Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance/Requests: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 02:04, 8 March 2010 editNcr09 (talk \| contribs)19 edits →need help editing and posting article: new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:18, 8 March 2010 edit undoChadhoward (talk \| contribs)69 edits →"Climatic Research Unit hacking incident" talk pages: new sectionNext edit →
Line 799:		Line 799:
	{{La\|national church residences}}		{{La\|national church residences}}
	It was suggested that I add more sources/references, which has been done. Need help posting. ] (]) 02:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)		It was suggested that I add more sources/references, which has been done. Need help posting. ] (]) 02:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

			== "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident" talk pages ==

			{{La\|Climatic Research Unit hacking incident}}

			Hi there.

			I've been trying to discuss what I view as a problematic title for the "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident" article. I made my first comment on 11:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC) and my last comment at 00:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC). In that time span, the discussion was archived twice in what appears to be an effort to stifle debate. I am finding that the discussion threads are being aggressively archived such that a proper discussion lasting more than 12-20 hours is impossible. One of the editors also promptly accused me of sock puppetry. He later apologized, but the fact that he did so without evidence was off-putting. Is this standard procedure? It sure doesn't make me want to contribute anything more. --] (]) 02:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:18, 8 March 2010

Help:Contents

Archives

Previous requests & responses

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 24 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Einsiders.com

Answered – Jezhotwells (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sir or Madam:

Yesterday it was brought to my attention that Einsiders.com is about to be (or has been) removed from Misplaced Pages.

Can an editor or administrator contact me and tell me what the heck is going on?

Thanks,

javascript:insertTags('Jonathan W. Hickman (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)',,) Jonathan W. Hickman Editor and President Einsiders.com, Inc.

Hi, I can't find any page named Einsiders or Einsiders.com, but maybe you are referring to external links to your website being removed. There is a discussion about the reliability of Einsiders here, which concludes that, in Misplaced Pages terms, it is not a reliable source. The standards are set quite high here and no evidence can be found that other reliable sources, e.g. major newspapers, journals, etc. cite Einsders as reliable and there is no information on the website as to editorial process. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

There is another discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, I dislike that bit about being called unreliable. I've interviewed plenty of filmmakers and actors, many on video, over the years, are you saying that simple reporting of what is said by those people is not reliable? The whole Misplaced Pages thing is pretty intimidating to me. But I think that it is unfortunate that the conclusion was that einsiders was not reliable was reached without anyone ever emailing me about it. I've been writing about movies for over a decade, you know.Jonathan W. Hickman (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Jonathan W. Hickman

Please read our policies on reliable sources. Can you provide references in third party publications that verify that your web site is a reliable source?

I really hate this. I never cared whether I was in Misplaced Pages or not, but being called unreliable smarts. Einsiders has always been an independent voice for film criticism online. I suppose we've been quoted by others, certainly our reviews have appeared on posters and movie boxes. We were mentioned in Hollywood Reporter once about our Sundance coverage. Can't a Wiki editor recognize that the over a decade of covering movies makes us a reliable source for film criticism? I myself have written several thousand reviews and I'm a member of SEFCA, my films are listed on IMDB as well. Thanks for your attention on this.javascript:insertTags('Jonathan W. Hickman (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)',,)

I am not calling you unreliable, I am commenting that it seems from other discussions that the website einsiders.com is not a reliable source. Google News Archive turns up two articles where einsiders reviews are quoted and one passing mention of sending bloggers to a festival. This does give some credence to the site being a source, but it is not a lot for ten years coverage. It is really up to the reliable sources noticeboard to offer guidance on this. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Need some new eyes

Answered – Jezhotwells (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have had a problem with a section in the article Diploma Mills. The subsection is on Romania, and contains information about the university I just received a message from someone saying I was going to be blocked from editing if I did anything else to the page. The whole issue steams from the question, is the school a mill or not. It is not! and it has full government accreditation to operate. It has had some problems in the past and they are being investigated. But by no means are they a mill. A mill would mean they lack accreditation, the school does not. I think the other editor getting a mod to kick me is a bit of a srong responce. I made my edit after posting in the talk page and waiting. I did not just do it. --Super (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Over several days you have repeatedly deleted that material, and repeatedly been reverted by several editors. That's edit warring. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I know this, my question is why can't anyone talk about this. Should I allow this error to remain, is it fair? Its ok for people to change my edits but I can't change theirs? I have posted all the facts needed to back up my actions. I think you have a conflict of interest in this. I will show good faith. All I wanted to have were some fresh eyes to look it over, I never said your name or brought you up. --Super (talk) 04:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

In what way would I have a COI? That's an odd claim to make. I have no interest in or knowledge of that school. My only concern is your removal of sourced content and then edit warring over the matter. You are the one who seems to have a COI, as you are the one protecting the school. As to mentioning my name, if you do so you will be blocked for outing. That's a very serious matter here. Several editors have been indefinitely banned from Misplaced Pages for doing so. The notification at the top of my talk page makes that very clear. Don't do it. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The error is in your removal of information referenced by two reliable sources about enquiries by the Romanian authorities into this university. If you carry on edit warring in this manner you will be blocked. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

That’s all well and good, but that’s not the point, me making two edits does not warrant a block, nor is it an edit war. The point is the school still has accreditation and is clearly not a mill. I see the same group of editors pile onto people when they try to correct one of them, not to fair. If people would just look at the facts and then look at what a mill is than we can fix this. Its ok to be wrong.--Super (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"Two edits"? I count five deletions. I also notice that you have previously been blocked twice for this type of behavior and for socking. You need to reconsider why you are here. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I was blocked twice by the same group I am having problems with now. Both times I was unblocked. Both times the un blocker stated we were being treated unfairly. Anyone who worked on the University of Atlanta page was just about blocked and called a sock puppet, we were all unblocked. Anytime anyone makes a good edit on one of the pages their working on they all jump on you. Just look at what you are doing. Not once have you looked at the issue that’s the problem. I came here to get some new eyes on this and the same person who threatened to block me(BullRangifer) follows me over here and try’s to block anyone else from looking into it with negative posts about me. You need to look at why you are here! --Super (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Need help on Grue and Bleen

Answered – Jezhotwells (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

In Grue and Bleen (talk page) User:Kevanhashemi insists on keeping in a passage which by his own admission, is original research and which references a self-published paper by himself. I have no idea what to do about this short of edit warring. Someone please help me. Ken Arromdee (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello i have posted a message on his talk page...Very friendly told him that we need a better source. I think we should also look make sure theres no Conflict of interest --> However, if it is him he is well known in the community ..he was the Electrical Engineer at Harvard University for some time. Buzzzsherman (talk) 07:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The page is about philosophy, not electrical engineering. 67.218.38.62 (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL i was just pointing out he is a well educated individual and i dont think he can be just brushed off...Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, he's claiming that he's not using a reference at all and that the argument in the paragraph itself justifies its inclusion. Ken Arromdee (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This still needs fixing. He put the paper on his department website. However, putting a paper on his department website doesn't make it published. The paper is not peer reviewed and the subject matter of the paper has nothing to do with the high energy physics department anyway.

