Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Help with Dhimmi article

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

Discussion moved

 – To Talk:Dhimmi#Moved from WP:EAR, as per my suggestions to continue the discussion there. Kudpung (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I am new and apologize if this is the incorrect forum. I have tried to round out the introduction to the Dhimmi article by including references to the role of invasion, persecution (physical torture, verbal abuse, etc.), and murder in the initial Islamic conquests. In order to do so, I have cited two books, each of which is broad in scope. One book, "Contemporary Zoroastrians", actually includes detailed information on 2000+ years of Zoroastrian experience, but it focuses heavily on the periods of Islamic oppression (when the Zoroastrians were made Dhimmis) in Iran and India. The other book, "The Mandaeans: Ancient Texts Modern People", also touches on almost 2000 years of history, but includes a chapter the narrates the persecutions of the Mandaeans, who had obtained Dhimmi status. I chose these two faiths because they are so small (all practitioners of both faiths put together number fewer than 300,000), they are ancient -- they predate Christianity -- and they were severely affected by the Islamic conquest. I also thought that referencing faiths of which I am not a believer (and few on here are likely to be) would help avoid heavily POV Christian vs. Muslim backlash. Another user continues to delete my referenced additions and, to be honest, most of his contributions to the article seem heavily POV to me. I just don't have time to check them all. I hope this wasn't too long. Deseretian (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well you have engaged in discussion on the talk page, which is good. But I don't see any signs that you are taking on board some of the points made by Aquib american muslim. You have a difference of opinion, nothing wrong with that. But you should not go in and change referenced statements in the way that you have been doing. As suggested to you, try adding your suggested material in separate sentences or paragraphs. Where there is a clear conflict of sources, then you can say something like X suggests that such and such is the case, whilst Y disagrees, pointing out whatever. Lastly you say that you don't have time to check out the other editor's sources. If you are really interested in the subject you should be checking out all sources. Attempt to work with the other editor to reach consensus. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Will try to find a better compromise. I'd left in all of his references, and I thought I had reworded the paragraph to accommodate both viewpoints. I don't doubt his reference is real; rather, I feel it is extremely biased. Though he has deleted my references because he doesn't feel they are 'broad' enough, I don't feel comfortable deleting his -- I do believe in fairness to all sides. I'll rework the article according to your suggestions. If, however, my contributions continue to be deleted, what do I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deseretian (talk • contribs) 20:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

As Jez suggested, continue the dialogue on the talk page and attempt to achieve a consensus. If that fails, one of you could consider simply conceding the issue, or if the editing really becomes disruptive within the definition of our policies (see: WP:DIS), then you can consider raising the matter at WP:ANI - but do try to resolve the matter amicably among yourselves first.--Kudpung (talk) 07:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(Continues at Talk:Dhimmi#Moved from WP:EAR)

Great Pyramid of Giza

Unresolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

People keep putting false information about the dimensions of the Great Pyramid of Giza on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza#Materials in this section;

"History and description

It is believed the pyramid was built as a tomb for fourth dynasty Egyptian pharaoh Khufu[1] and constructed over a 14-[3] to 20-year period. Khufu's vizier, Hemon, or Hemiunu, is believed by some to be the architect of the Great Pyramid.[4] It is thought that, at construction, the Great Pyramid was originally 280 Egyptian cubits tall, 146.5 metres (480.6 ft) but with erosion and absence of its pyramidion, its present height is 138.8 metres (455.4 ft). Each base side was 440 royal cubits, 230.4 metres (755.9 ft) long. A royal cubit measures 0.524 metres.[5] The mass of the pyramid is estimated at 5.9 million tonnes. The volume, including an internal hillock, is roughly 2,500,000 cubic metres.[6] Based on these estimates, building this in 20 years would involve installing approximately 800 tonnes of stone every day. Similarly, since it consists of an estimated 2.3 million blocks, completing the building in 20 years would involve moving an average of more than 12 of the blocks into place each hour, day and night. The first precision measurements of the pyramid were done by Egyptologist Sir Flinders Petrie in 1880–82 and published as The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh.[7] Almost all reports are based on his measurements. Many of the casing stones and inner chamber blocks of the Great Pyramid were fit together with extremely high precision. Based on measurements taken on the north eastern casing stones, the mean opening of the joints is only 0.5 millimetres wide (1/50th of an inch).[8]"

This statement is completely false;

"Each base side was 440 royal cubits, 230.4 metres (755.9 ft) long. A royal cubit measures 0.524 metres.[5]"

