How can I include our fraternity/sorority in the list of fraternities and sororities in the philippines.? Founded by Mr.Felesen Liberato Saplaco Sr.,native of Munoz Science City Nueva Ecija Philippines.This is a nonprofitable organization in Universities and Colleges as well as on the community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.6.181.87 (talk) 10:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Unforunately, the way that you added Tau Lambda broke the table when it was output and I have reverted it. Tau Lambda and Upsilon Lambda should have separate entries that give each other as the related organization. These should be in alphabetical order with the remainder of the fraternities and sororities. I'll try to take the information that you have given in your edit and create proper rows in the table sometime this weekend. You can respond with any questions here, at my talk page or at the talk page for the article.Naraht (talk) 13:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to edit the Wikipedia article on Stamps.com to reflect criminal charges against the company.

This material should be in the Consumer Concerns section.

The company settled a class action suit against it in LA Superior (http://www.dmaclassaction.com/Active/Stamps.com/NOTICE%20OF%20CLASS%20ACTION%20SETTLEMENT-For%20Website%20.pdf). I want to add this information, reference and a link.

The well-known blogger, Seth Godin, on 25 June 2010, devoted an entire post to the company's deceptive practices and related his own experience. (http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2010/06/a-bias-for-scamminess.html) I want to add this information, reference and a link.

I am a newby and couldn't get it to work.

I am also concerned that the company, which has provided most of the material for the page, will remove what I have added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Volapuk49 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I read the article and agree it reads like an advertisement to the company. But that is something different from what you are asking about.

In principle, deletion of reliably sourced information WP:RELIABLE should be done with caution. I can tell you already that blogs are not considered reliable sources in almost all cases, so your second source (Seth Godin) would probably be deleted following Wiki policies on source reliability.

If you encounter opposition from people wanting to have a positive image of the company there are several ways to respond (in this case you might have a look at WP:COI, where we ask people not to edit topics they are closely involved with. However you should assume good faith WP:AGF, the other editors may actually agree with your edit. Arnoutf (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I noted a mistake in the Agatha Christie page. Under the "Marriage and later life" paragraph

Wikipedia writes "Abney became Agatha's greatest inspiration for country-house life, with all the servants and grandeur which have been woven into her plots. The descriptions of the fictional Styles, Chimneys, Stoneygates and the other houses in her stories are mostly Abney in various forms."[16]

The mention of Styles as fictional in that list is completely incorrect.

1. Styles is not a fictional place. It is an actual place where she lived in Sunningdale Berkshire on Charters Road. The house still stands. I know, I grew up in Sunningdale and walked past the house every day to school.

2. It is stated that Abney was owned by her brother in law. She didn't marry Max Mallowan until 1930. Her novel "The Mysterious Affair at Styles was written in 1924 while she was still living at Styles with her first husband Archie Christie. So she could never have visited Abney before she met Max Mallowan.

3. In the proceeding paragraph wikipeida says "In late 1926, Agatha's husband Archie revealed that he was in love with another woman, Nancy Neele, and wanted a divorce. On 8 December 1926, the couple quarrelled, and Archie Christie left their house in Sunningdale, Berkshire, to spend the weekend with his mistress at Godalming, Surrey." That was Styles.

Please! Styles is a living breathing wonderful place. Can you please correct this. Take out styles from the list of fictional places in paragraph 16 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.18.204 (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your concern about the accuracy of Wikipedia articles. What you have said here are exactly the kind of comments that article talk pages are for. If you repost your message at Talk:Agatha Christie, I'm sure other editors who have contributed to the article will review the points in question. If you are able to find suitable sources (WP:RS, WP:V, WP:CITE), in support of your message, there is of course nothnig to stop you being WP:BOLD and making the changes yourself.--Kudpung (talk) 06:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I posted several factual items regarding DLR Group. They were both deleted by flatlanderks. In addition, Flatlanderks in one case scrubbed plumbing issues from another site (see his/her history). Flatlander is an employee at DLR Group and is attempting to remove all critism from their wikipedia page and use it as a marketing tool.

DLR Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OPK201 (talk • contribs)

It appears there are some other experienced Wikipedia editors working on the article regarding balance at the moment, so that should be well under control. The edits you've made regarding layoffs are inappropriate for an encyclopedic article; they were unreferenced and did not appear to meet the neutral point of view. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I originally came to this page because of a problem I had with a more experienced editor. I decided that before I posted a "public" request, I'd try contacting another editor directly for some feedback, so I followed the instructions to do that. The first editor I contacted never responded. I later realized that the editor probably was no longer active on WP, so I tried a second editor. After over 10 days of no response, I removed my request from that editor's talk page. In the interim, although the original problem had not been resolved to my complete satisfaction, I felt I'd made some progress resolving the situation on my own, and I was willing to let it go.

Then, the second editor I contacted put back the request I had deleted from their talk page and said: "WP:EAR is the place for this. And don't edit other editor's talk pages." I responded that they had put their name on the list and I was only following instructions. I also suggested they remove their name from the list.

I initially took the approach of contacting editors directly because I thought it would be less confrontational than doing it here. Unfortunately, the whole experience has left a really bad taste in my mouth. I just wish people would be nicer. Some editors apparently don't realize the effects their electronic terseness has on newer editors. I try very hard to edit in good faith and to follow WP's many policies and instructions (not easy although I'm getting better). I'm not sure what I expect from posting these comments here except to inform the Wiki community of my experience.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately it looks like the board where you were drawing names from is woefully out of date. The only really recent volunteer is Kudpung, who added his name a few days ago. Sorry you had a bad experience.

A discussion has been opened on this matter at Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance#Inactive?. If you or anyone monitoring this board would like to take a look at the matter and post an opinion, please do so, and we will try to get this fixed. --Diannaa ^TALK 00:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd tried numerous times to establish a version of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ktrass.png which displays as I want it as the current one. However, it failed in the way that once it had become the current version it looked as ugly as before. I.e. when I tried to make the version 09:15, 28 June 2010 (299×183) the current one, it became a differrent image though with the same dimension. I would be very pleased if this problem can be sorted out. In fact, no other versio but the one from 09:15, 28 June 2010 (299×183) is required. Warbe (talk) 10:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This would be a question to be asked on Commons at {http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Help_desk}. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Please help me! I am trying my hardest to upate "Peabody, Kansas" for my SMALL home town, but people are doing GROSS undo's to me. Instead of removing whatever offending small thing, they just remove everything, including the valid information that I added. Now I FINALLY understand why some people in blogs complain about wasting their time editing Wikipedia and having others undo it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbmeirow (talk • contribs) 21:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Try discussing the edits before you do them on the talk page - or talk to whoever is reverting, they may be able to help you - they are not just reverting for no reason. As for the "gross" undos - that's the software, one "bad" edit (I'm not saying if they are bad or not), and we have to go back to the last good editor.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehdi_Hashemi_Rafsanjani —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.34.143 (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The article appears to have been appropriately tagged for cleanup. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Although there may be some BLP violations there, I agree the article seems to be used as part of the subject's political campaigns. Dougweller (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a repost of a message that was placed on my talk page by User:Mmschettler (talk) about a month ago; since I was/am wikibreaking, I didn't get to it until now,unfortunately. I don't know whether this user has found the answer to their question since then. If someone who knows copyright rules can stop by their talk page and see if they still need help, it would be much appreciated. Thanks! User:CordeliaNaismith 04:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
"Hi, thank you for noticing my trouble with image licensing. I am working to create a page for a well-respected, recently-deceased illustrator. Her daughter has provided me with some images to use on her page, but I am not sure how to go about properly tagging and uploading them. Can you please help me figure out the process? Thanks! Mmschettler (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cordelia Vorkosigan (talk • contribs)

Nevermind, I left the user a message to bring their question about image licensing to the media copyright questions board. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 05:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cordelia Vorkosigan (talk • contribs)

I found Ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) at Talk:OPLL. I've moved it and did some very minor cleanup, but it could use a thorough review and cleanup, if the topic is notable enough for an article. --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I have added the Medicine Project banner to the talk page, so possibly someone from that project will pop along to take a look. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It's often a good idea to check user contributions when you see something misplaced. I checked Special:Contributions/Dror100 and found that the creator of Talk:OPLL copied the content to User:Dror100/Enter your new article name here, and continued work there from May 18 to May 22. You moved the May 18 version. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Good catch! How do you suggest it be fixed? Feel free to fix it yourself! --Ronz (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I would have asked Dror100 before moving anything to mainspace. Maybe he plans to return to work on User:Dror100/Enter your new article name here which still has empty sections, maybe he lost interest and doesn't come back (it has been 6 weeks), maybe he doesn't know about namespaces and thought it was an article, or maybe something else. I could move Ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament back to Talk:OPLL (requires an administrator like me now) and delete the resulting redirect if that's OK with you, but I don't want to discuss a subject I know nothing about with Dror100. If you are prepared to do it then you can post to him and if no answer comes, decide whether to move User:Dror100/Enter your new article name here (looks better than the original version at Talk:OPLL to a layman like me) by yourself. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't belong at Talk:OPLL, which is why I moved it. What do others think of moving it to his user space and leaving him a note? It's an old copy of his work in progress, so it shouldn't matter much. --Ronz (talk) 01:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

