Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Previous requests & responses

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by .

review of notability and sources notice

Resolved

– Danger ^{High voltage!} 22:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I wrote an article about the artist Marina DeBris. At the early stages, someone posted notices about 'needs additional citations for verification' and 'establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic.' Since those were posted, I revised the entry and added a lot of new references. I asked a couple of other places for someone to review, but no results yet. Could someone please review this entry and let me know whether those notices can be removed? Just to mention, I used a lot of non traditional sources, because the artist, Marina DeBris, is a non traditional artist. I hope that will be considered. I also added bunch of references to Tomoko Takahashi. Could someone review that page too?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialresearch (talk • contribs)

Thanks to one person for removing the 'verification' notice. Further question, though. The notability message is still there. I'm really not yet clear on this. I did some research on some other artists and added citations, so now their notability messages were removed, but not for Marina DeBris. Some examples of other artist pages I contributed to were Rodney McMillian and Joe Rush. Notability messages were removed from these pages. By the way, I also added a few references to Guillaume Bijl and Tomoko Takahashi. Could someone take a look at those pages and let me know if that is sufficient? Socialresearch (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the citation notice, as there were definitely enough citations for the material there. I was not confident enough to remove the notability notice at the time because a google search for "Marina DeBris" doesn't exactly work that well... But, I reexamined the sources, and have determined that, at least as far as I'm concerned, Marina passes the GNG.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 13:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Discussion moved

– Discussion occurring (as is proper) on the article talk page. Danger ^{High voltage!} 22:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Israeli–Palestinian conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) contains the following sentence, "Many Palestinians nowadays believe that Israel is not committed to reaching an arrangement, but rather interested in continuing to control the entire territory from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River". I have commented in the Talk page that this is unverified as well as being factually false as Israel does not control "the entire territory from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River", as the West Bank is under the political jurisdiction of the Palestinian National Authority and Gaza is governed by the Hamas government. I am reluctant to remove this line as it would leave the paragraph unbalanced with a POV. How should I proceed?

I would say that both sides probably feel the same on each other. Many Israelis feel that the Palestinians do not want to come to an agreement that will see Israel as the Jewish country. But both claims are not verified unless you can find official credible surveys to quote. Without it just remove this sentence as it is really irrelevant and is adding nothing of substance on the conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.246.137 (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute about removed bio page

Answered

– Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 02:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that my "bio" page (Jesse Liberty) has been taken down, as have all references to me on other pages. I can't find the page to dispute this decision but I note that (a) the majority opinion was 'keep' and (b) other similar authors are listed. What is the right process to dispute this decision? Jesse Liberty 21:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jliberty (talk • contribs)

The place to have a review of the AFD is at Deletion review. GB fan 21:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But be mindful that these discussions are not votes, but policy discussions; so a mere "majority" of !votes is meaningless. Also: "look at these other articles" is not an argument for retention of a non-complying article, although it may be a clue that there are other articles that should have been deleted for the same reasons. Also: it was never your bio page: it was a bio page about you -- a vital philosophical distinction. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for assistance and supreme judgment on the legacy of the concept of "Big Bang Theory""

Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia that shamelessly plugs in "fads" or isn't it, or should it be one that promotes higher concepts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_Theory_%28disambiguation%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.9.143 (talk) 04:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this counts as a 'request for assistance' as such. And while I can sympathise with your point (if I actually understand it correctly - you haven't been particularly explicit), it may well be the case that more people looking for a BBT article on Wikipedia are after the TV show than the cosmological theory. As always in such cases, this is an editorial decision, and probably never going to be answered to everyone's satisfaction. Of course, the cosmological theory might turn out in the long term to be a fad too... Meanwhile, we try to meet the contradictory needs of our readers - or at least, I hope that is what we are trying to do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And we also try to discuss viewpoints at the pages involved, as I've invited 70.27.9.143 to do at Talk:Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) and Talk:Big Bang Theory (where the prior discussions have taken place) -- when editing this page, it even urges "PLEASE consider discussing the issue on the article's talk page if not already done so." (which 70.27.9.143 hasn't done). But to answer the question: Wikipedia doesn't promote concepts -- it's a reference tool for readers, not a promoter. Still, Big Bang and Big Bang theory both "promote" the science concept (as do more redirects, while Big Bang Theory and The Big Bang Theory (and others) "promote" the pop culture concept. Neither is prima facie wrong, although either might change (as the capital-T change took place late last year). -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being a bully hiding behind your editorial privileges, where are the statistics that support your so claimed consensus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.9.143 (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the personal attacks and start assuming good faith. See WP:NPA, WP:AGF, Talk:Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) and Talk:Big Bang Theory, and if needed, engage in the discussions there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I had good faith, which is why I edited that page, you are the one making personal attacks because your behavior indicates that you were the one doing personal attacks. You have not produced an iota of evidence supporting your self-proclaimed consensus! Where are the statistics and unbiased analyses of those from all relevant pages over all "wikipedia-time"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.89.12 (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you just did a little bit more research as I assume you are supposed to do, the person who squatter-ed (sic) the page The Big Bang Theory is heavily biased on tv shows, how does your claim of not a promoter stand up now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.89.12 (talk) 04:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prove your so-claimed neutrality, if wikipedia is to be a true reference tool, as you so claimed in your own words, then wikipedia should therefore strive to be accurate! support and execute the move! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Big_Bang_Theory#Requested_move_to_promote_clarity.2C_minimize_confusion.2C_and_make_wikipedia_a_better.2C_accurate.2C_and_precise_research_tool.21