Firstly, there is no reference given for the 440 cubit figure, only for the length of the royal cubit, which also happens to be erroneous. The world's foremost authority on the subject of Giza pyramid dimesnions if Flinders Petrie, the very person I cited as my reference for the Great Pyramid sides being 439.8 royal cubits and for the royal cubit being 523.748 mm. Please stop the people who persist in undoing my fully referenced corrections with their unsatisfactorily referenced disinformation, such as Ian Thomson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Northstar2595 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Editor has been replacing a more current source with an outdated one ([1], basically all his edits to the Great Pyramid of Giza article), accusing other editors of vandalism for reinserting the more up-to-date reference ([2], [3]), failing to assume good faith as well as making attacks through an IP sockpuppet ([4]). Ian.thomson (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hipster

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hipster (contemporary subculture) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been accused of lack of neutrality. Specifically, inappropriate tone in the latter sections of the article. Discerning editors might like to have a look. --Whoosit ^(stalk) 16:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard is dedicated to neutrality concerns. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Independent comments on way forward for an article

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Colworth House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I am concerned about the quality of this article, specifically that it contains inappropriate, non-encyclopaedic material. I cannot edit the article again myself as I have a personal interest as an ex employee. There's more detail on the article's talk page.

I hope one or more independent editors will edit the talk page giving opinions on the best way forward for this article. Any input or advice will be appreciated.

Thanks --Chris Jefferies (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal interest is not the same thing as conflict of interest. There is no prima facie reason why an ex-employee should have a COI, unless of course, you are a disgruntled ex-employee or are still connected with the organisation in some way. SpinningSpark 00:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It's scary to remove such a large block of text. I have gone ahead and trimmed the article as there are no active editors on the page to discuss it. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both. I was probably too cautious and will read conflict of interest again. But I think if I'd removed that stuff it might have simply been reinstated (could still happen). At least the page looks like an encyclopaedia article again! --Chris Jefferies (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I will watch-list the article for a while to see what happens. If you have access to any local newspaper reports or any new (properly sourced) info and want to add it that would be great. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 06:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

TV series list of character pages

Okay, let's say you have a wikipedia page for a TV series. Then you also have a page that is "List of characters" from that series. Do you need to cite third party sources for the characters list page or can primary or secondary sources (like the show credits, the TV series web site, a book on the series, etc.)? Thanks! Mathewignash (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably best asked at WP:WikiProject Television. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Mathewignash (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It's been a couple days and no response from the Wikiproject Television. Anyone want to take a stab an an answer here? I'd appreciate it. Mathewignash (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, generally all information in Wikipedia should be sourced to third party reliable sources. Without specific examples it is hard to say more. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that in those cases primary sources are acceptable as long as they're only used to state "actor X" plays "Y" (in Season Z). However, there may be reasons other than "unsourced" for not including a character in such a list (for example that the character only appears in one or a few episodes), so if you're in doubt you should start a discussion on the article's talk page (or try WP:BRD).--Six words (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit war on Compagnies Républicaines de Sécurité

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Compagnies Républicaines de Sécurité (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I seem to have got myself in an edit war with an unregistered user on this article about a French police force. My view is that they are pushing their point of view and using unreliable sources such as video links, forum discussions and blogs, as well as making unsubstantiated allegations of media cover-up. The user thinks I just want to suppress information. I tried to incorporate their reliable sources into a more acceptable version but they won't budge and keep reverting to their original version. The discussion on this took place on my own talk page rather than the article's, though they wrote something there as well. I have now run out of patience and am not sure how to deal with an unregistered user who started off by threatening me with a ban. Some assistance or arbitration or advice would be appreciated. Mezigue (talk) 12:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoever wrote it, the entire lead section resembles a string of complaints about the CRS. Whether they are backed up or not by verifiable sources, the article does not present an encyclopedic neutral description of what the CRS is (or are), and needs rewriting. From his/her comments on your user page, User 85.99.132.176 appears to be clearly in breach of Wikipedia for using it as a platform for his grievances against the CRS. Probably the only solution will be to bring this issue to WP:ANI for resolution, if he persists on maintaining the non neutral tone of the article. --Kudpung (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime, I have reverted the article to the last known neutral version.--Kudpung (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Britain (Film)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I posted the comments at the bottom on Wikipedia the Battle of Britain (film) in the section Historical accuracy. It was twice removed by EnigmaMcmxc & MilborneOne the gounds were 1/ it was opinion 2/ the film was entertainment,not a documentary.