He already copied it to userspace. His second and last version of Talk:OPLL (currently here) is identical to the first version of User:Dror100/Enter your new article name here (here). If Ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament leaves article space then it's not important whether it is moved back to Talk:OPLL and blanked, or it is deleted. I see no reason to move it to a second user subpage. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for looking at the details. So we'd lose one edit from it's history if the article were simply deleted... --Ronz (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I moved it back to Talk:OPLL and blanked it. You can leave him a note if you want. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that will be fine. Thanks for the help! --Ronz (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to request assistance in solving problem at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_life#Templates_for_external_links to avoid impending revert war by both sides. Thank you. --Snek01 (talk) 09:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably best to raise a request for comment. Instructions at that page. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

There's an external link at Jumping the shark that, in my mind, is a clear cut case of self-promotional linkspam. I've removed it, and explained why on the talk page. The link's been reinstated by a user who appears to have a financial interest in the external site. Rather than getting into an edit war, I'm coming here for assistance -- what's the next line of defense here? 71.62.123.39 (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

An experienced editor has removed the link again, and written reasons why on the talk page of the article. I will add the article to my watch list for a while and keep an eye on it. Thanks for your help! --Diannaa ^TALK 20:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If this doesn't work, the next line of defense is to report this user / link at Wikiproject:Spam. ETA having reviewed this editor's contributions I've left them a pretty stiff warning. It seems that posting external links is just about all they do. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you -- appreciate the quick help! 71.62.123.39 (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

andhara (संधारा) is an ancient village in Bhanpura tahsil in Mandsaur district in Madhya Pradesh. It was known as Sundarpur in ancient times and is situated on the confluence of Patali River and Kotha Deh Nala. It is 147 km from Mandsaur and 14 km from Bhanpura in the east direction. PIN code:458775. It is situated 3 km off the road Nimach-Jhalrapatan.

संधारा या सुन्दरपुर नाम से पुकारा जाने वाला यह गाँव पटली नदी और कोठा देह नाले के संगम पर बसा है. इस गाँव ने अनेक उतार चढाव देखे हैं. ११ वीं शताब्दी में बसा यह क़स्बा १३ वीं शताब्दी में उजड़ गया. १४ वीं शताब्दी में कुछ वैश्य परिवार आकर बसे जिन्होंने इस स्थान को अनाज मण्डी का स्वरूप दिया. इस दौरान यहाँ अनेक भवन और गढ़ियों का निर्माण हुआ. गाँव के प्रमुख चार द्वार और चार उपद्वारों का निर्माण हुआ.

समय-समय पर यह क़स्बा अनेक शासकों के अधीन रहा. कलचुरी , परमार, खिंची शासन में रहकर बाद में मेवाड़, कोटा, जयपुर तथा होलकर स्टेट द्वारा शासित होता रहा. इस कसबे में मुग़ल सम्राट जहाँगीर १६१७ में नूरजहाँ के साथ दो दिन रुका था. यह भी माना जाता है कि विदेशी यात्री ट्रेवेनियर भी इस नगर में आया था.

Source Vinod Patidar Mumbai...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinod160582 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Please use English to communicate here, this is English Wikipedia. If you wish to ask for an article to be created then WP:Articles for creation is the pace to ask. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi - I am new here (as an editor) and have a question about citations. Specifically, I just edited an article about a music recording based on the fact that I own the recording (my edit was changing the description to being an EP, since the recording is a 12-inch record at 45 rpm containing a total of 5 songs and a running time of about 20 minutes). How would this be cited appropriately? And on a similar note, if I were at a concert and wanted to include something from my having been there (facetious example - Richard Thompson said his new LP would be released only on vinyl and consist entirely of Brittney Spears cover songs) - how would that be cited?

Thanks, BonzoAl (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)BonzoAl [I hope I'm signing this correctly]

Welcome to Wikipedia! I've added a message to your talk page that may help you get started here.

(You signed corrrectly, but then added another copy of your name. The four tilde characters are all you need.)

Though this may seem surprising, the answer to your question is that you shouldn't include this information in the article. Information in Wikipedia articles has to be verifiable by anyone reading the article, and this has to be done by including links to reliable sources. Follow the links to read more about these policies. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this may be overstating the fact, and mislead. Information has to be verifiable, yes, but not necessarily "by everyone", but by a reasonably competent user with access to a good library system and enough cash to e.g. obtain copies of rare sources. See WP:PAYWALL. In particular, we do not require links (as in HTML links), but references, i.e. (sometimes condensed) descriptions about how to find the information. It's great if we can provide free links to high-quality sources, but that is not possible in all fields. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You are correct; thank you. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

My concern is the information content of the bioidentical hormone page. Since I am a fairly new user, in order to reach consensus and a neutral bias on the page, I feel that I need editorial assistance. Any help would be greatly apreciated. Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) UGAcodon (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

From reading the talk page, I don't think you are understanding why your proposed edits are not acceptable. If you wish to invite further comment please phrase a simple neutral request at requests for comment. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the commentUGAcodon (talk) 10:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I want to hire someone to help me create an article, a military biography. Is there a marketplace for this kind of service or do I just post something on craigslist?

JimDoss (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Whilst hiring someone to help create an article is not specifically forbidden, to my knowledge, it may not be necessary. Remember that Wikipedia artciles may be edited by anyone, so you will not end up with something that you can control. If the subject of your article is notable and can be demonstrated to be so by references to reliable sources that are verifiable, then such an article would be welcome. You can post proposals for new articles at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Rosiland A. Jordan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I don't know what I'm doing. I just want to make a page for Rosiland A Jordan. I have already started it but it doesn't look right. Please help.

Reginald Hatter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhatter1906 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, I appreciate your honesty. It seems likely that the subject of artcile is not sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. You have one reference, and the artcile text is blatant copy of the text at MSNBC, this is a copright violation, please read the notice that has been placed on your talk page. You cannot just copy copyright text from a source and place it in a Wikipedia article. Please read p on Wikipedia policies, links have been placed on your talk page. Try starting an artcile in your user space, and then ask for comment at Requests for feedback. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I am seeking assistance in how to proceed properly in a dispute I am having with RHaworth concerning the deletion of an article I have written "Taguzgalpa" which he initially proposed for deletion, and then upon my cancelling the deletion and explaining on the article talk page, transferred to User:Beepsie/Taguzgalpa, where it presently is located in a much modified form.

RHaworth's initial reason for proposing deletion was a contention that it looked like an alternate form of Tegucigalpa, the capital of Honduras. When I addressed this issue, providing a printed RS for it as a footnote, he thought that I should have a web-accessible RS. I provided this, along with several other sources (all printed from academic journals and books). He then demanded that I should produce a map of the site, and that my web accessible RS not be in Spanish (the region is located in Honduras). He also suggested that I provide in the article an explanation of why Taguzgalpa/Tegucigalpa are different places. This last request, a reasonable one in my consideration, I did answer, though my source was a classic Spanish language source (available on GoogleBooks, however) on etymologies of indigenous names in Honduras. To get around the language issue, I translated a section of the two entries into English.

I would like to see this article back in Wikipedia, and I think that it qualifies as being fairly well developed, having 10 footnotes to 5 different sources, all RS in my opinion, including one to a web source. Beepsie (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You appear to have been treated abruptly and incorrectly by User:RHaworth and I have asked them to revert their deletion. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not "them". I am "he". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I was unaware of your gender, so used a neutral pronoun. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I am annoyed that Beepsie felt it necessary to raise this request. I had already told Beepsie "OK, go ahead and publish". Was that not clear enough? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Your newbie biting tone appears unfortunate. I have moved the article aback to main space. As the deletion notice placed when you deleted the article and moved it into user space says, please ask the deleting administrator. Perhaps it did not occur to you that Beepsie was unsure about the move process.

