong there at all. You need to learn how to reference, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. What is the FT reference for? I can't see it as you need to login. Make sure you meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). And read MOS:LAYOUT to get your layout correct. You've still got quite a lot of work to do. Dougweller (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, I will start reviewing it as you noted. Crude stuff (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Need assistance, article deleted

Ok, here is the problem. I wrote an article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavle_Bihaly and first it was subject of speedy delete, because person is not "significant" even he is one of the most influencual writers/editors in serbia and europe, and founder of one of the biggest publishing houses in this part of world - NOLIT. Then, the problem was my bad writing, lack of knowlegde of english grammar. Ok i accept that, but can anyone help me to publish this article in fashion that it can be accepted and viewed on english worldwide and not just in serbian wiki. Thank u in advanced. --Palikalane (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You might ask an admin to userfy the article in your user space. Then non-admins can see the text, and probably make better suggestions. If the article is userfied, you should note that here, and link to it.

Keeping in mind I can't see what you wrote, in general WP:BLP's need a clear, reliable source, and need to assert notability. This isn't "notability" in the general English use of the word, but what I call "Wiki-notability" defined as "received significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources". You need to at least make a reasonable claim of Wiki-notability in the article, then it won't be speedy deleted. It still might get nominated for a deletion discussion if someone disagrees about the notability, but at least you'd have the opportunity to present your case.

In theory, this is a wiki; people contribute what they can, and others come along and improve it. So, in theory, having a good but not great grasp of the English language should not be a problem. In practice, people don't like articles in poor English in the main article space. This would be another reason to userfy the article, someone could help you polish the English before putting it in article space. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Language like "First pages of his own magazine that he founded in 1928 as "Nova Literatura" (New Literature) was refreshment on the bored cultural scene of Belgrade" and "Gestapo was accused for this monstrosity , but certain members of his family still thinks its goverment that killed this great man because of western influence on serbian youth and great connections with western culture and society." also definitely failed our requirements of neutral point of view and verifiability. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

As of early 2nd August, I was able to get the text of your article from this Google search cache. It probably won't stay there long, so copy it now if you need it. Cod Lover Oil (talk) 05:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin's The Way To Wealth

Dear Editor, This quality article may be improved by adding an additional listing on the Further Reading Section. The Way to Wealth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I would suggest adding this book since it is a modern version of Benjamin Franklins book.

<redacted spamlink>

--Jackvincentbook (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Jack

No, that would be a spamlink. – ukexpat (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Your book (authored Jack Vincent) is not even available yet, let alone that it is a notable book (according to Wikipedia standards). Adding it now would be indeed be a spamlink. Come back later once the book is verifiably a mainstream resource. Arnoutf (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed so, see WP:NBOOK. – ukexpat (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Jackvincentbook has now been blocked indefinitely. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Reversion to Inappropriate Form - David Kershenbaum

The article about the American record producer, David Kershenbaum appears to be the subject of an edit-war.

• The article has had various WP:PUFF tags attached due to its inappropriate tone and content.
• The article appears to contain much cut-and-paste copyright material from its subject's own website.
• Attempts at rectifying these issues are met with rapid reversion by User:Natkersh, and an associated IP address - who does not appear to be aware of Wiki protocol and guidelines.
• User:Natkersh makes ad-hominem attacks on other editors and does not appear to be paying heed to the article's discussion page.
• Due to the closeness of the above username, and the fact that it appears to be a single purpose account, I suspect a conflict of interest.

Would a neutral editor please review the edit-history of this article and assist where possible? Eddie.willers (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have placed a warning about edit-warring on User:Natkersh's talk page. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the article a little and placed appropriate tags. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

'Before changing something on the page, at least check the Discogr!!! --Natkersh (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

TO EDDIE.WILLERS and the other names he/she is using

• Please stop this edit-war, it seems like you have a strong desire to keep changing this page to please your own ego, assuring us that you are improving the page, however, in fact, making it look unprofessional. From simple spelling mistakes and etc, to the style of your writing... it is obviously not an "edit" like. Professional "editors" would not present the information the way you are trying to. I strongly suspect a personal conflict of interest from your side, assuming that you know the target of your attacks personally and that forces you to keep coming back to the page over and over, and keep making that page look unprofessional through your continuous non-stop reversions. It is called an edit-war and it is not acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natkersh (talk • contribs) 05:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Headers

