Help:Contents

General Site directory • Editor's index • Image and media copyright • Admins' noticeboard • Incidents • General sanctions • Page protection • Page importation • Bot noticeboard Content Content noticeboard • Biographies of living persons • Ethnic and religious conflicts • Fiction • Fringe theories • Original research • Neutral point of view • Reliable sources • Copyright violations and wide-scale infringements • Spam • Proposed mergers • External links User issues User page help • New user help • Editor assistance • Help desk • Vandalism • Improper usernames • Open proxies • Sockpuppets • Oversight • Long term abuse • ISP reporting • Conflict of interest Noticeboards Edit warring & 3RR • Wikiquette alerts • Arbitration: Requests / Enforcement • Mediation: Formal / Informal • Requests for comment • Requests for feedback • Drawing board

Editor Assistance: Requests

Shortcuts: WP:EAR WP:RFEA The description of the issue with which you need help should be concise and neutral. If you are asking about an article that was deleted, please provide the exact title so that we can check the deletion log. Please avoid copying large quantities of article text to this page. Remember to sign your posts. Please click here to post your request. As always, please do not include an e-mail address or other private details.

If you would like quick access to some advice for the most common questions and issues, this can can be found in the Editor Assistance FAQ. Resolved, stale and other old discussions are archived, but if you need to return to an archived discussion, you can start a new section and note the old discussion. Assistants: Please tag each settled request as {{resolved}}; all other requests should be marked as {{stale}} after approximately five to seven days of inactivity. A thread can be archived after being tagged for two days.

Contents 1 dispute about Ruby McCollum listing 2 request for changes to stub about Kathleen Kenna 3 Personal Attacks 4 Vandalism complaints 5 Need additional editorial feedback on SmartDraw page 6 Naming my name against another article posted before registering 7 I simply wish to obtain more information on a 45 rpm record. 8 Concerned about an image 9 Biewer Terrier 10 Consistent Vandalism in Drift City Article 11 Need help with a reversion war that is starting 12 Wikipedia editors image contributions 13 animated demo? 14 Dunbar content 15 Posting Photos 16 Request for guidance on releasing article to Public 17 Help with editing 18 OR Cloud 19 When does an article contain too much information? 20 supplier incoming quality 21 Undo function 22 WP abbreviations 23 Scott Chisholm 24 content link 25 Central Yavapai Metropolitan Planning Organization 26 IP addresses of Users 27 Subliminal stimuli 28 Desert greening 29 Eric Schmidt article 30 Paine Field 30.1 What information is appropriate for the Paine Field Commercial Air Service Article? 31 Using YouTube video as source 32 Chris Gorog 33 Aeria Games and Entertainment 33.1 Help with Problematic Editing 34 Article on Oral Roberts 35 Authoritative sources wrong & OR 36 Shabby_chic and Shabby_Chic_(Brand) 37 New Aritcle 38 Request editing help 39 Dispute resolution assistance 40 Warn or Ban Suggestion 41 Updating/uploading an image 42 seabass or sea bass 43 Australia Day article

[edit] dispute about Ruby McCollum listing

Ruby McCollum (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I posted a complaint about the Wikipedia entry regarding Ruby McCollum. The Wikipedia reviewer agreed with me and steps were taken by the man who has deemed himself the expert in this area to resolve the problems I had, as well as additional problems the editor had. (see the talk page for this subject please) My aunt then reviewed what I was happy with, emailed me and I posted her comments. That's when things started to get ugly between me and the "expert," C. Arthur Ellis.

Here are my problems:

1) He keeps confusing a page about Ruby McCollum with a place to discredit my grandfather. He keeps putting in he was indicted, but never tells about the resolution of the indictments. I am not trying to change history; merely indicate that an indictment does not prove guilt, and he is including this information (and omitting so very much more about this person) to malign his character. If you read the main page, there it is again. It does no good to take it out; he puts it back.

2) If you see Ellis' talk entries, he has accused my family of buying off a newspaper that won't send him copies of articles. Not true and offensive to me and likely to the editor of the paper, to whom I sent a link to the article and talk page.

3) Ellis claims his books, for which the Wikipedia page was merely a sales sheet before he made edits, have received merits they have not. His own wife and co-author wrote the five star review in the Midwest Book Review and the claims as a "laud" a listing in the American Library Association book directory.

4) When I thanked him for removing a libelous book from the market, he owned up to having published something considered libelous, noted his changes and them went on the attack again.

I think Ellis should be barred from making edits to the Ruby McCollum pages and I, too, will accept being barred. He is no scholar and I'm about ready to get a lawyer over this fool.

Thanks,

Mary Paramore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.192.13.89 (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy, that talk page is not very nice. The IP who claims to be Ellis is completely over the top and some of your comments are not very good, even though you felt you were provoked. The article itself is completely un-encyclopaedic, badly referenced and verges on an attack page. I will see what others here think, but perhaps this should be taken to WP:ANI (correction) WP:Wikiquette alerts. Also please do not issue legal threts. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I would just reiterate that the final article needs to be verifiable and encyclopedic. Speulcation, gossip, merit discussion, plausibility about unknown or putative fringe/wacko ideas shouldn't be barred on the talk pages but there are issues about soap boxing and wikipedia objective irrespective of any legal issues. No one benefits from faud or deception, be it defamtory or unjustifiably flatering. Encyclopedias and other intellectual works have historically been targets for all kinds of legal restraint and I don't get the feeling that legal threats are taken too well here. Venting and banter make this more fun, but the hope is to make everything about the article not the people. It is clear in most cases, even hard sciences ( witness Climate Gate) , that personal issues to come up but wikipedia is not the place to settle those or make decisions of any kind for the readers beyond making some subjective decisions about source reliability. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

So noted about anything legal. That would not involve Wikipedia. That would be offline regarding libel in his books, not the "conversation" here. 163.192.13.89 (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Mary Paramore

[edit] request for changes to stub about Kathleen Kenna

hi there, Really appreciate someone posting a stub about me, but it requires some corrections and additions.