Anyway I have moved the article back into main space. Sorry for your trouble, Beepsie. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Assisting Editer,

I would like to find out how to approach the Wikipedia (English) in order to supply the page for 'Grand Unified Theory' with my content. This IP is in conformance with the unopposed motion of disclosure in U.S. District (NM) Court, 04/02/2001, titled The Solution to the Equation of Schrodinger. It consists of the GT integral atomic topological function with it's correlation function, which constructs the 3D picoyoctoscale data point image of an atom. The achievement unifies the four forces in terms of interactive force particles by combination of the relativistic Einstein-Lorenz transform functions for time, mass, and energy with the quantum mechanical wave equations for frequency and wavelength. When I added these into one function for a pulsating virtual atom the result was an exact atomic modeling function displaying the topologies of the energy particles of the 5/2 kT J heat capacity energy cloud, and the electron. The image displays how gravity field particles are involved in electromagnetic energy and force.

This project was copyrighted 11/07/2005, The Crystalon Door, and incorporated in NM in August, 2007 as Symmecon Grand Unified Theory Marketing Corp. for vending copies of the grand unified theory.(Dale B. Ritter, B.A.,CEO Symmecon Marketing Inc., <email removed>)Dale B. Ritter (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added a note to Talk:Grand Unified Theory, so with luck some relevant editors will comment on your question. I've removed your email address to protect your privacy; any replies will be made either here or at the article talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This has been spammed all over the net. Ritter claims that the Federal Court is an arbiter of science, and the bit about " This IP is in conformance with the unopposed motion of disclosure in U.S. District (NM) Court, 04/02/2001, titled The Solution to the Equation of Schrodinger." seems to be just gibberish quoted to sound imprsesive. I checked the docket for the court at that time [1] which just says "CERTIFICATE of service by pltf of initial disclosures to counsel on 2/28/01". There is no reason for us to be among the venues Ritter has spammed. Dougweller (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Above paragraph by Ritter is complete nonsense. Even if it weren't, it would not be anything close to mainstream work on GUTs and thus not appropriate content for the article Aknochel (talk) 11:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Editor,

Hi. I've been having problems with the Axiata Group Berhad Axiata Group Berhad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) wiki page. I've edited the content so that is is from a NPOV and cited references. How do I get the NPOV, COI & other notifications removed from the page?

Thanks a lot for your help.

Jjmachine (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

If, and only if, you are absolutely sure that you have addressed the reasons for one or more of the tags, then you can remove the templates yourself in the same way you would make any other edits. Be sure to complete an accurate edit summary, and be prepared to justify your action on the article's talk page.--Kudpung (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping to get a comment from an administrator (or someone else who is familiar with courtesy blanking) regarding its correct use: I just listed an article for speedy deletion as a blatant advertisement for a company, as it was a "contact us" page, and contained multiple telephone numbers, addresses, etc. Since I can't be sure that these details are purely of a business nature and would not cause harm to an individual (as they did include some specific individuals associated with the company), I boldly courtesy-blanked the page except for the CSD template to hide the information. Was this a correct use of the {{courtesy blanked}} template? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

When I run across such articles, I trim them of any inappropriate content, trying to leave a WP:STUB article, and making sure to use descriptive edit summaries. --Ronz (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This one appeared to be the "contact page" of a company's website simply lifted and dumped into wikipedia, and thus violated at least two of the CSD, as well as making essentially everything on the page worthy of being removed, if anything. Fortunately it was deleted within about 60 seconds though. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

My rule of thumb for courtesy blanking is: If you think the subject of any material would appreciate its removal, then courtesy blanking is appropriate. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

On balance I would say it was OK, only because it contained mobile numbers, which like you say you can't be too sure about. It's more usual to just remove the problematic content - in some cases that can mean the whole thing but I don't think here that the whole thing qualified for blanking. If that helps. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I'll bear it in mind if I see something similar again. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

www.loweforcongress.com/issues

www.twitter.com/loweforcongress 9:10 pm, May 27th, via Tweetdeck

[[2]] Lowe, Ben. “Rallying for Health Care Reform.” 11/19/09

To whom it may concern:

Over the past several weeks I have posted accurate and neutral statements regarding the political views of Illinois 6th district Congressional candidate Ben Lowe. The statements I added to his page under the "Congressional campaign" heading were supported by statements Mr. Lowe made himself on his webpage and Twitter page. Someone continues to delete my posts. The last post I made was on June 20, but again it has failed to hold. My posts are not malicious in nature, but rather are attempts to provide accuracy to the public domain regarding Mr. Lowe's political views as they pertain to his Congressional campaign.

Daveo376 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveo376 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

That's probably the problem. I wouldn't call them neutral as they are actually from his website and twitter page. If you can find some newspaper coverage, that would help. It's important not to use the Wikipedia page as part of any campaign, so until his views are noteworthy enough to be reported elsewhere I doubt they belong in the article. Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The article on the sinking of the ROKS Cheonan here ROKS Cheonan sinking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has a disproportionate amount of assertions which have, in the last few weeks been contradicted or problematized by emerging evidence. This article simply reflects the US/SK official line (which is also now starting to weaken). Most importantly, I believe it is premature to use a 'Battle box' for this article, a normal 'infobox' would be more neutral until the incident is clearly proven to be aggression by North Korea.

From the intro paragraph

The report of an investigation carried out by a team of international experts[3] was released on May 20, 2010, concluding that the warship had been sunk by a North Korean torpedo,[4][5] fired by a midget submarine,[6] although the claims of the report have been disputed by the People's Republic of China.[7]

The claims have been disputed by journalists, scientists and other experts from South Korea and around the world. It is inaccurate to frame doubt about the findings of the 'team of international experts' to reside exclusively in (assumedly biased) China. Please see this report from one of the (dissenting) South Korean members of this team posted to a prominent SK political blog, it is very detailed in its refutation of the 'official story' as parroted, too uncritically, in my opinion, in the wikipedia article. http://www.seoprise.com/board/view.php?table=seoprise_12&uid=154146

Wikipedia should not be a soapbox for a particular political view. Young students uncritically refer to Wikipedia and trust that what is presented there has been properly vetted. The Korean version of the article is far more nuanced and informative. I think we owe the English speaking public a more accurate representation of this complex issue.--Be gottlieb (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that you have been discussing this at the article talk page. That is the pace to reach consensus with other editors. If there is difficulty in so doing, then a request for comment may be a way of inviting further input. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Article in question: Kenneth O'Keefe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a dispute between myself and an unregistered editor;

1. (cur | prev) 12:14, 4 July 2010 Mmcitizen101 (talk | contribs) (26,003 bytes) (Support for the validity of original text in discussion) (undo)
2. (cur | prev) 12:05, 4 July 2010 69.181.249.92 (talk) (26,037 bytes) (Undid revision 371690118 by Mmcitizen101 (talk)) (undo)
3. (cur | prev) 12:01, 4 July 2010 Mmcitizen101 (talk | contribs) (26,003 bytes) (beyond this vandalism will have to be charged, discussion validates reversion to original text.) (undo)
4. (cur | prev) 11:05, 4 July 2010 69.181.249.92 (talk) (26,037 bytes) (Undid revision 371682602 by Mmcitizen101 (talk) see talk page) (undo)
5. (cur | prev) 10:44, 4 July 2010 Mmcitizen101 (talk | contribs) (26,003 bytes) (second 'undo', discussion has been initiated to establish the facts regarding Hawaii and O'Keefe's citizenship.) (undo)
6. (cur | prev) 10:10, 4 July 2010 69.181.249.92 (talk) (26,037 bytes) (Undid revision 371679465 by Mmcitizen101 (talk)) (undo)
7. (cur | prev) 10:06, 4 July 2010 Mmcitizen101 (talk | contribs) (26,003 bytes) (Undid revision 371644576 by 69.181.249.92 (talk), PUBLIC LAW 103-150 and other sources verify Hawaii as a 'sovereign nation') (undo)
8. (cur | prev) 03:29, 4 July 2010 69.181.249.92 (talk) (26,037 bytes) (Hawai'i isn't a country) (undo)

A discussion was initiated by myself to clarify the fact that O'Keefe has indeed naturalized as a Hawaiian citizen, there are sources given for this. 69.181.249.92 however insists that there is no Hawaiian nation and thus wishes to remove O'Keefe's status as a Hawaiian national and reject the Hawaiian claims to nationhood. I would agree that there is dispute about Hawaiian history, but what is not in dispute is whether O'Keefe has naturalized as a Hawaiian national. It seems to me that if this is allowed to continue, not only will Hawaiian national status be questioned, but Palestinian nationhood as well. Not really the point of this article and a slippery slope towards political agendas deciding the content. As it stands simple facts that have been reported in the mainstream media that verify O'Keefe as a Hawaiian citizen are being removed for what can only appear to be political reasons.