Disagree , first the film is a semi documentary, it is based on and follows fairly accurately a historical event. Second it is not an opinion that the hairstyles and some of the dress are from the 1960's ,you only have to use your eyes, it is a valid observation. Second it is a fact that plastic aircraft models for children of the type in the film were not available until 1954.Likewise plastic doorbells of the type seen in the film were not available until the 1950's any electric doorbell prior would be either Bakelite or metal covered with rubber. Garage up & over doors were invented in 1921 by C.G. Johnson in America but were not made out of metal until the late 1960's.Glass front doors would be highly unlikely in 1940 particularly on an old cottage. Glass doors in the thirties & forties were largely confined to French windows at the rear of middle class houses built in the Edwardian period or as front doors on art deco houses when a metal and not a wooded frame would be used. I think my addition is valid for those who like a high degree of authentic detail in period films.

The film is spoilt somewhat by poor attention to period detail ,the use of contemporary 1960's hair styles especially on the women being the most obvious.The British ambassadors wife also wears a very 1960's twin set and pearls and Ian McShanes wife seems to have gotten her cloths in a 1969 high street the day before filming. In one scene Ian McShane is shown giving his sons a pair of Spitfire model aircraft, these are obviously plastic airfix models and could not have existed in 1940 as airfix did not begin to make such models until 1954.Another scene with Ian McShane and Robert Shaw leaving a cottage in the early morning shows that the cottage has a plastic electrically operated door bell that did not exist in 1940,a modern (for 1960's) glass front door and a metal up and over garage door.Garage doors in 1940 were made of wood, came in pairs and opened outward. Pity the makers did not make more of an effort with the fine detail13:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by KALASIM (talk • contribs)

Hi, and thank you for your interest in contributing to Wikipedia. The reason the people keep removing your contribution is because you are adding your own criticisms of the film, not that of critics that have been published in reliable sources such as books or magazines or newspapers. Adding our own analysis is called original research and is not permitted, so sorry. I have posted some helpful links on your talk page. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 13:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Alexander McKenzie American Politician

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Eventhough I have spent the summer searching and contacted historical societies in North Dakota, I cannot find birth information on alexander McKenzie. The given birthdate does not bring up anyone on ancestry.ca. Do you have any further detail on more specifically where he was born? Or can you tell me where you got the information that you have on him? any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time, Deborah Cousins

I don't think we will be able to find any additional sources, but maybe the Reference Desk can help. – ukexpat (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Westland Lynx Speed Record

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

There is currently an edit war regarding the Westland Lynx on Wikepedia regarding its speed record.

The section in question follows:

In 1986 a specially modified Lynx broke the official airspeed record for helicopters, which it still holds.[1]

An attempt to clarify that there is a limit to the speed at which this type of helicopter can fly and this helicopter did not exceed it have been repeatdly deleted. Reference to this limit were supplied. Additional clarification was to the term official speed record not referencing who - this is important as this aircraft did not exceed the limits nor establish a new technology such as when the X-1 broke the speed of sound there are also several different speed limits and the correct limit broken is not identified. As written, this sentence only serves as propoganda for Westland who is currently disputing the Sikorsky X2 as a helicopter that has unofficially broken this record.

Attempts at reconciling this entry was made as follwing and further editing would be apprciated to avoid obfuscation and propoganda use by this company which may result in unfair business practices:

In 1986 a specially modified Lynx was recorded by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale as setting the airspeed record for helicopter subcatgeory (Sub-class E-1) demonstrating that the theoretical maximum speed for single rotor helicopters can not exceed 250MPH.

It is also requested that this information be removed from the lead of this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.165 (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Empirical actions don't demonstrated diddlysquat about theory; "demonstrating that the theoretical maximum speed for single rotor helicopters can not exceed 250MPH" sounds like an assertion which is not backed by the source. Read WP:OR. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Notability

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Dylan's Candy Bar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I dont understand why my edits are not noteable. I have tried everything. Deleting information, editing it, citing every sentence.. and it still says at the top of the page that it is notable. What do I do? Emich367 (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Erica

Hi, perhaps you acn give us a link to the article. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've found your edits. It appears that it is probably the article itself that is not notable, rather than your edits. A candy store (sweet shop) is generally nothing unusual even if they stock a lot of different candies. It's even possible that the entire article may be completely deleted, if administrators reach a decision based on the notability tag. Two editors have already tried to explain the situation to you on your talk page. We can only reiterate their advice. --Kudpung (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ventureño Language

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Greetings. I am attempting to resolve a dispute about the Wikipedia article on the Ventureño language. In the article, I am asking the editor JorvisVS to separate two types of sounds in a column listed on the Ventureño Language page. I've tried resolving this issue on JorvisVS's talk page, but the editor insists on drawing out a long and complicated argument.