Kenna was a political reporter and deputy national editor at The Star for more than 10 years, then its Washington bureau chief (1997-2001). Opened the paper's first south asia bureau, based in mumbai, india, in 2001.

Covering the war in Afghanistan when attacked.

Two years of surgeries and rehabilitation in Canada, then moved to Berkeley.

At University of California, Berkeley, for one year (2004-2005) as International Visiting Scholar, School of Journalism, and Sproul Fellow at Canadian Studies Department. At San Francisco State University for 3 years (2005-2008), to get MS in Rehabilitation Counseling, specializing in traumatic brain injury and PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) in veterans returning from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Interned for 2007-08 at Swords to Plowshares, a non-profit in San Francisco aiding all veterans, especially the homeless and those with mental disabilities. Worked as a rehabilitation counselor at the California State Department of Rehabilitation, specializing in veterans with multiple disabilities. Now working as a writer and continuing education in counseling.

thanks, Kathleen Kenna —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkenna (talk • contribs) 21:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I would be happy to help, but while I see much additional content, I don't see a source for the information that meets the requirement for wp:verifiability. The wp:five pillars on which Wikipedia stands include that we only add content that is in published, verifiable, sources. If there is anything inaccurate that you wish to have removed, please let me know, as that is easier, especially in an article about a living person (wp:BLP). I will post this message on your user talk page as well.- Sinneed 22:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look and see what I can do. Some of the dates may be difficult to reference - (~24hrs)Shortfatlad (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

NOTE if you are willing to reveal it your date of birth would be useful.Shortfatlad (talk) 12:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attacks

Jim Wilkinson (U.S. politician) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Thank you in advance for your assistance. I am being personally attacked on my Wikipedia page. Jim wilkinson (US politician) is the page. Can I work with you to have my entire wikipedia page taken down? Or can I get you to put restrictions so that no one (including me) can edit the page? These attacks are causing me great personal harm. Thanks. Jim Wilkinson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.220.223.114 (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well the attack material has been removed. The article as it stands is unreferenced and not very encyclopaedic. However it seem that the subject is notable so it is likely that others will edit it in due course. If you feel that un-cited material is unduly biased, please raise the matter at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and articles should adhere to a neutral point of view. This may not accord with what the subject of an article feels is appropriate. Thanks for raising this here, and as you can see, un-cited attack material has been removed. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up a bit of what looked like damage, neutralized some wording. The article desperately needs sources.- Sinneed 01:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism complaints

I was on my page and I noticed that I have messagess about editing and vandalism. I have never edited a page or any content on wikipedia. If that is the case, someone else may be going through my id to edit content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.22.97 (talk) 04:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The "IP" you've got has probably been used by someone else before you. The address number can change and is 'randomly' assigned when:

• The computer is turned on and off
• The modem is turned on and off
• The internet provider does maintence.

To avoid this you can create your own account.Shortfatlad (talk) 10:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Need additional editorial feedback on SmartDraw page

Wikipedia editors,

Another co-author and myself have been trying to replace a deleted page about the software program SmartDraw and we've been working with the admin who deleted it tedder (talk). The working version of the page we're tinkering with can be found here: User:Emeseg/SmartDraw. Tedder has given us some feedback (Tedder on SmartDraw) which I am unclear on. Specifically, is it pro forma to consider a product manufacturer's description of their own product advertising, thus does every single feature description have to be backed up by third party sources?

Omgcapitalism (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

When the creator of, or major contributor to, an article has a conflict of interest their edits are going to receive greater scrutiny because of the COI. That's unavoidable as it is very hard for such contributors to write from a neutral point of view. However COI is not an insurmountable problem if neutrality can be maintained. Anything in the article that speaks to the notability of the subject should be supported by reliable sources. – ukexpat (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand. If there were a claim on that page arguing that SmartDraw is superior to an alternative product (there isn't such a claim currently,) I am in full agreement that validation from reliable sources is necessary. Will look for some additional sources ascertaining the product's notability. Thank you for the clarification. Is there anyone I can contact to move the page from User:Emeseg/SmartDraw to SmartDraw once we're finished so the editorial history can be preserved?Omgcapitalism (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that lengthy feature lists and the like are often symptomatic of an advertisement. Bullet lists, in general, are deprecated; use plain narrative text in most cases. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Naming my name against another article posted before registering

I had posted an article "Theory of trouble shooting" in haste without registering first under Root Cause Analysis. The same has been published by me in "scribd.com" as well with similar name with my login e-mail of "<removed>" (document no. 13748855). This mail id is also mine & I shall respond to any query raised to this mail id.

Now I want that "Theory of Trouble Shooting" contributed by "troubleshooter" may please be changed to contributed by "rajeev_naik123" so that I shall get better chances of UPLOADING IMAGES for some of my new articles. You can go through them in "scribd.com" (document no. 20209068 & 13731738 respectively). The content of these papers are important to be discussed with general public at large so I intend to upload them with images on wikipedia as well.

Can you help me in this endeavour please?