There seems to be an argument between 2-3 users about the difference between this header New and Old. I personally don't see much of a difference, except in the New headers like Zhang Ziyi or Zhang Yimou the important headers are made MAIN HEADERS using (==) sign, instead of (===). I don't know to me the New headers seem better because they each discuss various topics, and subheaders are placed where needed. The Old headers seem okay but why is "Career" above "Early life", especially when his early life has nothing to do with his career. It has his personal information in that paragraph. "Other activities" does not seem like a good title, it should just get to the other activities. This is just my opinion. 80.240.202.170 (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that you have joined in the discussion at Talk:Rain (entertainer)#Headers. There is an active discussion there and that is the place to discuss this. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No I just edited the page recently, I brought it here because it is turning into an argument. 80.240.202.170 (talk) 01:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

So - let the discussion proceed, we don't police discussions here. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Column width

Over at Template:Lexus I have made an edit to separate the dates into 1/2 years. However, at the same time it has made the "Type" column very wide. If someone could get it back to a to the way it was here that would be greatly appreciated. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I reverted it to the previous version. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jezhotwells, my request involves the retention of my latest edit, but the narrowing of the "Type" column, not just a revert. Thank you. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I just re-read what I originally wrote and my request was not very clear. In summary, my request is to make the "Type" column about 50 percent narrower. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

How about this edit? In FF3 it seems to do the job, more or less; you could adjust the 15% for fine-tuning. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Perect, thanks. I've just reduced it down a bit further to 10 percent. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

A second problem has also arisen over the column width. When I made this edit here, it makes the 1980s section very wide. All I want to do is show that the the Lexus ES and LS models were introduced mid-year in 1989. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue is that the 4th column, which is the 2nd half of 1989, doesn't have its width specified explicitly. You've only limited the pair to 3%. So, when you split the pair, that 4th column is allowed to absorb the remaining %age of width. The solution might be to specify its width explicitly further up the table. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Robert Coles

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

I deleted a section from the Robert Coles article that, in my view, violates Wikipedia policy with respect to biographies of living persons. It was reverted immediately. I posted a comment/explanation to the talk page. I do not wish to contact or engage the person who wrote the section under question. And I want to insure that the privacy and security of Dr. Coles and his family are respected and safeguarded. How can I (a) permanently delete material with a strong editorial agenda while (b) protecting my privacy and that of the subject of the entry, a living person?Cooperddc (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be a simple content dispute, which should in the first instance be addressed on the talk page. The text in the disputed section appears to be sourced, so this might be a matter of undue weight? Since we place great value on discussion and consensus, you probably won't be able to discard other editors' contributions without engaging in discussion with them.

In any event, you can't permanently delete material, and there doesn't appear to be any imminent threat to anyone's privacy; using those terms here seems a little excessive. User:Cooperddc, you've only edited that one article, so you might face some concerns about being a single-purpose account, which sometimes coincides with promoting a particular point of view. We'll assume that you're acting in good faith, and we'd appreciate your doing the same in respect of other editors. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Cooperdc's issue smacks more of a complaint about undue weight rather than a blaring BLP issue. Serious BLP issues generally stem from unsourced or poorly sourced statements. In this case, it would appear that the controversy section is sourced. The issue you may be missing, Cooperdc, is that if we remove all information of controversy from the article when there is a significant controversy, we might not be presenting a neutral point of view.

I will also say, Cooperdc, some of the information you introduced about Coles, such as the name of his father, is not clearly sourced. These would be in violation of WP:BLP. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The material under discussion has nothing to do with anyone's privacy or security -- it's literary criticism, albeit severe. I've restored it and it should remain. If there's a rebuttal to the accusation, then Cooperdc can add that. EEng (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Club Penguin: Game Day!

Club Penguin: Game Day! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've just stumbled on this new article, which needs some attention. Before I invest much time in wikifying this article, I'd like to get a second opinion on its viability.