He also seems to think that it doesn't even need a reference because "my addition stands upon its own." Come on. He's making his own argument in that paragraph. That's original research and is prohibited on Misplaced Pages. Here's his justification from the talk page:

So, you accept the fact that the response I have added to the page is correct, and would be of great interest to the reader, but you remove it anyway because you believe that this page should be controlled by self-appointed experts. A "reference" is a basis for backing up a claim that is made without sufficient discussion in the Misplaced Pages page. In this case, the link to my paper is not a "reference", because there is sufficient argument in the single paragraph I have added to justify its addition. The link I provide is for the interested reader to follow, as a further discussion, but is not used to justify the paragraph. --Kevan Hashemi 14:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That is *very* blatantly violating Misplaced Pages rules about the need for references and the ban on original research. (Furthermore, he's wrong. I don't consider his paragraph to be correct, but I have no interest in debating the paragraph, and because original research is barred, I shouldn't *need* to debate the paragraph.) Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Much Ado about Removed "See also"

Answered – Jezhotwells (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed a "See also" from Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission because neither the case nor the relevant issue was mentioned in the text and I figured it would be confusing for most people. An editor continues to object and harass me about it, saying I haven't told him why, when I've made a number of arguments for doing so. See talk discussion here. I have repeatedly suggested that if he thinks it's that important, all that is needed is one sentence with a WP:RS in the article to make the link relevant. But he'd rather keep hassling me. I don't feel like going to 3rd opinion or wiki-etiquette on this. Or should I?? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have responded at the talk page. Basically, I see nothing wrong with that article being linked in the see also. In fact if it was referred to in the main text of the artcile, that would be a reason for removal. I think you are mis-understanding the See Also guidlines. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin keeps posting libellous statements about Dr. Steven Jones

Answered – Jezhotwells (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

For the entry of Dr. Steven Jones, User:Arthur Rubin keeps posting libellous an unsubstantiated comments about Dr. Steven Jones, retired Professor Emeritus of Brigham Young University. Dr. Jones retired in 2006 with full benefits, and continues to be listed on BYU.edu with his latest CV (Sept 2009). This is something BYU has no obligation to do, once a professor retires. There are no hard feelings between Dr. Jones and BYU. Arthur Rubin insists on posting the false statement that Dr. Jones was "relieved of his teaching duties" which makes is sound like he is not on good terms with the University. If that was true, BYU would not update his CV. BYU even cites his research on the dust of the World Trade Center. I have asked Arthur Rubin to cite a source for his belief, and he has not done so. Arthur Rubin has posted on Misplaced Pages that he thinks Dr. Jones is an "idiot" - which obviously is not true of someone who has a PhD from a major university, with many studies published in refereed scientific journals. I ask you to not permit Arthur Rubin to use Misplaced Pages for his personal bad feelings he evidently has for an honest and hard working professor. Arthur Rubin needs to provide a source to some statement from BYU, not ad-hominem attacks by a "hear say" third party. Misplaced Pages is not a forum for his personal opinions of a living person. Arthur Rubin's opinion of Dr. Jones is contrary to Misplaced Pages's definition of Professor Emeritus as "A full professor who retires in good standing." Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cicorp (talk • contribs) 22:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The lede section of an article in general does not include sources, but there is considerable sourcing in the body of the article which supports the claims. I see nothing wrong here. Woogee (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the artcile sources the information that Jones was relieved of his teaching duties. Your reversions consist of edit warring. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Repeating the same argument over and over again doesn't make your claims any more true. Are you saying that all of the sources on the page are false? Woogee (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Internal links to special pages

Answered – Jezhotwells (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Just trying to make an internal link for my tool box to "Recent Changes" page and can't get it to work. I know it will work, it works off the userbox I have, does it take writing a script ? or am I using the wrong template ? Mlpearc (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably best to check out Misplaced Pages:Tools. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Article Re: "Naveen Jain"

Answered – Jezhotwells (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There are few people who seem to constantly add incorrect information even after I provided them with the official information from the SEC filings. There are few people insist on writing that Jain paid 105 Million to settle lawsuit by shareholders. As you can see, it was a multi-party dispute between several officers and directors of the company, infospace and insurance companies. I added the following text from the SEC filings reference at http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1068875/000119312504219392/dex991.htm.

There was a multi party dispute between InfoSpace, the officers and directors of InfoSpace and several insurance companies. the dispute was settled with express agreement stating that each defendant in each of the resolved dispute, including the Company, denies liability. The Settlement Agreement was entered into for the sole purpose of resolving contested claims and disputes as well as avoiding the substantial costs, expenses and uncertainties associated with protracted and complex litigation

There are couple of people working in concert to keep undoing this and adding irrelevant and incorrect information. Can this page be completely locked since this person is a living person and too many people trying to vandalize the page.

Information being constantly added may belong to an article about InfoSpace but not about a person who worked at the company.

Please advice.

Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

See discussions at WP:AN3 on Wiki Expert Edit, User talk:Wiki-expert-edit, Talk:Naveen_Jain#Short_swing_lawsuit, and Talk:Naveen_Jain#Inaccuracies.3F --Ronz (talk) 04:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see SEC 8K filing which is most authentic and trusted source of information on this topic at http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1068875/000119312504219392/0001193125-04-219392.txt. In any case, most of this information belongs in the article about infospace and not on this page. Remember, Jain was just one of the many people who were involved in a very complex dispute. Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we please discuss the issues as opposed to bullying everyone in to accepting your version by threatening them to block them. I have provided you with authentic documents to disprove your references but you insist on continuing to spread the inaccurate information. Please stay civil and respect fellow wiki community members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-expert-edit (talk • contribs) 17:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ronz isn't bullying everyone - everyone agrees with him and is reverting your edits (seven editors so far). --NeilN 19:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-expert-edit, please stop forum shopping and bring some reliable sources to the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Erroneous Information In in a Misplaced Pages article about Sen. Joseph Lieberman

Answered – Jezhotwells (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Senator Lieberman is not a registered Democrat. He is an Independent. (foxnews.com, Wednesday August 06, 2006) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.27.82.130 (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, which bit of this paragraph from the Lead,

"During his re-election bid in 2006, he lost the Democratic Party primary election but won re-election in the general election as a third party candidate under the party label "Connecticut for Lieberman." Lieberman has been officially listed in Senate records for the 110th and 111th Congresses as an "Independent Democrat" and sits as part of the Senate Democratic Caucus. But since his speech at the 2008 Republican National Convention in which he endorsed John McCain for president, Lieberman no longer attends Democratic Caucus leadership strategy meetings or policy lunches. On November 5, 2008, Lieberman met with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to discuss his future role with the Democratic Party. Ultimately, the Senate Democratic Caucus voted to allow Lieberman to keep chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Subsequently, Lieberman announced that he will continue to caucus with the Democrats."

do you disagree with? Jezhotwells (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

BOB MARLEY SONG ONE LOVE

Answered – Jezhotwells (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the wonderfull work you are doing.Really,it has been a great impactation.Please,kindly send to me wordings of Bob Marley one love song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.199.50.77 (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You mean this article, One Love (Bob Marley song)? If you want to find an article in Misplaced Pages just type in the name in the search box. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

He didn't ask for the article, he wanted to know where to get the lyrics. The link there doesn't work anymore. (I have no interest in the subject - just trying to help.) Mzk1 (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, silly me. lyric server has lyrics for the song. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

A question regarding contacting the deleting administrator

Answered – Jezhotwells (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

RE: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Flogos&action=edit&redlink=1

The page states: "A page with this title has previously been deleted.

If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below."

Who is the deleting administrator? And how does one contact?

In case someone wishes to pass this along to whom it may concern, here is what I would send to the deleting administrator or appropriate whomever:

I noticed this was deleted and I don't understand why it was deleted... Something about advertising? Since my total knowledge about the company was two news articles on TV and less than 15 minutes of web searching I can assure the Wiki Powers that it was not for profit on my part. But I suppose no one will be harmed if they don't find a wiki article on Flogos. On other things the Wiki Elders just rewrote them until it met their criteria. Rather than just axing it.

Here is a third party source on the item: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24162063/

No idea if MSNBC meets "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market."