Rajeev naik123 (talk) 07:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't find an article on English Wikipedia with the title "Theory of Trouble Shooting". I looked at the site you mentioned and the essay there and would advise you not to post this on Wikipedia as it will swiftly be deleted. It is not an article, it is an unreferenced essay on some half-thought-out original theory. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a "social publishing company". Wikipedia articles are backed by verifiable and reliable sources. I will post some useful links on your talk page. If you need help with using the social publishing company webasite, I would suggest that you ask there, you would stand a better chance of getting help. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this but based on comments above it seems to be a somewhat common problem. From time to time, I think there are discussions about how to publish original research ( how to do a merit review) or even a wiki parody/comedy section. Social publishing or vanity press is not normally discussed here however. I have asked, and will ask you, how you would suggest wikiepedia do a merit review? This is not a rhetorical question to which I am convinced there is no good answer, but rather sincere since any incremental thoughts may be helpful. AFAIK you can't just have a decent " journal about everything" with expert merit review. But, if there is interest from wikipedia management, maybe there is some tractable way to approach this here. There are various e-journals that have varying degrees of stated and "Actual" review. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rajeev, as has been said this content is not suitable for Wikipedia. It is an essay that comprises original research, and is not encyclopedic. You may want to look for alternative places to publish this work, though you have already published it on Scribd. Another option is Google's Knol. Fences&Windows 18:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] I simply wish to obtain more information on a 45 rpm record.

I wish to get more information on a 45 rpm Epic Record number 5-10201. The Artist' name is: Robert Cameron, and the song title is: "I'll Get By (as long as I have you)". I need to know the release date of same. Not a hard question, but am getting tired of the 'runaround' frome page to page that is a waste of my time and am wanting to pull out my hair. Feel free to contact me at: <e-mail address redacted>. I await your response. Happy Holidays to one and all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.234.97 (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess this points to my crusade about "obscure but notable" topics and facts. Inclusion of this type of information anywhere is basically an editorial call, does wiki have any relevant articles and did you look? The record company should be authoritative more or less, do they have an online DB for references of their own works? This isn't really a general Q+A page, but if it helps clarify a role for wikipedia may be ok up to a point. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The Reference Desk is probably the best place to ask for assistance with this sort of question, but a quick Google search gives this hit - is that the one? – ukexpat (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Concerned about an image

The image associated with the Ellen Church article was uploaded by someone who apparently only speaks Russian; they have tagged the image as having an expired Argentine copyright, which seems unlikely. Does anyone know how to find out the copyright status of photos that are in the Smithsonian collection? (I believe that is where the photo is from.) Alternately, perhaps someone who writes Russian could leave a message for this person and ask them about the photo (and whether they even realized what the text they added said?) Brianyoumans (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions is the best place to ask about this. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking further into this as the image is sourced from a copyright page at the Smithsonian Institution, I have listed it at the WikiCommons deletion page [1]. I placed a template, which has a Russian option on the uploaders WikiCommons talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Biewer Terrier

The Biewer Terrier (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) page is full of misinformation. It appears to have been written by someone that knows nothing about the Biewer Terrier. When changes have been made to correct the current information it is changed back immediately by an autobot, without any investigation into the changes. There is only one club that is supported by the originator of the breed and that is the BTCA, Inc. You can see on that web site the endorsements of Mrs. Gertrude herself. Many links were provided for proof of what is being done for Biewer Terrier that have been removed.

If the correct information is not going to be allowed to be posted I request you remove the Biewer Terrier name and move all information to the Yorkshire Terrier page as a variation of the Yorkie. The Biewer Terrier is not a Yorkie.

I talk to Mrs. Gertrud Biewer every other week and visit her yearly. I believe I would be considered an authority on the breed as Mrs. Biewer has become a member and supporter of the BTCA, Inc.

BTCA To see signed documents by Mrs. Biewer

Purebreds Purebred dog web site

Detected Purebreds Purebreds that can be tested for

Breed Discription Purebred breed description by Mars Veterinary

Zarina1 (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, the article as it stands appears to be highly promotional in tone and very un-encyclopaedic. The one edit made by Cluebot, may be challenged - the link is in the revision history of the article. Any information in the article should be supported by reliable sources. Your personal knowledge is irrelevant her on Wikipedia. All statements should be properly sourced. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have listed the image used in the article at WP:Possibly unfree files/2009 December 10 as it is a possible copyright infringement. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Consistent Vandalism in Drift City Article

Article Link: Drift City (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Hello, In the wikipedia article on "Drift City", Drift City, there is consistent vandalism from an unknown user, posting how the game is falsely based on "The Transporter" film, and other false statements. The IP address of the offender keeps changing, this time showing up as 75.154.186.99 in the history section. The vandalism has had to be undone multiple times; something needs to be done about the vandal, as he or she continuous to disrupt the article in question. G.Ballblue (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If the vandalism continues, you can ask for page protection at WP:RPP. – ukexpat (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, what a mess the article is. It needs referencing to reliable 3rd party sources, a clean-up of grammar, spelling and style, compliance with WP:MOS. As to vandalism, many of the IP edits appear to be actually content differences. I see no evidence on the talk page of editors actually engaging in discussion about the edits of which you are complaining. No-one has placed templates on the user talk pages about the edits. Please read WP:Vandalism for further information on this. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Need help with a reversion war that is starting

Please take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Major_Overhaul, which explains pretty much the whole issue. In summary, I wrote up a detailed rationale for a major overhaul of WP:OUTCOMES on its talk page, with problem statement, solution, and a place to discuss said solution, and it was reverted by a Recent Changes Patroller. Said patroller initially cited WP:BRD, but when I pointed out he wasn't actually using the process as it is outlined and reverted his reversion, he reverted it back. Since then, other editors have reverted his reversion, and he's reverted them back. I'm not going to do any more reverts myself; I'd like to talk this out, but he doesn't seem to answer my questions or respond to my points. I feel he's digging in and not looking at the issue in a solution oriented manner. Can I get some help, please? ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 17:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You have an WP:RfC going so it is best to let others comment there. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I need an experienced editor to come in and mediate, I think. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 18:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:Mediation is that way. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If there's a revert war, good sir, it's because you started it. Are the two IPs who are taking your side sockpuppets, perhaps? Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I am those two IP addresses, (and this is a third) and I am not Noraft's sockpuppet. Notice how I only voted once? He's here asking for help in good faith, and you're following him around wikipedia casting aspersions and laying blame. Nice behavior for an administrator. Personally, I think you started the revert war with your first revert, and now you're holding the page hostage until you've decided there's been enough consensus. You've reverted the edits of three people now. Let it go. You don't own the page. Regarding consensus, nobody has come out strongly on your side, and I count four people (including myself) who have come out on Noraft's side, either before or after his original edit. Move on. 222.128.199.6 (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