My concern is that, being an unreleased game, this might ping WP:CRYSTAL. On the other hand, a quick Google indicates it has already received a fair bit of coverage, and other (released) games in the series have sizable articles. Is it worth fixing up at this stage, or is it a deletion candidate? I'd appreciate the thoughts of any passers-by. katherine_a (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Some references are a more serious need than wikifying in this article. If you have some WP:RS discussing the forthcoming release, then certainly, it is worth working on. If there are none then probably not - or at least wait for the release. Also bear in mind that the release may not actually be as trailed, or conceivably not at all. So caution is needed on how the article is worded. SpinningSpark 21:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Note the "[2]" in the article text; it's a copy-paste of a prior deleted version of the same article. If we're going to keep the current article, I think we need to restore the deleted one to keep the attribution chain legal. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Nicely spotted. Well, if it's already been deleted once then I won't bother with it. katherine_a (talk) 04:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I was wrong. The current article is an unattributed copy-paste of text from Wikia (wikia:clubpenguin:Club Penguin: Game Day!). I've now established the attribution chain with {{wikia content}}. It may still be worth improving though. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

QED National Article's Mark for Deletion

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

Hello,

I just created a new article for Wikipedia titled ‘QED National’. However, the article has been marked for deletion because it does not appear to meet the WP: Corp. The article has also been marked with a Conflict of Interest tag.

I have reviewed Wikipedia’s policy and guidelines and understand the editor’s concerns. While attempting to get additional time to address the issue, I followed instructions specified in Wikipedia’s guidelines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion) and removed the WP: Corp ‘dated tag’ from the article. However, the mark for deletion for was immediately reverted by the editor who had originally tagged the article.

It is my intention to comply with the community’s standards, norms and policy as was explained in the article talk page. The article will be improved and concerns that had been raised will be addressed through normal editing by myself and other editors.

Your guidance as to how to best approach this issue to prevent this article to be deleted will be appreciated. I am sure that if given the opportunity I can be a great contributor to the Wikipedia community.

Thanks in advance for your guidance and feedback regarding this article.

67.107.109.19 (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

One easy thing I'd point out is that wikipedia (ironically enough) doesn't accept itself as a reliable source. So it would probably be a good idea to remove the references to wikipedia itself. You do not need very many reliable sources if they provide significant coverage, and I glanced through the others, and do not seem to be able to find any references that discussed this company. Also, if you do have a conflict of interest, you really shouldn't be creating/editing this article, but if you wish to despite that advice, I would suggest creating a named account and clarifying what your relationship is. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This is User:Jaltaespinal I think. – ukexpat (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

From the looks of things, the PROD was challenged, then replaced, which is against WP:PROD. I see User:Orangemike has just given it a prod2, but by the books this should be going to AFD instead of having the PROD tag restored. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was challenged. WP:PROD says that challenged prods should not be restored, even if they are bad faith. I have consequently removed the prod template. However, it is certain that someone will now take it to WP:AfD and it is almost certain that in its present state it will get deleted. To save it the author needs to find independant reliable sources in a hurry. SpinningSpark 21:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Having looked at this, the article in my opinion fails WP:CORP as I can find no WP:RS establishing its notability. I have nominated it for deletion at WP:Articles for deletion/QED National‎. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Adding references links

Hello. I'm a legitimate author of ten books. I need someone's help in revising my Wikipedia article, mostly adding references to statements. I can provide full bibliographic references -- just don't know how to imbed them in the article. Judith Dupré (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Many thanks! Judith Dupre Judithdupre (talk) 14:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, The best thing might be to add suggestions to the talk page - Talk:Judith Dupre - and other editors can then help with the implementation. We tend to discourage article subjects from editing their own pages - there can be the perception of a potential conflict of interest and difficulties with maintaining a neutral point of view. I hope that helps. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that Judith is now actively editing the article about herself. In fact, most of the edits to the article have been by her. The lede at that article is, with all due respect, problematic (lots of peacock terms for instance). I've tagged it at {{coi}}. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Robert Van Damme

Resolved

 – Oversight has handled this issue. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Robert Van Damme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please see this diff. I think this page needs monitoring. It looks like the kind of dispute that could recur. I'll monitor when I can, but I'm not on as frequently as I once was. Cheers, David in DC (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I left a note on the editor's talk page. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Oversight has handled the very problematic revisions on that page. Suggest contacting WP:RFO directly in the future. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, for both handling this and reminding me about WP:RFO. Like I said, I'm not on as much as I used to be and I may be also be suffering from the beginnings of C.R.A.F.T. syndrome. It occurs in middle-aged people and, regrettably, intensifies with age.David in DC (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite alright. That's what we hang around for. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Numerous determine, blatantly biased counter-editors

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

In this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Duesberg ...there is no semblance of neutrality. I have made simple changes like "rejected and disproven" to just "rejected" and had them undone within minutes. People also make edit comments like "'dissidents' make it sound like there is merit to the position". Blantanly non-neutral! So, what can a neutral editor do when the biased editors are numerous, determined, and blatant? ReasonsAdvocate (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

First, I can advise you to keep a cool head and assume good faith on the part of other editors. Declaring there to be a cabal of determined and blatantly biased editors on an article will not win you allies on Wikipedia. I understand that you must be frustrated, but this is such an essential part of successful Wikipedia editing that I feel it cannot be overstressed.