As it stands it is simply a tit for tat who undid the last edit wins kind of game. Hopefully Wikipedia editors will step in.

It is worth noting that O'Keefe appears to have been the subject of quite a bit of vandalism, not surprising given his actions, but is there a way to stem some of the malicious editing?

Many thanks, Moe Mmcitizen101 (talk) 12:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

What you have here is a good old fashioned ispute between two editors. If you cannot achive consensus, you could request a WP:Third opinion. But you must stop edit warring or both of you will be blocked. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi - user User:Creolteno has consistently made inappropriate edits to the Dave Zirin article. Most of these edits are Jewish slanders.

Myself and another editor have reverted his/her edits but I would like to block them at least on this page. How should we proceed ? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Slanders? Its in a section related to the Gaza flotilla and it is mentioned that he has been called a self-hating jew. Take this to the article talk page. Creolteno (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I have placed a level 2 template on the user's talk page. Additional warning templates are available here. If you reach a level 4 warning with no change in the behavior you should file a report at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard or WP:ANI. Hope this is the information you were looking for. Good luck. --Diannaa ^TALK 03:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the assistance and rapid resolution. However, how is User:Creolteno still able to edit User talk:Creolteno where he/she blanked it (again) removing the warnings and block message? Is this expected? That is, the user can still edit his/her own talk page but not other pages? Is it ok for a user to delete warnings and a block message on his or her own talk page? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Please help me finish the page I've already created, for the book First Light (novel).

Thanks in advance! Toontown59153 (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Well there is some point of view language in there and you cant use Wikipedia as a reference, neither it, nor Amazon are reliable sources. You need to demonstrate the notability of the book, take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (books). I don't think that this book meets those criteria. I see from your talk page that another rticle taht you created also has notability concerns. I have placed some useful links on your talk page. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Piave River (1809) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I would like to enter this article in the July contest. The problem is that I've already updated it, but it was on 5 July when I did it. Can it still be entered in the contest? The answer to this question was not clear to me from reading the contest rules. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to this contest, because I have never heard of it! –– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that it's been recently expanded from a stub, I'm guessing he wants it to appear on WP:DYK . GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If you do mean WP:DYK then you may submit if you have exopanded the text five fold, and you may submit within 5 days of having done so. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have directed my question to the one of the WPMILHIST editors. I'll do that now. Djmaschek (talk) 04:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It's creepy to find my user-space work pages coming up when I'm doing a Google search for something. Occasionally they've been high in the search results for obscure topics. Just today, some Indian IP edited a page I'm using to add Indian works to "[year] in poetry" pages. I know there's some code you can stick at the top of a page to prevent search engines from picking it up. Do I need to be an admin to put that code on my page? (I'm not one.) Are there instructions for this somewhere? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Never mind! Somebody else just gave me the answer. This request can be archived (or deleted, I don't care.) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

What was it? I don't like that idea very much either. --CliffC (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Add __NOINDEX__ at the top of the page. Dougweller (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Unbeknown to and unexpected by me, anti Catholicism turned out to be controversial. For me the following steps have been taken: 1) changes are proposed on talk before being made, with five days provisioned for consensus by silence, 2) any conduct suggestion is adopted as best as possible, 3) from now on, one sentence or word argument summaries will be linked to Google web pubs of my creation for the full arguments. The one warning received by separate email, quite vital, showed me how to avoid penning personal attacks by specifically pointing them out and providing an opportunity to correct matters, gratefully accepted and immediately undertaken. Other blocking threats irregularly appear in the talk page, a function perhaps of controversy. Apart from analyzing them and adopting suggestions that seem valid, should any action be taken? Which blocking threats are actual dangers? Many Thanks.--CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Which article are you talking about? –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism. Just a cursory glance seems to indicate a strong POV issue for CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk · contribs), who also seems to be a WP:SPA, at least at this point. I don't really care, not involved in the issue, nor likely to be involved. GregJackP Boomer! 12:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

IF you don't want to get involved, then don't. I certainly won't be going there. Best to leave these sort of messes alone, unless there are serious BLP issues, vandalism or edit warring. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This is my first foray into editing, so it would be impossible to be other than a single purpose account until another article is worked upon. After cleaning up the article I should like to invite some priests/nuns, etc to contribute to it, perhaps to make for a better understanding of religious prejudice. Until matters are changed, such that the Protestant reformation is not referenced as an example of anti Catholicism, it would be an embarassment to do that. --CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You should be careful here. Wikipedia has rules that discourage editors from inviting non-editors, particularly those whose viewpoints coincide with theirs, to come to Wikipedia to bolster the original editor's side in a dispute. It's referred to on Wikipedia as using meatpuppets. — e. ripley\^talk 01:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Simply wanted someone with expertise on Catholicism, being unable to claim to be either a scholar of Catholic history or a Catholic clergyman, you see. In any case, one must care for one's critics as one might delicate flowers. Jezhotwells referenced me in the third person, implying my subhumanity; the implication that my edits bear some sort of nefarious bias is clear. To that end, added edits will be made to ensure what appears to be Jezhotwells' point of view are not neglected.--CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You might find some of that expertise at a WikiProject, perhaps Wikipedia:Wikiproject Religion. Try posting at the project talk (discussion) page. By the way, I don't see where Jezhotwells referred to you in the third person, much less implied anything like subhumanity. Please be careful with that sort of accusation. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

After the page is made usable through attempts at humor and edits, I'll do just as you recommend. The subject is delicate in part because the past differs so from the present as respects government and state that you cannot use a single standard. As to third person:

Anti-Catholicism. Just a cursory glance seems to indicate a strong POV issue for CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk · contribs), who also seems to be a WP:SPA, at least at this point. I don't really care, not involved in the issue, nor likely to be involved.

_______________

That's a third person reference; Jezhotwells' minor dispensation with my humanity would be of little concern were it not for the implicit threat of banning via "strong POV issue". I tried to insert a minor compliment of Mein Kampf to include Jezhotwells' POV, but was informed it constituted a "test" edit and was reverted; this reversion was accompanied by a reference to the sandbox. Will attempt to include a nice film about Heydrich. Hopefully, this will provide the balance required to prevent Jezhotwells and any other similar individuals from claiming that, on the issue of whether or not minority populations should be shot, I edit only on one side. Should annihilation of Israel be thought the POV point of view, rest assured that, had the Jews been entirely extirpated, the present issues with Israel would not exist.--CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

THe comment you refer to was not made by me, it was made by [User:GregJackP]], so kindly attribute your insults correctly. [[[User:GregJackP]] inferred that you might be a single purpose account - not sub human. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

My mistake was to reference to you; I misread the symbol and do apologize for that. If you and I talk with some degree of respect, you will refer to me in the second person, as you are now doing. When you speak of someone in the third person when you should be talking to them, as [[[User:GregJackP]] did, you dehumanize the person by turning him or her into an object almost incapable of a direct response. Tactically, this can be a huge mistake, especially if you deem the individual so subhuman that you refuse to discuss matters ('I don't really care, not involved in the issue, nor likely to be involved.') The person so rendered inhuman is thus granted the full right to interpret the statement as he or she wishes. In this case, the correction is applied by determining what, for me, is the POV issue. Banning is the closest thing to execution on the web. For someone who dehumanizes and then supplies two flimsy pretexts for execution, there are a few historic philosophies that fit the mold, the Hutu's, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot's regime, Hirohito's Japanese, Governor Lamarr of Texas, and the German Nazi's. One may broaden the POV to cover the User:GregJackP type philosophy in any way one chooses. The German's simply seemed most handy. If a preference is to celebrate Pol Pot, that can readily be accomodated.--CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• AS others have said, we will let it slide for now, but Wikiquette is somewhat different from other norms. Neutral language is often used when editors are not aware of the gender of others so don't allow yourself to get all steamed up about it. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• First, I wasn't talking to you, I was answering Jezhotwells' question on the article title. Second, I never made any inference that you were sub-human or in any manner deficient, nor an object. Third, I don't want to get drug into a religious argument unless it involves the areas I typically edit in, so no, I don't and won't go to the article in question. Fourth, were I to go, I would have a different perspective than you may imagine, based on some of the deplorable actions of the Roman church in the past that give rise to some of the biases against the church. Note that I do not condone those biases, but I certainly understand them. Finally, I will assume that you mis-interpretted my comment above and let the insults slide - this time. Please do not continue to make personal attacks - it is a serious violation of Wikipedia conduct standards. GregJackP Boomer! 02:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello everybody, I had proposed an addition to the article moral, but now I have found a different article on morality. It seems to me the two could be combined. On the other hand there is a nuance between the two terms. A moral is a lesson to be learned, or a mode of behavior, while morality is a judgement on a certain behavior. My addition was going to be about morality in ethics (as can be read on the talk page of the 'moral' article). What should I do, should I merge two, contribute to one or to both? Thanks for any assistance. --Faust (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to merge articles without serious discussion and consensus on the talk pages of both. Remember that any information you add must be sourced to verifiable, reliable sources. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The things I want to add have sources, but a source on the relation between moral and morality seems a bit superfluous. I also will not continue without debate, hence this question. Is there anybody here who would like to help me move forward? --Faust (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Having read both articles I fail to see why one would want to merge them, and suggest you consider contributing to both, though not of course with the same information. Clearly there are relations between the two concepts, but you might want to read Wikipedia:Merging for an explanation as to when merging might be appropriate, and how to propose one. ϢereSpielChequers 16:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

the (Tau Alpha/Lambda Upsilon) fraternity/sorority in the List of Fraternities and Sororities founded in Central Luzon State University, Science city of Munoz, Nueva Ecija established on September - 1971.