Rationale: 1) Precedents: e.g. Glee_(TV_series), Once_Upon_a_Time_(TV_series), Lost_(TV_series) 2) Speaking of precedents, the show owes its name to its namesake, not to mention that the cosmological model should have historical precedence. This is at the very least, I think, because I am sure there are still skeptics out there, and as a great wise man said, only one convincing experiment is sufficient to prove a theory wrong. 3) It is quite a shame that variations of big bang, big bang theory, the big bang theory redirect to the tv series without giving users a warning, or at the very least a true unbiased choice. 4) Request for page move to promote clarity. 5) Request for page move to minimize confusion.

This is not the place to make arguments. We will help users here, but not so far as deciding the outcome of content disputes. Instead, maybe you should imagine a Wikipedia in which articles got changed every time a single editor demanded as much. And what would happen if two such editors disagreed! No one is telling you you're wrong or even that your argument is bad. We'd just rather you follow the appropriate paths (dispute resolution, for example), so we don't all kill each other. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Someguy1221, I actually got to this page from the dispute resolution page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.89.12 (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

commonname policy

Issue:

1st comment about article content not about article titles:

Phrase should be translated properly as alternate phrase

Responder agrees that alternate phrase is correct but

your comment that phrase should be translated as alternate phrase runs against WP:COMMONNAME for what we think should be the term is always secondary to WP:COMMONNAME,

My reading of the policy is that it only appplies to article titles. Who is right? Eschoir (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without more context, I have no idea. The policy WP:COMMONNAME only refers to article titles. However, novel translations are WP:OR (original research), especially when another translation is in wide use in the literature of the topic. (Example: I personally think "suffering" is a very poor translation of dukkha, but Wikipedia must use the translation in wide use.) Danger ^{High voltage!} 22:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer O'Neill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) threats to user Taninao0126 and insertions of false factual info in Jennifer O'Neill bio by user MikeWaznowski

I (Taninao0126) have already discussed these issues on my talk page of Taninao0126, and also the talk page of MikeWaznowski (but he deleted them on his. It would appear that user MikeWaznowski either is very close to engaging in an "edit war" with me without any justifiable basis. He keeps tagging the article as having "multiple issues" when several cites just needed to be updated or corrected.

If you go to his user page of MikeWaznowski, you can see that other users have similar complaints about him in that he engages in a persistent pattern of deletion, tagging, and editing even after users (like myself) have done further editing in order to address the points he brings up.

You may go to the wiki article on actress Jennifer O'Neill, and see the revision history there. In fact I have also consulted with user WikiDan61 (an editor who has 100,000 yes one hundred thousand edits) as you can see from the revision history, and he does not seem to have any problem with my editing at all. And you can see from the comments of another user GoingBattyTalk, he has said:

"Hi Taninao - the article looks much better than the last time I saw it. I made a few minor changes. If you have titles and authors for the People and New York Times articles, that would be good information to add. It would also be helpful to add another sentence or two in the lede (the first paragraph) to summarize why O'Neill is notable. Keep up the good work! GoingBatty (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)".

So you can go to the Jennifer O'Neill revision history, and talk pages of Taninao0126 and MikeWaznowski to further full specifics.

What do I want ? For ANOTHER third party to tell MikeWaznowski to just take a deep breath, slow down, and just "cool things down".

Thank you for your time. Taninao0126 (talk) 05:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user has constantly removed maintenance templates from this article without actually addressing the issues - I gave her a final warning tonight for removing to tags relating to peacock language, primary and self-published sources. As you can see from this comparison, all this editor did was add one reference (which was a duplicate of one already in the article), but did nothing else. The issues were not addressed. This has been her pattern to date on the article - see [1], [2] for further examples. This editor has been a WP:SPA in regards to this article, adding overblown and promotional language backed up by questionable references, many either from the subject or written by the subject. I tried explaining this to her yesterday, but she just went in and removed the templates again. MikeWazowski (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tanina -- Mike's problem with the article is that much of it relies on O'Neill's own autobiography and personal websites, which are considered primary sources, and hence not reliable. Citing such material from independent sources is preferred. With regard to the published autobiography, I take some issue with this policy, since a published autobiography such as O'Neill's has certainly been through an editorial review policy, so one can presume that facts in the book have been vetted, but this is an argument for a different forum. Simply removing the templates without addressing the issue that the template raises is considered bad form. At the very least, the matter should be discussed on the article's talk page to reach a consensus about the validity of the maintenance templates.