I will never do Wiki-ing enough to reach the level of proficiency that I should. But I rather thought (if I recall correctly) my article covered the basics of the subject. And now there is no information on it at all on Misplaced Pages, which seems rather pointless.Wiki-790 (talk) 08:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, imemediately below the text about contacting the deleting administrator is the tex:

03:17, 9 May 2008 Discospinster (talk)) | contribs) deleted "Flogos" ‎ (G11: Blatant advertising) 10:17, 10 April 2008 Longhair (talk) | contribs) deleted "Flogos" ‎ (G11: Blatant advertising)

which tells us that on 10 April 2008 Flogos was deleted as blatant advertising by Longhair and on 9 May 2008 by Discospinster. So those are the deleteing admins to talk to. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

adding information

Answered – Jezhotwells (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

How do you add information about your town, that already has a reference in Misplaced Pages? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diccadoo (talk • contribs) 16:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Go to the relevant page (such as Harlow) and click along the top where it says "edit this page"--TimothyJacobson (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Requesting content from deleted page

Answered – Jezhotwells (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, the article List of Messianic and Hebrew Christian congregations was deleted for CSD in 2008. I would like to get a copy of its contents at deletion time, and any recoverable snapshot ca. April 2008. I'm not asking that it actually be restored to Misplaced Pages after all this time. I understand only those with administrator rights to Misplaced Pages can do this. Anyone who can recover this is welcome to just email a text-dump to me. Can you assist? Thanks. —Wikijeff (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If you click on the link to the deleted article you will see a message stating the admins who have deleted the page. If you ask them nicely, they may restore it to yoru user-space. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit war at Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

An IP editor has been inserting the same cumbersome and inappropriately voluminous statutory material, accompanied by questionable and unsourced conclusions, into the foregoing page. I can't make any more reversions without crossing the 3RR line as well, and we seem to be talking past each other in any case. Additional eyes, edits and observations welcome. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 13:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll amend this slightly. Some of the assertions are sourced but they are the assertions of the agency itself and don't establish the broader propositions asserted (to wit, that Congress has backed the FDIC insurance guarantee with its full faith & credit). I'll quit here, to avoid dragging the substantive dispute into this forum; I just wanted to clarify so that it didn't appear I was overstating my case. Thanks again. JohnInDC (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Update. A passing editor undid the subject changes and made some suggestions on the Talk page. We'll see if the assistance (thank you) leads to productive engagement in the next day or so. If so, this can be marked resolved. JohnInDC (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

JOhnindc your statements above about my data being unsourced is false. YOUR statements to the contrary are unsourced because you are relying solely on an "OPINION" to buttress your regurgitated argument that there is no binding effect of FF&C. And apparently you do not have a clear understanding of the "opinion" you are sourcing.

I will prove to you that your opinion is factually flawed. Please see the FDIC talk page on the subject for further details. Maybe an unbiased editor eye would help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.219.142.97 (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This dispute is far from over (please see talk page). Johnindc is simply not budging from his unsubstantiated claim that FF&C is non-binding and the current entry with its innuendo is simply false (it refers to a "non-binding" sense of congress passed in 1987 which is false because there was no court ruling stating that it was non-binding in 1987. Furthermore, it leaves out the laws that followed the passage of CEBA and it fails to correctly reference the statutory basis for Full faith and Credit which appears in at least 2 places in the USC.

It appears he has taken a personal interest in asserting that he is right without providing any objective source for his conclusion. The talk page lays in clear detail the laws that support this including contract law. johnindc calls this research, I call it common sense. If there is a debate as to whether or not the moon is made of cheese, we simply go to the source (i.e. moon rock) and examine it. We don't need someone's opinion on the matter (written or otherwise stated) to debate the facts in the case. If the US Government, Congress, the law, the President and the FDIC (the US Government's agent) all say there is full faith and credit, then I will take it for what it is worth and agree that the FDIC deposit fund is CLEARLY and unequivocally supported by the full faith and credit of the United States. To say anything else (or suggest anything else using outdated an advisory opinion) in spite of having proof to the contrary is just incomprehensible.68.219.142.97 (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I invite other editors to have a look. I've pretty much said my piece on the Talk page already, but the sake of convenience here's a summary: The text of the article as it now stands is essentially correct (paraphrasing, "FDIC represents that its deposit guarantees are backed by the full faith & credit of the US but the statutory basis for the assertion is unclear"); second, the other editor's lengthy statutory analysis does not compel the conclusion that he asserts that it does, and indeed even underscores the lack of clarity; and third, even if the analysis does eventually lead to that conclusion, it's all WP:original research. JohnInDC (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I would be inclined to report the IP at WP:3RR. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, in his defense, he quit inserting the problem text after a 3RR warning or another editor's reversion of the same text, I'm not sure which. For the time being, there is no edit war. JohnInDC (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, johnindc for coming to my defense. I would also like to add, I was unaware of the 3 edit rule (or the rules in general) or even the fact that the talk page (aka discussion) existed. I have stopped editing the item that was flagged and as I told johnindc, I am not here to offend (or break any rules for that matter). I simply wanted to correct something that appears to be factually wrong. My apologies are extended to anyone who may have mistakenly taken offense by that. My intentions were innocent.

Aside from that, I have nothing further to add or say on the matter. I think I've done a fine job on providing enough factual evidence to support a change in the text. Thank you

68.219.142.97 (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

As an individual who voluntarily intervened in that case, one thing that appeared a bit odd to me was the abstruseness of the argument. Since Misplaced Pages is supposed to be built from secondary sources, I do not understand the need to get into such a complex discussion about the issue itself. I would have thought that often discussion would revolve around which secondary sources to use and how to use them, rather than the nuts and bolts of what those sources are saying. In this case, I was confused with the reliance on a primary source full of legalistic language. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Intelligentsium#Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance/Requests#I Need Help So That The Templates Work

To input the cells, one would naturally use parameters, or arguments (such as <code>| name = value</code>). However, the difficulties lie in how one would name the cells (i.e., 1x1, or cell1) and how one would tell which are which. As each cell may have different CSS, this may make coding them more confusing than simply coding the table manually. In a manually coded table, it is fairly easy to tell what section of code would affect what cell, but in a template, this become confusing. There are also many options for table CSS, and how specific or unspecific to be with these with regards to template parameters might also be a hindrance.—

What difficulties would these be?174.3.99.176 (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, did you mean to post this here. Perhaps at User talk:Intelligentsium ? Jezhotwells (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

He didn't answer me.174.3.99.176 (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, you could check out Help:Table. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

kk.174.3.99.176 (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

???? YOu could also consider allowing time for the other editor to respond. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible Privacy issue.

I posted about this issue before ] and it still is not resolved despite following your advice. I have been writing on each user's talk page after I undo their edits, but I don't think they even look there and continue adding incorrect information. Gekkakou (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

As the edits appear to be from IP editors you could request semi-protection. A guide to this procedure can be found at WP:ROUGH. Requests for protection are made at WP:RFP. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment, though it may not apply directly to this case, since you are really objecting to the insertion of unsourced information. There have been several examples of artists shielding their true identities to create a mystique (call it a promotional gimick). Examples include The Residents and Nash the Slash, both of whom kept their identities secret for decades, until the internet (and Misplaced Pages) came along. (In the Residents' case, they dropped hints that they might really be The Beatles in disguise!) Their identities are no longer secret, and have been verified by checking publishing and royalty collecting records which show the artists' true names, and are viewable to the public. Questions have been raised about whether their true names should be removed from their Misplaced Pages articles, because that's presumably how the artists themselves would want it, and the conclusion is no, because "Misplaced Pages is not censored" and if these people are notable enough to have a Misplaced Pages article, then they do not have a right to this level of privacy. (See the talk pages, including archives, for these two artists for past discussions, and details on how the info was verified.) It's entirely likely that the true identity of the person you are asking about, can be verified using the same method used for others, so I don't see this as a privacy issue, but one of sourcing. Though you may not like the idea, the best solution is probably to look up the publishing info and accurately cite the artist's true identity in the article. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Being stalked by Helsinki based IPs

Have been stalked by various Helsinki based IPs. User has been sockpuppeting to gain "support" for his/her own edits. Has reverted many of my edits despite talk page attempted resolution by myself and has also been instrumental in attempting to stop my attempts at gaining rollback rights. Has today posted on NJAs talk page causing trouble in order to try to prevent me to gain these rights.

The IP has been asked to register for an account to stop sockpuppeting and harassment from taking place, but has not done so.

Has also threatened me with "termination" many times and has threatened to report me to a (fake) admin because of my reports (available below)

A mini-report of this IP set is available here. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

i see that you have already asked for admin help at User:NJA's talk page and that they have responded, with some useful suggestions. What else do you need from here? Jezhotwells (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This reply has nothing on what to do

This suggests the IP signs up, though I've yet to see evidence of that. Also says dispute resolution, but that's difficult when I've already taken that my talking to the person's various talk pages. The fact that harassment is still taking place and sockpuppetry was never punished. I really need these IPs banned because they're stalking me and causing trouble. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think that User:NJA indicated that this is not sockpuppetry. If the IPs keep edit warring then report at WP:3RR, if you feel you are being harassed then report it at WP:AN/I. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

To quote from the sockpuppetry page:

Strawman socks: Creating a separate account to argue one side of an issue in a deliberately irrational or offensive fashion, to sway opinion to another side.