How can I post Tau Alpha Upsilon Fraternity Alpha Chapter in the Lists of Fraternities and Sororities in the Philippines founded in Central Luzon State University Science City of Munoz, Nueva Ecija -September -1971. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.6.181.65 (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? What would you like to be done with that information? I suspect it doesn't meet the notability guidelines. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Presumably the request is to add it to the table in List of fraternities and sororities in the Philippines. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm quite sure that is what he meant. He has attempted to do so [3], and I reverted it. I've gone looking for references for Tau Alpha Upsilon Fraternity in the Philippines and Tau Lambda Upsilon Sorority. So far the best I've got (other than Deletionpedia from an attempt at a page on wikipedia)are facebook and friendster.Naraht (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Citations issues resolved for Matt Bomer biography; how do I remove warning message?

Watsammatta u (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Done, you should format citations using {{citation}} or variants. I am not sure that all that have been provided are to reliable sources. You should check this out at WP:RSN. I have added some useful links to your talk page. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have posted the current dispute discussion on my talk page and while I have no desire to be uncivilized, encountering the editorial process at Wikipedia when the accuracy of the subject matter is so vital to one's livelihood can be quite daunting and frustrating at first. I'm willing to work with someone, anyone to resolve the discrepancies and to have my viewpoint considered beyond a surmise that my motivation is for purposes of advertising. The accuracy of my biography is VERY important to me and no journalist has ever gotten it right, few have even come close, and to put myself in the hands of volunteer Wikipedia editors is, frankly, terrifying when I realize that the majority of their source material comes from the same lazy, sloppy journalists who never bothered to fact check in the first place. Also, I am flabbergasted at the editorial process whereby facts are accepted and presented within a very distorted context. My experience of this editorial approach is summarized by the following (fictional) example that one might find on a grade school student's essay concerning the Great Wall of China.

The Great Wall of China is in China. It is very long. It was constructed before the Ming Dynasty. Marco Polo never visited the Great Wall of China. But if he had, he would have said it was inspired by the ancient Egyptian pyramids. Marco Polo is a Catholic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mightysound (talk • contribs) 18:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I sympathize with your concerns over the article, but your approach to dealing with the situation is not the way that Wikipedia handles content disputes. The biography you have attempted to paste in here is copyrighted and has some point of view issues as well. As you've been encouraged on your user talk page, your best approach is to take your concerns to the article talk page, discuss the issues point by point and collaborate with other editors here to sort out any issues you have with it.

Having said that, the article is mostly unsourced, which is a bad thing for a living persons biography. I'm going to edit it down to a stub, removing anything that is not currently sourced, and hopefully between you and other editors can collaborate to produce good, reliably sourced information to redevelop it. Matter of fact, I'm going to invite an editor I know is very good at music articles to see if he can help out with that. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm having a little trouble here [4] in the "What links here" for this page. For some reason I'm so far unable to fathom, what seems like several hundred talk pages for various Mississippi related pages are showing up on this page. I'm unable to find a link, transclusion, category or template to explain this. I'm thinking somewhere there must be some code that stick everything with "Mississippian" in it into some list or category, but am so far unable to find it on any of the pages I've checked. Any ideas? Is this the right place for this request? If not, apologies, and could I get pointed in the right direction? Many thanks in advance, Heiro 03:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Howdy. It appears that {{WikiProject Mississippi}} is the culprit. Near the bottom of the box, it has a collapsible section showing new articles that may need the project template.--Rockfang (talk) 03:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to say that the statuary article appears to be one of the articles that may need the project template.--Rockfang (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Not really, as the statues are named for the Mississippian culture, not Mississippi the state. Anyway to make this go away? The Mississippi project template isn't on the page and doesn't really need to be. Heiro 03:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The project template transcluded User:AlexNewArtBot/MississippiSearchResult. I've edited the list to remove the statuary article. I'm not sure how long it will last though. I'm going to notify the relevant bot owner about this discussion. He/she might be interested.--Rockfang (talk) 03:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks for the help. Heiro 04:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess that didn't work, because it is still doing it. Any other suggestions? Heiro 07:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I just took a look and the links all appear to be related to Missipian culture. [5] I can't see what is the problem with that. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello all. On June 19th, I posted a note on User X!'s talk page asking about that editor's bot. On the 25th, I still had not received a response, so I politely requested one. On the 29th I updated the talk page section with another issue related to the bot. Today, I posted there again with another related issue. I have not gotten a response on any of these. The editor appears to be somewhat active so I decided to not use email. I'd like a response to the items I brought up, but I'm not sure what next step I should take. Normally, I'd just "take a hint" and go away, but these issues are regarding the main page. Any suggestions are welcome.--Rockfang (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I have not been responding. Yes, I have attempted to make proper fixes every time I see your messages. I have made the fix for your most recent message, and it will be in action next time the POTD is uploaded. (X! · talk)  · @206  ·  03:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for responding here. Thank you for the fixes as well. I apologize if it was improper to bring this here, but I wasn't sure what (if anything) I should have done next.--Rockfang (talk) 04:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a nasty bad habit of completing a task, without notifying the person who requested it. (X! · talk)  · @317  ·  06:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Can someone point me to a policy or guideline that covers the correct use of exact quotes and paraphrasing, please? Anthony (talk) 10:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:QUOTE#Alternatives_to_quotations GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, GW. I've got a feeling I've seen something a little more comprehensive somewhere. Anthony (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe there's an essay on it somewhere. How about WP:PARAPHRASE? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That one's mainly about avoiding copyright issues by paraphrasing too closely; not sure if that's what you're looking for or not. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

How about WP:MOSQUOTE? --Diannaa ^TALK 19:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Anthony (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I am the official representative of ASM International and authorized to make changes to the Wikipedia page "ASM International" (professional society)

My edits are being reverted to an old version by user "Wizard191" who is not affiliated with my organization.

Please remove Wizard191 authorization to make changes to our organization's page

Mark Barton Director of Marketing ASM International <contact details removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.44.41.130 (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of misunderstandings here, I'm afraid.

• You are at Wikipedia, the encylopedia that anyone can edit. Any editor can edit just about any article.
• No editor or organisation owns an article; it is a collaborative effort.
• Wikipedia is not an advertising site.
• Articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Long experience has shown that it is difficult or impossible for a person or organisation to be neutral about him/her/itself; see the conflict of interest guidelines.

For these reasons Wizard191 and others will continue to undo your promotional additions to ASM International (society).

I suggest you start by reading about the five pillars of Wikipedia. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Rachelelizabethpeterson616 (talk · contribs) is probably the IP above, at least she has said "! I work in the Marketing department of ASM". I suspect Jmihalich (talk · contribs) if not the same person may work for ASM as well. Dougweller (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I am the President of the Little England Chapel Foundation. I was reading the inaccurate article on the Chapel and made the correction to the name. His name was not Cook, the other sites are incorrect as well, his name was Cock. I have made copies of the orginal documents and I have not problem mailing, faxing and emailing them to you.

In addition, I am a noted author and historian, how about before accusing someone of vandalising an essay ask them for the proof of their correction. I would appreciate it if you would make the correction or we will have to contact an attorney for you providing misinformation to the general public and defaming my character!!!!