Mike -- Tanina is a relatively new editor. You might consider being a bit less bitey. (This coming from a person who has been accused of this once or twice myself!) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pole Fitness article deletion

Why was the article on Pole Fitness deleted? It has been a growing fitness regimen for several years. It is not "Pole Dance" it is "Pole Fitness". I remember that there once was a very informative article about it and now it is gone. Replaced by three articles concerning the IPDFA, Polenastics Ltd & Pole Dance (the only non-promotional article). Indeed, it seems your "editors" have been kept busy deleting the subject - once in August of 2006 and again in January 2011. Pole Fitness is an exercise/sport NOUN as surely as Zumba, Jazzercize, Pilates or Yoga! You need only Google it or search YouTube for Pole Fitness to find that it is much more than nasty dancing! Pole Fitness has a long history (since the 70's) and deserves to be available to the public. Also, there have been many more contributors to the sport than the IPDFA & Polenastics - why not have an impartial forum/article on the subject? Please undelete the previous wiki and if needed remove what you feel is self-serving or promotional - or send it to me and I'll fix it. Thank You. John Keltner ^{[details removed]} --99.44.33.184 (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the article in question is Pole fitness. According to the deletion log, it was deleted on 14 January 2011 by NawlinWiki under G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). The appropriate forum for this is Deletion review.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 14:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tlonca

Tlonca has been reverting my removal of syndicated shows on various TV stations. This is irrevelent information. If they want to find what syndicated show is on a station, their answer is not wikipedia, they can just go to the TV network's website. I want you to take action on Tlonca. ACMEWikiNet (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to repeat what I told you on your talk page. Your opinion is not special. You have an opinion. Tlonca and neutralhomer have opinions. They are not the same. Deal with it. Start by asking them on their talk pages why they disagree with you, or invite them to a discussion on the talk page of one of the affected articles. There is no policy that editors are banned from Wikipedia because they disagree with ACMEWikiNet. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the side of Tlonca and NeutralHomer as an editor of WP:TVS; we have syndicated programs in articles because they make up what the station is. They aren't adding problems to the articles at all. They are easily sourced by the station's website. The last thing we want is for someone to come upon a station article and wonder why there's nothing about the syndication schedule in the body of the article; Wikipedia doesn't has a set page number limit. Compared to the cruft involving slogans and music cruft we've dealt with as of late, syndicated programming is way down the list of problems of "irrelevant information", and is in fact, relevant to the strength or weakness of a television station. Nate • (chatter) 06:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I can chime in on this: I've been here less than a year and I've been more of a quiet observer. But in my opinion, the syndicated programming mentions add very little to the articles because the programming is the same across the board. There is very little that is unique in this regard. If the reader whats to know about what programs a station airs then they should go to the station's website or check one of the online program guides (Titan TV or Zap 2 It). Adding info about current syndicated programs will only open the door for fan-crufty editors to include either full-blown schedules or nearly every syndicated program the station has aired. That's not encyclopedic, and that's my opinion. DreamMcQueen (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has also been brought to the dispute resolution noticeboard, but looks like it's going to get directed to WikiProject Television Stations because it hasn't been discussed on a talk page yet. So editors who are interested should watch out for the discussion there. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

youtube as a source

One article Black History Month uses youtube as a reference. Is that an acceptable source? By the way, for this particular reference, that youtube video, whatever it was, has now been deleted from youtube. One youtube video, here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvj509qB0qU&feature=youtu.be is a news station story about an artist. So it's youtube, but its a news station story. Is that a valid reference? Socialresearch (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC) This story also uses youtube as a reference Paper Planes Socialresearch (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it can't be used per WP:COPYLINK. Bidgee (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube is not the publisher in this case, just a repository for the information. You're free to cite the news story ({{Cite video}}) and just leave the the link out of it. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Entry about ME.. Tim R Newey...

12th February 2012

RE: Living Persons' Biographies

Dear Wiki,

I think you Should Have an Entry on myself... Tim R Newey

And perhaps your Living-People-Biography Teams could be "Notified"?!

It IS easy enough to reach me but you Will find enough contacts to complete the article?!

I can Cite, at Least, 10 Disciplines in which the Entry would fall "Nicely" Into?!

Yours hopefully,

Tim R Newey Wikipedia User

I shall wait a little longer; Patiently..