The editor is not qualified to discuss the phonetics of this particular language. I believe I've laid out my credentials on JorvisVS's talk page, and other linguists, all holding doctorates, agree with my assertions. I do not have the patience, time, or space to argue with this editor over why he should not be spreading incorrect information in regards to Ventureño's phonetic and phonemic system. The Ventureño article also cannot reasonably contain ALL the information it would take to justify my position (and that of other Chumashist linguists) in this instance. I believe I've already offered enough data to justify my conclusions. In addition, I'm sure the main editors of Wikipedia understand that every single assertion of every single Wikipedia article does not necessarily need a dissertation discussion behind it.

I do not mean to sound cruel or unfeeling. I appreciate the help and concern of this editor. But in this matter he is pressing an issue in which he is ill-informed, or completely uninformed (these conclusions based on his responses). The real issue is that he is spreading incorrect, or 'bad', information the entire time he refuses to undo his edits on the table. I have 'nothing to lose' by being 'right' or 'wrong' in this matter. But the Ventureño tribe I work with accesses this article, and I am concerned particularly about them accessing incorrect information. To say nothing about other linguists and the rest of the world wanting to learn more about this language.

Please help resolve this issue and thereby restore accurate information to the Ventureño article.

Alaquwel (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You might consider enlisting the help of editors at WP:WikiProject Languages to assist in improving the article. I don't see any discussion on about your concerns on the article talk page, which is the appropriate venue. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. This user JorvisVS has also been editing other pages he has no reason to edit, as I hear from other linguists, so perhaps someone can intervene for us. Based on interactions with JorvisVS, I do not think reposting my concerns on the article talk page will prevent him from continuing to undo my edits (including my original creation of the page). Alaquwel (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Qualifications are not required. If you belive that someone is inserting incorrect information, then please use the bold, revert, discuss cycle to revert incorrect additions, discuss on the talk page and work to reach consensus anongst the editors on that article. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

When suggestions made as a joke are taken seriously

I would appreciate a bit of advice in regard the following: Not my suggestions, but in the course of discussion on some articles there are editors making obvious joke proposals for illustrating articles, and those proposals are being taken seriously by other editors. It's fairly obvious when a proposal is made as a joke, yet as a result at times, others jump on board either to cause more trouble or because they really didn't see it was a joke to start with. How do we handle this when some editors just don't realise it is a joke, and others want to disrupt by pretending to seriously support the proposal? End result of this is that it makes editing feel like working on a school project in a class at a particularly nasty school.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.133.139 (talk • contribs)

Editors should be reminded that wikipedia is a serious project, and proposals intended as a "joke" are not appropriate for that reason. Could you provide a link to the discussion? Are you sure that it was meant as a joke? The fact that it's gaining support from others makes it more likely that it was a serious proposal rather than a disruptive one; remember that you should assume good faith, and if in doubt, discuss it with the users involved. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The page is Cum shot. It was spotted as a joke about four years ago by another editor, and that part of the discussion (Illustration or not) is still open (the last comment there is clearly sarcasm). That it was mistakenly taken as a serious proposal is fairly obvious, there has been a very strong consensus formed over that time for its removal. Editor comment in the discussion: Oh for pete's sake, the request for an illustration was joke. This is an encyclopedia. The description of the cum shot and its variations is about as visual as my stomach can take. ~ Otterpops 21:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 62.254.133.139 (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You can try collapsing it:

This section contains off-topic joke discussion
joke joke joke taken seriously joke

Or if you notice it before anyone has mistaken it for a serious request, you can remove it per the talk page guidelines. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 19:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Again though, if there's any doubt, you should discuss it with the user and ask them to retract it instead, since as a general rule you shouldn't refactor others' comments. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll close it as the last comment there was Dec. 2008 And thanks for template guideline, very helpful for a newish editor like me.62.254.133.139 (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Since the editor made a "You again?" comment to me, it's obvious he's not "new". He might be a "Brucejenner" sock, for example. Also, the original premise is wrong. Even if someone makes a suggestion as a joke, that doesn't mean the idea doesn't have merit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

And it doesn't mean it has merit either. Most of the arguments in favor here of the original joke proposal are fallacious as per Wikipedia arguments to avoid. A consensus in favor of keeping can't be taken to have been formed when based largely on arguments to avoid. For instance several arguments (repeated in one form or another) for keeping the illustration and even the article are based on I don't see why notWP:IDSWN, and Wikipedia is about everything WP:EVERYTHING, even though these are both listed as invalid arguments to be avoided.