This not an example of that (just substituting the word "account" with "IP")? Paralympiakos (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, if you think it is sockpuppetry the report it at WP:SPI. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem though. I don't know how to. That page confuses me. After clicking on the button to make a report, it says how I would be recreating a page that was already deleted. I've asked for admin assistance before (I think at one of the links I've left above) but have yet to receive any. Paralympiakos (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read the instructions at the top of the page. The bot is currently not working so you may have to ask a clerk to add your request. Make sure that you have all the the diffs (edits) to hand. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

As for asking a clerk, I've noticed that NJA is one and I basically asked for help from him/her. Unfortunately, that user has been absent for a while now. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

help with Chesterfield Idaho page

Resolved – discussion continues at article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm relatively new to Misplaced Pages. User Nyttend keeps reverting the page back because he says I'm violation copywrite, but will not give me examples. How do I change what is in violation when I'm not told what I'm violating?

Also, I think this is being very rude, especially to a newbie who would like assistance in correcting my mistakes.

bgwhite

Bgwhite (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, you have been posting text which is a copy or close paraphrase of the Chesterfield foundation Fall Newsletter, November 2009. In doing that you have also removed referenced text from the article. Further this edit includes an edit summary that states "Please do not revert page as Chesterfield Foundation board members are checking for errors.", which suggests that you have a conflict of interest. I have placed some useful links on your talk page. Please read up on the copyright and conflict of interest policies, which are important foundations of Misplaced Pages. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Please tell me what sections the I have copied or a close paraphrase so I can fix it. All I'm asking is tell me where it is. No, I don't have a conflict of interest. I'm not affiliated with the Chesterfield Foundation. When I asked them for permission to use photos, they asked me if I would correct any problems they found and I said yes.

Bgwhite (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I should clarify that the copyright violation allegation was made by User:Nyttend. Perhaps you ought to allow them time to respond to your comment which was only made 40 minutes ago. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have left a note about this discussion at the artcile talk page and User:Nyttend's talk page. It is usual practice to inform other involved editors when you are bringing issues like this to WP:EAR or other noticeboards. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I asked in the revision history page on 19:45, 27 February 2010 to tell me exactly where the problem was and I got yet another general response. I feel I'm just going back and forth. I will wait. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgwhite (talk • contribs)

Bgwhite (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry that I didn't do as you asked; I must have misunderstood what you meant. When this first came up, I found at least one passage (I think more, but I can't remember) in this version of the article that was word-for-word identical to one of the sources. I don't remember what it was now, and I can't find the passage in the original. Since board members are checking for errors, perhaps they've changed the source documents since this subject came up? I have other problems with this content, but as they're unrelated to copyright issues, I'll bring them up at the talk page. Nyttend (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Category tip

(crossposted from pseudoscience WikiProject):

Do we have a category for "pseudoscientific and fraudulent devices"? If so what is it - I can't find one. FT2 22:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds a little specific to me. I see at Special:Categories that the category Pseudoscience has either been deleted or not created. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Pseudoscience was created in 2004 and has never been deleted. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, it showed as a redlink in Special:Categories Jezhotwells (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

??

I have updated my page which appears to have been written by someone with bias against my involvement in 'drum and bass'/electronic music

I added facts including my winning 'Best Producer' since 2003 from Knowledge magazine (can be verified), and the consistently voted no.1 drum and bass track of all time 'the nine' specifically by 'Drum and Bass arena' also some other facts which are relevant to my career and status within what i do, and things i would like there as a lot of people in the music business use these pages as a point of reference. This has been disputed in some way by someone, i cant work out how to communicate with them directly, i also wanted to update the photo which was taken by somebody in a nightclub about seven years ago with a decent quality press photo, but noone has got back to me

help! : )

Dan Stein DJ Fresh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshbadco (talk • contribs) 17:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone did answer your concern above, on this page, with information about how to add a picture. (If you look at the contents at the top, the section is no. 17.) With regards to the edits you've made to the article, it's discouraged to actually write about yourself or subjects that you are involved with. It's considered a conflict of interest. You'd be better off making suggestions for any changes you'd like made at Talk:Fresh (musician). Also, if you look at the history of the page, you can see who has reverted your edits, and why, and you can contact them by clicking on the link that says "talk" after their name. Hope this helps. Regards, --Beloved Freak 17:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure whether to assume good faith

Hi all,

This user has made some contributions to the bleach article which I'm having difficulty with — they aren't obvious vandalism in my eyes, but they fall far short of what is expected of content. He has removed a large chunk of unreferenced text (fair doos) but did so in a very roughshod way, leaving a paragraph with half an opening sentence. He then added an (unreferenced) statement on the dilution of bleach which is unencyclopaedic. The user has a history of non-communication; any messages left on his talk page will be blanked as soon as they are noticed. One of his accounts is banned (User:Killspammers) and another (User:Thekiller35789) is used to primarily ask questions on the refdesks, which occasionally include links to shock sites. I'm still fairly new to WP so I don't know how to handle him or what action (if any) should be taken. Brammers (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean by roughshod. First action is to undo the edits to Bleach since those are pretty obviously flawed in many many ways. I will do that. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, to answer your question: yes, assume good faith. He clearly doesn't care about capitalization, grammar, or referencing text. Still, he isn't vandalizing (much) and he is actually trying to add content. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I will do, and thank you so much. He's actually responded to a comment I left on his talk page this evening, which is a pleasant surprise. Thanks again for the quick response :) Brammers (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Please Edit the page on Jarno Saarinen - motorcycle racer

This article suggests Saarinen was the first to win the Daytona 200 on small-displacement machinery. Here is the statement: "Saarinen's 1973 season started amazingly well, as he became the first European rider to win the prestigious Daytona 200 race in the United States on a TZ350 against much larger-capacity opposition."

Yes, it's a sort of truth. He was the first European winner, and he was the first to win on that particular model of Yamaha, the TZ350, but he was not the first to win it with a small displacement engine against the big stuff(350 cc, vs the 750 cc allowed at the time). The year before (1972), Don Emde won it with a TR3 Yamaha, also of 350 cc. The TR3 is virtually identical to the first TZ350's as Saarinen used in 1973, except Saarinen's engine was water-cooled, giving it a large advantage over its predecessor in long distance races like the Daytona 200. As well as being the first small-displacement victory in the Daytona 200, and the smallest displacement ever, by the way, Don Emde's victory, because it was done with an air-cooled engine, was much more of a challenge than Saarinen's.

Something should be changed in the sentence quoted above to correct the perception that what Saarinen accomplished at Daytona was unique, or pioneering. In fact, Yamaha brought Saarinen over to the US to run the race for international variety in what was considered to be one of the world's most prestigious motorcycle races, even though it was not on the World Grand Prix Championship circuit of events. The Daytona 200 is/was about twice the distance of a World Grand Prix event, providing many different challenges to Europeans, such as tire wear, need to re-fuel mid race, rider endurance, tactics, high banked turns, etc. Yamaha knew that many private US, Canadian and South American riders with over-the-counter air-cooled Yamaha's would have high odds of winning, even with the previous year's 1972 air-cooled technology. They knew the new water-cooled bikes would be even better. Though an air-cooled victory would have done OK for marketing purposes, the best thing for them was a victory by a European using the new water-cooled technology. Yamaha wanted a water-cooled bike to win because it would sell more racers as well as street bikes, and fuel consumer appetite in Europe as well. They made sure of that by sending a superior factory-special example of the new water-cooled bikes with the very popular newly-crowned 250cc European World Champion aboard, Mr. Saarinen.

So I think the statement should be changed to read:

Saarinen's 1973 season started amazingly well, as he became the first European rider to win the prestigious Daytona 200 race in the United States. He used the new Yamaha TZ350 against much larger-capacity opposition, duplicating the previous year's winning results by Don Emde, who rode an earlier air-cooled 350 cc Yamaha, the TR3.

The reference on which to base this change is found in Misplaced Pages under the Daytona 200, and in the annals of racing history.