ALL Fondest Regards.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.247.188 (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books didn't find anything under "Tim R Newey". Can you point to a couple of reliable sources? Thanks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Houston never sang backup for Chaka Khan

Under the heading of 1977 - 1984 Early Life, it is reported that Whitney Houston sang backup for Chaka Khan on Ms. Khan's "I'm Every Woman". On 02/12/12, Ms. Khan was interviwed via phone by Lester Holt on The Today Show and the singing backup story was brought up. Ms. Khan corrected Mr. Holt by informing him, Whitney Houston never sang backup for her, she said, "That is a common misconception" Please do Ms. Houston the honor of correcting this error in your article.

Thank you,

Donita F. Palmore 02/12/2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.225.136.151 (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding the source. Could someone help me out there?--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 13:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.hulu.com/watch/328570/nbc-today-show-chaka-khan-whitney-like-a-daughter , a little past the 2m30s mark. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will take a look when I get home (they have Hulu and everything else totally locked down here...)--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 14:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation note changed because current one is no longer valid

I recently changed a citation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_game#cite_note-2 Because the old external URL no longer points to where it is suppose to and redirects to a site that is not specific to the sentence that is cited. I updated it to reflect a site that fits exactly to what the article is talking about and the changes were reverted. Can anyone assist me in this or should I just leave it alone as useless as the reference is now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbryant03 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the change on the history page nor in your contributions. Did you make sure to hit the "Save page" button? The most common cause of this problem is clicking the "Show preview" button, instead of the "Save page" button.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 18:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editor assistance needed for Noreen Renier entry

On January 15 I made a new entry on the Noreen Renier entry Noreen Renier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Subsequently it was removed by another editor. The history page indicates I cannot undo this deletion because of "conflicting intermediate edits." I would like to know who and why my entry was deleted and how to undo it without re-entering it manually. Thanks, WashTeh (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history (accessible from the link above) shows the edits, who made them and their reasons for doing so. – ukexpat (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since your last edit to that article, four other editors have maded edits to that article. It would be grossly inappropriate to simply undo their edits, rather than take into account the substantive changes they made. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the edits [3] you made were clearly in violation of several Wikipedia policies and guidelines - please read WP:RS, and particularly WP:BLP - any unsourced allegations regarding individuals must be reverted immediately. Furthermore, we don't editorialise in articles by commenting on what the 'focus' ought to be.

The article needs serious attention from an uninvolved editor though - it is a contradictory mess, and reads like an attack article - one has to ask whether Renier meets our notability requirements, and if she does, whether the article would be better rewritten from scratch. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit [4] removed the inline citations and replaced them with manually entered footnote numbers and footnotes. It's full of raw urls. I added 2 section headings and some spaces, but I suspect it should be stubbed so it can be rewritten. Dougweller (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no longer really with Wikipedia, but I was following up on a few things today and saw the request for me to come comment. I came across this article randomly through AWB and was surprised by the number of unverified claims it contained, and that it bordered on an attack page. I tried to reduce it down to only more neutral and verified claims.[5] However, User:Amindformurder (a single article account whose name suggests a connection with Renier--it's the title of her book) promptly undid these entirely, even deleting the orphan tag.[6] (User:WashTeh, incidentally, is also a single-article account editing only this.) I agree with AndytheGrump's suggestion that this just be taken to AfD--I'm not sure I see any real evidence of notability here. At the very least, however, the original research and attack sections need to be removed per BLP policy. The sources are almost entirely blogs, personal websites, or primary sources. Cheers, 72.131.118.45 (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC) (formerly User:Khazar)[reply]

Jessica Nordell - Removed the Notability Flag - 2/13/2012

Resolved

– Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 14:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I wrote an article about the writer and poet Jessica Nordell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Nordell). At the early stages, someone posted notices about 'needs additional citations for verification' and 'establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic.' Since those were posted, I revised the entry and added a lot of new references. Could someone please review this entry and let me know whether those notices can be removed? This is my first entry but the research that I have conducted is thorough and accurate. Please let me know who the correct person to speak to about getting the Notability Flag removed from the page.

Thank you for your time.

Erinleecarr (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Erin Lee Carr[reply]

I have removed it and cleaned up the article a little. – ukexpat (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thank you very much. Erinleecarr (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC) ELC[reply]

Boom! Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Discussion moved

– ~~Sources provided on talk all good, and it's on my watchlist if it happens again.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 14:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)~~ Moved to talk.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 02:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There have been persistent attempts to remove Andrew Cosby's long-standing status as co-founder, despite a preponderance of evidence from numerous reputable online and print sources supporting the position, including Boom's own comics and interviews with both founders. A Los Angeles Times interview was cited in a response to a request by the editor (Njkaters) for a reliable source, then promptly undone. More sources were cited, and undone. Talk page requests have gone unanswered. Since then, more edits have been made to completely remove any mention of Andrew Cosby and his contribution to the company. This is a serious issue. Please advise. Thanks. Truthsayer2012 (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