WP:IDSWN - to quote: "Editors often perceive only the good points of a proposal/nomination, and do not see the bad ones...."

WP:EVERYTHING - to quote: "Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such, it should convey information on all branches of knowledge. However, "all branches of knowledge" is not "everything"."

I have stated this on the discussion page of the article but there seems to be a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in regard to any suggestion or reasoning for removal 62.254.133.139 (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it has merit. And I didn't say it doesn't have merit. What I said was that just because it may have been intended as a joke, does not mean it does not have merit. The merit issue should be based on the idea itself, not on whether it was originally supposedly intended as a joke. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say you did (or point out to me where), I was merely stating that for balance. But it raises questions about merit when other editors take it to have been a joke suggestion. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Translation of article on NL vs. COI

I've been working lately on Eindhoven University of Technology and related articles. As part of this effort I have translated some articles on the Dutch edition about (former) rectores magnifici.

One of the articles on former rectores available for translation is on prof.ir. Martinus Tels (w:nl:Tinus Tels). I'd like to translate it and add it to the collection -- but the subject is my father. Which of course opens up WP:COI questions.

Can you guys advise on the best way to proceed? Translate, declare interest and request a review (i.e. {{Request edit}})? Or try to request a translation by someone else (which might not yield a result for a long time)?

Thanks, -- BenTels (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest "Translate, declare interest and request a review". As long as you are open about the COI, declaring it on the talk page should be OK. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Drop me a note if you want once you've made Martinus Tels and I'll be happy to check it over, you could also create it in a sandbox first if you want to be extra good. You need to make sure everything comes from reliable sources - the Dutch version wouldn't meet our standards as far as I can tell, but hopefully you have some sources which show your father is notable. Smartse (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll drop you a line (won't be today; I shouldn't do serious writing today). Regarding notability (i.e. WP:ACADEMIC), I'd say he automatically meets criterion 6 (having been rector magnificus of the Eindhoven University of Technology). He was also a member of the KNAW (which would fit point 2), but I don't think I can demonstrate that with on-line resources anymore. -- BenTels (talk) 13:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

were did bon jovi record the album circle plz

send anwers plz ty all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.10.225 (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Please rephrase in English. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 21:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL!

Can anybody please tell me where Bon Jovi recorded the album The Circle?
Please answer my question; thanks everybody!

;-)

Answer: partly at Henson Recording Studios in California, partly in Sanctuary Studios in New Jersey.

-- BenTels (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

For future reference, Wikipedia:Reference desk is the place to ask. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I didn't post the original question. :-) -- BenTels (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review

Re: Peer Review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bytown_Mechanics%27_Institute

Hi Wikipedia, I am a relatively new wikipedian. I'm enjoying my time on Wikipedia and would like very much to contribute to the greater knowledge of pre-Confederation Canadian history. I've written a little bit and have had some truly good peer reviews, so please don't misunderstand my intent. The peer reviews are generally spot on and offer clear useful advise for a medium at which I am new. I appreciate the efforts of the editors doing the work.

However, the peer review for the Bytown Mechanics' Institute was really over the top. I don't know how to tell you how astongished I was when I received it. In short, I'm sure there must be some useful information in this peer review, but under the circumstances of condescending comments, any value is hard to get at. What do I say to this person?

These are some of the things that floored me.

• Peer review comment: "Sad to say, I had no clear inkling what "knowledge transfer organizations" was trying to say during my first reading"

My comment: I knew I was in trouble when I saw this! The term is common enough to have a Wikipedia atricle. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_transfer

• Peer review comment: ""These institutions were Victorian and moralistic in tone and class oriented in structure which, in part, explains their failure. The way this sentence is structured makes it seem pretty biased (stating the characteristics as negatives). Which reliable sources said this and on what authority? "

My comment: Victorians were moralistic, and they were proud of it! They were also highly class oriented and equally proud of that! I can't see the harm in stating this. Anyone with a background in Victorian social history would have no problem with this.

• The comments about other references. Now here I am just blown away.

Peer review comment: The closest text in the body (Membership samples) that relates to this claim is sourced to a site that looks more to be a self-published website, which collates self-published genealogies.