Another major part of Wikipedia editing is something we call the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. It means that at first, you should be bold in making edits to improve things. However, if and when someone disagrees with your edit, he or she will probably revert that edit. The next step, which is up to you, is to discuss your edit and its merits on the talk page of the article in question.

I'm not going to comment extensively on the merits of your edit; I don't understand the subject well enough to say much. However, I may refer you to the page WP:W2W, which is a part of Wikipedia's manual of style about "words to watch" (or avoid). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It is well-established that Peter Duesberg is a leading AIDS denialist and his ideas have been discredited. There are multiple sources to this point, all highly reliable. Attempting to prove he is right is POV-pushing of the highest order, analogous to trying to "prove" the bible is "true" on the Creationism page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article does not adhere to WP:UNDUE, WP:SOAPBOX, and WP:NOTREPOSITORY. A rewrite has been proposed as the basis for any further revisions. The editor doing the rewrite is the webmaster of a website critical to the group. The editor protecting the original article has been previously restricted from editing 9/11 conspiracy articles, although the restriction has expired. Joseph.nobles (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You have already had one "outside" opinion. My opinion is that you should ask for a formal third opinion or failing that ask for a request for comment. Instructions at the relevant pages. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Trendelenberg

GOOD MORNING: I just wanted to report to you that your information on TRENDELENBERG is not correct. The correct spelling is TRENDLENBERG, and the pronounciation is TREND LEN BERG and not TREND ELEN BERG. This is a tremendous problem and is even being taught incorrectly to nursing students in classrooms all across the country.

I hope you can repair the damages.

THANKS,

Dr. Eddy H. Pevovar <email address redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrEDisONagain (talk • contribs) 13:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I assume that you are talking about the articles Friedrich Trendelenburg, Wilhelm Trendelenburg, Trendelenburg position, Trendelenburg's test, Brodie-Trendelenburg percussion test, Trendelenburg gait, Trendelenburg test, Trendelenburg's sign. The articles concerned have references suggesting that the spelling used on Wikipedia is correct. Tnhis is supported by Google searches. Do you have any reliable sources which suggest otherwise? I have removed your email address as per the instructions at the top of this page, which I think you failed to familiarise yourself with. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

This source describes part of the confusion. But Trendelenburg appears to be correct.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The spelling trend-elen-burg appears to be the correct one. Unless, doctor, you're referring to a particular subject that's an exception.

As to the pronunciation, I think you're probably right with trend-len-burg (in English), but I don't have a source for it. I'll also say that in my experience, when you're dealing with a "hard" medical word, you can encounter lots of variations in pronunciation in the wild, even among physicians. Declaring a "correct" pronunciation is sometimes not as simple as it sounds, and just getting something from a source can be misleading given the dynamic nature of language. But I'm off on a tangent... —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Attempt to circumvent AfD at Chernobyl disaster in popular culture