La Bayamesa - Cuba's National Anthem

My question refers to the composer of the music, not the lyrics. The music sounds identical to Mozart's music in The Marriage of Figaro. In fact, I have even seen a video of the Buckingham Palace guards playing it during the famous Changing of the Guards. Could it be that Figueredo just adapted the music rather than compose it outright? Signed, Ana Marshall — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anitinamartin (talk • contribs) 05:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for specific requests about editing Wikipedia. Perhaps you should ask at the reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions, and will try to answer any question you have about almost anything.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 15:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editor help with new article title

Resolved

– Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 13:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gertrude Theiler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- I need an assist with correcting the title of this article I created earlier today. The title should read "Gertrud" without the "e" -- her name appears both ways in scientific and lay references, but she was of Swiss ancestry and she used the traditional Swiss spelling. I should have caught this when I created the article, but... Thanks for your help! Cohee (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done - now at Gertrud Theiler. – ukexpat (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you Ukexpat! Cohee (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a page of guidelines

I want to add a page of guidelines to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government/United States#California. The page is now sitting at User:GeorgeLouis/Sandbox. How would I go about doing that? Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this is the correct revision for the sandbox page.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 02:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To what extent do we want to cover media coverage?

Penn State sex abuse scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Specifically regarding the last two paragraphs of this section. It seems at first (to me) to be unencyclopedic. I understand mentioning a few various opinions expressed by people somehow related to the incident, university, or area, but if we really tried to summarize every random story that a random writer looking for some eyeballs decided to pen, I fear we'd look more like Huntington Post or TMZ than an encyclopedia. This concern makes me question whether these paragraphs and paragraphs like this in general are appropriate, despite the fact that they are excellently referenced. Does any guidance on this exist that someone could point me to? Lastly, I'm posting here instead of the article talk page because I'm looking for an opinion about policy or guidance in general, not just these specific paragraphs. Thanks in advance. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 21:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ethanol

look i am not really sure whjat i am doing here but i cant sign in as i dont havean account but it appears there is a mistake in the exact mplar mass givin for ethanol it is quoted as being 46.041864814 g mol when if you add the molecular formula of CH3CH2OH it comes to a molar mass of 46.06844 i and if for some reason the former is right i would like to understand why as it says 46.07 then goes to say an exact mass of 46.041864814 g mol which would have an aprox of 46.04 cheers lawrence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.179.13 (talk) 05:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt you'll check back here, but there are subtle differences between the terms molar mass, molecular mass, and exact mass and how they are calculated. In short, it depends on whether (a) it is measured or inferred from the atomic make-up of the molecule and (b) whether isotopes are considered. I've linked the terms to their wikipedia articles, hopefully they'll shed a little light on the distinction. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 06:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My article is proposed to be deleted

On 13th of February I wrote an article about Blaustein Vadim. I got a proposal to delete the article or to change it because there is no indication of notability. I changed it by adding some information about charity and social activities. I still didn't get any reaction. I think that V. Blaustein is doing great things to bringing all russian-speaking people in Benelux together. He initiated so many projects regarding this activity. He is the first person who wants to support the magazine Rus and give many people to read magazine (which is about life in Europe not Russia) in their own language.

Thank you for considering my post.

Best regads, Kristina Kerbel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristinakerbel (talk • contribs) 09:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been speedily deleted as it read like a promotional piece for the subject. Please take a look at WP:SPAM and the welcome message on your talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doing good work is not necessarily the same as notable, the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Notable means that the subject is discussed in a non-trivial way in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Spinning Spark 23:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What could I have done better and is the other party truly tendentious and if so what should I do