So you're a meatpuppet, then? Sorry, but one user pushing a change hard + a bunch of SPA IPs who blindly support that user is not two editors. Those whom you count as expressing concurring opinions are in fact engaged in constructive dialogue with me on the talk page, while all you (singular, meaning Noraft+IPs) are doing is revert warring to some form of this monumental change against consensus. Want to earn some good faith? Engage on the talk page, stop pleading for other people to excuse your non-collaborative behavior. Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Good faith is assumed. I was also going to say don't bite the newcomers, but I took a look at the contribution history for the IP user who wrote above, and he/she isn't new, and isn't SPA. So can we stop with the allegations? Your evidence is weak (i.e. two people agreeing must be in cahoots if one is unregistered), and the investigation ruled against you. I think this just distracts from the main issue, which I've put up for mediation. I'm making attempts to resolve this, first through discussion, then through an RFC, and now through informal mediation. Hopefully we'll see something positive come out of this at this step. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 02:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia editors image contributions

I am looking for assistance regarding the use of images and illustrations that do not introduce new ideas and abide to the WP:NOR but can be perceived as such by other editors. I am referring in particular to this case. Thanks.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you consider carrying on contributing to the debate at Talk:List_of_alleged_alien_beings#RfC_on_pictures as that is where the matter will be decided by consensus. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] animated demo?

I have animated instructions for how to do the basic needlepoint stitches. Am I able to contribute them? Needlemaven —Preceding unsigned comment added by Needlemaven (talk • contribs) 19:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Starting an article. It would need to be cited from verifiable and reliable sources. If is is essentially original research then it will be swiftly deleted. You may find some useful information at WP:Starting an article. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a how-to guide, so I doubt these instructions should be hosted on Wikipedia. Depending on what these instructions are, it is possible that we might want to link to them from Needlepoint. Fences&Windows 23:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Or if they meet the requirements for Commons, they could be uploaded there. – ukexpat (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dunbar content

I would like to request that on the Dunbar, Wisconsin content page you would add the existence of the one local church in the area.

It is Dunbar Community Bible Church. The website is DCBC4God.org if you would like to include the link. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.230.215.234 (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If the church is notable, why not be bold and make the addition yourself? – ukexpat (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not notable, so please don't add it. It only gets two Google hits, and of course there are others local churches. Fences&Windows 23:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Posting Photos

Hello Can someone please tell me how to post posts of navel ships on pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astraldunepirate (talk • contribs) 23:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi - Wikipedia:Images is a good place to get further information on uploading images. Please do not post copyrighted images as they will be deleted, all images must comply with Wikpedia's image use policy. I have placed some useful links on your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request for guidance on releasing article to Public

I am Keakea123 - or Frank Summers I have put up an article about CHRIS SHAW and it is in my User section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keakea123

I have tried to amend/change it as a previous helper suggested. I am not much good at this, but it seems to me now that it is about the same informatioon as the one for Danny La Rue.

May I have further comments/criticisms please so that I can get this released ?

Appreciate you comments, Regards, Frank —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keakea123 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly you should move this to a user subpage, such as User:Keakea123/Chris Shaw, rather than your user page. The article is unreferenced, does not follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style guidlienes for article layout. I see that two other ediors ahve commented at your talk page to this effect. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Help with editing

Colorpuncture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I am new to Wiki editing - and am already completely frustrated. Every edit I have made has been reverted immediately by two other editors reverting more than three times a day and now I have been accused of violating the three times a day rule. I have stepped only briefly into the discussion but have found that largely one-sided as well.

Initially, I attempted to address only one instance, the problem with the article immediately stating via a quote: "There is no known anatomical or histological basis for the existence of acupuncture points or meridians.[2]" This is one man's (Felix Mann's) biased opinion and does not reflect current research in this area (published in 1996) as articulated in detail in the wiki article on Acupuncture. This item has been discussed previously in regards to this article and others have requested change here. I changed that area to remove the biased reference and refer readers to the full discussion of acupuncture on Wiki - which was immediately reverted.

It appears that these editors insist on slanting this article to their own bias and refuse to allow any other information to be provided by others included already discussed and added info on acupuncture in the wiki on that topic. Other edits that I made were to change "belief" to "theory" which of course something is a "theory" rather than a "belief" if it can be researched and I added other references (which I may need to do a better job of sourcing - please excuse that as newbie status). However, these other editors do appear to desire to give a negative slant to the subject of Colorpuncture rather than allowing for a multi-perspective and unbiased presentation of the current information on this topic.

As a newbie, I do not know how to approach this when it seems I am being stonewalled by these editors in adding anything to the article. What are their qualifications to be deciding here what is posted and what is not? Though I made various other edits - some quite minor - none remain.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantummech (talk • contribs) 16:14, 12 December 2009

There are wiki guides etc for dealing with medical topics. Pesonally I've run into a whole spectrum of contribs and it is possible that a small group or single editor can bring a tone to an entire article. Certainly there are people who either reject or accept various alternative theories out of hand and balance in content between popular beliefs and better tested ideas can be difficult and subjective. Try posting here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine for more complete guidance and I may try to post some sources on the related talk page. The objective here of course is documenting the state and past state of human thought on a topic, not settling a debate, but of course no one wants to mislead readers and there can be a tendency to push certain viewpoints out of various motives. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It's quite simple: you're making unsourced changes. This is original research. You need to provide sources for all edits, not just add your own personal knowledge. I've reverted your edits again. Fences&Windows 22:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] OR Cloud

People skills (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A user inserted an OR box above the People Skills article and raised questions on the talk page. (Note: The user who uses several names including, AJCham and DrMandrake, has been against the article from the outset and initially by assuming the role of Helper caused its Quick Deletion. Subsequently, there was a several month process of re-writing the article.) After clarifications by editors and citations from reputable sources, requests were made to remove the OR box.