My comment: Neither of the references are to websites. The 1st source is to an MA Thesis, which unfortunately is not available online. It is, however, available at the Ottawa Room of the Ottawa Public Library. The 2nd ref (Hardy) is a very, very standard text used in Library Science. It carries the weight of many years of academic scrutiny. I’m astonished at the comment.

• Peer review comment: In short, there are about 400 Book Google sources on BMI, whether they be primary or secondary sources and they should be used.

My comment: These source fall into 2 categories: first are the one line entries in sources. I don’t think a single line in an entire text is a good source; second, they reference the references I’ve already used. Again, I’m truly astonished. There are really very few good sources on this subject and I am acquainted with most of them. Thanks so much CJ_WeißSchäfer 00:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CJ3370 (talk • contribs)

I see nothing particularly untoward in the peer review suggestions. You may not agree with them, that is your right, but there are several useful suggestion there. Wiki-links to terms such as "knowledge transfer organizations" would help; generally an MA thesis is not regarded as a particularly goo source, although it may contain references that could be investigated; {http://www.bytown.net/} does not look like a WP:RS. A google books search[5] produces 70 results, which may produce useful material. The article could do with development and expansion. it is a start, but only that. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't want this to go on too long, but you seemed to have missed the point unfortunately. Based on past experience I assumed that there would be some value in the peer review, however the condensending language makes that hard to get at--for example "sad to say". I don't for a minute think that the article merits Feature Article status--I was looking for some help; not a sad to say review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CJ3370 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If you are unhappy with the peer review, then please talk to the reviewer. And don't forgetto sign your posts, using four tildes [~]. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Glock Hand Gun Information.

Glock pistol

Under this link you list various agencies/countries that use this weapon. I just wanted to add that Florida Highway Patrol just went to the Glock 37 (gen4) .45GAP. The FHP website is http://www.flhsmv.gov/fhp/index.html. This information is given to you from a current Trooper.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.2.205 (talk) 08:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I have added the information to the table. Thanks for your contribution! -- Diannaa ^(Talk) 17:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The Beverly Hills Hotel

Beverly Hills Hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would appreciate having a few more neutral opinions on "The" in this case. SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It would appear that WP:DEFINITE is the guiding principle here. If you wish further input than perhaps a request for comment should be raised. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh I agree fully. Here is that applicable rule from WP:DEFINITE:

• Avoid definite and indefinite articles: Do not place definite or indefinite articles (the, a and an) at the beginning of titles unless they are part of a proper name

but the last part of it, which is decisive, is being ignored in this case. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Keith Springer

Hi, What you can do to improve this page, Keith Springer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I am not sure whether something should be merged, deleted, or expanded. Does anything need formatting, proofreading, or rephrasing? Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JScottWL (talk • contribs)

De-jargonising would be a start - reading it, I have absolutely no idea what this guy does. – ukexpat (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I followed the references -- although he seems to be eminently quotable and frequently quoted, the references don't support the claim that Springer provided financial analysis for any of the news organizations listed. I'm going to rephrase that. I also agree that de-jargonizing the article would help immensely. I think he is likely to be notable, but I'm not sure that the current article and references support that -- some explanation of why he is notable and has been noted would be useful. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I have re-written the lead to give a little context. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

How many sources are needed? Proper formatting? How to properly include verified information? Listing in both "Compton" and "East Compton"?

Compton, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and East Compton, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For about two months now, people have consistently deleted any and all references to Yuin University, making the unsubstantiated personal attack, "It is a diploma mill." (See, the Compton, California "History" page, for the date and time 03:34, 11 September 2010).

Moreover, there has never been any attempt to legitimately "edit." Rather, these people just immediately delete everything.

All of the following has been verified by State and local government records and reports. If the formatting needs to be corrected, or if there needs to be more sources/references, please advise:

Compton (education/schools)

For decades, Yuin University has operated in Compton, California, and it recently opened up its law library to the general public. Yuin University offers a number of bachelor, and also, graduate degrees. Notably, Yuin University caters to working professionals and offers several evening and night courses, all leading to degrees. Additionally, Yuin University has a University Acupuncture Clinic, which provides low cost acupuncture every Monday through Thursday.

East Compton (education/schools)

• Yuin University For decades, Yuin University has been situated at the far end of East Compton, and it recently opened up its law library to the general public. Yuin University offers a number of bachelor, and also, graduate degrees. Notably, Yuin University caters to working professionals and offers several evening and night courses, all leading to degrees. Additionally, Yuin University has a University Acupuncture Clinic, which provides low cost acupuncture every Monday through Thursday.