On July 22 an AfD on Chernobyl disaster in popular culture was closed as a "No consensus." The article was entitled Cultural impact of the Chernobyl disaster at the time, but was moved afterwards. When the AfD closed, the article looked like this. Over the next few days, two editors--Active Banana and Russavia--have moved the page and removed all content, finally making it a redirect to another article. This appears to be a clear and unambiguious attempt to circumvent the result of the AfD, with which neither editor agreed. Active Banana has made it clear that he/she intends to persist in this behaviour. I have no particular investment in the article, but recognise that the attempt to circumvent the AfD result is inappropriate. Please intervene. Regards, DionysosProteus (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure how removing unsourced content and original research "circumvents" "no consensus". When the policies of WP:V and WP:OR were applied to the article there was nothing left and so the redirect seemed the appropriate move, considering the ambiguous result of the AfD. DionysosProteus then reverted to a version of the article full of unsourced original research and listcruft. While the Discuss portion of the BRD process is underway regarding the redirect, I applied WP:V again to the content and DionysosProteus "circumvented" WP:BURDEN to reinsert inappropriate content. Active Banana (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Redirection and moving are editorial decisions, and neither requires an AfD. While they do require consensus, it is also true that it is required that article content, if challenged, be properly sourced before reinsertion. Why not just source it, and solve the issue? If it can't be properly sourced, the people removing it are correct. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. No matter what the decision, unsourced material needs to be sourced. You really shouldn't simply put it back. And the fact it survived an AfD, particularly with a no consensus result, is no guarantee it won't be heavily edited or even renamed. Dougweller (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not a discussion about the necessity of sourcing statements. It is not that statements were removed, but that the article in its entirety was deleted and replaced with a redirect, despite the proposal from AfD reaching "no consensus." DionysosProteus (talk) 10:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This IS a discussion about the necessity of sourcing statements. You only brought this here when I removed TWICE the unsourced content that you have reinserted THREE times. The redirect in "attempt to circumvent AfD" was only taken once, several weeks ago. A "no consensus" decision at AFD does NOT override WP:V. Active Banana (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Regardless of what people want to do about the article content itself, I agree totally that individual editors should be discouraged from the practice of deciding on their own what's best for Wikipedia. One can call it "a bold move" or "aggressive behaviour"; either way, there are better ways to do this then to surprise people and then hope that they will be pleasantly surprised. A simple reminder of the principle that "editors should always endeavor to treat each other with consideration and respect" and the general warning (from the civil page in a nutshell) "Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others" should be enough. Mandsford 16:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The blanket removal of all content and replacing it with a redirect constitutes a deletion. The proposal that the article be deleted reached no consensus. The content has blue links to articles, indicating notability. The point is that it is and remains highly inappropriate to circumvent the AfD decision in this manner. DionysosProteus (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

In looking over my comment, I see that it was ambiguous. I want to make it clear that what I was referring to as "aggressive behaviour" was User:Russavia announcing that he or she had boldly redirected the page. In my view, Dionysos was reverting the content in a manner consistent with the outcome of the discussion of many users in a deletion debate, and I am not faulting him. I would add that there are two types of unsourced comments-- those that can be confirmed, and those that cannot-- hence, we have a "citation needed" markup that can be added. If one is going to leave messages on user pages about unsourced comments, I think that the more sensible and less aggressive practice is to say "if there is no source added, this will be removed" rather than "I removed it" along with implied criticism of that editor. Sometimes, we will inadvertently step on the toes of another, but we should avoid trying to do so. Mandsford 17:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

If it was redirected to an old article, I might have some sympathy. But that is not what happened. It was renamed, and a redirect left behind. That's an entirely different thing. I've moved two articles to different names in the last 5 days, they are still the same article. The issue has nothing to do with notability, you could add Santa Claus and you would have a blue link. However, the sourcing problem probably isn't as much of an issue under the new title as it would have been under the old title. Dougweller (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No, you haven't understood what's happened. Perhaps I didn't explain it clearly enough. It was renamed, yes. No problem. Then all material was deleted and the renamed page was redirected to a different article. Problem: a deletion by surreptitious means. I observe also: the meaning of the two variations of article title (cultural impact and in popular culture) are virtually indistinguishable; the only quibble may be the high art/popular culture debate: under what circumstances do works of literature (or any other artform) come to be considered part of "popular" culture rather than the more general "culture". This isn't important with regard to the issue at hand, however. DionysosProteus (talk) 10:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I understand (and I sincerely mean that, not trying to sound as if I'm criticizing) but are you saying that sourcing is more of an issue for an article called "Chernobyl disaster in popular culture" than for an article called "Cultural impact of the Chernobyl disaster"? Nevertheless, the way we handle the problem of statements for which there should be a citation is in WP:V: "Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. In other words, there is only one circumstance where content must be removed as soon as possible, and that depends on the material being both contentious (i.e., likely to cause an argument) and about a living person, the very essence of WP:BLP. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and it is built by many people who are contributing in their spare time, and as a group, we encourage people to contribute. While there is some material that must, of necessity, be censored, the practice described in Wikipedia:Citation needed is the way that we alert people, politely, to a problem, and alert a reader to uncertainty. Mandsford 22:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