In response, the user complained about two content references being insufficiently explicit. Two changes were made to further tighten citation linkage and reference connection. The user still objected and initiated a Request for Comments. During the following 30 days visitors made a few minor changes. There were no comments about Original Research and/or Synthesis. Over 150 visitors per day continue to view the article. What are the relevant policies and procedures for removal of the OR box? PSY7 (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no point a tag remaining on an article if there's no clear idea why it's there. Individual problematic parts can be tagged without having to have a glaring banner at the top. Fences&Windows 22:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks fine to me, I checked out the referencing. Whilst improvements can be made, i see no serious problem with it so I removed the synthesis tag. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] When does an article contain too much information?

I've been watching the article on Frank Wead, aviation pioneer and screenwriter. In the past weeks it has gone from a 5K article to around 26K, all from one editor. The editor has good, detailed information, but it seems to me he is, in effect, writing a book on Wead and posting it on Wikipedia. Information on Wead's dormitory mates and addresses of various bases where he lived, and other examples of what seem far-too-detailed material are, in my opinion, cluttering the article to the point that someone wanting basic information on Wead would have to dig for it in the article. I absolutely do not wish to discourage knowledgeable and energetic editors, and have not confronted the (apparently unregistered) editor about the issue. Rather, I wanted to understand more clearly myself what the guidelines for WP are. Is there a limit to the amount of desirable detail, or is anything that is accurate and verifiable acceptable, no matter how large the article becomes? Monkeyzpop (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Section headings would help break it up. Also, try talking to the IP editor about whether the info on his navy colleagues is really necessary. Fences&Windows 22:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, there is some guidance at WP:UNDUE that might help. Fences&Windows 22:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Even with fundamental policies I always sanity check based on what I think an encyclopedia user would find useful if the article came up on google. As a kid, I used to browse encyclopedias while on the toilet and often use paper versions for various purposes. Wikipedia, not being paper, means it is harder to read while on the toilet but it also doesn't neet to fit on a bookshelf of kill any more trees if it is too large. So, personally, I tend to err on the side of inclusion. Note that included material still needs to be encyclopedic. Trivia. gossip, however you want to define them, are probably not encyclopedic. Wikipeida talks about a mindless collections of facts which should not be confused with an article. So, essentially, you could arguc that clutter is unencyclpedic or irrelevant if it doesn't strike you that a reader is aided by that stuff. Perhaps terser article with more links would be more apropos. For obscure topics, it is likely there are a few good references to which an interested reader could go to get the questionable stuff with one click while avoiding a cluttered main article. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] supplier incoming quality

How to control huge supplier imcoming material quality with less manpower in assembly industry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sathyavolu sar (talk • contribs) 07:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I see, from your talk page, that you have been directed to our reference desks which is where you may find the answer. Or, if you have access to a good library, you may find books on business economics of use. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Undo function

I created an article Henrietta Scott, Countess of Dalkeith‎ which has recently been deleted without discussion through the redirect function. I would rather it be submitted to AFD for proper determination of article worthiness. I am thinking about using the "undo" function to bring it back. Would that be acceptable? Daytrivia (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I have seen discussion somewhere, sorry can't recall where, that non-notable (in their own right) spouses should be merged and redirected to the artciles on husbands. Perhaps WT:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage would be a good place to ask about this. You could also talk to the person who created the redirect (visible through the artcile history) Jezhotwells (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WP abbreviations

I would appreciate if anyone can provide the link of the list of Wikipedia abbreviations, e.g . OP? Thanks. —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Alphabet soup. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, there must be some more (or another list perhaps?) —Mihkaw napéw (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

OP is not included in that list but if you enter WP:OP in the search box then you are redirected to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

On opages such as this, OP sometimes means original poster, which in this thread is User:Mihkaw napéw. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

OP means original poster. @Mihkaw: You can find that on the WP:Glossary, which is prominently linked at the top of the page I linked above. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Chisholm

Although the 1967 case is mentioned under "flag desecration" and so forth, there seems to be little about Scott Chisholm, the Indiana State University English teacher who burned a small flag in class to illustrate the difference between an idea and its representation, between a physical act for political purposes and the same act for no political purposes.

Maybe Professor Chisholm's career was ended by this attempt at teaching and he spent the rest of his career selling encyclopedias or something. I have no idea. But I would be interested in knowing more about how things turned out.

Thanks for your consideration.

Dan Kirklin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.255.43.156 (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what article you're referring to. You might be able to get a better response if you post this at the talk page associated with the article, rather than here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] content link

What format should I use to link the table content of my page?

If you could help me I'd appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3lisa (talk • contribs) 23:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Help desk is the best place to ask this as experts on formatting and suchlike are on hand there.. I have always found them friendly and helpful. Please don't forget to sign your post using four (~)s and provide a link to the page that you are working on. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You'll stand a better chance of a helpful and sensible response if you link to the article you have in mind, and perhaps a link to show the effect you're seeking would be good too. You can link to another page by putting its title between double square brackets. --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Central Yavapai Metropolitan Planning Organization

The Central Yavapai Metropolitan Planning Organization (CYMPO), located within Arizona, is a partnership of Yavapai County, the City of Prescott, Towns of Chino Valley, Dewey-Humboldt and Prescott Valley, and the Arizona Department of Transportation, was established in June 2003 according to federal mandate when the region achieved a population in excess of 50,000. Its purpose is to cooperatively plan the transportation future of the Central Yavapai region that falls within the 401.46 square miles of the MPO Planning Boundary.