Veronica A. Davis, President Little England Chapel Foundation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.81.228 (talk) 02:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, the standard for inclusion of material here is verifiability, not truth. If you can show reliable sources for your edits, then everything should be fine. Part of the reason for that is that we have no way of knowing if you really are who you say you are, or if someone else is trying to claim your credentials. By the way, please stop with the attorney talk. There's very little tolerance of that here. If you work with the community's approach rather than stamping your foot, you'll get a lot further! Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

i have gone over the page and have address your name concern by adding references Moxy (talk) 04:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Cock is the correct spelling. I have copy edited the article and included a reference to African American historic places Anthony (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully that ends this dispute, but I've posted a link to Wikipedia:No legal threats on the IP's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 08:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that your piece describing the Chautauqua County watershed is incomplete and in error. Must have been compiled by those in the southeast. Conewanga Creek is NOT the only creek heading south to the Mississippi. French Creek, which rises in Sherman and FIndley Lake areas, head south and over the state line fairly quickly into Pennsylvania, where it joins the Allegheny and then the Ohio.

I suspect that the French Creek Watershed located in Sherman NY has already alerted you to this error.

You may cite me or get hold of me if you wish at <redacted>. I am the founder and former director of Carantouan Greenway on the Susquehanna River in the Penn/York Valley. I currently am the publisher at sitio tiempo press in Berkeley CA. I have standing in Chautauqua County as an owner of family property for the past fifty year, on the North Branch outside of Findley Lake, NY> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.115.76 (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Please don't post email address or phone numbers here; you'll get a reply on this page and the email and phone info will only attract spam. Feel free to make any changes that are supported by reliable sources; please cite your sources. Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

A page for the "Chicago Climate Action Plan" does not exist and I am requesting editor review/assistance on my draft version: User:Zwakmaster/Chicago_Climate_Action_Plan Thank you in advance. Zwakmaster (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for posting here. My initial response is that it might not meet our notability standards. Are there independent 3rd-party sources that could be used? I also wonder if you have a conflict of interest? (Your user page says you work for the City of Chicago's Department of Environment. That's not necessarily a disqualification, but it would require you to be quite careful. I'd be interested in your thoughts. Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The Origins of the American Civil War article is being strong armed by a couple of editors who refuse to allow anything but conventional, mainstream explanations of the origins/causes (slavery and constitutional debates), refusing to allow even elaborations of existing theories that exist in the text (albeit in an overly condensed form that detracts from the account. The discussion page reflects much discontent with this fact, but it seems there is nothing that can be done about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.150.187.142 (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, it's a very long article and it was even a Featured Article before it got demoted. The first thing to do would be to archive some of the earlier talk because the talk page takes a long time to load on slow Internet connections in other part of the world, and it is probably unlkely that anyone will take the trouble to read all the previous arguments that go back years. Secondly, one reason why probably little progress is being made to resolve the issues is because many of the postings are WP:TLDR. The isues need to be taken one at a time, and of course every edit to the article must be properly sourced - there must be hundreds of books about the American Civil War. Wikipedia is not the place to entertain theories though, unless they are relevant to the article, given equal treatment, and properly sourced. To get a proper debate going you may need to start a WP:RfC, which takes place off the normal talk page, and will, hopefully, reach a consensus. You can start the RfC yourself, or discuss it first with another editor on your own talk pages. Be very sure that the RfC title is of a neutral nature.--Kudpung (talk) 09:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The article on [White] is a completely unbalanced article which appears to be by either Mr. White himself or his publicist.

Mr. White is a controversial figure. I will leave it to others to determine whether or not it's because he is a "contrarian," as he likes to style himself, or because he's essentially a troll, but his Wikipedia entry is entirely positive and flattering. If a neutral party would be good enough to check the comments page, it should be evident that a one-sided image of the man is being presented.

I fully understand the need to protect an entry on a living person. It's quite another to use that authority to protect said individual from any substantive criticism. I submit that Mr. White or his agent are working overtime to do just that.

Valid concerns have been expressed about his accuracy, logic, composition, and other basic aspects of the critic's job. They deserve to be addressed.

RossweisseSTL (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This is all you need to do to make a link to an article page: [[Armond White]]. It appears that these issues are already being discussed on the article's talk page. Join in by all means. If the comments people are making seem to be stupid and do not seem to contribute much to improving the article, keep a cool head, be bold, and be the one to focus the discussion in the right direction.--Kudpung (talk) 06:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I am having difficulties writing an article about Dr. Paul A. Johnsgard. Wikipedia references Dr. Johnsgard 63 times but he doesn’t have his own article. I feel this needs to be corrected as soon as possible. He is an internationally recognized academic and expert. He is receiving many awards and honorariums so folks would benefit from learning more about him.

I wish to be connected to someone skilled in writing articles for Wikipedia. It is my hope that I could provide the needed information and the skilled editor create the article. I have attempted to do so myself but am hampered by the current new changes made to the site. I am blocked by my Internet security software from accessing links and opening articles. As yet I have not been able to determine the conflict so I turn off my security software, which is not a good idea. I keep getting “HTTP 403”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Claylr (talk • contribs) 00:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should simply suggest the creation of an article, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Article requests/People? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

On your page on Nebraska Wines, the external link to "Nebraska Grape and Wine Tourism" has also added beer and cheese to that title.

The link is no longer www.vintagenebraska.org .

The correct web address is www.vintage-nebraska.org

Please make this change ASAP

Thank you for your time Fivestarvineyard (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I am answering this on your talk page.--Kudpung (talk) 06:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

www.vintagenebrasa.org is a parked domain containing only advertising links; www.vintage-nebraska.org is a commercial site promoting vineyards and other aspects of tourism in Nebraska. I am removing it per the policy on external links. Unfortunately the contact email address at the latter website is fivestarvineyard@aol.com, so there may be a user name problem too. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Editor:

I'm doing a research project regarding women & technology from 1851 (the first World's Fair) up to and including 1920. A recent program on the History Channel, "The Story of Us", which showed young unmarried women being put to work in New England Textile Mills. This led to women reading, the satisfaction of earning your own income, becoming less dependent on men for security. It even lead to a strike, of which the women actually won!

But, were only Northeastern mills the beginners in employing women outside the home? If I'm not mistaken, there was a college in Philadelphia, PA that educated women to be doctors. I know Villanova (please forgiive my spelling) College was one such college that offered advanced education for women at the turn of the century. But, in order for women to get out into the world, there had to be advances in technology in the home, labor saving devices, to allow women to have the extra time to pursue a higher education.

I decided the best place to start my research was with the World's Fairs, starting with the first one in England in 1851. While at first only the wealthy women could afford these new fangled devices, eventually they trickled down to something the average household housewife could afford. Once I have a littany of all of the devices that were invented; I could then imagine how different the middle class woman's life would have been a hundred years ago.

With all of the hype about some type of doomsday event that may occur with the coming of the year 2012, if society is forced back into a plainer, simpler form of existance...there has to be some kind of avoidance of women being forced back into the house. A hundred years ago, my life would have been very different to what it is now. Society might be forced into using outhouses instead of having indoor plumbing. Electric stoves could be replaced with iron wood burning stoves. If industry dies to the point where industrial manufacturing of sliced bread is no longer available; does that infer that women will have to stay at home in the kitchen in order for the family to have bread to eat?

I need your help with the articles I wrote under Georgene01. I'm useless with making links. Many of the texts submitted will have links to other articles that are submitted in Wikipedia. You would know more of these specific links than I. Could you please look over my talks and add what links are available to tie into other texts here in Wikipedia? I just want to make sure that all of the facts I quoted are authentic and properly annotated. I just want to make sure that my articles and the facts stated are properly footnoted. Any help you can give me with my articles would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely yours, BGOliver, AKA Georgene01.Georgene01 07:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgene01 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it sounds like you're at the wrong project. Wikipedia does not publish works of original research. As an encyclopedia, all Wikipedia does is quote, paraphrase, and summarize what has already been published in reliable sources. If you have general questions, you're free to ask at the reference desk. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

(moved from WT:EAR by –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC))

I was searching for references of the term heihaizu (黒核子), and while it is used sometimes for referring to the illegally born children in China, it does not formally exist in any dictionary or in any source that could be perceived as verifiable and reliable source. Could someone help with that? The article currently exists at User:4l31st3r/Heihaizu 4l31st3r (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:Reference desk/Language would be the place to ask about references. I think you need to find better referencing and preferably in English, the EL title, publisher, etc. should be translated into English. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark T. Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There are two tags on this page: "coi" and "cleanup". I do not know what is wrong with the article or what to do to fix it. Any help would be greatly appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.221.211 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 11 July 2010