Tiffspiro (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Tiffspiro

Calling Yuin University a "diploma mill" would not be a personal attack, unless you're Yuin University. So far, no source has been presented that places the school in East Compton, California. It lists its own address as Compton.   Will Beback  talk  22:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Calling anything anything is probably not appropriate for an article about a settlement, and certainly to call a recognised facility a Diploma mill is unencyclopedic point of view unless very correctly and accurately sourced, such as, for example in a documentary or, magazine, or newspaper article with appropriate citations; otherwise we could still get into trouble for libel. See WP:POV, WP:NPOV.

The details of the education establishments (esp; the courses they offer, times and dates of classes, etc;) go beyond what is required for an article about a settlement, and indeed do not even generally belong in articles about schools and colleges unless the establishment is of exceptional note in its own right, and probably has an unblemished article of its own in Wikipedia, and its curriculum is of particular importance to the article. More on this at WP:SCHOOLS

Sourcing is required for any statement where a reader might ask himself (or us) the questions such as 'Who said that?', or 'Where is that stated?'. If a single source is weak, additional sources may be needed to support the claim. Policy and guidelines are here: WP:RS, WP:V and WP:CITE. It's quite a bit of readiing, but all editors should be familiar with it.

Any one of thousands of Wikipedia articles on settlements will give an insight to standard formatting, especially ones that are Good Articles, or Featured Articles. Check out the categories to find which ones are listed - you can find the lists on the WP:SCHOOLS page and more help isavailable at WP:MOS.

BTW: a city or a county library does not normally belong in an education section; more appropriate would be to locate it in a section on Amenities; Kudpung (talk) 02:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't think anyone wanted to add "diploma mill" to the article. Rather, it was put in an edit summary by an editor who removed the entry.[6]   Will Beback  talk  05:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Math of General Relativity and page swap

Introduction to mathematics of general relativity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mathematics of general relativity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We have an odd situation here. Introduction to mathematics of general relativity is supposed to be a non-technical page for those not familiar with relativity, while mathematics of general relativity is supposed to be technical for those that are familiar with the topic. What we have is an intro article that is almost purely equations and an other article that has lots of explanatory prose that ordinary people can understand. What seems to be needed is not a move or a redirect, but a page swap. I've never heard of this happening on Wiki, so as far as I know, this is the place to post this. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that there is a stalled merge discussion on these two articles. The existence of both is an example of content forking which should be avoided. Mathematics articles, as with all other content on Wikipedia, should be accessible to the general reader and should not be written as a textbook. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see this as content forking. "Introduction to" articles are explicitly part of wikipedia policy for topics that are very complex and technical to provide the basics for new readers, while the main article goes into the complex details. Mathematics of General Relativity is definitely one of those topics. You do, however have a point about textbook style. Based on that, sounds like the "intro to" article in this case should be deleted and directed to the main article. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

New Article Problems Due To Error

I can't publish my article as I receive continuously the error that one of my sources would be blocked by the spam filter. My sources are triple checked and 1A. I wonder if someone has made similar experiences and could advise me what to do, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adlerauge2010 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you succeeded. However, there are some problems. All your raw urls should be turned into references. You need to read MOS:LAYOUT and WP:BLP. Statements such as "yet the ambition for football was stronger." need a source. Take a look at other articles on footballers such as James Tomkins (footballer) James Tomkins (footballer) for examples. Dougweller (talk) 11:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

How to activate the Contents box on a page

I don't see a Contents box on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dell How can it be activated? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

A table of contents will appear when the page has three headings - see WP:TOC. If you're desperate to have one anyway, include the magic word __FORCETOC__ in the page header somewhere. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply - I will try it out. In future, if I forget this magic word, how can I search for such information? - I searched for "magic word" on Wikipedia but did not find the article you link above. Ottawahitech (talk) 05:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

See Help:Searching. If you leave the "search" box empty and click on the magnifying glass, you are taken to another search page with an option to search the "Help and project pages". That would have found it. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

See Help:Magic words. – ukexpat (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Radiohalo - bias in article

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

There is bias/opinion on a page relating to the science of radiohalos. Attempts have been made to make the article fair but is unresolved.