Already being discussed Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Dog and Canis lupus dingo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello and thanks for your help. I wish one on one advice because I don't want to escalate or worsen things. This matter is still on the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard under dog discussion [[7]]. However, I'm not here about the content of the article Dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) but to find a better way to deal with the other party, review my own actions and solicit advice for improvement, and to decide whether to proceed farther with a party who I view as possibly tendentious. I look forward to hearing from you. Best. Jobberone (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to denigrate your request (I can feel your frustration), but I would suggest reading WP:No angry mastodons and taking a breather for a while. In a week or ten days your opponent will have gone on to other things. Also, I always advise "Be Overly Polite" when writing messages, even to people who are truly furious. Thank you so much, and good day! GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I admit to being annoyed and a little frustrated, my main purpose for posting is for advice on whether to proceed further. And I do not think this editor will 'move on'. This particular editor has been banned before and I think meets the definition of a disruptive editor. My intentions are not to win, seek punitive measures or gain personal satisfaction from confronting another but to seek help in deciding if my opinion is justified and where to proceed from here with the goals of Wikipedia in mind. My personal feelings here are irrelevant.Jobberone (talk) 03:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, when you bring a complaint about another editor to a noticeboard, the etiquette is that you should inform that editor and provide them with a link. Have you done so? I can see that there is a dispute on the talk page but nothing overtly tendentious (although a few edit summaries in the article have a bullying tone). With this, or any, behaviour issue you need to provide diffs to the behaviour you wish to discuss and explain why you think the behaviour is problematic. We will be better able to advise you once you have done this. Spinning Spark 23:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't brought a conduct complaint. I want to discuss it first because I've never done so and I'm not sure I'm either qualified to ascertain a conduct problem nor staying objective about the issue. I refer to the editor's past editing pattern [[8]] as well as the current one [[9]] at the OR dispute board. I'm reasonably sure the other editor is acting in good faith. Here is the discussion at the dispute board [[10]]. I'm not going to post a bunch of diffs but refer you to the Dog page.Jobberone (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is simply common politeness to inform another editor they are being discussed, whether or not a formal complaint has been lodged. Normally, I would now inform the other party myself, but have decided instead to close this discussion for reasons given below. It is not reasonable to expect other editors to spend a significant amount of time trawling through talk pages and histories to try and find what you are referring to. If it is not important enough for you to find the diffs then why should anybody else think it worthwile? You have now referred to at least two other boards where there is a current discussion of this issue. This is beginning to smack of forum shopping, especially in conjunction with the reluctance to show with diffs that there is any issue different from that already being discussed elsewhwere, consequently, this discussion is closed. Spinning Spark 08:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

the utica,ny write up ....

Resolved

– Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 02:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

an addition to the utica,ny report would be under prominent names ...mark lemke ,pro baseball player born in utica 1975 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.32.12 (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added, in this edit. – ukexpat (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liv Mildrid Gjernes

Resolved

how do the images in this article be on wikipedia if it is written © visual description. mvh. 80.161.143.239 (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright holder is the one who uploaded those images and licensed them to make them freely redistributable. Like all other images and text on Wikipedia, there has to be attribution somewhere, though I'll grant you that attribution's normally not on the article itself but on the image's page. — madman 22:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CREDITS, image credits belong on the image information page, not in the article. I have removed it from the caption. – ukexpat (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good call; I'm not as familiar with the MoS as I probably should be. Thanks! — madman 20:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meryl Streep

Resolved

Could some one please edit Meryl Streep's page to include her movie "Defending Your Life" fom 1991? Thre is a glaring omission of this movie on her filmography list. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.162.225 (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Defending Your Life appears on Meryl Streep filmography; the filmography on Meryl Streep is by necessity only a small selection of that larger list. Cheers! — madman 01:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Valentine

JOHNNY VALENTINE NEE WISNISKI

In the name of accuracy I would like to challenge most of the information in your article. John Theodore Valentine nee Wisniewski was Polish and Finn. He had strong ties to the Finnish Community. His mother, Ida and his stepfather, John Paabola, were Finn. He is survived by (3) sisters, Virginia, Gladys and Frances who all live in Seattle Washington, his birthplace. His first son is Greg "The Hammer Valentine" who currently wrestles all over the world. He was married in Columbus Ohio in 1950 November 9th to Nancy Singleton Hammner. He was Catholic as are all of his family. Of this marriage lasting 32 years, he produced 3 children, John Anthony Valentine, born (1951) San Francisco, CA , Holly Valentine, born (1952) Colunbus, Ohio and Brandon Valentine born (1954) Houston, TX. After the end of this marriage in the 80's he was married for the third time to the president of his Texas fan club. Much of the information in this article is incorrect due to the fact that this person had no oppurtunity to know any of the people of whom they speak with such authority.

Vince McMahon Sr., and his wife Juanita of Washington D.C., the Tunney family of Toronto Ontario Canada, Eddie Graham of Tampa Florida,and Fritz von Erich, Dallas TX, are better sources of personal information about Johnny Valentine and his life. Obviously much of the information in this article is incorrect.

Any book written about Johnny Valentine and his life, using information from the same source would be pure fantasy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramonaluna12 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What published sources do you have for any of this? We can't use unpublished claims. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance with autobiography

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please provide assistance with regard to the article I intend to submit to your kind attention. Please also provide information how to change the title of article (now autobiography) , due to the fact that previous version has been changed significantly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mjw23 Revision history: (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mjw23&action=history)

Thank you for your assistance, Sincerely, Mark J.Wagner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjw23 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, writing about yourself is not encouraged on Wikipedia because it is very difficult to write a neutral article, see WP:COI. It is much better to wait for another editor to take an interest and write it. This will certainly happen eventually if you are truly notable. Articles on Wikipedia are required to establish that the subject is notable, see WP:N. I took a very brief look through the references provided in the article and none of them appeared to establish notability, although I could easily have missed something. Notability on Wikipedia means that the subject is discussed in a non-trivial way in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Besides that the article is also not yet fit to be published because it has no inline citations, see WP:CITE and contains a large chunk of text in Polish. Spinning Spark 23:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

questioning source for an article

"In November 2011 Jerry Only threatened to cancel a show in Richmond Virginia if a band known as Blitzkid didn't cancel their own show which was meant to take place the previous night. Blitzkid ultimately ended up canceling their show so Jerry would play. The reasons for the threat remain unknown though has been placed as an instance of "bullying." [2]"