Thanks, Tony Lowe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximumsmoke (talk • contribs) 00:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Misplaced Pages! Ok, you have an account so you can edit the article yourself. I have posted some links on your talk page which I recommend that you read before you actually do any editing. Remember that you should find relaiable sources for any information you add. The suggested sentence you quote above is not encyclopaedic - words like amazing represent a point of view (yours) and should not be used in teh artcile. The language used in an encyclopaedia should be neutral, reporting the facts in a balanced manner. Please read up on our policies and especially the tutorial - there is a lot to learn. Good luck. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

actor parthiban

i am krishna, film director r.parthepan sir's associate. i saw the artcle about actor parthiban was lot of errors, and plenty of wrong information. so kindly change the wrong information, because he is well known person in india, espesially south india. if u want any clarification about actor parthepan,please check www.parthepan.com

regards,

krishnamurthy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishnaakittu (talk • contribs) 04:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you post specific concerns with errors you may have noticed at the article talk page, Talk:R. Parthiban. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

disputing definitional assertions

Article fails to note that the terms "sexual violence" or "sexually violent predator" are used, in a legal context throughout the United States, to denote actions or behaviors which do not involve the use of force or physical violence as these terms have always been understood.

As the term "sexual violence" has been redefined, it now includes any adult having "sexual contact" with a minor below a certain age (these ages vary by state from 14 to 18). The term "sexual contact" itself varies by state, as well, and can include fondling through clothing even if what is being fondled is not genitalia.

The mere act of having sexual contact with someone under that age is, as a legal definition, "sexual violence". No actual violence need be employed.

This is crucial to understanding governmental policy on sexual offending today and to providing a fuller, more balanced, view of the context in which these terms are used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidmkennerly (talk • contribs) 04:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, why don't you post your concerns at the article talk page and see what other editors there think? Jezhotwells (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Also note that articles at Misplaced Pages should have international context and should not limit themselves to definitions as they pertain to just one country. The article currently does not discuss legal definitions of the term for any particular country. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Barbara Baird-Filliter

I have never read the Wiki material concerning me until recemtly and I wish to edit some of it. There are errors, the most important one for me at this time.....my appointment to the Court of Queen's Bench in 2007. PLease contact me at <email redacted>. 142.139.0.53 (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't edit the page yourself as you have a conflict of interest. I am placing some useful links on your user page. I have removed your email address as per our policy at WP:Personal information. If you have information that you wish corrected, please post it with WP:reliable sources at the article discussion page, Talk:Barbara Baird Filliter. If there are contentious issues which you wish removed, please post at WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Click on any of the blue links in my message to get further further information. Citations have now been added to the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

the speedy deletion nomination

Hello,

I am wondering if there is a friendlier way of notifying someone that their article is under scrutiny. The way that the flagging is done seems very aggressive and does nothing to promote the use of your site. I did not post the information about our non profit organization in order to be thrust into an argument. The way it is now, it made me look at the flagger's page, and immediately I question whether his motives for flagging us is truly due to content, or due to his anti-religious stance. I do not want to be placed in such a defensive mode.

If you could change the wording of the nomination, Misplaced Pages would be much more user "friendly".

Sheree —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShereeK (talk • contribs) 19:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that you feel this way but please remember that large numbers of un-encyclopaedic articles are created every day and many are tagged for deletion in this way. The notice may seem a little abrupt, but if you wish to save the article you need to add references to reliable third party sources and write it in a neutral encyclopaedic way. I have left some notes at the article talk page. It might be useful to you to copy the article to your user space, so that you can work on it there and then ask here for someone to take a look and see if it is redy for mainspace. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You might also care to read the Misplaced Pages:FAQ. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The article has been deleted. If you ask the deleting admin nicely, at User talk:Accounting4Taste, they can probably copy it to your user space for you to work on and get into shape. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Personal Pages for Members of 7x grammy nominated band The Killers

Resolved – articles moved to user space and editor is working on them there. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I am looking to put up a personal page for each member of the international multiplatinum rock band The Killers (Island Def Jam Records, 15 million records+ sold). One of them (lead singer) has a page, the other three do not yet (they were deleted each time). These members each perform interviews for various international publications. They each have fan groups and they have each been featured for their superior talent at their instruments in internationally published (ie. 'Bass Guitar Magazine' cover June 2009, 'Bass Player' Magazine, 'Drummer' Magazine cover June 2009, 'Rhythm Magazine', 'Modern Drummer' Magazine, 'Drumhead Magazine', and 'Guitarist' Magazine May 2009, etc) magazines.

What do I need to do to restore/write wikipedia pages for these guys? I am more than happy to have my proposed pages approved by a wikipedia staff member. I am sure that you will find that they meet all standards for personal pages. Below I have written some of the publications that each can be seen in individually. The actual publications I can provide sources for or they can be found also at the painstakingly collected www.thekillersfansite.com. I can find many more publications like these if needed.

Dave Keuning: About.com (interview) Main Stage Centrail (T in the Park, Scotland, interview) Musicradar.com (interview) Whisky Soda: Alt Music Magazine (Germany, interview) Rolling Stone Magazine (Spain, Nov 2008, interview) HotPress (Feb 2009, interview) Colorado Springs Independent (newspaper, Jan 2009, interview) stuff.co.nz (Jan 2009, apology for show cancellation and interview) Timeslive (interview about show at the "Dome") TVNZ (interview) threedworld.com.au (Feb 2009, Australia, interview)

Mark Stoermer: Studio Brussell (Germany, interview) Lowlands Festival (UK, interview) Bass Guitar Magazine (March/April 2007, interview) Las Vegas City Life (interview) muziek.nl (June 2009, rt before Pink Pop Music Festival, Netherlands, interview)

Ronnie Vannucci Jr: Auckland BDO (Norway, interview) azcentral.com (interview) The Vine (interview) Drumhead Magazine (Oct 2008, interview) Rhythm Magazine (Nov 2008, interview) Louisville.com (Jan 2009, interview) National Post (Jan 2009, back stage in Toronto, Canada, interview) Modern Drummer (March 2009, interview) Edmonton Journal (April 2009, Canada interview) Vindy.com (May 2009, interview) Las Vegas Review Journal (interview) thebejinger.com (Jan 2009, China, interview)

Below are links to the starts of each of their articles--can you please restore these? I will polish them up to specks if you will do that. I think a better way to approach these this second time would be to focus on their instruments and the specs associated with them for the fans who are interested in playing like them, etc. Something similar to the pages up for members of the rock band Kings of Leon (Jared Followill, etc) <http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dave_Keuning&oldid=326671755>, <http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ronnie_Vannucci_Jr&oldid=309104025>, and <http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mark_Stoermer&oldid=326272613>.

Please help me. If you would read through this I am sure that you will find these persons worthy of wikipedia pages. Sincerely, Joe Meservy (on wikipedia 'waytagojoe') <email redacted>

You can also contact the management and law firm for each of these persons at http://www.reynolds-lawyers.com to confirm details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waytagojoe (talk • contribs) 21:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you work on the articles in your user space. I have copied each of them there to User:Waytagojoe/Dave Keuning, User:Waytagojoe/Ronnie Vannucci Jr and User:Waytagojoe/Mark Stoermer respectively. Add references to reliable sources and most importantly establish their notability outside of the band. When you think you have things fixed up, come back here and ask for opinions on whether they are ready for main space. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Please look over the following two pages (I am still working on the third) which I think are nearly ready for main space. I am happy to adjust as needed to make them worthy of wikipedia. Thank you for your help. User:Waytagojoe/Ronnie Vannucci Jr and User:Waytagojoe/Mark Stoermer

Sincerely, Joe Meservy --Waytagojoe (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, how can I add a photo to wikipedia for the Ronnie Vannucci page? Its pretty simple I am sure but I just don't have experience for it.--Waytagojoe (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Small inconsistency in World War 1 page

I noticed a small inconsistency when I was looking at the World War 1 page. - World War 1 page, BACKGROUND section, second to last paragraph, third to last sentence says "When Serbia acceded to only EIGHT of the TEN demands..."

Whereas below, in the BLACK HAND page, it states that NINE of the demands were met.