The link below illustrates the bias, and the correction that should remain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radiohalo&diff=387433421&oldid=387393257

"Repeatedly and soundly rebutted" is a statement of opinion that cannot be confirmed. The article should be rephrased to say "repeatedly made rebuttals for". This change is more encyclopedic and unbiased. Daracon55 (talk) 01:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The place to discuss this problem is on the article talk page, which appears not to have been attempted yet. You may wish to mention exact excerpts from the cited books in order to demonstrate how those rebuttals are put forward in the source material. A consensus should be reached - don't be disappointed if it doesn't go your way.--Kudpung (talk) 02:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

wiki could reduce dithering, increase worthwhile uses

...persons otherwise likely to contribute..., especially with respect to "invitations" for "expected" improvements, are likely to be less able and interested if remarkably cumbersome "wiki" procedures/priorities remain as operative as they've long been and when unavoidably compared to better options, and given that the results could be being as expected, one of many ideas is that no wiki increased usage, as would be likely..., is to be more than approximated indefini tely. this has been a general impression about wiki provisions/options, though, in terms of this brief message, specifically "prompted" today (9-28-2010) by (mostly wasteful) attention today to sever al pages about logic, computing, ETC.; and mindful of said attention/topics, no "extensive" attempts to meet various levels of cogency likely will often be attempted (as primarily for wiki) or less often, unless many lasting "site changes" enable, if not cause, better results (for and from many), etc.................................................... :( ..... :/ ............... :) ....

Cdmcl3 (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a matter with which you require assistance? This isn't the place to make vague criticisms of wikipedia policy; if you wish to discuss wikipedia policies, WP:RFC may be a better venue. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you might be looking for this policy page: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Or maybe this page:) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Offline usage

Is it possible to create a pdf or some other format that people can use offline? Even possible to pick and choose what articles they want? Cjstacey1992 (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Does WP:BOOKS help? – ukexpat (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Etiquette

I have a question relating to a Headmaster at a school. He has an honourary doctorate, and several editors feel that this means he should be referred to on the page as Dr Xxx Yyyy. However, I think it is quite unusual for a person to have their honourary doctorate mentioned in this way, only medical or academic doctors will normally show their full title. Is there any policy on such matters?--ZincBelief (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:CREDENTIAL - Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name. - I would suggest that it applies equally if not more so to honorary titles. – ukexpat (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we don't use honorifics before peoples' names. — e. ripley\^talk 19:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that's an informative answer.--ZincBelief (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Kinabalu National Park

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

Conflicting statements noted below. Google Maps indicates the first is correct.

par. 2 "Located on the west coast of Sabah east Malaysia on the island of Borneo...."

Under Geography heading, par. 1 "Kinabalu Park is situated on the Crocker Range on the eastern coast of Sabah." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeway (talk • contribs) 21:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, you could start by opening a discussion on the article talk page. That is why it is provided. Google Maps is not necessarily a reliable source for locations as recent press reports have revealed. These documents on the UNESCO World Heritage are likely reliable. They say it is on the north western coast. The parks site[7] confirms this. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have changed eastern to western as the evidence seems to support this. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Generation X content dispute

I have been involved in a fairly long running dispute over the introduction to Generation X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I believe that the other editor involved User:CreativeSoul7981 is acting in good faith. However, we have been completely unable to form a consensus or move forward. Despite lengthy discussion and attempts at compromise, the other user has continued to revert any changes and does not want to engage in further discussion. I am unsure how to proceed now, short of getting into a full blown revert war. Several editors are involved, all but CreativeSoul in favour of changing the wording. Grateful for any advice or comment on the Gen X talk page to help break the impasse. Peregrine981 (talk) 09:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Pata Khazana

Can someone please assist in the page Pata Khazana. I cleaned up the article and added some new helpful information but the creator of the page (User:Sommerkom) keeps deleting my edits completely. Thank you.--Lagoo sab (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem with the Derek Sherinian Article

Derek Sherinian

I don't know if I'm writing at the good place and it may look not important to you but it is to me. I want to add the album Age Of Impact by Explorer's Club in the discography section under the title "Other Musicians". The problem is when I do so someone seems to remove it a few days later.

I got good references as I own the album and Sherinian is credited in the liner notes. The reason why I think it's important is because I am a music collector and I often use Wikipedia as a tool to find albums my favorite musicians plays on and I think I'm not the only one. That's why when I buy an album I always check on Wikipedia if there's missing information to help my fellow music fans have better information on what there serching for, this is this mission of Wikipedia isn't it. So please tell me what to do so my contributions are not removed by other users.

Thank You

--Psychopat001 (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)