There is a source: http://thehornrva.com/2011/11/08/a-note-from-the-assistant-editor-the-misfits-jerry-only-bullies-blitzkid-out-of-richmond/ but the author wrote the article solely using a comment from Blitzkid's Facebook page. That link is also the only information that I could find with anything about this story. There is some discussion between myself and another editor about whether this section should be left in the wiki article or not. I'm just wondering if anyone can help settle this and whether it should be left in the article or not? Also, I'm sorry if this isn't the correct procedure for this, but I'm very new to editing on Wikipedia. Thank you! Spgilbert (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)spgilbert[reply]

The reason newspapers are considered reliable sources is that journalists are expected to verify their facts before printing. The usual rule in journalism is that a story should be confirmed by at least two independent sources. The source here is a local student music news network and cannot be trusted to properly verify their stories in the way that, say, a national newspaper would. The author has admitted as much by saying that it is only sourced to the facebook page. He also seems to have a pre-existing pov against Jerry Only and is writing with an agenda. Imo you need at least one more source that substantiates the story in a way that is independent of the facebook page. Spinning Spark 22:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation Science

I'm very interested in the relatively new field of Implementation Science, but see no article on this topic. Dean Fixen and others at the Univ. of North Carolina have, for over 40 years, been accumulating evidence regarding the core components of this science, much of which is documented in their 2005 review of the literature. You can see that (and much, much more) at the National Implementation Science Network (NIRN) website: http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~nirn/

I am not affiliated with NIRN, but am an education professional concerned with effective implementation of educational programs and services. The principles of Implementation Science apply to all fields of endeavor, and should be of interest worldwide. In fact, over 700 practitioners from health care, juvenile justice, family and child welfare, veterans affairs, etc. attended the Global Implementation Conference in Washington, D.C. last August.

I would be willing to help write/ edit the WikiPedia article on this, but much of it should come from the work of Dean Fixen and others at NIRN.

Thanks!

24.10.125.148 (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Norm G. Sacramento, CA 95819[reply]

You don't seem to have asked a question. If you are asking how to go about starting a Wikipedia page, you don't need anybody's permission, we encourage people to be bold. Anyone can edit a page, but you will need to open an account (very easy, takes seconds) before you can create a new page. Then all you need to do is click on Implementation science and start typing! Spinning Spark 23:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Translusion of content between articles in article namespace.

I created:

Film censorship in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

and there is content in the US section of

List of banned films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

that I want included in it, and some editors like standalone lists so there is a need for

List of banned films in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

To link them all I transcluded {{:List of banned films in the United States}} into two of the articles and with liberal use of <noinclude></noinclude>. This makes it easy to make updates to the list. Is there any technical or editor issues with this method in article namespace? I have spent a lot of time cleaning up List of banned films and List of banned books over past few days and I feel that crerating a set of these by country lists will go along way towards tidying up these page. Ah, thinking about portal construction which commonly uses this structure I think that there should not be any issue. Thoughts please? Ta. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, a redirect to a subsection of the parent article would be simpler. But here you have transcluded into two different articles, just the situation that transclusion is useful in my opinion. Spinning Spark 07:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Jones Enterprise Academy

Resolved

Peter Jones Enterprise Academy has a fairly large controversy section wp:undue is probable. An editor user talk:Pjea (same initials as the academy) is trying to remove it. I reverted a couple of his edits (unexplained removal of content template) before I realized the extent of the controversy section. I have not attempted communication with Pjea (concern with wp:coi) Any suggestions on what should be done here would be appreciated. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pjea has been indefinitely (in effect, permanently) blocked for violation of our user name policy. His last edit in the article was a violation of Wikipedia copyright policy in the form it was written, but was a valid addition to maintain the neutral point of view of the article, so I found a reliable source for it and rewrote it. I also rewrote the initial allegation to make it less detailed so as to help avoid undue weight. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Veritasse

I am new to Wiki and have recently become director of Veritasse Ltd. The old article was out of date and had issues. I have rewritten it completely. How do I get the issue notices resolved? Many thanks Sue Newham (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because of your conflict of interest, you should discuss the changes on the article's talk page, providing reliable sources to support them. – ukexpat (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Policy Assistance