Well, I think the clean-up tag is valid. The referencing needs improvement. The news stories should have author and publication dates at a bare minimum. See {{cite news}} and WP:CITE for more on this. The tone of the article appears to be rather promotional and it seems that some editors think that it may be an autobiography. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

hello, i uploaded a photo of a deceased author some time ago and put in on the Hal Bennett page. it has been deleted now, but i cannot figure out why, but it is still listed in the code for that page. im sorry but i dont know how to get the exact title. can someone explain why this happened? i was sure that i put in the rationale for using the photo of this author, who is hard to find photos of. I was never notified of the deletion, and when there have been past issues with files i uploadd i was always notified and allowed to fix the problem. thank you Aisha9152 (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The deletion log reads "01:24, 2 July 2010 Explicit (talk) deleted File:Halbennetauthorphoto.png ‎ (Deleted because "F6: Non-free media file with no non-free use rationale".)" Perhaps you should ask Explicit why you were not notofied? You could upload the file agin with a suitable non-free use rationale. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The file was tagged by Fastily (talk · contribs) with {{di-no fair use rationale}} on June 23, 2010, who was could have notified the uploader as a courtesy, though it's not manditory. Non-free files require a detailed fair use rationale, which requires the uploader to explain why it's permitted under the WP:NFCC policy. The following:

{{Non-free use rationale
 |Article           = Hal Bennett
 |Description       = author photo
 |Source            = back of Wait Until The Evening hardcover ISBN 0385010222
 |Portion           = 
 |Low_resolution    = 
 |Purpose           = show the author
 |Replaceability    = 
 |other_information = 
}}

As one can see, the purpose to "show the author" did not explain why the file was permitted under said policy, while missing information for the portion, low resolution and replaceability fields as well. — ξ^xplicit 01:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

is it really helpful to wikipedia to flat out delete this without any explanation to new users about why their contributions were deleted? this does not encourage new contributors. Aisha9152 (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I notify users when files I nominate files for deletion. As the deleting admin in this case, I was only responsible for deleting the file, not notifying the uploader about it. — ξ^xplicit 05:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

i asked do you really think this behavior helps the project as a whole? Aisha9152 (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You need to ask at a venue where there are more editors who are actively involved in this, as it will depend upon the level of the problem. Dougweller (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes this behavior does help the project as a whole; it helps us avoid lawsuits. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

fastily i have no problem with the photo being deleted, that is not what i am asking. you should answer the question i asked. does not assisting new users and explaining to them why their photo was deleted, when it was deleted, and what a valid fair use rationale would be actually help the project? if so how? Aisha9152 (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right, Aisha. Experienced users being curt and unhelpful to new users is a well-known problem at Wikipedia. One such user can drive away hundreds of willing helpers in a very short time. You might want to watch this, or this page, as it is frequently discussed there and I guess, eventually, someone will come up with a practical solution. Anthony (talk) 13:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Celeste Newbrough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (moved from talk page)

I have long list of references and an extensive bibliography that I would like to integrate into my wikepedia page. I was born in 1939. My first TV experience was 1952. I am literate but not savvy to the the electronic generation. Would like someone to help me. <email address redacted> (wikepedia reference="Celeste Newbrough". thanks, Celeste Theia333 (talk) 01:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The article about you has already been 'tagged' (those banners at the top of the page) for several issues requiring attention - we have to be very careful that everything said about you is true and proven by a sourced reference. You could try approaching the creator, and/or major contributors to that article on their talk pages with your request. You can find out who worked on the article by clicking on the page history tab, and then on External tools: Revision history statistics to see who did the most work on it.·--Kudpung (talk) 02:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Further to that, please post on the article talk page and offer pointers to your references. I removed your email address as per Wikipedia policy and the notice at the top of this page. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Theia333 added six badly-formatted new references at the foot of the article before posting here. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

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

You can view the discussion on the dispute here. The source used for the section are written by the subject, yet another editor has removed the section without leaving a reason for doing so. This editor may be a colleague of the subject. The subject has been known to edit the article in the past. 24.199.34.245 (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing this with User:Chris Chittleborough on their talk page, perhaps alerting them to this thread and the one on the article talk page? –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Central America not is North America, the Americas, has three sub-continents North, Central and South. This article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_America is inconsistency and wrong, seek the another article Spanish: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am%C3%A9rica_del_Norte Fr:http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am%C3%A9rique_du_Nord

Seek this international organizations for example: http://www.sica.int/ http://www.parlacen.org.gt/index-portada.html http://www.sica.int/cepredenac/ http://www.sica.int/cecc/

The Americas, has three sub-continents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abolivar (talk • contribs) 21:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I think there are mixed opinions on this. Also a political entity maybe different from a geological entity. Arnoutf (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I think what Arnoutf is saying is that North America and South America are geographical continents while Central America is a gographical region covering the isthmus between the two continents. The articles in the en.Wikipedia are probably quite accurate in this respect.--Kudpung (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm in an increasingly confrontational discussion at talk:Somalia. I have concerns for numerous issues in the article, most seriously that it goes into too much detail on several subjects for a country article, that it is written from a pro-Somali and pro-Somali government point of view in many sections and that it uses unreliable sources on some controversial issues. There was recently a long discussion (that has since descended into an argument) regarding the inclusion of corruption information in the article. After a lot of frustration, I took the issue to the Reliable sources noticeboard. There, other editors agreed with me and I took it as ok for me to add corruption information to the article (which I did here). Shortly after, however, the other editor (Middayexpress) "qualified" this with new material and a new section that I think exemplify the problems with the article - too much coverage on only tangentially related subjects (along with a general lack of conciseness), the use of unreliable sources, the inclusion of his own conclusions and a positive slant on the whole situation. I have reverted the changes twice now ([6]) and I'm sure I'm in danger of edit warring, but I really think Midday's additions are degrading the article. Can someone please sort us out? I think this case specifically, and the condition of the article in general, really need addressing. Maybe I'm the one in the wrong here, I'll gladly accept any conclusion an uninvolved admin comes to. TastyCakes (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

At first view, many of the postings seem to be WP:TLDR, and I'm probalby not going to read the article and the huge discussion to find out who is wrong and who is right. However, even if you feel there is no progress in the argument, it does seem to be reasonably civil, and no admin is going to simply breeze by and clout anyone with a 3rr block or warning unless one of you who is involved in the discussion kicks up a fuss. Besides, stubborn reverting would be silly anyway and helps neither the editors, nor the article, nor the readers, and let's not forget that we are writing not for ourselves, or but for them out there, and what they want is factual, neutral info. Probably one way to resolve the problem would be to isolate and clearly define what needs to be decided, and discuss it on a sub talk page in the form of a debate, so that any consensus can be seen to be crystalising. II you think that more outside opinion could be brought into the discussion, then by all means launch a proper WP:RfC instead - you would all then have to accept the consensus whether you all agree with it or not.--Kudpung (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Adyghe and Greek speakers are evidented as linguistic minorities on the current version of the Republic of Macedonia Article [7]. There is no objective multisource rellevant evidence about this. Neither of the several significant minority reports by UN,EU(euromonitor), or studies by BBC or Britannica indicate something like "Adyghe or Greek" linguistic minority in Macedonia [8][9][10][11][12].

There is a single cherry-picked source that indicates this languages: Ethnologue [13], and yet the same Ethnologue on its page about the languages in Republic of Macedonia [14] does not state Adyghe nor Greek.

Since we have overwhelming significant evidence that does not report this kind of linguistic minority in Macedonia, I don't see the reason for keeping information based on a single cherry-picked and contradictory source.

Since Macedonia related articles are quite flamy, despite the overwhelming objective evidence we have there are no linguistic minorities of this kind in Macedonia, i request admin assistance. Thank you.84.223.91.95 (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does:Ethnologue website on the Languages of Macedonia

Immigrant languages: Greek. Adyghe [ady] A few villages in Macedonia. Alternate names: Adygey, West Circassian. Classification: North Caucasian, West Caucasian, Circassian More information.