Vision The Central Yavapai Metropolitan Planning Organization (CYMPO) envisions planning and implementing a regional, integrated multi-modal transportation system that safely and efficiently allows the movement of people, goods and services to, through, and within the CYMPO Planning Boundary area.

Mission Statement The mission of Central Yavapai Metropolitan Planning Organization (CYMPO) is to provide leadership in planning and promoting a comprehensive multi-modal transportation system that will provide for regional mobility and connectivity that encourages a positive investment climate and fosters development sensitive to the environment.

What is an MPO? A Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is the policy board of an organization created and designed to carry out the metropolitan transportation planning process for urbanized areas with populations greater than 50,000, and designated by local officials and the Governor of the state as set forth by the Federal Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1973. MPOs were created in order to ensure that existing and future expenditures for transportation projects and programs were based on a continuing, cooperative and comprehensive (3-C) planning process. This planning process includes an analysis of alternatives to meet projected future demands, and for providing a safe and efficient transportation system that meets mobility while not creating adverse impacts to the environment. Federal funding for transportation projects and programs are channeled through this planning process. Below are key documents of the process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DebHernandez (talk • contribs) 23:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you have posted this to a noticeboard for editor requests, I can't figure out hwt you want us to do? Jezhotwells (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] IP addresses of Users

How does one locate the IP address of a USER who has been blocked by sit administrators? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piitaabin (talk • contribs) 01:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a list of banned users at WP:List of banned users, but their IP addresses would vary according to the machine and connection that they use. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If you mean registered users, you can't. Only a very limited number of users with the checkuser right can find this information. This is one of the advantages of creating a user account – your IP address will be invisible to others. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If one needed the IP address for a legal proceeding, who should be served the court order requesting the information be released? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piitaabin (talk • contribs) 01:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation. – ukexpat (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Subliminal stimuli

Subliminal stimuli (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I recently added the following to the 2000 - Present section of this article:

In 2009, a feature documentary entitled "PROGRAMMING THE NATION?" directed by Jeff Warrick, was released. The film examines the alleged history of subliminal messaging in American mass-media - categorically exploring issues such as the subconscious mind, the James Vicary experiment, subliminal research, backward masking in rock music, and asserted claims of subliminals in film, advertising, politics, U.S. Psychological Operations and Project HAARP in Alaska.[44]

While this may seem blatantly promotional in nature - The film does exist and can be confirmed through several additional sources by simply Googling the title "PROGRAMMING THE NATION?".

One of which is the IMDB link here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1023345/ - which also contains a streaming trailer for the film.

This documentary also recently premiered at the 2008 Santa Cruz Film Festival as "A Work In Progress".

The completed film can be viewed temporarily online here: http://www.buzzledom.com/ptn_prescreen

IgniteTheMind (talk) 04:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you here to discuss the removal of the material above? If so, then please be aware that existence is not sufficient for a topic to be included in Wikipedia; the topic needs to be notable, according to our general notability guideline and in the case of a film, according to WP:FILMNOT too. IF there are sources to verify the notability of this film, then please cite them. Please also feel free to come back with questions. Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion of this issue is to be found now at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:IgniteTheMind. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Desert greening

An editor has created a page at Desert greening with very little content. Most of this seemed to have been covered at Desertification#Countering desertification so I redirected. However the same editor from multiple IPs has reverted this and now pasted the entire contents of Desertification#Countering desertification into Desert greening. I'm sure this is against guidelines (which one?) as it removes the section history and violates copyright of the original authors, but I'm not sure what to do about it. I guess it could go to AfD but I think an artile on Desert greening might be justified, as it's not just about resisting desertification but converting existing deserts. --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted to the most recent best version before the IP dumped in content from the other article and I added expansion and referencing tags. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Schmidt article

Eric_E._Schmidt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

If you go down to the bottom of the discussion page, you'll note an escalating argument about whether or not another user's "Political Views" section belongs in an encyclopedia. I'd like a neutral party to take a look at it if that would be okay.69.244.64.30 (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

On a first look, that discussion does seem to be aimed at improving the article. Views are being aired fairly robustly, but that's OK. Are you suggesting that the discussion can't be resolved? --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Paine Field

Paine Field There is/are one or two people reverting all references to commercial air service at Paine Field. While I understand that they may personally be opposed to such service, their edits are either non-encyclopedic using such words as "unwanted", or just complete deletions of materials. The last edited comment (deleting factual ongoings about the airport had a reference of "Commercial Air Service: Jeesh,, you airline whackos have to use wikipedia to advertise. I am removing your ads." Sbrynen (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Careful sourcing of any additions will help. This edit looks better, but you and the IP might want to use the talk page to hash this out rather than continuing to edit war. I see you started a thread there; I'll move it to the bottom of the page, as per convention. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] What information is appropriate for the Paine Field Commercial Air Service Article?

Paine Field (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) There has been a lot of back and forth editing regarding commercial air service at Paine field, in the article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paine_Field#Commercial_air_service

Rather than having 3-5 or more parties going back and forth making edits regarding what is appropriate to include in an article (see article history), I thought it might be wise to contact an editor who may be able to provide some insight in what is correct and incorrect to include for this article.

Essentially the "commercial air service" section of the article has turned into a political sounding board, with both sides presenting points of view that may or may not be factual, but are probably incomplete, and with both sides having separate agendas as to what should be included (for instance one says that including the names of airlines interested in providing air service is a form of advertising, while another states its is significant to the article and should be included).