I have a few questions about a wikipedia page that I would like to make major revisions to. I don't want to undertake this task at the risk of violating wikipedia policies so I was hoping to speak to someone one on one, via instant messenger if possible, to receive a bit of guidance. Thanks in advance! BillH (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article's talk page is the usual place to discuss such changes. – ukexpat (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ukexpat is right that the content of articles should usually be discussed on their talk pages, but you are still welcome to ask policy questions here. You can also get live help chat at #wikipedia-en-help IRC chat room. Spinning Spark 19:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Request

Dear Wikipedia,

Thank you for this great great gift to life you ,we are creating here. I most humbly suggest there are many different types of people who read and need wikipedia. If we truly wish to be wiki, speedy and quick to arrive at information, we need to consider how easy it is for all types of people to not only read, listen, touch here we need to also examine as to how all types of people may reply to wiki or best of all contribute. Studies suggest one third of us learn mostly by our eyes and another third learn mostly by our ears and another third learn mostly by our touch. We also know interest leads learning hence wiki speed exists.

You might I most humbly suggest visit your web site as a humble simple person as I would, when I read about anything; say "telecommunications"; asI just did an hour ago; and I notice the person who invented radio filters and tuning; Reginald Aubrey Fessenden; is not even mentioned. Yet after Marconi who won the nobel prize as you point out; there would have been no more "telecommunication" without Reginald Aubrey Fessenden.

So when I try patiently to follow your instructions on how to contribute this simple fact to wikipedia; there are pages and pages of rules and details until it becomes, simply by chance, that I found this space, to directly write you, only these three words "Reginald Aubrey Fessenden" now forced into these three paragraphs and more by your excessive details. I humbly submit very very few people are responding to you this way and only those most academic in "for "your type of" eyes only reading". If "we" truly wish to reach all the population fully, nomatter how many reply now, then we must cater to the other two thirds probably more like ninety percent in fact who have already read wikipedia; wanted to comment but were silenced by pagesand pages or detail before any place any blank square to write into appears.

Please remember we don't all read as fast or as easily or as much as you no matter how much we may especially want them to. But they may in fact more selective, more informed, more in tuned than the rest of us here precisely because of this. Yet here they will likely not be read or heard from at all and that is not to mention that vast ocean of humanity through youth or deprivation are still only barely starting to learn to read and yet they too may have insights understandings yet untapped priceless treasures of knowledge, culture, faith and life we have not yet even set ourselves here to receive by providing this blank spacein a place easily availbale for all to contribute to. We have mostly deprived ourselves this window of opportunity by hiding this suggestion box off in a corner rather than on acenter peice where it can alight our entire room our entire universe.I believe it was most ancient Aristotle who some say invented the first encyclopedia in the form of the library if not one of the first who also suggested the best way the learn is by a blank slate.

So thank you at least for this however hidden blank slate here.

We need to visit our own web site as someone who is not "professional" at writing who is not likely "to be bold". We need to put this blank square to write comments in at the bottom of every page of Wikipedia where everyone can access it most easily. Anything less makes wikipedia a lie. But real access will make it true. My proof is that almost all other places on Google, Explorer, Safari, Firefox, do this putting comment boxes where they belong, easily obviously, available to us all. If that is not enough, then consider even the busiest most powerful people do this. Tgreat web sites such as The President of These Great United States are a shining example to us all. And freedom around the world is actually as you read this, more and more being won this way by easier ever more accessible information access and most important reply.

Now if you still don't believe this is very important; because you all are very important; for us all to be able to make our requests much much more easily to you; then perhaps you should consider this. Until today after all these years and near a century of history wikipedia makes no mention of Reginald Aubrey Fessenden without whom none of this would be possible at all. So just as old Regi got these signals through the tuned radio waves, hard wire, optic fiber am, f, digitally, multiplexed, tunned circuits to you here; would you please simply give yourselves and us all the same fullest of respect to let us easily tune you in and give us all an easy reply suggestion box to reply in kind to you at the bottom of every single wikipedia page.

Thank you for your heroic work God Bless you and I love you all

Harry H.Norrie. [phone # redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.154.46.220 (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We do, in fact, have an article on Reginald Aubrey Fessenden. It is true that he is not mentioned in Telecommunications, but he is mentioned in the more detailed History of telecommunications to which the main article links.
There is no restriction on you (or anyone) editing pages on Wikipedia. You are not required to learn all the guidelines first.
There is Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability to look at the kind of ease of editing issues you raise, although it does not seem to be very active any more. You might be better off discussing them at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab).
In what sense do you claim that Fessenden invented radio filters? He did not invent filters per se (see analogue filter) and any kind of resonator can be considered a filter - and early spark gap transmitters certainly had these.

Spinning Spark 00:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third party needed to verify possible editing dispute war

Hello, On Glenn McGee, it seems there's an ongoing dispute i've been watching where if someone edits the page, user David Eppstein will revert it and discount their edits.

Could someone look over this article and see just what is going on? The most attention seems to fall on the phrase "where he has recently come under fire." at the beginning of the article.