This "surreptitious" deletion is not surreptitious at all (and it's not deletion), but rather it was bold, the opposite of surreptitious. The AfD is irrelevant. This could have been done by any editor before the AfD. WP:BURDEN allows removal of any unsourced content that is challenged. They have challenged the content by removing and redirecting. It is your burden to source the content if you want it back. Sourcing is the most fundamental requirement for content and its lack is out number one problem on Wikipedia.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. And it seems to me that, if the burden of sourcing cannot be met, there is little point in discussing the issue further, since there is only one possible outcome consistent with policy. If it can be sourced, source it, and there's no issue. If it can't, it cannot remain. Jakew (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Please continue the discussion on the article's talk page - this discussion now goes beyond the mandate of the WP:EAR department, or if consensus cannot be reached, take it to one of the dispute resolution noticeboards. Some closing notes to take into consideration are:

• AfDs closed with 'no consensus' default to keep however emotional editors feel about the outcome. That means it gets kept even it appears not to immediately meet inclusion criteria of notability and/or verifiability.
• Blanking and turning an article into a redirect: A page that has existed for 4 years with substantial page content should preferably not be subjected to such a dramatic unilateral action without a consensus - it clearly goes beyond what is understood as WP:BOLD - and WP:IAR would not be a motive.
• Consider renaming this article back to Chernobyl in popular culture, and perhaps obtain consensus for doing so.
• Consider rewriting the sections in prose form, and ensuring that vital and contentious points are covered by inline WP:RS, WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:BURDEN, bearing in mind the maxim 'if in doubt, leave it out'. And if this means the article is left as a stub, so be it.
  --Kudpung (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Help needed

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

I am a legitimate internationally bestselling author. I haven't been able to add citations to my Wikipedia page -- they have been removed, making my page look suspect! Would some please help me post 3-4 citations on the "Judith Dupre" page? I can supply literally dozens of references that substantiate everything on my page! Many thanks, Judith DupreJudithdupre (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You obviously have a conflict of interest here. Please read our policies on this. The best approach is to post the references on the article talk page. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Add sentence and citation

Would someone kindly add this sentence to the end of the first paragraph on the Judith Dupre page?

Her forth coming book, Full of Grace: Encountering Mary in Faith, Art and Life (Random House, Nov. 2010), attempts to capture essential truths about the human condition and the nature of personal transformation. Please add this citation for the above sentence: IdeaCity conference program, June 16-18, 2010

Thank you, Judithdupre (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

My initial reaction is that the text that you would wish another editor to add is quite explicit promotion for a forthcoming publication. This is not what Wikipedia is. Your current article is verging quite close to being promotional and has other structural problems particularly with references and reads more like a CV than a regular page about an author. It might be prudent to get the current page fixed up to fit with Wikipedia style than worry about promoting a new book. Sorry.  Velela  ^{Velela Talk}   16:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to say this, but the whole article reads like a book jacket note or a page from a publisher's website. An encyclopedic biography should be as dry as a bone, almost tabular in prose form. See some of the GA biographies and use those as a template. For example, where is all the standard bio stuff in the lead, like DOB, etc? My other question is: if it's about a 'bestselling' author, why does he/she need the extra publicity? If one is famous, one waits until somebody else takes the initiative. (I'm still waiting...) --Kudpung (talk) 09:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The article has now been cleaned up. Notability still needs to be asserted. See article and editor talk pages for more information.--Kudpung (talk) 09:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

maps of dairy farms in south africa

My child need a map showing where all dairy farms can be found in regions of south africa for a school project. However I could only find a map of a country other than south africa. Unfortunately it MUST be of south africa.

41.29.41.158 (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Dorothy41.29.41.158 (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities is the place to ask this. This page is aimed at helping article editors with editing problems. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for Deletion

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 08:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I found a duplicate article based on misspelling. Joe sabia should be deleted because Joe Sabia is the main article having a properly capitalized "S" in the surname. Can anyone help on this matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.60.10 (talk) 04:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That has been sorted by making Joe sabia into a redirect. Thanks for letting us know. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't Joe sabia be deleted? Does it make sense to have that duplicate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.60.10 (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Its a redirect, it does no harm. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

And in fact, keeping the old page history might be necessary for attribution purposes if they differ significantly. Also, capitalization variant redirects actually used to be necessary before the MediaWiki software would automatically deliver the closest capitalization variant of what went into the search box. The redirect is still necessary if it's likely someone will use the variant in an article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

India wiki page error....