Rybob1 (talk) 07:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the answer given above is appropriate. You need to establish consensus on the talk page. That involves giva and take by all. I joined the threads as you obviously missed the earlier post. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Using YouTube video as source

There has ensued discussion in Talk:Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley regarding the use of YouTube video of a subject as a source on that subject in a biographical article. I'd like to have this clarified since the policies on self-published sources and sources for biographies doesn't mention this. The argument against goes that if a video has not been published or authored by the subject in question, it can't be used as a source in accordance with Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. In my view, however, this is a far too narrow interpretation of the policy. It seems to me that the purpose of that policy is to make sure that a blogger, tweeter, etc can't be used as a source of information about a subject. Only if the subject is the author can it be considered a reliable and good source. However, in the case of a recorded video of a subject, shouldn't the actual speech be considered as the source? Fabricating a video of someone in a convincing way is virtually impossible, so reliability shouldn't be an issue.

The case in question regards a controversial statement made by Lord Monckton, for which there exists qualified sources documenting the event. There exist on YouTube I think two videos in which Lord Monckton himself clarifies the background and motivation for this statement, but there do not seem that there exists any textual sources or similar that mention these, most likely because they are amateur-filmed videos so they don't exactly get any widespread circulation. In light of all this, shouldn't these videos be considered as valid sources?

Cpx86 (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, this should be posted to the reliable sources noticeboard where editors experienced in sourcing can discuss it. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. I will do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpx86 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Gorog

Chris Gorog (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The page "Chris Gorog" has been updated extensively, along with many 3rd party references. The page still has a request for checking neutrality and adding additional references. How do I go about getting these two alerts removed? Thanks in advance. Jennifer Wilbur 21:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstarjen (talk • contribs)

How do I get a neutrality tag removed. I have updated the "Chris Gorog" page extensively, including adding many 3rd party (neutral) sources/citings. I added a comment to the page discussion, but I am curious if I need to do anything else to highlight this and how long it will take before it is reviewed. Thanks. Jennifer Wilbur 21:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstarjen (talk • contribs)

As you have discovered you can remove the tags yourself but the article still has many other issues, including a t a brief glance, grammar, compliance with WP:MOS, could do with an infobox, could do with adding to relevant wikiprojects, and the references could do with formatting with citation templaes so that the sources can be easily identified. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Aeria Games and Entertainment

Aeria_Games_and_Entertainment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

There has been a recent rash of vandalism (in my opinion) on this page. I would like to ask that a third party take a quick look at the edits in the past 48 hours, and update the page to reflect whatever is appropriate.

SupermanX (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have reverted your two most recent edits as blatant vandalism and placed a warning on your talk page. If you carry on like that you will be getting a block. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

And the other vandal User:Missdestructive has been indefinitely blocked. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Help with Problematic Editing

I am having an issue with what I believe to be inappropriate use of a talk page, found here:

Aeria_Games_and_Entertainment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

(Forgive me if my linking isn't done right, I am referring to the discussion page on this article)

I 'believe' I am handling this correctly, but would like a more impartial opinion. I have been removing postings with the personal information of myself, and others. I have been removing extraneous comments that should be included in the article, not the discussion page, because this is not a page to debate.

Please take a little time to review the edits, and if any were done inappropriately, undo them, and let me know why, so that I can avoid this in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SupermanX (talk • contribs) 17:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

SupermanX (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

As I explained at the talk page you both need to stop this immediately. It would be appropriate to redact email addresses as the posting of these on Wikipedia is against policy. But you shouldn't be removing the entirety of other users' posts. I have placed warnings on both of your talk pages. Any further reversions and I will take this to WP:3RR. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Article on Oral Roberts

Oral Roberts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I wanted to see if it's possible to add a small amount of information to this article. In the early 1940's, Oral Roberts conducted tent revivals throughout Oklahoma. Often he would be accompanied by a Mr. Steve Pringle and Ms. Jo Ella Oliver. Mr. Pringle was an evangelist and Ms. Oliver was a noted Church of the Nazarene preacher.

Thanks,

Rick Herron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickh1977 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources to cite in support of this, then by all means do so! --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Authoritative sources wrong & OR

This is a non-specific question. I've found a situation where authoritative sources I've found (extensive search) have a certain date demonstrably wrong. How to handle this?

All the authoritative sources I've checked say something first appeared in print in year X, but I can show a public source where it appeared in year X-20. Obviously I can't find an authority to certify that the obvious is correct. I'm trying to avoid OR and SYNTH here. I could simply cite the earlier source, then add a note to the citation ... or ???

Obviously it might turn out later that the date is X-30. So there'll never be a *definitive* answer. Twang (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The usual way of dealing with this is to say source(s) a,B, c 9etc) says X but source p says X-20. This avoids you determining which is correct. You may get further input on this at the reliable sources noticeboard. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Generally with putative superlatives many may be worhty of mention according to chronology or dispute. History is not testable and there is no way to prove "Earliest" but usually just "earliest known" or "previously foo was considered earliest by many[...] but blah apparently claims earlier knowledge []". Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Shabby_chic and Shabby_Chic_(Brand)

As a new user, I recently proposed edits to the article Shabby_chic, including the addition of several verifiable sources (a New York Times article and the website of the United States Trademark Office). When I requested that the article name be changed such that both terms “shabby” and “chic” should be capitalized, another editor, username Ukexpat, reverted all of my changes because he viewed my edits as promotional in nature. He then proceeded to further amend the Shabby_chic article to remove references to registered trademarks as well as to Target, which licenses and sells SIMPLY SHABBY CHIC merchandise, and to Rachel Ashwell, who is known to have originated and popularized the term and corresponding style. Because he viewed my article as promotional in nature, he suggested that I publish a new article under the heading Shabby_Chic_(Brand) rather than edit the existing Shabby_chic article.

Although I advised Ukexpat that the brand could not be divorced from the “concept” or “style” in view of the history of the term and Rachel Ashwell’s high degree of relevance to the topic, he refused to be persuaded, and directed me to this forum. I further noted that the current article along with his changes remained unreferenced, and that its inaccuracies were being mirrored on a number of websites.