Follow links I've given below to get to the text I'm referring to. - World War 1 page (link provided above), section at top of page, second paragraph, second sentence, link to KINGDOM OF SERBIA. - Kingdom of Serbia page under section ASSASSINATION IN SARAJEVO, first paragraph, second sentence, link for BLACK HAND. - Black Hand page, IMPACT section, first paragraph, second to last sentence says "Serbia accepted all but one of the (10) demands..."

````Jeannine McIntyre —Preceding unsigned comment added by McJet (talk • contribs) 00:54, 3 March 2010

The best thing to do would be to post your concerns on the relevant talk pages, i.e. Talk:World War I, Talk:Kingdom of Serbia, Talk:Black Hand. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

References and internal links removed from article

Resolved – Jezhotwells (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

User "Alepinski" on 24 November 2009 removed all of the references and internal links (to other Wiki articles). I'm writing to ask if this was appropriate and if not, whether a wiki editor would please restore them.

Thanks much, Books2read (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Books2read

I have reverted and warned the editor. Must be the most delayed vandalism report that I've seen! :-) Jezhotwells (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Jamie Colby

Resolved – Jezhotwells (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I edited this article to remove the book promotion link.

http://www.backtolifethebook.com/

I did this as an objectionable link under the Wiki guideline below http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:External_links#In_biographies_of_living_people

....Links normally to be avoided

5. Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, the mobile phone article does not link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services.

Do you agree? Mojofan1945 (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree: this is an unambiguous spam link. The user who put the link there has put it back. I have reverted and warned the user. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply. Mojofan1945 (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

NCB Capital Impact

NCB Capital Impact is a national non-profit, 501c3 organization. I have been trying to update our page, which has been redirected to NCB. Although we are affiliated with them, we are a separate entity.

We should have our own page. Can someone please tell me what I am doing incorrectly and why my posts keep getting redirected? Uncle Dick is claiming I am a vandal, which I am not.

Thank you in advance for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arlingtron (talk • contribs) 17:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to improve Misplaced Pages. However, you shouldn't be adding articles for organisations that you are affiliated with. That is considered a conflict of interest. Misplaced Pages is not a directory or an advertising service. If the organisation meets out notability guidelines for inclusion, then someone else will get around to creating the article. It's not a matter of people or organisations deserving their own page, it's about creating an encyclopaedia that best serves its readers. If you are absolutely sure that it meets those notability guidelines, you could make a request at Misplaced Pages:Requested articles for someone else to create it, but please don't keep trying to do it yourself.--Beloved Freak 17:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit Tallest Buildings in Anchorage

Please advise.

Thank you.

Lorrie Jordheim <email redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordheil (talk • contribs) 18:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you mention this on the talk page of the artcile (Click the talk link above). It might be useful to contact User talk:Raime who seems to have done most editig to the article. The usual sources for building heights emporis.com and skyscraper.com list the building, but no height is given and they disagree on the number of floors, 15 and 13 respectively and completion 1985 and 1984 respectively. Neither of these sources are considered throughly reliable as anyone can register and contribute details. I can't find any news or journal articles either. The thing is a reliable source is needed. Perhaps there are offline sources available in Anchorage? Jezhotwells (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Article: Terrorfakt

Article about the band Terrorfakt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is obviously being edited by the band, who are attempting to use it as a source of biased promotion. Article content is sloppy, not concise, and contains randomly inserted images, with no text or captions. My attempts to clean the article up are being countered by the members of the band, one of which has messaged asking me to stop editing "his" page. I lack the time or ability to ensure that the article is properly formatted. Thanks for any assistance! Rivetheadx 20:17, 3 March 2010 (EST)

Comment Article has been nominated for deletion at WP:Articles for deletion/Terrorfakt (2nd nomination). Jezhotwells (talk) 03:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Scott (Kadlec) Allen

This article needs to be deleted. The information provided is not factual. Upon further research, Scott Allen Kadlec born in Minneapolis, MN on August 30, 1967 never attended University of Minnesota thus did not play college football at the University of Minnesota.

The Minnesota Fighting Pike only played in the 1996 season. There is no evidence of Scott on the roster for this team or for the Grand Rapids Rampage (Grand Rapids MI) which began playing under this name in 1998.

There also is no evidence that Scott played for the NFL during the 1987 strike season. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forevermn (talk • contribs) 04:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You can nominate the article for deletion at WP:AfD, instructions at that page. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Artcile has been nominated both at Afd and CsD. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Scott Allan Kadlec

There are two entries for Scott Allan Kadlec born in Minneapolis, MN on August 30, 1967(One for this name and one for Scott Allen Kadlec).

There is also no evidence that he tried out or played for the Miami Dolphins or the Minnesota Vikings. Neither organization has record of Scott in any capacity.

The research done for the posting for Scott Allen Kadlec would also apply to this post (He did not attend thus did not play for the University of Minnesota.)

This posting also needs to be removed immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forevermn (talk • contribs) 04:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User with large number of unscaled images on his page

JB50000 (talk · contribs) was recently blocked and during that time has started putting large numbers of full-size images on his talk page. My browser doesn't have a problem with it, but another user complained that the images are giving his browser problems, and tried to add 200px to them to make them manageable. JB has reverted him repeatedly, though:

I don't know if there are specific guidelines about this, which is why I'm posting here. I know normally a user's talkpage is his own domain (and, for example, I've never seen a user get in trouble for not archiving a talk page even if it's so long it causes load time problems), but in this case are there any grounds for doing something so that his talk page isn't inaccessible? Or should we just let it alone? rʨanaɢ /_contribs 05:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Between the enormous pictures, the huge expanse of empty spaces this editor left between his pictures and his block notice, and the messages he's left telling people to be kind to him, I get the feeling this editor is just trying to distance himself from his current block. As I told him on his page, images like that are really more suited to his user page than his talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 05:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Reconsider Advertising tag

Alterations have been made to the article to remove anything that would be promotional, please reconsider the advert tag. ~~New2~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by New2 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I have removed promotional language, added references and removed the tag. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I have an old photo of Leo Laliman, Bordeaux, France

Leo Laliman was a known person during the winecrisis in 1869 -1880. On Misplaced Pages there is only a cartoon drawing of Leo Laliman. The history deserves better. I have an old photo of him. But do not know how to replace the cartoon with this picture. To whom can I send this picture, so it can be installed on Misplaced Pages? Best regards S Erik Hansen Norway

E-mail : <email redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.189.51.228 (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here. I removed your email address as this is a highly visible page and we answer queries here, not by email. If you wish to upload an image you need to look at Misplaced Pages:Files for upload. As you don't appear to have an account, you can submit a request there. As the picture is likely to be out of copyright it probably qualifies. If you get an account and make some edits, you will be able to upload it yourself. I have put some links on your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to remove the borders. How do I do that?174.3.110.108 (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No padding, no margins. What other parameters are there?174.3.110.108 (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Help desk is the best place to ask, if the template documentation at Template:!xt3/doc doesn't help you. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Psi Division

I am trying to avoid a revert war on this topic. Unfortunately I have noticed that one user has revert these kind of corrections before. It boils down to three simple conflicts:

1. The article title - it is currently Psi Division but it should be Psi-Division, with the hyphen;
2. Psi-Judges instead of Psi Judges; similar thing; and
3. Capitalization of the title, Judge rather than judge.

The comic strip this relates to always uses the hyphen and also always capitalizes the word Judge (or any variant thereof). See for examples. Should we not follow this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.252.129.53 (talk) 13:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You could try talking to the other editor and attempting to reach consensus. That is why talk pages are provided. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Can an administrator please put the text of deleted article List of countries by number of islands as a page in my user space?

I want to see the text of the article. Regards, --Base and Spoiled Female (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You need to ask User talk:Ian13, who deleted it. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

insert logo from German wikipedia

I am trying to upload the logo of the German article on the Center for Integrated Protein Science Munich () into the Center for Integrated Protein Science Munich article. Trying the upload in EN wiki commons and insert route got the logo deleted from the EN commons page for copyright reasons. So this attempt already failed. Is there anyone to help inserting the logo? Copyright status should be similar to any official university logos/COAs (e.g. fooling around with it on personal letters could get your butt kicked legally). ScienceRulez (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You need to upload it to en.wiki, not commons, and you need to provide a non-free use rationale. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