India drives on RIGHT & not LEFT as indicated, kindly change the same rgds —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.101.182.54 (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't according to the Driving Test India Rules of the road. However, this is not the place for issues such as this. Please use the relevant article discussion page instead.  Velela  ^{Velela Talk}   15:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Sondow209 converting redirect into unsourced article

Fried Chicken Flu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What is the best way of convincing User:Sondow209 that Wikipedia's policies regarding stand alone articles WP:N mean that the user needs to provide significant third party coverage for the topic of the article if the editor removes the redirect status? see [1]]. I have left a couple of notifications on the userpage. [2] Active Banana (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted back to the redirect and placed an edit warning on the user talk page. Judging by the warnings received they appear oblivious of WP policies. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Confederate States of America/ subsection 2.5 "Civil liberties" dispute

The "Civil liberties" subsection has one source only, and a quotation from that source comparing the relative safety of Northern and Southern civilians. There are 2 statements from that one source comparing North/South. For the past week I have tried to post a short edit quoting another historian Kenneth W. Noe from his 2003 essay in Civil War History (Kent State Univ. Press)Who Were the Bushwhackers?, where he questions the reliability of Mark Neely's study. I was told to "Leave Lincoln out" by another editor, though Lincoln is mentioned 14 times in the article. I redid my edit to leave Lincoln out, the other editors had more objections. I told them that a: There is only one source for that subsection, b: Mr. Noe's opinion is his latest (2003) on Neely's study, and that I saw no good reason not to add my edit, which I did. My edit was reverted again on the basis of an old review by Noe of Neely's work. Mr. Noe's opinion has since changed. The relevance of my edit seems obvious, and I think as a responsible editor I have the right to add another opinion to that section.Dubyavee (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a case for a WP:RfC as it seems difficult to establish consensus on the artcile talk page. Instructions for RFCs at that page. Remember to "include a brief, neutral statement of the issue". Jezhotwells (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Rights of Englishmen

There has been an edit war going on over the acceptability of sources. Please help source this moderately important article! Bearian (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. You are in the wrong department.

• AFAICS there is no evidence of 3rr here, and if there were, the diffs should be listed and the complaint taken to one of the dispute resolution notice boards.
• EAR is a department for providing editing advice - we are not a stand-by crew for doing what a group of intelligent editors can't collaborate and do for themselves
• If it's in Google, it's sourceable is a very reckless statement. It's tantamount to saying 'every crime is solveable'
• If there are any lawyers around, perhaps they can demonstrate some skills of negotiation on the article talk page.
• It looks as if the whole dispute was begun by one of the oldest, most regular contributors to the article who suddenly decided to to throw his/her toys out of the pram.

--Kudpung (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what's written above. A request for assistance in finding sources seems perfectly suitable for this page. The request was not to intervene and mediate between the parties but to find sources that addressed the issue that the conflict arose out of. I found a few. Someone else will have to add them to the article as that's outside my experience level.

http://books.google.com/books?id=7MEPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1

http://books.google.com/books?id=yxCSAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA168

http://books.google.com/books?id=sC8IAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA4

http://books.google.com/books?id=Y5YDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA421 (this one looks very good, quotes the magna carta and directly backs claims made in the article, and the Supreme Court of the United States is a reliable source!)
--162.83.164.161 (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, both, for (a) the trout slap, and (2) the assistance. Bearian (talk) 00:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you, but you are still in the wrong place. The comments above are perfectly clear - we did take time to see why the sources can't be found. The reason was due to unreasonable behaviour by those involved, and there is nothing we can do here that they can't do for themselves. Please be good enough to offer your kindly found information on the articles talk page where it belongs, and almost certainly one of the article's regular contributors will know what to do with it as soon as they can stop their bickering. --Kudpung (talk) 00:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Block my bot!

Resolved

 – Done by zzuuzz. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Can You please block my bot! AWB accidently changes project sometimes in a way I cannot explain. If the bot is blocked, I will automatically be noticed that I am in the wrong project! - Lavallen (talk) 08:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Requests of this type should probably be made to WP:AN or WP:ANI in the future, which is visited by admins much more often. I've put up your request on WP:ANI. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Over at the article about Carrie Underwood there's been a content dispute about her last name. In late July she married a man by the name of Mike Fisher, and since that time there's been dispute over whether or not she changed her last name. The issue has been brought up on the talk page, but there hasn't been much discussion lately. We have asked many times for a source that she changed her last name, but nobody has yet provided a reliable source stating that she changed her last name. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 15:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have left a note at the article talk page. If and when she starts using her married name professionally then there might be a case for a move. Until then no. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Israeli soldiers kill in video game style

Hi. It's not like a serious issue, but there's a complication on where to add it in the article. As for validity, see section in the talkpage. Userpd (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)