Accordingly, I am writing to request assistance and support in reimplementing my proposed changes so that the article will benefit its readers by providing more accurate and referenced information and by notifying of the existence of a company and registered trademarks to avoid confusion and possible legal claims against those who rely on the information contained in the Wikipedia article. It appears to me that numerous other Wikipedia articles, such as the articles on Kleenex, Bandaid, and Xerox discuss brands and registered trademarks that may have been misused by other members of the public at some time. These articles are apparently permitted to persist in Wikipedia, and in fact, serve as useful and beneficial resources. I therefore ask your assistance in ensuring that the Shabby_Chic article may do the same.

If, upon review of my communications with Ukexpat, you agree with him/her that my proposed edits belong in an article called Shabby_Chic_(brand), I request that the current, unreferenced Shabby_chic article be removed unless the statements can be properly supported by verifiable sources.

Thank you for your consideration and assistance.

KSatSCB (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a quick look at the diffs, and I think the edits you proposed would be better placed at Shabby Chic (brand). I'm undecided on the notability of that. If you'd like to create that new page, then I'd recommend that you start in a subage of your userpace, perhaps at User:KSatSCB/sandbox. You should also read WP:YFA and consider using the new article wizard; both of these will enhance your chances of writing a successful article.

As for deleting the current page, you're welcome to suggest that. The process is laid out at WP:DEL.

Regards, --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that there is an open move-request discussion for "Shabby chic" → "Shabby Chic" at Talk:Shabby chic#Move? that touches on these same issues. DMacks (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have anything to add to the discussion that I have had with KSatSCB on our respective talk pages, though I would like to thank KSatSCB for raising this issue for discussion rather than charging ahead like a bull in a china shop as is sometimes the case with new editors. – ukexpat (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New Aritcle

To whom it man concern.

I just wrote a small introduction for my company I just got back on the ground. We have't really done much with the company yet thats why it isnt a lot of information. I want to just add things as they come. Is this ok? I can't find my article anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perilouscoalition (talk • contribs) 02:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You appear to have written in your userspace, at User:Perilouscoalition/Perilous coalition LLC. The article as it stands isn't ready to go into article space, as the main encyclopaedia is known. Subjects must meet our notability standard, with information drawn from reliable sources. The best thing would be to wait until your company has been covered by some reliable sources, and then let somebody else write about it here, since you seem to have a substantial conflict of interest. Of course, we'd love to have you help the project in other ways. Why not look around, and soon enough you'll find something of interest. I'll put some helpful information on your talk page too. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You user name is also a clear violation of our user name policy. – ukexpat (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request editing help

David Joseph Marcou (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) I would appreciate some editing help on the above article. Also I would like to know if it is specific enough, neutral in tone, and formatted properly. This is my first contribution to Wikipedia. --Kayak paddler (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Please double check the article name. It doesn't look like that article has ever been created by you or anyone else. --Leivick (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see it is here User:Kayak paddler/new article name here. I will take a look if I can get a chance. --Leivick (talk) 03:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

See also the feedback I have given at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback#David Joseph Marcou and on the user's talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 03:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute resolution assistance

• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal has a lot of open requests. Things will probably be picking up even more over the next few weeks as many editors will have additional free time during the winter break season. No membership in any group is necessary to help out. Anyone can adopt a case. Please give them a hand with informal mediation if you can help.
• All of the content noticeboards, including but not limited to Wikipedia:Content noticeboard, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, need a few more regular outside editors to comment on requests. Even a small handful of additional regulars at each of those noticeboards would drastically increase their effectiveness. Volunteers only need to have a good familiarity with the ins and outs of the relevant content policies and guidelines.
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment has a spotty and generally poor response rate across all of the topic areas. Several more editors are needed to regularly respond to the various content RfC requests. No specialist knowledge is usually required for most requests, but a general knowledge within the broad topic categories is suggested.

I would be very grateful to anyone willing to pitch in and regularly help out in these understaffed areas of dispute resolution. They are essential for resolving disputes before they reach a point of entrenchment with its accompanying disruption to the project in the affected topic areas. Thanks for considering this request for assistance. Vassyana (talk) 06:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Warn or Ban Suggestion

Hi,

This person, who has the user name: Puppyph and is also using the IP: 124.106.168.42 is trying vandalize SkyCable and Global Destiny Cable's Wiki Pages and is also acting up like a Wikipedia Policy police.

He thinks that the sub-article, Future channels is considered as a vandal when in fact the sub-article itself already has a disclaimer.

Is there a way you can ban this person or warn him?

Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.48.224 (talk) 11:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Copied to ANI Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Updating/uploading an image

The Villanovan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I have been trying to upload an image to update this page. I have rights to the image I want to upload. How can I go about uploading this image and replacing the existing one? Should I create a new account, use an existing one, is there a specific format the image should be in?

Mrmets5211 (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You should find sufficient information at WP:Images#Uploading images. Please make sure that the image is correctly licensed. You don't need a new account, you are automatically registered in Wiki Commons]]. If your account is less than 4 days old and /or less than ten edits you will not be able toupload. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

One other point - it depends on how you got rights to the image. If the copyright owner just said "Sure go ahead an use it", that is not sufficient evidence of permission. To be on the safe side, you should ask the copyright owner to send a formal release as described at WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] seabass or sea bass

What the correct way to write seabass or sea bass, please advise sds-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.63.17.10 (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The Reference Desk is probably the best place to ask, but from sea bass, both forms are used on Wikipedia. Wiktionary favours sea bass. – ukexpat (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Australia Day article

I wish to describe the "debate" over Australia Day as a fringe discussion, which I believe it is.

Some fellow wikipedians are being irrational about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.114.44 (talk) 08:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)