See WP:LOGO and {{logo fur}}, and the logo-specific upload form: go to Misplaced Pages:Upload and click on the logo link. – ukexpat (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

97.118.23.47 and Music of Denver Article

I need assistance with this article. IP 97.118.23.47 has edited disruptively and has engaged in 3RR editing. I can no longer revert because of the rules, and seems to engage because of some vendetta against other users as noted in some of his edits on the actual article page. In his edit descriptions, he has called other users Nazis and other misguided labels. Admins will not block him, citing that dispute res. is the way to go. Cutno (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

User:97.118.23.47 has been blocked. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

More language or dialects

I live in Hawaii, USA where there is a large group of ethnicity, to name some - Japanese, Chinese, Samoans,Portuguese,Filipino, Hawaiian, Korean, Tahitian, Tongan, Micronesian, Caucasian and those multi-race children of mixed unions who (for most) still speak and read the language/dialect of their parents' origin.

It would be great if one day we'll see you including some, if not all these language/dialect in your articles.

Thank you, JerlynnMICH30 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JerlynnMICH30 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the English Misplaced Pages so all the articles here are in English. There are Wikipedias in other languages, see this list. – ukexpat (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Update on Personal Pages for 7x Gammy Nominated Internatinal Group the Killers

Also, how can I add a photo to wikipedia for the Ronnie Vannucci page? Its pretty simple I am sure but I just don't have experience for it.

Sincerely, Joe Meservy--Waytagojoe (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, please read this: Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article. at the notability guidelines for musicians. Basically you need to demonstrate that the musicians are notable, independently from the band. And you have not shown that in these draft artciles. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Please help me with this. These members have both been on the cover of international musician publications for their musicianship. Also, according to the 4th point in notablity, "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." On both pages under references near the end I have posted interviews that these musicians did individually for national concert tours in different countries (Ronnie=China, Mark=Norway, etc) How doesn't this meet the required criteria, especially noting that these musicians are both recognized by their fellow musicians as extraordinary and that with their band they meet all 12 possibilities for notability? Please take into account and consult about how this compares to say the pages for the individual members of the Kings of Leon. They are known for their one band and yet each have individual pages (they have not played nearly the large festival lineup that these individual members of the Killers have streamlined to headlining).

Thank you for your seriously diligent work. Looking forward to your response. --Waytagojoe (talk) 06:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. is the crucial phrase here. As to the Kings of leon members, WP:Other stuff exists, explains why that is not justification. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

LumenVox

I am an employee of a company that I believe deserves an article on Misplaced Pages, but I am reluctant to post the article myself due to my obvious conflict of interest (I believe in the past my company had some employees post articles which were then deleted). I have written a draft of the article at User:Stephen_Keller/LumenVox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and would like feedback on whether it is sufficiently NPOV, researched, and if it meets the notability guidelines. Any help is appreciated. Stephen Keller (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you demonstrate that your company meets the criteria of Misplaced Pages:Notability (organizations and companies)? Jezhotwells (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe so. I have attempted to do so via a number of independent references to what I feel are reliable secondary sources. I would love to have the thoughts of any other editors as to the quantity and quality of sources. Stephen Keller (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Miss Nevada USA

Can someone help me with the correct policy at Miss Nevada USA? There are/were two images on there, both public domain & both relevant to the article (depicting former titleholders). New editor MyPageantPlace has removed these images, stating in the description "Removing OLD photos at the request of the state director". I reverted, explaining "REVERT This is an encyclopedia, not a personal website or one controlled by a state director. The photos are in the public domain and relevant to the article as illustrations of past titleholder". MyPageantPlace then reverted again, stating "Removing OLD photos at the request of the state director AGAIN". Before this turns into a full blown edit war, can someone please advise me as to the policy here? As I contended in the edit summary I believe the photos should remain on the article because they illustrate former titleholders, which is more or less the subject of the article and which is a convention in articles of this time. Can someone please offer some guidance? Thank you. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 00:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I have warned the user over the edit warring and their username which appears to be inappropriate. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

~~::I note also that your username may not be appropriate if it is created to edit beauty pageant articles. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)~~

Thanks. Can someone tell me what the actual policy here is? If someone wants images removed for reasons like this, do we have to accept that and remove them or can they stay on the article? (provided of course they're relevant & public domain). In other words, should the photos be put back on the article? (preferably by someone other than me).

As for my user name, I've been editing on here since 2006 (just hit 11,005 edits!) and you're the first to query my choice of username. If you check through my contributions list you'll see that while I primarily edit pageant-related articles (because that's a subject I'm interested in) I also edit & help with a wide range of other articles. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 01:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have looked at your edit history. It was the coincidence of your name with that of User:MyPageantPlace to lead me to say that. I withdraw that comment immediately. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No probs :) Thanks for your help with this earlier. Btw just to note that I did the referencing tonight so it should all be peachy now :D Cheers PageantUpdater talk • contribs 14:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to make it clear that I still have a question regarding this issue, if someone wouldn't mind taking a look (sorry if that is poor form, change if need be but I would still like an answer if possible). The question being, should the images be replaced on the article or not? Cheers PageantUpdater talk • contribs 10:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Cant see any reason why the images should be removed they are both properly licensed and show previous winners. Probably more concerned with BLP issues like Stripped of her title due to inappropriate photographs should really be referenced or removed. MilborneOne (talk) 10:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The photos aren't actually of the titleholder who was stripped of her title, so that isn't an issue although I agree the article needs referencing, I'll get on to that now. Since you agree they should be put back up, would you mind doing it? I just think I should avoid it to avoid the appearance of edit warring. Cheers, and thanks for the speeding response. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 10:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced the photos. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks! So sorry to be a pain about it, I just didn't want to exacerbate the situation so thought it would be best if someone neutral did it. I appreciate it :D PageantUpdater talk • contribs 11:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party movement dispute

Apparently, two editors of the Tea Party movement article got into a disagreement (or a series of disagreements) on Tuesday, March 2nd. This escalated until one editor (I'll call him editor A) reported the other editor (B) here for a 3RR-vio at about 0900 (UTC) on Wednesday, March 3rd. I became involved in the dispute at 1730 and attempted to mediate. The 3RR-notice was resolved at 2200 on March 4th with a No violation finding.

Since then, these two editors have made voluminous edits to the article on top of each other and produced many screenfulls of disagreements on the article's talk page. This includes the following sections:

Fox>Problem sentence? (the latter part)
No violation.
Remaining Fox fixes (if any) and no squabbling
background
Too much for me

Now (according to editor A's user talk page), editor B is preparing a notice of edit warring against editor A. I have just heard that another editor (neither A nor B) has accused editor B of a Wikiquette violation here. Both editors A and B claim that there is nothing personal involved. I have tried to calm things down but, so far, I've been unsuccessful.

I believe this dispute is damaging the development of the Tea Party movement article and inhibiting other editors from participating. If you look at the article's history, you'll see that virtually all edits made since March 5 are by the these two. I also don't want to edit the article under these conditions because (a) I may be accused of bias, no matter what I edit, and (2) I'm afraid that anything I do will be reverted (I think innocently) in the clash between these quarrelsome editors.

Although this conversation is supposed to be private, I'm almost certain that one or both of the editors in question are monitoring my contributions and probably will read this (and possibly object). I have decided to take a break from Tea Party affairs over the weekend. Is there anything else I can do when I return on Monday? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Coxeter-Dynkin diagram symbolic image

A user User:Koavf made massive conversion (to 150 articles), replacing PNG symbolic graphics with inferior SVG graphics another user tested a couple years ago. This user complained because I reverted his edits completely rather than sorted various changes, since a majority were SVG conversions, and it took me an hour to do what I did. He has some sort of moral authority that says PNG is inferior and must be replaced, and he's going to undo all my reverts "when he has the time". How is this resolved? The piece-wise images to the diagrams are described at talk:Coxeter-Dynkin diagram. Tom Ruen (talk) 08:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There is conflict duscussion here: User_talk:Tomruen#SVG. Tom Ruen (talk) 09:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to comment that some of Tom's value judgements above may be a little hasty. My main response is on the linked conflict discussion. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Verification