I posted the same citation including the above quote on the Macedonia article and yet you keep removing it on the WP:OR grounds that it is not covered by other sources. Please see WP:RS and WP:V before you repeat your claims. Also your claim and yet the same Ethnologue on its page about the languages in Republic of Macedonia [15] does not state Adyghe nor Greek. is patently false as I proved above. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I was reading this article in which the author complained about cited information s/he added being either removed or buried. The complaints seem somewhat legitimate, but I was hoping to gain more information. Can anybody familiar with either the incident or the relevant subject matter support or contradict what the article says? (less interested in the abstract criticism of Wikipedia than the particular incident being detailed.) --Shay Guy (talk) 02:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This EAR help page is generally intended to be for users to obtain quick results, such as links to pages and guidelines where the issues are explained, treated, and discussed in greater detail, and only in relation to Wikipedia's own articles and their development, and interaction between editors. I have read the article you link to. There are many press articles that discuss the Wikipedia, and the issues that are the ethic ethnic or political events discussed in that article. Anyone can add his/her comments to that blog, but it is unlikely that an official line from a Wikipedia will be forthcoming. However one piece of advice that I cannot emphasise strongly enough, is that you reconsider all the personal information you have posted on your user page, particularly if you contribute to articles that treat sensitive ethnic and political topics - it can easily be pieced together to obtain you true identity, and perhaps you should most definitely follow Wikipedias recommendation never to disclose your private email address. Registered users can opt for being contacted by email through the encyclopedia software without revealing their email address.--Kudpung (talk) 03:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to scare the newbies but not sure the best way to proceed. This is a fairly trivial problem, but it boils down to a new user who persistently is relinking when I have removed a link to a draft article in user space. I've no problem with the article content (while it's in user space) but the link is premature.

Please be specific in your request, provide a linK and don't forget to sign your posts. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Jetz, the "boring detail" section below somehow got made its own section. I think it contains quite enough specifics and was signed. The request was resolved. Si Trew (talk) 08:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Boring detail

:

Spare us the boring detail

A new user, User:Info.economics, has since yesterday been preparing an article on the Corvinus University of Budapest Faculty of Economics on the main page of the user's space, i.e. User:Info.economics. No problem there (though a little unusual). Unfortunately the user linked it from the university article proper, which of course is against the guideline from linking article space to user space. I undid this with an edit summary "Link to article un [sic user space". The user put it back again ten minutes later, this time with incorrect syntax for an external link (to the same user space page), then a couple of corrections later with correct syntax. I was in the middle of writing a welcome and I hope civil explanation on the User talk:Info.economics talk page, which of course is also the article's talk page (because the article is the user's "home page"). I then undid the user's link again, with the edit summary "Link to article in user space (even though it's an external link). I've written an explanation on the user's talk page". The user then replaced the link a minute later.

So I left it, not wanting unwittingly to break 3RR. I undid it again this morning with the edit summary "PLEASE DO NOT LINK TO USER SPACE. I've said this on the user talk page which is the article talk page. I've no other way to communicate this to the editor." It's not been changed back since then, but I imagine that is just because the user stopped editing at that time. I'd not purposely timed my undo for that; on the contrary I was hoping that the user would engage in talk so that I could help move the article and offer to help Wikifying it and so on. Inadvertently I have technically broken 3RR in that the third undo was a shade within 24 hours, but I don't think it serves any purpose to stick to the letter of the law there (and have to argue they were not reverts, there were intervening edits, etc etc).

I've also a message on the tak page at Corvinus University of Budapest, but it doesn't look very busy there. Similarly, WikiProject Hungary, of which I am a member, gets little traffic.

The user's behaviour seems a little odd but I am sure in good faith. The user is obviously reasonably competent with Wikipedia (is improving the article in user space, adding pictures, Wikifying, getting rid of "our" and "we" and so on) yet has not got the point of why I didn't want the link from user space. It's as if the user has not read the message I left. It doesn't help that they don't leave an edit summary. (Perhaps I should add a pointer to that on the talk page.) The article itself will probably be a useful addition to Wikipedia if it can get past POV/COI issues: I'm guessing from the edit times and user name it's someone closely associated with the Faculty of Economics at the University. I've no problem there and don't want to scare the newbie. But if they're not taking note of messages on their talk page/the article's talk page, this could end up a completely unnecessary edit war.

The upshot of all that

I'm hoping, perhaps, that a kind note from someone else on the user's talk page might explain the problem better than I have. I'm more than happy to work with the user on the article to get it ship-shape. I discussed with my partner User:Monkap her leaving a message in Hungarian, but the user seems quite competent in English (and may not even speak Hungarian), so I don't think that's wise.

Any advice or suggestions, I should be glad to hear them. The particular fact that the article talk is the user talk makes it kinda hard to follow dispute resolution. I really don't want to scare the newbie. It's not a big deal but I'd rather give some help rather than any reversions I make being seen as destructive or unwelcoming. Si Trew (talk) 10:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally an anonymous IP made two good-faith wikifying edits to the user space article, something I've so far refrained from doing. As I say, I would be delighted to help improve this nascent article, but am wary of editing in others' user space. Si Trew (talk) 10:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. You can't normally be sued for 3rr if you are genuinely removing vandalism, spam, or very disruptive editing - but all this person is doing is linking to his own user page. Not allowed of course, but not an immediate danger of damaging the main article page.T he work looks quite good and is probably being done in good faith. However, due to some of the wording, it might be worthwhile taking the caution of checking for WP:COPYVIO and WP:COI; because the user is new and might just possibly not yet be perfectly famliliar with the guidelines, and with the use of user pages, sandboxes, and special user pages. Do avoid using another language on the talk pages if you can .You've already left one polite message on the editor's talk page, perhaps it would be best not to do any reverts for a day or two until he has acknowledged the message. I'll leave a more general message there and I'll keep the talk page on my watchlist.--Kudpung (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Yeah, the 3RR was in good faith but I just wanted to come with clean hands. I agree with all you say, so didn't want to go in with the bovver boots. Thank you for your note on the talk page, that is put better than I could. Si Trew (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Copy and paste from [16]. Nothing on it says either copyright or public domain. Dougweller (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

:

Sir/Madam Plz check out the url "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saini_people#Saini_kings_of_Kaman:_chaonsat-khamba_inscription" I am from the same place Kaman(Bharatpur),Rajasthan, India and there is no chaonsat-khamba(64 pillars sculpture) in Kaman but there is a chaurasi-khamba(84 pillars sculpture).Plz change this asap because it is concerned with a community.

Your's Sincerely Lokendra Saini —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loksthedemon (talk • contribs) 18:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You can change that - it's the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Please remember that you might need to show a reliable source for the change if another editor challenges it - personal experience isn't a reliable source. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

:

I got a problem with a user called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Beetstra he is deleting all my source links, even those of my own copyrighted pictures. As seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_urticaria and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquagenic_pruritus

The site that i am citing is mostly a valid resource that is widely watched and reposted over a lot of other sites. And the user is deleting them without any warning and claiming that this is spam while leaving the text and asking for citation... So clearly he does think that the text is accurate but just harasses me and takes away my ref's.

I am asking you to stop this lunatic and let the refs be as they were, or atleast the ones cited from my own articles and pictures.--Olekp (talk) 11:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The site that is used, parascientifica.com is indeed an online encyclopedia. Problem is, and the user is not mentioning that, is that most of the references (all but one) were to the forum of the encyclopedia. Seeing the posts, these do fail our reliable sources guideline. Note also that I asked Olekp to discuss before continuing to use the forum as references. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

:

The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism.

If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions:

       * Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard.
       * You may also contact any administrator on their talk page or by e-mail.
       * Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit, and if it might be misunderstood (for example, an article with an unusual name), consider explaining briefly what you want to do.
       * If you wrote any text, save it temporarily on your computer until you can edit the page. 

Thank you.

What does this mean? WikiUni (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

We need more details, exactly what is the name that you are using for the picture? Dougweller (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I just wanted to insert the english translation of those pages:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial_(grup) http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial_(groupe)

Now I see, that there is a page of a czech group:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_TRIAL_(band)

What shall we do now? The Trial from Germany/Turkey is older and longer alife. In Germany the name is protected by the DRMV (German Rock and Pop Music Association).

Any hints?

Greets, Alabay (talk) 10:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

How about The Trial (German band) and The TRIAL (Czech band)? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

What would be the official way? The Trial ist not only German, it is Turkish and also Swiss, since decades. International? Sounds strange ... Alabay (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The general guidance is at WP:TITLE. In this case, I would go with (German band) (given that they were formed in Germany), and if anyone sees any need to change it later they can suggest a change at that point. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ghmyrtle. Before I start to edit ... does it make any difference, that the band is not active anymore due to their site? <http://www.thetrial.cz/2english/index_english.htm>. I find it a bit disproportionate to divide into two pages for one international band and one local that has dissolved, except maybe one video, made by someone who's unknown (who or what is MaXOne?!). In Germany one would cancel the smaller one ;-) Maybe (band) and (former Czech band)? What do you think? Alabay (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit: oh, I just see, that I can add The_Trial_(band) due to those others written The_TRIAL_(band). This helps ... Alabay (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)