Dear Wiki editor/whoever gets this,

I wrote a biography of Irving Stowe, which Wiki accepted and posted.

Some months later, I saw that someone had posted a notice asking for further verification where I had written that he "has been called the father of Greenpeace". I had cited a source originally to verify this, found another one, and added it. However, I decided the Wiki article on Jim Bohlen, another co-founder, which states that probably about six persons could be considered founders, is more accurate, and changed my wording to align with this. I replaced "father of Greenpeace" with "a key founder of Greenpeace" (which I doubt ANYONE would dispute, particularly Greenpeace itself, makes numerous references to Irving Stowe as a key founder, on various websites around the world).

What I want to know is, when will someone recheck the bio, and...if this change of wording is accepted...remove the "citation needed" note?

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauriebreathe (talk • contribs) 02:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If you added or changed the citation, you should remove the {{citation needed}} template/tag yourself. This is a quote from Template:citation needed: "Please remove the template when you add a citation for a statement". After the tag is removed, visit the page in a two days and then again in two weeks. If in two weeks there is no change, you can be fairly certain that your modification has been accepted.

If you did not add or change the citation, please do so, removing the citation-needed tag. See here if you need instructions on constructing the reference.

If the tag is re-entered, you should not simply remove it again. Instead, go to the talk page and start a new section (after first finding out if a section on your change exists already). Explain what you've done and ask the other editors why the cn-tag has been re-applied. Again, wait for 2 days and 2 weeks before you expect an answer. If the tag reappears again without a talk page explanation, you'll have to go into the History to determine who re-entered it. Hope this helps. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 05:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Assistance requested on Sumedh Singh Saini article to prevent edit warring and preventing violation of WP:BLP

I request editorial supervision on the article Sumedh Singh Saini. There are egregious violations of WP: BLP guidelines. This article is about a serving police officer in India.

A content dispute is being sought to be passed off as vandalism. Misplaced Pages editorial guidelines are being gamed to present an extremely lopsided view of this person't biography. All negative references have been quoted over and over again and any positive reference , however well sourced, is deleted on flimsly ground by the user Dawn of the Blood who joined on Feb 20 only. Previously, he has used his ip socks to give the appearance of consensus for his controversial edits.

Not only this , he has issued me an unauthorized "Final Warning" over a content dispute.

Admin assistance is requested for the above reasons. Some response on my user talk page or the discussion page of the Sumedh Singh Saini article would be very much appreciated. Thanks--History Sleuth (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Respected wikipedia community, I am open to any discussion on this matter. Here are some of the details.

Since it is a wp:BLP hence respected editor User:History Sleuth was requested to use duly referenced text only. His text is not supported by his own references. Please see the points I raised here
He/she has been encouraged several times edit 1, edit 2 but he did not address the issues, please see his reply. I again encouraged his to address the issues
Instead of answering my points, he used the rollback feature which per Misplaced Pages:Rollback can only be used to protect an article from vandalism. Please see here and here.

Again, this user is trying to pass off a legitimate content dispute as vandalism. Infact he is the one who vandalized the artcile by removing well sourced edits and then making token attempt at discussion to hide the liberties that he took with the rules and etiquette.--History Sleuth (talk) 04:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Then he was duly warned and again requested to address the issues. but he changed the warning text by saying an editor (me) can not warn him.

An unauthorized threat of blocking was to intimidate another editor over a content dispute. You don't express "desire to discuss" by issuing a "final warning" and threat of blocking which you are neither empowered nor authorized to issue in first place. The issue should have been referred to Admin for resolution if there was any sincere attempt to comply with Wiki guidelines in proper spirit. Thanks. --History Sleuth (talk) 04:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to work with him, but strictly under wikipedia policies only so I adviced him to get familiar with wikipedia policies but he is not willing to follow my advice.
Regarding me and my IP 24.5.208.21, there is no violation of any wiki policies because I duly documented my association with my IP which I used in the past when I did not have wiki account (please read the edit summary of this edit as well).

Please note that this user joined wikipedia only on Feb 20 and is showing uncanny ease with the use of Wiki tags and hyperlinks. There is a good reason to suspect that he has other accounts on wikipedia and he is much older user who has created this new account for a special purpose to avoid scrutiny. Thanks --History Sleuth (talk) 04:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

How come all the IP addresses on that article trace back to California?--History Sleuth (talk) 04:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Addendum: I stand corrected on this part. Only two IP addresses trace back to Californial. --History Sleuth (talk) 04:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyways, I believe that wiki policies are there to improve this great pedia, I would again advice the respected editor to get familiar with wiki policies while editing wiki articles.
I am willing to work with him as my edits indicate here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here.
Kind Regards --DawnOfTheBlood (talk) 04:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

--History Sleuth (talk) 04:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Dr Andrew Wakefield and General Medical Council

I am a doctor wo specializes in autism spectrum disorders. I looked up Dr Andrew Wakefield and found the GMC propoganda, with NIL balancing advocacy, - (as is usual in these cases I must add). I signed-in & made some changes a la instructions. Spent quite some time, and added very appropriate references that had been completely ignored by the GMC, because they efficiently countered their accusations. I then closed down, and re-opened to see my work. It was not there. It also contained a very well written letter to the GMC, by many ASD USA doctors. Can you tell me what may have happened? I am willing and ready to do this this again. There are now 1 in 36 boys with autism in the UK (Cambridge Study, Prof Baron-Cohen Jan 2009 ).

AutismTruth —Preceding unsigned comment added by AutismTruth (talk • contribs) 07:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

According to your contributions history, you have not made any prior edits under this ID. I see some edits to Andrew Wakefield were made from an un-signed-in editor on March 2. The article before and after these edits has serious BLP issues, and should probably be brought to the attention of Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Need more eyes at Emotion-based therapy vs. Emotionally-based therapy

A concern has been raised regarding the recent redirection involved here. We need a few more eyes looking at this as I posted to WP:PSYCH a few days ago and no one has commented at all. This is an OTRS issue. Please see Talk:Emotion-Focused Therapy for details. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Kerry Washington "Early Life" verification

Hi,

I noticed that someoe posted some information Kerry Washington, but I noticed there is math error and there is no source to back it up. It's where the writer put:

She performed with the Tada theater teen group in 1985, when she was fifteen years old.

Since she was born on January 31, 1977, then in 1985 she would performed at the age of 8, not 15 years old as stated. If she did performed at Tada theater at the age of 15, then shouldn't it be 1992/93? I read that the Tada theater group did start up in 1984 and the article stated they were for all kids, and on their website verified she was part of the group, but didn't say when she was there.

Since there is no citation for this fact, I wanted to know how that could be found and corrected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deafiemia (talk • contribs) 15:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Violation of the neutrality policy and insults against editors

1. I am experiencing violation of the neutrality policy on the pages on Macedonia (designation of the Alexander The Great as a "Greek king" (ethnic designation), when he was simply Macedonian king, designation of Cyril and Methodius as Greeks (ethnic designation) when it is only certain that they were Byzantines. 2. In addition even the administrators accepts the explicit propaganda material which is compiled from the nationalist sites, in spite of my warnings and full information. 3. And, unfortunately, I have been exposed to insults from GK1973 in various forms in the last 3 months. The person has not been even warned by the administrator. 4. That person dumps on my talk 30 sides of material and dumps similar quantity of unreferenced affirmations on the discussion pages.

This obstruct the discussion and the insult offend me so that i would greatly appreciate your help. I already asked for help and I WAS blocked instead for a week! Therefore, I would prefer an independent (who is not active on the pages on Greek history, and, this may be strange, non-Greek, non-Macedonian and non-Bulgarian - since they are all susceptible to be subjective) Administrator to look into the matter. Discussion Pages: Macedonia (ancient kingdom) Alexander the Great Cyril and Methodius Thank you very much indeed. Sincerely.17:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Draganparis (talk • contribs)

Oh please stop trolling wikipedia. Isn't one block and several banned sock-puppets enough already? And when you make accusations give references, your "word" is not evidence. Simanos (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

need help editing and posting article

"Climatic Research Unit hacking incident" talk pages

Hi there.

I've been trying to discuss what I view as a problematic title for the "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident" article. I made my first comment on 11:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC) and my last comment at 00:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC). In that time span, the discussion was archived twice in what appears to be an effort to stifle debate. I am finding that the discussion threads are being aggressively archived such that a proper discussion lasting more than 12-20 hours is impossible. One of the editors also promptly accused me of sock puppetry. He later apologized, but the fact that he did so without evidence was off-putting. Is this standard procedure? It sure doesn't make me want to contribute anything more. --Chadhoward (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:

Misplaced Pages help forums